Wealth Inequality Is Higher Than Ever

[Green Arrow]

Via Jacobin (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/wealth-inequality-united-states-federal-reserve):


Last week, the Federal Reserve released the 2016 version of the Survey of Consumer Finances. I will be doing a lot of work with this data in the coming months. But for starters, I wanted to examine wealth inequality, across a variety of breakdowns.

First, let’s look at the wealth level at each percentile of the wealth distribution. Since wealth is so overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of society, you cannot see much from the chart itself, but you can hover over the line on the graph with your cursor to see the dollar figure at every percentile.

*graph*

The next graph shows what percent of wealth is owned by each wealth decile. The way this reads is as follows: the bottom 10 percent owns -0.5 percent of the wealth in the country (they are net debtors), while the top 10 percent owns 77.1 percent of the wealth in the country.

*graph*

In 1989, the top 1 percent owned 29.9 percent of the wealth in this survey. In 2016, it was up to 38.5 percent.


This has been the norm for years, and for all its claims of progressivism, the Obama administration did nothing to curb the growing divide.

[Perianne]

So, is wealth inequality an unfair thing, or is it the cream rising to the surface?

[Peter1469]

When they crunch the numbers do they include the value of the social welfare benefits for the lower classes?

That was one of Thomas Piketty's flaws in his well respected book Capital in the 21st Century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century). And Piketty was the most detailed economists in the modern age. So I suspect they included his flaws plus more.

I have a couple of threads about it, and his errors that should still be on the servers.

[Perianne]

When they crunch the numbers do they include the value of the social welfare benefits for the lower classes?

That was one of Thomas Piketty's flaws in his well respected book Capital in the 21st Century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century). And Piketty was the most detailed economists in the modern age. So I suspect they included his flaws plus more.

I have a couple of threads about it, and his errors that should still be on the servers.

Can you point me to your threads? I am interested.

[Peter1469]

Can you point me to your threads? I am interested.
The search feature here suck. Each link goes to different threads although they look the same.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52354-The-new-left-economists-are-as-wrong-as-the-old-ones?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/43957-Updating-Piketty-Takeaways-From-His-American-Economic-Review-Article?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/37130-Piketty-Faces-Trial-by-Peers?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/32630-The-inequality-mongers-are-wrong?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

[Chris]

So, is wealth inequality an unfair thing, or is it the cream rising to the surface?

One thing for sure is it's all econometric abstractions. "the bottom 10 percent owns -0.5 percent of the wealth in the country (they are net debtors)" is not real. It's not about individuals. For as an economist like Thomas Sowell would immediately point out, if you look at individuals, just as many people are rising up, more in fact, as are falling down. The situation is very dynamic. The charts in the OP link show static, staticalized data.

Is it unfair? No, that would imply that inequality says something about poverty when it doesn't. In this case, you need to realize that wealth is not a pie to be sliced up where if you get a bigger piece others must get smaller pieces. No, wealth is always being produced so that both the richer and the pooer are getting wealthier. Even Kennedy realized that when he said of the economy all boats rise with the tide.

Some people do rise faster but that's generally speaking the edge of innovation, and it's the rich who can afford that innovation until more entrepreneurs find ways to reduce the cost and increase the value of innovations. --But keep in mind that today's rich eventually fall.

If some have too much it is likely because they employ political means, buying government favors, to get what they want rather than economics means where they have to produce what people want.

[Newpublius]

So, is wealth inequality an unfair thing, or is it the cream rising to the surface?

Well in their bizarro zero sum world it is. They can't fathom that the source of wealth are assets that produce things people want. And then people complain that the very thing that produces the things they want has, wait for it, VALUE.

There are houses and cars, etc but the real.wealth in America are it's businesses and those businesses only have value if they produce the things people actually want to buy.

In shorter terms, don't voluntarily attend a Yankees game and then complain the Steinbrenners are wealthy.

[Chris]

Well in their bizarro zero sum world it is. They can't fathom that the source of wealth are assets that produce things people want. And then people complain that the very thing that produces the things they want has, wait for it, VALUE.

There are houses and cars, etc but the real.wealth in America are it's businesses and those businesses only have value if they produce the things people actually want to buy.

In shorter terms, don't voluntarily attend a Yankees game and then complain the Steinbrenners are wealthy.


That last bit reminds me of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain problem. Say you redistributed wealth as fairly as possible, put on a Rawlsian veil of ignorance since Nozick was arguing with Rawls. Everything is just peachy dandy fair until along come Wilt Chamberlain--old argument. Well, Wilt is great and everyone want to see him play basketball, so everyone pays to see him. Over time, all the redistributed wealth will shift to Wilt, and be unfair, but don't voluntarily attend a Yankees game and then complain the Steinbrenners are wealthy.

[donttread]

So, is wealth inequality an unfair thing, or is it the cream rising to the surface?

Mostly unfair as we've always had the same amount of "cream" or money obsessed people" depending upon how you look at it. Once the super rich get wealth they and their corporations buy influence to tilt the table in their favor and the favor of their offspring. Our duly elected government is only too happy to sell that influence. The education system favors the very rich, for example.

[Chris]

Bernie Sanders claims the world’s six wealthiest people have as much wealth as half the global population (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/02/bernie-sanders-claim-that-the-worlds-six-wealthiest-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-worlds-population/?utm_term=.e40dd59a2627)


...Sanders’s numbers on the world’s six richest people come from the Forbes billionaires list....

...The figures on wealth in the bottom half of the world’s population come from a January 2017 report by Oxfam, which pulls its data from a 2016 report on global wealth inequality by the investment firm Credit Suisse. [see OP]

...Under this accounting, Sanders’s own net worth, estimated to be $460,000 in 2014, puts him in top 1 to 5 percent in terms of global wealth....

O! the irony.

The article goes on to debunk Sanders on two points: "In other words, the comparisons are mismatched. Gates’s wealth is held in a complex financial system, but his wealth is being compared with nonfinancial wealth, the value of which does not fluctuate (or soar) with the same ease." And "Credit Suisse converts all the currencies to U.S. dollars, based on the value of the dollar at the time in question. However, it does not convert currencies using purchasing power parity exchange rates. ...Credit Suisse acknowledges this issue in the report."

They conclude:


...wealth is a fundamentally misleading measure if you’re comparing countries across the globe. It’s one thing to look at inequality inside a country, but international comparisons are in another realm and fraught with even more problems.

Without considering how debt is measured and held, what kinds of assets each group owns, or how the currencies are converted, it’s hard to make heads or tails of what wealth actually means, with respect to people’s daily lives around the globe. Moreover, negative wealth — which includes people with high standards of living — really drags down the bottom 50 percent. Sanders’s statistic, while provocative, is basically meaningless. He earns Three Pinocchios.

[Captain Obvious]

but... but...

...but I thought Bammy, Rod-ham and all the creepy establishment dems were for the poor and working class.

All you Virginias who believes any representative is for anything besides themselves and special interest, go get a lobotomy.

[The Xl]

Well, sure. That's the nature of a debt based currency that's easily manipulated and inflated. There are other variables as well of course, like the poor and working class being boxed out of college, certain occupations, etc because of all the red tape and pay to play, but that's the biggest reason.

[The Xl]

That last bit reminds me of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain problem. Say you redistributed wealth as fairly as possible, put on a Rawlsian veil of ignorance since Nozick was arguing with Rawls. Everything is just peachy dandy fair until along come Wilt Chamberlain--old argument. Well, Wilt is great and everyone want to see him play basketball, so everyone pays to see him. Over time, all the redistributed wealth will shift to Wilt, and be unfair, but don't voluntarily attend a Yankees game and then complain the Steinbrenners are wealthy.

Most people aren't noteworthy like a Wilt Chamberlain, rich or poor. That's not the greatest analogy. He was always going to be the best at his craft no matter what, he didn't need to rely on other variables to get to the top, like most people do.

[Ethereal]

Ironically, this increased inequality is being fueled by growth of government.

[The Xl]

Ironically, this increased inequality is being fueled by growth of government.

They create an environment where only a few have the time, money, or resources to participate. Inflation, crazy taxes, unaffordable schooling via guaranteed loans, stupid regulations, etc, all pretty much box out most middle class and under people, and the rich are able to secure their monopoly on basically everything. Competition is a sin. And while it's government to blame, they're a proxy for those who already have money and influence.

[Chris]

Most people aren't noteworthy like a Wilt Chamberlain, rich or poor. That's not the greatest analogy. He was always going to be the best at his craft no matter what, he didn't need to rely on other variables to get to the top, like most people do.

I'll let Nozick know. :)

The point though it the best are going to rise faster and generate and earn more wealth. The rest still gain something they value.

[Chris]

They create an environment where only a few have the time, money, or resources to participate. Inflation, crazy taxes, unaffordable schooling via guaranteed loans, stupid regulations, etc, all pretty much box out most middle class and under people, and the rich are able to secure their monopoly on basically everything. Competition is a sin. And while it's government to blame, they're a proxy for those who already have money and influence.

Indeed the wealthy are able to purchase favors from government which in turn regulates those below from moving up and competing. Licensing is a good example of this.

[Kalkin]

The wealthy contribute far more to society than do the poor.

[Captain Obvious]

It's worth noting that, much like the scripted left, the right is fully capable of being cloned by the conservative establishment.

Notice how some are following the establishment script to kiss the asses of old rich white men and to wag their tails at the table scraps tossed to them.

[Tahuyaman]

So, is the answer government forced wealth redistribution?

[Tahuyaman]

The wealthy contribute far more to society than do the poor.

Poor people don't provide jobs for other poor people.

[Kalkin]

Poor people don't provide jobs for other poor people.
Indeed. Nor do they bankroll great inventions or disproportionally fund government. Sure, some wealthy people are greedy douchebags, but so are many of the poor.

[Green Arrow]

The wealthy contribute far more to society than do the poor.

Where would those wealthy people be without the poor people that do their work?

[Tahuyaman]

Where would those wealthy people be without the poor people that do their work?


The wealthy help lift others out of poverty.

[Chris]

Where would those wealthy people be without the poor people that do their work?

Where would the workers be without wealthier people to hire them? Without the wealthy they'd have no one to exploit.

[Chris]

Poor people don't provide jobs for other poor people.

Without all the government red tape they could. Open a one-man barber, and if they did well bring in more chairs and hire more barbers. But the licensing and other regulations are too costly.

[Green Arrow]

Where would the workers be without wealthier people to hire them? Without the wealthy they'd have no one to exploit.

The wealthy are the ones being exploited? Seriously?

[Chris]

The wealthy are the ones being exploited? Seriously?

The workers are the ones being exploited? Seriously? Marxist nonsense.

[Kalkin]

Where would those wealthy people be without the poor people that do their work?
Where would those poor people be without the wealthy providing them jobs or subsidizing their existence via government welfare?

[Green Arrow]

The workers are the ones being exploited? Seriously? Marxist nonsense.

It's "Marxist" to argue that workers are being exploited? What does that make arguing that the wealthy are being exploited?

[Kalkin]

The wealthy are the ones being exploited? Seriously?

Seriously. Why do they pay more in tax for the exact same government?

[Green Arrow]

Where would those poor people be without the wealthy providing them jobs or subsidizing their existence via government welfare?

So, your answer to my question is "nowhere." Cool.

[Green Arrow]

Seriously. Why do they pay more in tax for the exact same government?

Because they aren't paying for the exact same government.

[rcfieldz]

I'm lower than ever...

[Kalkin]

So, your answer to my question is "nowhere." Cool.

No, they would be somewhere. Do you think they would cease to exist or something? Truth of the matter is, society is a symbiotic relationship between all members. Some have more wealth, some less. It will never be equal, because people are not equal in intelligence, ambition, and luck. All you can do is tear down the achievers to assuage your liberal guilt at someone else's expense. Again, no thanks.

[Kalkin]

Because they aren't paying for the exact same government.

Yes, they are. Tell me what other government their progressive tax rates fund.

[Green Arrow]

Yes, they are. Tell me what other government their progressive tax rates fund.

The government they pay taxes to is a government that gives them advantages and access that the poor do not have.

No, they would be somewhere. Do you think they would cease to exist or something? Truth of the matter is, society is a symbiotic relationship between all members. Some have more wealth, some less. It will never be equal, because people are not equal in intelligence, ambition, and luck. All you can do is tear down the achievers to assuage your liberal guilt at someone else's expense. Again, no thanks.

As wealthy people? Yes, for the most part, I think they would. Jeff Bezos would not be a billionaire with a global corporation without people to work in his "fulfillment centers." That's a fact. Or do you think he would, on his own, be able to stow, pick, pack, and ship over 600 million packages a day worldwide? Is he Santa Claus?

Also, you shouldn't make assumptions. I don't have any guilt, liberal or otherwise. I didn't create this system and I don't hold back from giving of my time and resources to help those that have less than me. I also don't believe it will ever be possible to make everyone equal, at least not without the equality they get being shit. I've never advocated total equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity.

[Kalkin]

The government they pay taxes to is a government that gives them advantages and access that the poor do not have.
It's still the exact same government.

As wealthy people? Yes, for the most part, I think they would. Jeff Bezos would not be a billionaire with a global corporation without people to work in his "fulfillment centers." That's a fact. Or do you think he would, on his own, be able to stow, pick, pack, and ship over 600 million packages a day worldwide? Is he Santa Claus?
He would still be somewhere.

Also, you shouldn't make assumptions. I don't have any guilt, liberal or otherwise.Your posting history suggests otherwise. Do the wealthy owe you something? Do they owe the poor something? No. If you (or the poor) don't want to contribute to their wealth, stop giving money to their enterprises.

I didn't create this system and I don't hold back from giving of my time and resources to help those that have less than me.
No one person created this system. It grew out of free people working and freely trading the fruits of said labor. You want to help the poor with your own money? Hooray for you. You don't get to make that choice for anyone else, though (unless you can legislate your inner marxist beliefs, that is).

I also don't believe it will ever be possible to make everyone equal, at least not without the equality they get being $#@!. I've never advocated total equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity.We are all born with equal opportunity. The opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Some have an easier road, generally due to the responsibility and diligence of their parents, but all are born with the equal opportunity to pursue whatever they define as their personal goals.

[Captain Obvious]

So, is the answer government forced wealth redistribution?

Nah, the answer is - just like every material society in human history there is a wealthy, privileged class that just fucks over the middle and lower classes and those lower classes beg for table scraps like fucking dogs.

And kiss their asses too if trained well.

[Kacper]

Where would those wealthy people be without the poor people that do their work?

Wealthy people's wealth is dependent on there being other wealthy people moreso than there be poor people. Your $50M painting is only worth $50M if there is someone else with $50M willing to buy it.

[Tahuyaman]

Without all the government red tape they could. Open a one-man barber, and if they did well bring in more chairs and hire more barbers. But the licensing and other regulations are too costly.

So, you believe poor people can provide jobs to other poor people?

[Tahuyaman]

Seriously. Why do they pay more in tax for the exact same government?


Because they aren't paying for the exact same government..
How are wealthy Americans living under a different government than poor Americans? What would life be like for poor Americans if the wealthy weren't paying 80+% of the income tax collected in America?

[Tahuyaman]

Nah, the answer is - just like every material society in human history there is a wealthy, privileged class that just $#@!s over the middle and lower classes and those lower classes beg for table scraps like $#@!ing dogs.

And kiss their asses too if trained well.
Lol....

[Green Arrow]

.
How are wealthy Americans living under a different government than poor Americans? What would life be like for poor Americans if the wealthy weren't paying 80+% of the income tax collected in America?
I already answered the first question. The wealthy are getting access and advantages from government that the poor are not.

[Tahuyaman]

I already answered the first question. The wealthy are getting access and advantages from government that the poor are not. If one pays more, shouldn't they receive a larger benefit? Why should those who pay nothing receive more?

[Tahuyaman]

The top 20% of earners pay 80% of the income tax collected and the 50% who pay nothing are the ones complaining.

[Green Arrow]

If one pays more, shouldn't they receive a larger benefit? Why should those who pay nothing receive more?
First off, even before the wealthy paid so much in taxes they had those benefits.

Second, I didn't argue against the wealthy receiving more from government as long as they are willing to pay more into it.

[Tahuyaman]

First off, even before the wealthy paid so much in taxes they had those benefits.

Second, I didn't argue against the wealthy receiving more from government as long as they are willing to pay more into it.


The wealthy do pay more. Almost 50% pay nothing.

The top 1% pays 20% of the federal income tax. The top 20% pays 80% of the income tax. The bottom 47% pays nothing. How much more should the wealthy pay? Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

[Kalkin]

If one pays more, shouldn't they receive a larger benefit? Why should those who pay nothing receive more?

Why should those paying nothing receive anything, for that matter?

[Kalkin]

Second, I didn't argue against the wealthy receiving more from government as long as they are willing to pay more into it.
Let's have all government funded by user fees. Maybe a minimal 5% consumption tax to fund the military and federal courts. If you want anything personally done for you by the gov, you pay the fee to cover the cost.

[Boris The Animal]

I already answered the first question. The wealthy are getting access and advantages from government that the poor are not.All I can say to that is Yeah? So what? Contrary to your claims, the very mantra of all Leftism is total equality in every way.

[Tahuyaman]

Why should those paying nothing receive anything, for that matter?. It's only fair that those who pay nothing receive more.

[Green Arrow]

The wealthy do pay more. Almost 50% pay nothing.

The top 1% pays 20% of the federal income tax. The top 20% pays 80% of the income tax. The bottom 47% pays nothing. How much more should the wealthy pay? Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?
There are more taxes than just income taxes.

[Green Arrow]

Let's have all government funded by user fees. Maybe a minimal 5% consumption tax to fund the military and federal courts. If you want anything personally done for you by the gov, you pay the fee to cover the cost.
Cool, let's do it.

[Green Arrow]

All I can say to that is Yeah? So what? Contrary to your claims, the very mantra of all Leftism is total equality in every way.
No, it isn't.

[Tahuyaman]

There are more taxes than just income taxes.
The wealthy pay more in sales tax and property taxes too.

[Tahuyaman]

I say abolish the income tax and impose a national sales tax.

[Green Arrow]

The wealthy pay more in sales tax and property taxes too.

But everyone still pays something.

[Tahuyaman]

But everyone still pays something.

The wealthy pay the lions share of the taxes and receive less benefit than those who pay the least. Spin it any way you want.

[Tahuyaman]

Why should those paying nothing receive anything, for that matter?. We should take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. We should not take care of those who won't take care of themselves or have chosen to not take care of themselves.

[Green Arrow]

The wealthy pay the lions share of the taxes and receive less benefit than those who pay the least. Spin it any way you want.

They do not receive less benefits.

[Tahuyaman]

They do not receive less benefits.


You're wrong. You are an observer of class envy.

[Green Arrow]

You're wrong. You are an observer of class envy.
Then you should be able to demonstrate how the wealthy receive less.

[Kalkin]

. We should take care of those who are unable to take care of themselves. We should not take care of those who won't take care of themselves or have chosen to not take care of themselves.
I agree, but not on the federal level. States would be responsible for such things per the 10th.

[donttread]

The super rich use their wealth to buy the government and to tilt the table in their favor. That leads to an undue, unearned upward transfer of wealth. One example being the low tax rate they are afforded on unearned income.
I doubt we have a higher percentage of super capable people than we ever did, therefore an overall upward transfer of wealth should not happen unless it is being manipulated to happen. Which it is.

[Chris]

It's "Marxist" to argue that workers are being exploited? What does that make arguing that the wealthy are being exploited?

Marx was the first to argue that nonsense, yes. Let's not get hung up on that.


What does that make arguing that the wealthy are being exploited?

Marx's argument that the workers are being exploited makes nothing of the counter argument. Question doesn't really make sense.

[Chris]

The government they pay taxes to is a government that gives them advantages and access that the poor do not have.


As wealthy people? Yes, for the most part, I think they would. Jeff Bezos would not be a billionaire with a global corporation without people to work in his "fulfillment centers." That's a fact. Or do you think he would, on his own, be able to stow, pick, pack, and ship over 600 million packages a day worldwide? Is he Santa Claus?

Also, you shouldn't make assumptions. I don't have any guilt, liberal or otherwise. I didn't create this system and I don't hold back from giving of my time and resources to help those that have less than me. I also don't believe it will ever be possible to make everyone equal, at least not without the equality they get being shit. I've never advocated total equality of outcome, only equality of opportunity.



It is also a fact that without people like Bezos those people would be without jobs. Marx was wrong.

[Chris]

Nah, the answer is - just like every material society in human history there is a wealthy, privileged class that just fucks over the middle and lower classes and those lower classes beg for table scraps like fucking dogs.

And kiss their asses too if trained well.



How do the wealthy "fuck over" exploit the middle and lower classes?

[Chris]

Wealthy people's wealth is dependent on there being other wealthy people moreso than there be poor people. Your $50M painting is only worth $50M if there is someone else with $50M willing to buy it.

Just as the value of work is only worth what other people are willing to pay for it. And no one forces the worker to work other than life itself which forces us all to work.

[Chris]

So, you believe poor people can provide jobs to other poor people?

Yes. I gave an example. Here's another. Remove the red tape to running a taxi service. Most people could afford or borrow the $20K for a good enough car and start a business. If successful, invest in more cars and drivers or franchise out.

[Chris]

I already answered the first question. The wealthy are getting access and advantages from government that the poor are not.

And the solution is what? More government, a bigger target for rent-seeking and corruption?

[Chris]

The super rich use their wealth to buy the government and to tilt the table in their favor. That leads to an undue, unearned upward transfer of wealth. One example being the low tax rate they are afforded on unearned income.
I doubt we have a higher percentage of super capable people than we ever did, therefore an overall upward transfer of wealth should not happen unless it is being manipulated to happen. Which it is.

Best government money can buy.

Solution?

[Chris]

So I guess the first page or so debunked the OP report and so the topic shifted to Marxist exploitation of workers. It's a nice sounding theory but it doesn't hold water.

Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds (http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=9891)


Marx's entire philosophy is dependent upon the labor-theory of value, which is interesting because Marx just assumed it was true, and gave no evidence to prove its existence. The basic idea is that Marx claimed when a capitalist bought supplies, like wood, metal, etc., that what the capitalist paid for the items was a fair price, and that these items could only transfer their value to the final outcome of the production process. The other item the capitalist purchases, labor, Marx treated differently. For Marx, he admitted that the capitalist paid a fair wage for the laborer's work, but claimed that the employee's work was what created surplus value, i.e., profits. That is the laborer, although being paid a fair wage, of let's say, $10.00 for his work, actually produces more than that for the capitalist, let's say, $12.00.

Marx gives no proof for this claim; he just assumes it's true, and builds an entire theory from there. But, he does claim that since capitalists will employ ever greater technology for each worker, that profit rates will fall so low, that capitalism will die off. This is because the labor from the living workers will become a smaller and smaller amount of labor going into the finished product as the worker works with ever larger and more sophisticated machines. If this were true, however, then the highest-tech industries should have lower profit rates than farming operations that still use hand-pulled plows. It would also mean that no capitalist in his right mind would ever employ high-tech equipment, the lower-tech the better. This is empirically not the case, so Marx is wrong. The labor is not the source of profits, but the brain-power the capitalist uses in bringing resources together to provide a good and/or service. That's exactly whay a worker digging ditches and filling them back up again does not create any value, just works up a sweat.

Therefore, since Marx provided no reason to believe in his labor-theory of value and the empirical evidence is against it, we can send Marx to the scrap-heap, along with such other outlandish beliefs, like a god named Zeus.

Not only is Marxism false, but, any socialist theory that relies upon the same false claim is also false as well.

[Green Arrow]

It is also a fact that without people like Bezos those people would be without jobs. Marx was wrong.

Marx isn't relevant, I didn't quote him or mention him.

Yes, it's a symbiotic relationship. The poor need the wealthy just as much as the wealthy need the poor. Without one or the other everything falls apart.

[Green Arrow]

So I guess the first page or so debunked the OP report and so the topic shifted to Marxist exploitation of workers. It's a nice sounding theory but it doesn't hold water.

Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds (http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=9891)

Marxism is not the topic.

[Chris]

Marx isn't relevant, I didn't quote him or mention him.

Yes, it's a symbiotic relationship. The poor need the wealthy just as much as the wealthy need the poor. Without one or the other everything falls apart.

You are arguing his exploitation theory, whether you are aware of it or not. So I will continue to call it by its source, Marx.

It is symbiotic. Change it and ruin it. Why, simple, no one is smart enough to create such a relationship.

[Chris]

Marxism is not the topic.

I'm not making Marxism the topic. I am identifying your argument here as Marxist. Take away Marx, the argument is still bogus and the counterarguments will never be addressed.

The topic was the report given in the OP. But that's been addressed and debunked.

[Green Arrow]

You are arguing his exploitation theory, whether you are aware of it or not. So I will continue to call it by its source, Marx.
It's not unique to Marx. Regardless, let's not resort to meaningless buzzwords.

It is symbiotic. Change it and ruin it. Why, simple, no one is smart enough to create such a relationship.
Who has argued changing it? Not me. I am fine with that relationship, I just want it to be a better deal for workers.

[Chris]

It's not unique to Marx. Regardless, let's not resort to meaningless buzzwords.

Who has argued changing it? Not me. I am fine with that relationship, I just want it to be a better deal for workers.

Now you're arguing about Marx. I didn't say it was unique to Marx, I said he was the source of the exploitation argument. He is. Knowing that exposes the argument to a history of counterarguments. Let's not pretend this is something new to be reargued again and again.


I just want it to be a better deal for workers.

That would change it.

[Green Arrow]

Now you're arguing about Marx. I didn't say it was unique to Marx, I said he was the source of the exploitation argument. He is. Knowing that exposes the argument to a history of counterarguments. Let's not pretend this is something new to be reargued again and again.

:rollseyes:


That would change it.

To some degree, but the symbiotic aspect would not. At its core it would still work the same.

[Chris]

:rollseyes:



To some degree, but the symbiotic aspect would not. At its core it would still work the same.

If you change it, it's not the same.

Given that symbiotic means "denoting a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups," you would change that relationship. If you would impose your change, through say legislature to raise the minimum wage, for example, you would remove the mutual part.

[Kacper]

Just as the value of work is only worth what other people are willing to pay for it. And no one forces the worker to work other than life itself which forces us all to work.

Work for yourself or work for someone else is our lot in life. Even if you live in a cabin in the woods, you still have to labor to survive unless you are one of the ones who somehow manage to live off others be it welfare, a trust fund, or a sugar daddy.

[Green Arrow]

If you change it, it's not the same.
Splitting hairs.

Given that symbiotic means "denoting a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups," you would change that relationship. If you would impose your change, through say legislature to raise the minimum wage, for example, you would remove the mutual part.

Not really, no. It's still highly beneficial for the wealthy, moreso than it is for the workers.

[Kalkin]

Who has argued changing it? Not me. I am fine with that relationship, I just want it to be a better deal for workers.
By what method would you go about accomplishing this? Or is it a statement along the lines of "I want world peace and an end to hunger"?

[The Xl]

The wealthy contribute far more to society than do the poor.

Only a few people actually contribute to anything meaningful, that goes for all income ranges. Most people are replaceable.

[The Xl]

The workers are the ones being exploited? Seriously? Marxist nonsense.

Most lower class people are hit harder by inflation and red tape. Excessive taxation is more of a nuisance to the wealthy, not a backbreaker. Make no mistake, the current system works more for them than against them. They're able to eliminate any sort of widespread competition.

[The Xl]

How do the wealthy "fuck over" exploit the middle and lower classes?

By buying off the government.

[Kalkin]

Only a few people actually contribute to anything meaningful, that goes for all income ranges. Most people are replaceable.

The wealthy pay the lion's share of the tax burden, which is the oil of the engine of our government. The poor pay little to no tax and often take out more than they contribute. There really isn't much of a comparison when it comes to who contributes more.

[Kalkin]

Most lower class people are hit harder by inflation and red tape.
Big government problems, those.

Excessive taxation is more of a nuisance to the wealthy, not a backbreaker. Make no mistake, the current system works more for them than against them. Why shouldn't it? They're the ones paying for it.

They're able to eliminate any sort of widespread competition.
Another big-gov problem, that.

Smaller government would be a step in the right direction for all classes.

[The Xl]

The wealthy pay the lion's share of the tax burden, which is the oil of the engine of our government. The poor pay little to no tax and often take out more than they contribute. There really isn't much of a comparison when it comes to who contributes more.

That's all just paper money. The government taxes the poor too, by inflating the everliving fuck out of the currency.

[The Xl]

Big government problems, those.
Why shouldn't it? They're the ones paying for it.

Another big-gov problem, that.

Smaller government would be a step in the right direction for all classes.

I don't disagree that it's a big government issue. One that's lobbied for and promoted heavily by many powerful people though, and for a reason.

Theft of opportunity and assets hits the poor at a much higher rate than the rich. Easy to bleed assets when you have a lot of them, not so much when you don't.

[Kalkin]

That's all just paper money. The government taxes the poor too, by inflating the everliving $#@! out of the currency.

Inflation affects everyone. Either the money you have is worth less, or the products you buy cost more. 6 or 1/2 dozen, it's a travesty brought on by fiat currency and irresponsible government either way.

[Kalkin]

I don't disagree that it's a big government issue. One that's lobbied for and promoted heavily by many powerful people though, and for a reason.

Theft of opportunity and assets hits the poor at a much higher rate than the rich. Easy to bleed assets when you have a lot of them, not so much when you don't.
No disagreement here. That's why I encourage people to live below their means and accumulate some wealth.

[The Xl]

Inflation affects everyone. Either the money you have is worth less, or the products you buy cost more. 6 or 1/2 dozen, it's a travesty brought on by fiat currency and irresponsible government either way.

Who is going to be hit worse by inflation, someone making 15K a year or someone making 5 million a year? Easy to take the L when you actually have the ability to do so. Who is hit harder by the red tape when it comes to insurance, going to school, starting a business, etc? It's pretty obvious. One is crippled by the situation, for the other it's a nuisance at worst, an advantage at best, as it eliminates potential competition in many cases.

[Kalkin]

Who is going to be hit worse by inflation, someone making 15K a year or someone making 5 million a year?
Probably the 15K person.

Easy to take the L when you actually have the ability to do so.
Agreed.

Who is hit harder by the red tape when it comes to insurance, going to school, starting a business, etc? It's pretty obvious. One is crippled by the situation, for the other it's a nuisance at worst, an advantage at best, as it eliminates potential competition in many cases.
Hence again my reason for encouraging fiscal responsibility. Wealth makes life easier. Live below your means for a reasonable period and get your excess money working for you. Or live paycheck to paycheck and be subjected to the whims of our loose fiscal policy.

[Chris]

Splitting hairs.


Not really, no. It's still highly beneficial for the wealthy, moreso than it is for the workers.

Not splitting anything. You say no change then say change.

It's symbiotic and as such mutually beneficial.

[Chris]

Most lower class people are hit harder by inflation and red tape. Excessive taxation is more of a nuisance to the wealthy, not a backbreaker. Make no mistake, the current system works more for them than against them. They're able to eliminate any sort of widespread competition.

The wealthy corporations just pass those inflationary, regulatory and tax costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices and lower wages. So, yes, you're right.

So what's to be done? Restrict the top 10% from rent seeking government favors? OK, then the next level will do it, and the next. As long as you have a big instrusive government, there will always be those who try to use political means to get what they want.

[Chris]

By buying off the government.

Right. The wealthy simply do not have the power themselves to fuck people over, so they buy out the one entity with a monopoly on coercive force, the government.

[Chris]

If the problem is the government then the solution can't be more government. That's insane.