Capitalism vs Communism

[Blurry_Dreams]

Profit. With the wealth all those companies and governments have, they could have solved many of the modern troubles common people face everyday, but they won't do it unless they can profit of it.

the problems i described could be fixed by taking money out of the pockets of the riches 1 percent, they just won't let go of the money

 

[Allfader]

the problems i described could be fixed by taking money out of the pockets of the riches 1 percent, they just won't let go of the money

It's very easy to implement: the laws that fix the annual tax statement (not sure how it's called in your respective places) percentages, they should do a progressive table to charge the rich more. If your country already has this system, they just need to raise the % of some income ranges and they'll get more money doing zero damage.

This won't be done because the #1 flaw of capitalism: money corrupts people and all politicians and corporations are rotten to the core. It's the lack of regulation that allow such things.

 

[CiG]

Natural resources develop at a slower pace than human consumption of them. Think about wood, for example. We have sent to extinction way too many species and destroyed way too many ecosystems to recover from that in the close/mid term. Climate change is also a real threat. Water will be a huge problem in the next century. Earth temperature WILL rise and with that, snow will melt, oceans will rise, water will evaporate, rain won't replenish rivers and lakes enough to sustain life, edible water won't be enough for everyone.

And as I said, the enterprises and governments that should be doing something about all this don't care. Immediate profit at the lowest cost for them is still the capitalist motto; if that doesn't change, the planet and us won't be able to do anything to prevent our potential exinction.

Two words: green capitalism. It's already a thing.

This won't be done because the #1 flaw of capitalism: money corrupts people and all politicians and corporations are rotten to the core. It's the lack of regulation that allow such things.

How is that a flaw of capitalism specifically? Money corrupts is just a variant on power corrupts. Money corrupted many in the Society Union, for example.

the problems i described could be fixed by taking money out of the pockets of the riches 1 percent, they just won't let go of the money

Empty platitude.

 

[Allfader]

How is that a flaw of capitalism specifically? Money corrupts is just a variant on power corrupts. Money corrupted many in the Society Union, for example.
.

Under perfect capitalism, the market "regulates itself" while government/laws are just supervisors. Perfect competence should provide the optimal price for goods and services for consumers, but it doesn't happen. Corruption under capitalism is different than State corruption due companies altering the "perfect competence" status to screw up consumers and State, having the latter the power to prevent/punish these practices but money from capitalist companies corrupts them for Capitalist purposes. Corruption in Communist based economies is just basically a dictatorship doing whatever they want; there's no market, no competence, no ways to choose what to produce and consume. Capitalism is usually/mostly implemented in democratic nations where there is a certain "trust" from the consumers and State to the companies that provide their products. When corruption manages a certain government, Capitalism turns into a government of the government.

As a very recent example, see what TPP wanted to achieve; among all atrocities it tried to implement, there was the idea to create "TPP Courts" where enterprises could sue governments if they felt that country's laws prevented them to earn what they "deserve" (aka, countries trying to tax them, regulate their operations, etc), so the TPP Courts would have the power to force countries to veto/modify laws according to those companies' interests.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

It's very easy to implement: the laws that fix the annual tax statement (not sure how it's called in your respective places) percentages, they should do a progressive table to charge the rich more. If your country already has this system, they just need to raise the % of some income ranges and they'll get more money doing zero damage.

This won't be done because the #1 flaw of capitalism: money corrupts people and all politicians and corporations are rotten to the core. It's the lack of regulation that allow such things.

this was actually the unspoken part of my argument
severely raising taxes for the richest 1 percent, or even moderately raising taxes for the richest 10 percent could very easily and quickly fix every freaking american problem mentioned on this entire fucking thread
the real problem is that taxing the rich sufficiently enough to help out the poor will never fucking happen

 

[CiG]

this was actually the unspoken part of my argument
severely raising taxes for the richest 1 percent, or even moderately raising taxes for the richest 10 percent could very easily and quickly fix every freaking american problem mentioned on this entire fucking thread
the real problem is that taxing the rich sufficiently enough to help out the poor will never fucking happen

What does "severely" mean? Do you know what the "rich" are taxed in America right now?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

I guess i really meant "Severely enough"
Like figuring out how much money is needed
And taking the money out of the richest 1 percent

 

[CiG]

It's a flawed idea.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

the "flawed part" is mostly just the fact that it'll never happen

you can make a tax increase on the richest 1 percent
and you can raise min wage
but you'll never get money going from the pockets of the richest 1 percent going towards the min wage increase

 

[CiG]

the "flawed part" is mostly just the fact that it'll never happen

Wrong, the flawed part is that the more you tax the so-called 1% the more they'll do their business elsewhere, or move to a different country with lower tax rates, and the 1% isn't static and there is a good amount of moving in and out of that group. You should specify how high you want the tax rate to be, and before you do so actually research what it currently is.

you can make a tax increase on the richest 1 percent
and you can raise min wage
but you'll never get money going from the pockets of the richest 1 percent going towards the min wage increase

Raising the minimum wage is something that should take money from the corporations paying the employees. Here in Australia these are our taxes rates and our minimum wage is roughly $18. You don't need to do what you're suggesting to achieve both things.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

so
like i said earlier
america needs to just copy-paste whatever has already worked in other countries

 

[CiG]

Dumb.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

maybe less dumb than what america is doing right now

 

[Allfader]

Wrong, the flawed part is that the more you tax the so-called 1% the more they'll do their business elsewhere, or move to a different country with lower tax rates, and the 1% isn't static and there is a good amount of moving in and out of that group. You should specify how high you want the tax rate to be, and before you do so actually research what it currently is.

It depends. Not all industries are mobile. Think about mining. Banking won't move anywhere if you tax them a bit more.

Raising the minimum wage is something that should take money from the corporations paying the employees. Here in Australia these are our taxes rates and our minimum wage is roughly $18. You don't need to do what you're suggesting to achieve both things.

It depends on the economic model. If a given country is modeled around big corporations supplying most of job positions, than it can be done. But there are many countries where is the small/middle sized business group who provide most of jobs and there you can't just raise minimum wages too much or they won't be able to compete against the ones due cost increases unable to be absorbed (see the communist governments where wages were/are being raised in absurd rates, raising inflation, like in Venezuela).

It's safer to tax more the ones who earn more and it's also more efficient in terms of wealth distribution. If a company don't like to be a bit more taxed and leaves, another one will fill that space anyway.

 

[CiG]

It depends. Not all industries are mobile. Think about mining. Banking won't move anywhere if you tax them a bit more.

So you don't want a blanket tax on the 1% but rather a specific tax targeting industries that can't flee the country?

It depends on the economic model. If a given country is modeled around big corporations supplying most of job positions, than it can be done. But there are many countries where is the small/middle sized business group who provide most of jobs and there you can't just raise minimum wages too much or they won't be able to compete against the ones due cost increases unable to be absorbed (see the communist governments where wages were/are being raised in absurd rates, raising inflation, like in Venezuela).

I'm not pro-minimum wage laws to begin with, though I'm not an all or nothing type, if we can find a happy medium I'm okay with it. I brought it up because Blurry wants to tax the rich to raise the minimum wage. I'm just pointing out that Australia is an example of a country that has a high minimum wage and doesn't tax the rich to the point that they leave the country.

It's safer to tax more the ones who earn more and it's also more efficient in terms of wealth distribution. If a company don't like to be a bit more taxed and leaves, another one will fill that space anyway.

And in the meantime hundreds or even thousands lose their jobs, and it's usually the rich who create new businesses (and therefore jobs) to begin with, so you should think this out maybe a little more. Why would a wealthy person stay in a place that wants to bleed them dry? Common sense dictates they go elsewhere that is more welcoming to making money and keeping wealth.

 

[Allfader]

So you don't want a blanket tax on the 1% but rather a specific tax targeting industries that can't flee the country?

A combination of both would be ideal, but It's a grey area which depends on the % of wealthy people, difference between rich and poor, industry, etc.

I'm not pro-minimum wage laws to begin with, though I'm not an all or nothing type, if we can find a happy medium I'm okay with it. I brought it up because Blurry wants to tax the rich to raise the minimum wage. I'm just pointing out that Australia is an example of a country that has a high minimum wage and doesn't tax the rich to the point that they leave the country.

There are countries where the wealth is more or less well distributed, in others it's not the case. Australia might be one of them, where even at the lowest wages you can still have a decent life standard. Most of the world is not like that.

When you see the numbers of wealth distribution, things get nauseating. The 1% has the HALF of the entire planet's wealth. It can't be right. It's not even a "healthy meritocracy" thing.

And in the meantime hundreds or even thousands lose their jobs, and it's usually the rich who create new businesses (and therefore jobs) to begin with, so you should think this out maybe a little more. Why would a wealthy person stay in a place that wants to bleed them dry? Common sense dictates they go elsewhere that is more welcoming to making money and keeping wealth.

Rich people is not the one who creates more jobs. That's more of a myth than anything else, due a difference in perspective. Jobs in general terms are created by demand. The demand is mostly comprised by the middle class. Not all entrepreneurs and investors are a part of the 1%, but sure as hell most of consumers - the ones that keep the machine alive - are the middle class, the biggest piece of the cake with purchasing power. I can give you that rich people generate ideas that turn into businesses, but jobs are created in all levels of the food chain.

Now, does the 1% to be THAT rich? of course not. It's a matter of character and human "quality" to recognize the fact that some people can give more money to the system than others. Rich people can. Do they? some do, some others don't. Poor people is usually far more generous with their peers and other needed people than rich people. Maybe that's a reason that keeps things in such inequality. Who knows.

 

[CiG]

Rich people is not the one who creates more jobs. That's more of a myth than anything else, due a difference in perspective. Jobs in general terms are created by demand. The demand is mostly comprised by the middle class. Not all entrepreneurs and investors are a part of the 1%, but sure as hell most of consumers - the ones that keep the machine alive - are the middle class, the biggest piece of the cake with purchasing power. I can give you that rich people generate ideas that turn into businesses, but jobs are created in all levels of the food chain.

Yes but what I'm saying is, it takes a wealthy person to risk the investment to create the business that meets the demand. I don't think that's a myth, I think that's a basic economic fact. How many people on welfare living paycheck to paycheck are starting new businesses? Middle class people are the main consumers, but not the business starters and when they do start businesses they tend to be smaller of course, and only able to hire a very limited amount of people, which is further restricted by minimum wage laws.

When you see the numbers of wealth distribution, things get nauseating. The 1% has the HALF of the entire planet's wealth. It can't be right. It's not even a "healthy meritocracy" thing.
Now, does the 1% to be THAT rich? of course not. It's a matter of character and human "quality" to recognize the fact that some people can give more money to the system than others. Rich people can. Do they? some do, some others don't. Poor people is usually far more generous with their peers and other needed people than rich people. Maybe that's a reason that keeps things in such inequality. Who knows.

The 1% is actually as much of a myth as anything else, because it's not a static group. if you sell your house there's a good chance you have entered into the 1% but of course that money you made probably went straight into the purchase of another property and in reality you weren't wealthy and you're in and out of the 1% within 2 years. 1% rhetoric is usually a pretty meaningless platitude.

 

[Allfader]

Yes but what I'm saying is, it takes a wealthy person to risk the investment to create the business that meets the demand. I don't think that's a myth, I think that's a basic economic fact. How many people on welfare living paycheck to paycheck are starting new businesses? Middle class people are the main consumers, but not the business starters and when they do start businesses they tend to be smaller of course, and only able to hire a very limited amount of people, which is further restricted by minimum wage laws.

By definition, a business is created to satisfy certain needs. To exist, the need must be there. Middle class people don't start business because they mostly get money via working for another, better positioned individual, not because the lack of ideas. Middle class people lack enough resources, like time, some higher education and capital. "Rich" is a bag of different things. Most jobs are not created by the richest people anyway.

Minimum wage laws are also a need for any healthy economy, since they guarantee a certain degree of purchasing power to any working individual, which is ultimately what makes economy work. The better the wages, the most the purchasing power and the more the marginal profit in sells of goods and services.

The 1% is actually as much of a myth as anything else, because it's not a static group. if you sell your house there's a good chance you have entered into the 1% but of course that money you made probably went straight into the purchase of another property and in reality you weren't wealthy and you're in and out of the 1% within 2 years. 1% rhetoric is usually a pretty meaningless platitude.

With jobs is the same effect. Rich people do create jobs, but most of them are temporary ones. The most conventional jobs are created by a number of situations on different levels; it's more like the economy at work as "ecosystem" than the richest guys out there.

 

[CiG]

We're going in circles here. Yes a demand must exist before a business can exist to meet it, the other half of that is that someone with enough wealth needs to start the business, or expand a pre-existing business, or invest in new technologies to meet a certain new demand etc.

It does depend on how one defines "rich" of course, to be considered as in the 1% in America you need to roughly be worth around 400k annually, and that can be an individual's earnings or an entire family's.

Small businesses in America create roughly 60% of all new jobs in the private sector, this doesn't take into account how long those jobs last.

Minimum wage laws are tricky. On one hand it ensures that people will be paid some sort of standard living wage, and also allows people to have security by knowing that no matter what happens they'll get a set amount. On the other hand it creates a barrier to entry for lower class people and minorities. Why would an employer take a $15 per hour risk with someone right out of high school, no experience over someone with a lot of experience and is an adult, or white, or a man etc?

 

[Allfader]

We're going in circles here. Yes a demand must exist before a business can exist to meet it, the other half of that is that someone with enough wealth needs to start the business, or expand a pre-existing business, or invest in new technologies to meet a certain new demand etc.

It does depend on how one defines "rich" of course, to be considered as in the 1% in America you need to roughly be worth around 400k annually, and that can be an individual's earnings or an entire family's.

Small businesses in America create roughly 60% of all new jobs in the private sector, this doesn't take into account how long those jobs last.

Minimum wage laws are tricky. On one hand it ensures that people will be paid some sort of standard living wage, and also allows people to have security by knowing that no matter what happens they'll get a set amount. On the other hand it creates a barrier to entry for lower class people and minorities. Why would an employer take a $15 per hour risk with someone right out of high school, no experience over someone with a lot of experience and is an adult, or white, or a man etc?

The less developed the country is, the less the Rich create jobs. There's no formula for such a thing, but it can be changed through government intervention/regulation (or dsregulation, like Trump is doing). In our example, "the rich" is the 1% and the ones near that kind of wealth. 3rd world countries can go up to 90/10 in proportion of created jobs by small vs big businesses.

Regarding the minimum wage barrier, it exists precisely for that. It's not a matter of "risk", it's a matter of dignity and survival. The good thing about capitalism is the freedom of choice. Any employer can choose whatever it wants as employees, but the trick is that people can also put some degree of value on his own capacities. If any employer wants to save some money to get unexperienced workers, it's his problem. here must be a balance on both sides.

It's obvious that capitalism works better than communist economies, but there's no perfect system, as we aren't perfect either.