The Economics Thread

[TheGreenLink]

So you are saying Obama should had held his ground to add more to the deficit? Also, lol at tax cuts "lining the banks of the rich". More like, "and not steal more of American's hard-earned money".

Define how you determine the worth of someone's work. After that we might be able to get back on how you define "hard-earned money."

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Some people argue that a system overhaul is in order; that we should abandon capitalism in favor of a different political-economic system. One needs to be careful when making this accusation because blaming the actual system of capitalism for our current woes is a slippery slope. The actual system of capitalism does not require class differentiation or poverty; it just doesn't impose any internal regulations that would restrict it. By definition, capitalism does not require people to be homeless and jobless; indeed, that is antithetical to its definition.

What are you referring to in terms of poverty? If you are speaking in terms of poverty in the US, I agree with you. However, Capitalism in terms of the way we utilize the system in the US requires outsourcing to maintain its prosperous living state. As a result, third world countries contain an inordinate amount of poverty from falling victim to first world Imperialism.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree.

By definition, capitalism and imperialism are two very different things. Imperialism entails military/political domination and intervention, but true classical liberalism eschews any form of imperialism.

Our system doesn't require outsourcing; rather, it requires certain positions to be filled and outsourcing happens to fulfill that requirement. Those positions could be filled by anyone qualified. Capitalism, as an economic system, doesn't require outsourcing.

 

[Death Aflame]

Maybe not theoretical capitalism, but just look around you, clearly actually-existing capitalism does not only require, but is explicitly built upon the bedrock of imperialism.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

By definition, capitalism and imperialism are two very different things. Imperialism entails military/political domination and intervention, but true classical liberalism eschews any form of imperialism.

There are hundreds of US military bases around the world and many poverty-stricken countries have corrupt US-backed leaders. Capitalism is the bridge to Imperialism. No question about it.

Our system doesn't require outsourcing; rather, it requires certain positions to be filled and outsourcing happens to fulfill that requirement.

That doesn't make any sense.

Those positions could be filled by anyone qualified. Capitalism, as an economic system, doesn't require outsourcing.

It does to maintain a high living state. China gathers its resources almost completely internally but certainly aren't on the level of the US in terms of "quality" lifestyle. The US has very little heavy industry. Do you think their resources appear out of thin air?

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe not theoretical capitalism, but just look around you, clearly actually-existing capitalism does not only require, but is explicitly built upon the bedrock of imperialism.

I'm arguing that capitalism is not responsible for things like imperialism and poverty because it doesn't theoretically require them. Therefore, blaming the system isn't the answer.

Socialism, as a system, is responsible for the oppression of a whole populace in order for a forced equality. It's a totalitarian form of government.

EDIT: so I should clarify; I suppose I am talking more about capitalism as it exists theoretically. But I think we can find examples of functional internal capitalism in certain economic systems.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So you are saying Obama should had held his ground to add more to the deficit? Also, lol at tax cuts "lining the banks of the rich". More like, "and not steal more of American's hard-earned money".

This is a bit of a nonsequitur but what again is your opinion on unemployment benefits? It seems to me that right now because the unemployment rate in the US is unnaturally high there are a lot of people who deserve benefits because under normal circumstances they would have a job. Furthermore, because each employed person is using up a greater share of the income pool, they owe a proportionally greater share of benefits to the unemployed.

Generally speaking, I think unemployment benefits are one of the most fitting uses of the income tax, and that even if the standards for determining eligibility for those benefits is flawed, the humanitarian concern overrides that.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

P.S. I'm actually interested in any of the staunchly libertarian folks to weigh in on my post above (Pat, Cythie, Ozzman, etc)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Socialism, as a system, is responsible for the oppression of a whole populace in order for a forced equality. It's a totalitarian form of government.

Isn't socialism more about providing a safety net for the poor than about "forcing equality" of wealth? You seem to be overdramatizing a bit.

 

[Dak]

This is a bit of a nonsequitur but what again is your opinion on unemployment benefits?

My point with that statement was to question M's meaning. Was he concerned about adding to the deficit? Was he suggesting that Obama could have added more to the deficit if he had tried harder? Or was he suggesting that not raising taxes increased the deficit? etc.

As far as unemployment benefits go, there should be no benefit provided by the Federal Government to the unemployed. States or municipalities may do as they like.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a bit of a nonsequitur but what again is your opinion on unemployment benefits? It seems to me that right now because the unemployment rate in the US is unnaturally high there are a lot of people who deserve benefits because under normal circumstances they would have a job. Furthermore, because each employed person is using up a greater share of the income pool, they owe a proportionally greater share of benefits to the unemployed.

I'm not quite sure how this final sentence follows. If unemployment is unnaturally high, it's because there isn't as much income to be spread around. No one's getting a bigger slice, and plenty of people who are employed are getting just enough to live comfortably on.

Isn't socialism more about providing a safety net for the poor than about "forcing equality" of wealth? You seem to be overdramatizing a bit.

Historically, socialism requires a central committee to organize the distribution of wealth and the structure of labor. Technically, it's a totalitarian form of government because it requires a centralized government in order to function. Furthermore, socialism is about forcing equality because it advocates public ownership of the means of the production and equal allocation of resources to an entire populace. Marx envisioned a socialist system where a central committee oversees this process, and then disappears, leaving only the people with control over the means of production; but every instance in history has shown that the central committee never resigns its power.

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism that says no governmental system should oversee the process; but it's nearly impossible to imagine how this coukld happen.

 

[Badbird]

Hey Brady, I know you have that clever quip about Rand being dead; but you do know that Maynard Keynes is too, right? If you're leveling some kind of criticism at Rand simply because of the fact that she's dead, it would appear that you would have to level that same criticism at Keynes.

Everyone knows that Keynes is dead.

 

[Badbird]

Karl Marx!

 

[Dak]

Why should income be distributed equally?

Edit:

I would like Mathias to adress my question about his earlier statement.

 

[Death Aflame]

Short answer: it shouldn't. However, I believe there is a unity of virtue in pursuing equality and freed markets.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not quite sure how this final sentence follows. If unemployment is unnaturally high, it's because there isn't as much income to be spread around. No one's getting a bigger slice, and plenty of people who are employed are getting just enough to live comfortably on.

No one's necessarily getting a larger amount of income, but those with jobs are still getting a larger average percentage of the available income.

Say the GDP of a tiny country with 100 people is $950000, and the unemployment rate is 5%. (Note: here I take GDP to represent "all the income that is being made", not sure of its real definition.) So there are 95 people making all of the available money, and each worker makes on average $10000 or 1.052% (10/950) of the GDP.

If the unemployment rate goes up to 10% and the GDP goes down proportionally to $900000, each worker still makes on average $10000 but they now make 1.111% (1/90) of the GDP, thus a higher average share.

Of course if I were designing a system for unemployment benefits I would take into account the income disparity too and have the wealthier pay a higher percentage of the tax that goes to benefits.

Historically, socialism requires a central committee to organize the distribution of wealth and the structure of labor. Technically, it's a totalitarian form of government because it requires a centralized government in order to function. Furthermore, socialism is about forcing equality because it advocates public ownership of the means of the production and equal allocation of resources to an entire populace. Marx envisioned a socialist system where a central committee oversees this process, and then disappears, leaving only the people with control over the means of production; but every instance in history has shown that the central committee never resigns its power.

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism that says no governmental system should oversee the process; but it's nearly impossible to imagine how this coukld happen.

Yeah I wasn't sure of the definition of socialism, sorry for making you explain it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

My point with that statement was to question M's meaning. Was he concerned about adding to the deficit? Was he suggesting that Obama could have added more to the deficit if he had tried harder? Or was he suggesting that not raising taxes increased the deficit? etc.

As far as unemployment benefits go, there should be no benefit provided by the Federal Government to the unemployed. States or municipalities may do as they like.

Yeah, although I think the social safety net is important I would rather see it implemented at the state/municipality level as well.

 

[Death Aflame]

There is such a thing as libertarian socialism that says no governmental system should oversee the process; but it's nearly impossible to imagine how this could happen.

There are historical precedents, brief as they may be. But they are interesting nonetheless.

 

[Matt]

Why should income be distributed equally?

Edit:

I would like Mathias to adress my question about his earlier statement.

I already answered it. I don't think the top 1% should get a tax cut and I don't think it will help the economy in any way. But in two years when(if) the economy is showing visible signs of recovery he'll be able to use their repeal as something to campaign on.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I'm arguing that capitalism is not responsible for things like imperialism and poverty because it doesn't theoretically require them. Therefore, blaming the system isn't the answer.

For Capitalism to effectively thrive the way it does in first world countries, it REQUIRES outsourcing. There is no other explanation for the super-profits the US rakes in. Once again, while China isn't one hundred percent Capitalist or Socialist, they have a Capitalist market economy and gather their resources internally. As such, there is a shit-ton of ass-breaking labor and shitty working conditions for its people. Capitalism without Imperialism doesn't gain the same results.