> "He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it." This has been clearly demonstrated to be incorrect many times.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price
The definition of price doesn't really demonstrate anything.
The Wikipedia entry is titled 'price', but is actually mostly about price theory.
I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access , not equality of 'things'. The Great American Dream is about someone seizing an opportunity; equality means we all have an opportunity to seize an opportunity. Economic Inequality means there is a disproportionate number of opportunities at the top, and very few at the bottom. Not everyone takes those chances, b…
Bingo. And most people knows this. But conservatives wants everyone to think it means "wealth redistribution".
But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution.
"There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders
(Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)
Then why be so specific by saying income inequality?
Same reason why we call "sea stars", "starfish", when it's not a fish. At this point it's just a name. It's a phrase a lot of people recognize and has become a rallying cry liberals. You can't change it anymore. TL;DR Because marketing.
Or, another explanation: they really are talking about income inequality, and you don't agree.
> Then how is it a solution? I didn't claim that it was. Maybe you should ask saulrh that. > Also, the pie is fixed. Economic growth has exceeded population growth rather reliably for the last two hundred years or so. The pie is definitely not fixed.
Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In fact, there is a finite amount of matter that we will ever be able to reach.) This puts a hard cap on how much "stuff" can exist. Therefore, the pie is fixed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
I think most of us don't define "pie" that way. In particular, I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy, not about the total amount of matter within reach of the human race.
Even using your definition, though, the pie is not fixed. We can't mine the moon today. Perhaps someday we can. If so, the amount of matter available to us is not fixed. Or perhaps we can mine the earth's core. More mundanely, there's fracking. That's dramatically added to the amount of matter (of a particular useful form) that is available to the human race.
I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access , not equality of 'things'. The Great American Dream is about someone seizing an opportunity; equality means we all have an opportunity to seize an opportunity. Economic Inequality means there is a disproportionate number of opportunities at the top, and very few at the bottom. Not everyone takes those chances, b…
You're talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? This is specifically not what Sanders is talking about. He's saying that the basic fact that the rich have become richer than they used to be, relative to everyone else, is wrong and must change. How do you read this differently?: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequalit...
Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs).
The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indication of the disparity of opportunity. This disparity is being used to illustrate the difference -- it is the cough caused by the cold; the cough is not the root cause, but a signal. Income inequality growth is not the root cause, it is the outcome of policies that affect access to opportunities and why all of the points that he proposes are goals to alleviate that access imbalance.
Bingo. And most people knows this. But conservatives wants everyone to think it means "wealth redistribution".
But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders (Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)
And I'd add -- the Waltons would be a weird example to key on if you were concerned mainly with punishing Wall St. speculators but keeping dynamism and entrepreneurship alive. Regardless of how you feel about WalMart, the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. Not sure why they're first among the villains for ol' Bernie.
Karl Marx saw a couple flaws in Capitalism, similar to what we practice today. I think he's right about one and wrong about the other. And the part he's right about is what people find unfair. He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what b…
This is a good way to describe it. He got the first part right, and identified the true flaw of capitalism. Too many people still associate him and his theory of communism with failed communist states like the soviet union, North Korea or pre-capitalistic China. While the association may or may not be real, his observation about capitalism is unequivocal.
Thanks. It's amazing to see how many folks in the tech industry don't see this when the whole idea of H1B visas is to get workers that can easily be exploited over here. Especially since the first attempt in the late 90's of out sourcing failed.
But out sourcing has worked fabulously for many other industries. And although I agree globalization has many benefits the side effect is many displaced people today seething with anger as the capitalist class gets wealthier. That anger will turn to pitch forks when there's enough of them.
to compete with people around the world means to be exploited here and policy doesn't help it so people feel they are not allowed to participate in society fairly. Capitalists (including me) need to behave otherwise revolution will come and our bourgeois heads will roll.
You're talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? This is specifically not what Sanders is talking about. He's saying that the basic fact that the rich have become richer than they used to be, relative to everyone else, is wrong and must change. How do you read this differently?: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequalit...
Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs). The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indicatio…
Oh -- so income inequality is evidence of disparity of opportunity, so you are actually concerned with income inequality. You'd prefer incomes to be more equal.
If opportunity were perfectly equal (your ideal state), what would you imagine income distribution to look like? Would that be acceptable then?
In other words, at what distribution would you not argue that the distribution itself is evidence of unfairness?
The definition of price doesn't really demonstrate anything.
The Wikipedia entry is titled 'price', but is actually mostly about price theory.
The theory might be sound but the effects of policy unilaterally advantage the capitalist at the expense of the local worker. This is why people feel they are being treated unfairly. They are competing with other groups around the world who haven't caught up yet.
I believe we will eventually progress to the mean here but until then there are people feeling cheated. The trade agreements and bank bailouts did not consider the displacement in the near term and thus has created a growing group that is angry due to feeling that the system is not fair.
I would probably enjoy wealth, yes. However, what I truly desire most would be to understand the Universe. Understand reality. What are we? Are we?(see some of Dr. James Gates work on supersymmetry) So many questions and, it would seem, way too much geopolitical bullshit on this planet to ever truly get any answers.
That's what you say. Biologically we aren't designed that way. We're designed to seek status and achievement as it aids in reproduction. Understanding the universe doesn't help you achieve this goal in anyway. It probably hinders you. Too many people like to think about themselves as robotic savants desiring only to be logical and more intelligent. This is a fantasy story that is somewhat true but side steps the issu…
Don't be absurd, in what reality can you actually believe any being understanding the nature of the Universe could "live like a hobo" whatever the hell that means. If you were truly intelligent you'd understand money is a man made construct that you've been socially engineered to want above all else as a means to control the masses. You honestly just asserted we're hard-wired to want money, sex, of course, but money, preposterous! I view status much the same, some of the world's most powerful individuals operate in complete anonymity, and couldn't care less about the adoration of serfs! While I don't claim to possess world power, I can assure you I do not seek the adoration of the mindless masses.