Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[MadMojoMonkey]

Maybe you should elaborate on what these pockets are. Did you mean when someone enters into a relationship, it enhances their value? Okay, I can get behind that, but again, consent is crucial to the equation.

Pockets can vary. A family sharing all resources. A company with a store room of paperclips and other supplies that are freely available to employees. Communities with parks or other building projects. Complicated "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" arrangements between businessmen or politicians.

All of these are exchanges of a good or service for an unspecified, non-capitalized amount. The economics of those interactions are, as you put it, based on the contractual agreement, perhaps unspoken or implicit.

I'm not sure informed consent is crucial. Which makes a world of difference. People are victimized by hidden information in personal and business dealings all the time. I'm not talking about someone lacking their own due diligence. So I see there is a boundary of trust involved in where the pockets extend.

Is that the only factor?

I don't believe it can be stated that there are pockets within a capitalist framework wherein coercion enhances value.

Arrest is coercion. Imprisonment is coercion. Wufwugy would likely argue that taxation is coercion.

I felt you were implying that a system where everyone voluntarily agrees to all exchanges of resources was necessarily one in which punishments and rewards are sometimes based on factors outside of the control of the actors. Did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Of course, this is what a capitalistic society is, and of course, that is true of capitalistic societies. And it is fair and just by a reasonable interpretation of the definitions of those words.

You jumped to the conclusion that I have any conclusions. I'm still asking questions. This topic is overwhelming. You have a massive head start on me.

I'm very much trying to acknowledge my ignorance of these matters. I'm trying to establish a baseline of sorts. As I was reading this thread, I felt like there's this often one-sided stance taken by various posters. I think you all make some good points. I'm struggling to piece a coherent picture of it all.

Frankly, if I put forth any opinion in this thread as far as a plan for society, I would almost definitely regret it within hours. If anything, it should be considered the idle musings of someone who's in over their head. I'm mostly trying to clear up some of my more mundane assumptions.

You need first to establish why it is unjust for two people to have different levels of wealth from birth. Not state it as a given. It is a fact of life that fortunes are distributed unevenly. Life is risk, the concepts are inseparable. And its not only with wealth. Some of us are born with favorable genetics. Two children may be born with enormous worldly wealth but one has shitty parents who don't hug him enough. He grows up to be a neurotic mess. Does the state need to enforce hugs as well?

That's a fair point. It's complicated, perhaps self-contradictory. I think it's unjust for people to be treated differently under the law for factors which are beyond their control. I believe it's an individual's right to seek wealth and share it with whomever they choose. There may be contradictions in there. Especially as pertains to raising a family.

Historically, what has been the counter to growing wealth disparity?

Actually, no. We're drifting off topic of the notion that a strictly capitalistic society has never been practiced. Within the society there are other socioeconomic nuances.

What the benefits of those nuances?
Is a single economic methodology truly viable on a worldwide scale?
Is the choice of an economic methodology a function of resource pressures, such as geopolitical stability or access to technology, etc.?

It seems like even within a chosen methodology (I don't know the right word), there will be pockets where other dynamics provide advantages.

If you want to make a case for states to subsidize the poor, it needs to be from a different point of view than social justice. An economic case needs to be made that this actually benefits society. At the very least it needs to benefit the poor people you mean to help. In most cases the anti-poverty measures even fail at that. In other cases, the programs simply increase the population growth of the poor by directly incentivizing single motherhood. If the aim is to even the playing field and smooth out the variance of being born, then the methods need to be subtle. The state is never subtle.

I really don't want to talk about subsidizing the poor. I agree that the case needs to be made that it benefits society in the long-term / big picture.

I'm intrigued by your point at the end, there.

[Renton]

Pockets can vary. A family sharing all resources. A company with a store room of paperclips and other supplies that are freely available to employees. Communities with parks or other building projects. Complicated "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" arrangements between businessmen or politicians.

All of these are exchanges of a good or service for an unspecified, non-capitalized amount. The economics of those interactions are, as you put it, based on the contractual agreement, perhaps unspoken or implicit.

I'm not sure informed consent is crucial. Which makes a world of difference. People are victimized by hidden information in personal and business dealings all the time. I'm not talking about someone lacking their own due diligence. So I see there is a boundary of trust involved in where the pockets extend.

Is that the only factor?

Only consent is crucial. Informed consent is preferred for a "perfect" economy, but it is not required. Say you're the owner of a plot of land rich with oil, and you have no idea. You go on for decades not knowing the true value of your land. I'm an experienced oil speculator who knows there's an excellent chance your land has oil, and I offer to buy your land without making you aware of my intentions for its use. We agree to an amount that is consistent with your (probably incorrect) valuation of the land. Then I find the oil and get rich from it.

Basically your post says that I victimized you here because I had hidden information. In reality I increased the wealth of the human race by tapping into a resource you had no idea about. Should I have been a good samaritan and said "dude, dig a well on your property, trust me"? Shouldn't I profit from the expertise I offered to this problem?

That's a fair point. It's complicated, perhaps self-contradictory. I think it's unjust for people to be treated differently under the law for factors which are beyond their control.

I couldn't agree more. I think the law should treat everyone the same as well. I think the misunderstanding is that you're relating "equal treatment under the law" with having an equal amount of stuff as everyone else. A wealth disparity can exist and the law still treat everyone equally.

Historically, what has been the counter to growing wealth disparity?

To paint in extremely broad strokes, unfettered capitalism likely increases the wealth of the rich more quickly than that of the poor. The problem with assessing this as a negative is that it ignores the fact that the entire pie which is the economy also grows. Basically the more stuff there is in the world (stuff being goods, offered services, capital instruments, collective knowledge, etc.), the richer we all are. So the poor person gets an ever-smaller slice of the pie in terms of radians, but an ever-larger slice in terms of area. The empirical data largely agrees with this.

Actually, no. We're drifting off topic of the notion that a strictly capitalistic society has never been practiced. Within the society there are other socioeconomic nuances.

What the benefits of those nuances?
Is a single economic methodology truly viable on a worldwide scale?
Is the choice of an economic methodology a function of resource pressures, such as geopolitical stability or access to technology, etc.?

I'm not a historian, but I'm sure there's a reasonable case to be made that traditional state functionality was important to pre-information age society. I think the changes that are being made just in my generation alone are momentous enough to warrant shedding many of our institutions. It is scarcely imaginable what innovations may emerge in the next 100 years to completely revolutionize how we organize our society.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not a historian, but I'm sure there's a reasonable case to be made that traditional state functionality was important to pre-information age society. I think the changes that are being made just in my generation alone are momentous enough to warrant shedding many of our institutions. It is scarcely imaginable what innovations may emerge in the next 100 years to completely revolutionize how we organize our society.

How has the game changed?

We may be in a new environment, but we still act the same as we always have.

http://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/do...an_inpress.pdf

[Renton]

How has the game changed?

We may be in a new environment, but we still act the same as we always have.

http://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/do...an_inpress.pdf

I think technology is interconnecting us in a way that will allow the market to handle a lot of things we previously thought not possible. Of course human frailty hasn't changed at all, but I don't think the institutions are doing a particularly good job at safeguarding us from that. It will express itself regardless of how we organize society.