These people are our future

[IowaSkinsFan]

Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....

Really, it's everything. I think you misunderstand my point. Yes you're right that when somebody purchases something they are expressing some level of value to it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it, right?), but my point has to do with the real value of that purchase, which is something that people don't fully know.

If every time you bought something at Walmart, you were shown a video of a 6 year old in a Chinese sweatshop, I'm pretty sure you'd rethink your purchase, as would everybody. This is one of the 'values' of the purchase, but it is proxy enough that most of us are not cognizant of it.

Also, in a real free market, it's arguable that it would be impossible to ever get mega wealthy. A free market is much different than corporatism. In a free market that cares about keeping itself fully free for all enterprise, we would see a ton of regulation that effectively redistributes power and wealth from the more successful in order to provide the same opportunity for the fresh and young.

Don't be fooled by what they tell you, US doesn't really have a free market, and in order to actually have a free market you need tons of regulations to keep it free.

First off, explain how any of the things you mentioned are examples of people getting rich without the voluntary exchange of a good or service.

Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government. What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.

I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government. I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?

[wufwugy]

First off, explain how any of the things you mentioned are examples of people getting rich without the voluntary exchange of a good or service.

I sorta side stepped that in order to address the bigger picture and because it's a straw man. The only time you can't find some level of voluntary exchange for something else is when it's completely forced, but this doesn't mean that we live in a force vs choice dichotomy or anything. There's much more going on

Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government.

Actually, public sector regulation against monopolized private abuse is pretty much the final respite.

What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.

Yes, public sector attention to transparency is very important, but sadly, it's way too important for private industry as well as governmental corruption to keep this away, and that's why it hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.

I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information. US regulation and taxes and 'intervention' into business are substantially lower than they have ever been, and we know for demonstrable fact that things are much better with increased regulation etc

I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?

I've been trying to explain this. Economics is not an open system, there is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, and the entire systems runs based on how wealth flows. Because wealth naturally flows up, artificial redistribution is necessary for the health of the non-upper class and overall economy. This is very well documented in economic history. It's just that we don't believe it because the propaganda machines incessantly spew lies about how we need supply side trickle down, they're the job creators, and other false garbage. The evidence could not be more clear that our problems are due to too much money and power at the top, yet apparently that doesn't stop the general public from imagining that's not the problem but the solution

[IowaSkinsFan]

I sorta side stepped that in order to address the bigger picture and because it's a straw man. The only time you can't find some level of voluntary exchange for something else is when it's completely forced, but this doesn't mean that we live in a force vs choice dichotomy or anything. There's much more going on

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So your saying there isn't an example but its irrelevant because there's much more going on? Like what?


Actually, public sector regulation against monopolized private abuse is pretty much the final respite.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

Yes, public sector attention to transparency is very important, but sadly, it's way too important for private industry as well as governmental corruption to keep this away, and that's why it hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.

I disagree, there is tons of transparency. Is there something about Wal-mart for example that damns them that the public couldn't find out about? Information transparency doesn't have to be done publicly either, I would gladly pay, and it would likely be cheap, to get information on business I buy goods from.


I'm not sure where you're getting this information. US regulation and taxes and 'intervention' into business are substantially lower than they have ever been, and we know for demonstrable fact that things are much better with increased regulation etc

I don't really care if its lower or higher than the past. There is still tons of taxes, control, and regulation. And show me the demonstrable facts.


I've been trying to explain this. Economics is not an open system, there is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, and the entire systems runs based on how wealth flows. Because wealth naturally flows up, artificial redistribution is necessary for the health of the non-upper class and overall economy. This is very well documented in economic history. It's just that we don't believe it because the propaganda machines incessantly spew lies about how we need supply side trickle down, they're the job creators, and other false garbage. The evidence could not be more clear that our problems are due to too much money and power at the top, yet apparently that doesn't stop the general public from imagining that's not the problem but the solution

This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game. I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.

There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.

Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So your saying there isn't an example but its irrelevant because there's much more going on? Like what?

Well, I didn't say that. I said you asked me to explain a straw man, then I alluded to the inadvertent false dichotomy of either voluntary or involuntary that you're beginning to get into. Do I really need to explain how economic activity is determined and affected by more than voluntary input?

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

I was pointing out the only way we know how to fight child labor abuse

I disagree, there is tons of transparency. Is there something about Wal-mart for example that damns them that the public couldn't find out about? Information transparency doesn't have to be done publicly either, I would gladly pay, and it would likely be cheap, to get information on business I buy goods from.

Transparent yet still behind the bushes. Great. The reality is that there is strong push against policy that brings abuse out to light, and they're winning

I don't really care if its lower or higher than the past. There is still tons of taxes, control, and regulation. And show me the demonstrable facts.

This paragraph is self-contradictory. You can't deny frame of reference then claim quantification on that frame of reference. And you can't ignore evidence then claim to want evidence

As far as providing the facts, you need to follow the work of people who know what they're doing. People like Stiglitz or Krugman. Here's one illustration demonstrating the role of top rate taxation and median purchasing power



This isn't my style because it's a gimmick to think you can browse an issue and easily understand it. If you want the real stuff, go watch ten hours of lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Finding the information is very easy. Understanding it or not buying the lies, is the hard part

This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game.

I didn't use correct phrasing, I wasn't meaning to imply exact balance in economics, but that at each point in time there is a particular finite amount of wealth located in specific regions of the economy. Which is true.

I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.

You're misunderstanding me. Wealth flows up because of demand. The less wealth in the lower brackets, the less demand. Period. Upper wealth brackets are systemically incapable of providing the amount of demand as lower brackets

There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.

See dude, this is just simply not true. If it was true then the wealth gap would not have been increasing for the last three decades.

Also, the rich you're talking about isn't the rich I'm talking about. It's well documented that the mega wealthy are hoarding trillions. Not to mention, the more wealth increases, the more relative spending decreases. It's individually prudent, but harmful economically when taken too far.

It's not coincidence that of the most populous nations, the strongest median classes have the most top-rate taxation, regulation, and social programs

Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.

I'm not referring to any of that, I'm referring to the stuff for which we have the most evidence. Our best idea of our problems causes are not different than my statements. I don't make this stuff up, I mainly just reiterate the information that comes from the most qualified sources