Which of course leads back to the old question, “But why the fuck is the .gov forcing me to give to their charity?”
Just as the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, the road to socialism is paved with social welfare. The ‘pro’ side argues that some people just plain ol’ need help. They need food to eat, shelter to live in, money for education, etc. Where does it end? Do they ‘deserve’ jobs? Medical care? Daycare?
But I say fuck all of that. People do not inherently deserve to have jobs. Or medical care. Or food. These things, and more, are great when you can afford them, but if not…I should have to pay for their shares? Bullocks.
I have never heard of a hard-working person starving to death in America.
I’m too tired tonight to go into this again in the depth it deserves. Suffice it to say that it’s not my theory-- it’s one of economic theorists. Tomorrow, I’ll dig up more links and let them defend it.
Lissa, as far as I can tell you’ve essentially tried to cover three points with your post. Summarized, from the way I read it, the points you were trying to make were:
The hypothetical scenario I posited, when expanded, can be shown to be a zero-sum arrangement.
The world works similarly, albeit on a grander scale, to the hypothetical scenario. Ergo, it also is a zero-sum arrangement.
An exposition on the nature of capitalism.
I’m going to tackle each of these in a separate post. With a final summary post.
******** The Hypothetical Scenario Continued ********
More efficient productivity and/or services is indeed wealth creation.
Let’s hypothesize 2 ancient towns each populated with 30 individuals. These two towns are situated, by a freak of nature in practically identical valleys albeit 100’s of miles apart. Furthermore these two towns have no contact with anyone outside of their village. Due to the small numbers of people involved in each town no money is used. All exchanges of goods and services are via the time honored method of bartering. In town one each villager makes their own clothing, housing, and food. Each villager is able to accumulate via their own efforts a meager supply of food, huts, and at most a few pairs of clothing. In town two the villagers organize and specialize. Through their efforts everyone is able to have substantially more (and better quality) food, clothing and shelter then town one. That isn’t to say that everyone in town two is equally well fed, clothed and housed. Perhaps there are a few people in town two who are better barterers or that are particularly efficient at their work thus allowing them more leisure time, yet the least “wealthy” citizen of town two is in a substantially better position, materially, then the most affluent member of town one. So, having set out the hypothetical towns I want to point out some things about their status and then ask you a few questions about them.
These hypothetical towns are closed societies. I have created them this way to simplify the example but I wish to point out that they are essentially the same as todays worldwide economy. The difference is only in scale.
The “price” of a given commodity is dependent, as you pointed out, on supply and demand. Where supply meets demand is where the market determines the value of a given commodity or service. In this case the 3 main commodities are food, clothing, and shelter. Since town two has become so proficient in the creation of these 3 commodities the potential supply is greater than the demand. Since excess supply in this case would be wasted the citizens of town two logically create only as much as they need and/or have a demand for. Fulfilling the existing demand leaves the townspeople with a surplus of time to use. Does this lack of demand put people out of work? Hardly. What occurs is that everyone in town two is able receive each of these three commodities at a cheap price (from a bartering standpoint) since the effort to produce them is minimal. The excess time the workers now have is a commodity in it’s own right. It can be used for entertainment, relaxation, pursuing a hobby, coming up with the next innovation in productivity or any number of useful and rewarding activities.
Let’s look at your assertions.
Indeed. Demand, above a certain level, stayed the same. But the increased productivity allowed a greater amount of excess time for the citizens of town two.
Instead of saying widgets let’s say food units. Demand for food units is 30 per day. Yes, town two can potentially create up to 100 food units per day. But why would they? It would be a waste. So, instead, they create 30 food units (the existing demand) and use the other 2/3rds of the day doing something useful… like say mathematics or art.
Assuming John and Jane are citizens of town two, no they are not. Their job is minimally demanding and from their efforts (and the efforts of other citizens in their town) they are afforded a higher quality life then the “wealthiest” member of town one.
Wealth has been created. It should be patently obvious that the citizens of town two are far better off than those from town one.
What “wealth” were you referring to here? Money? Since John and Jane are members of town 2 there is no such thing as money. Money doesn’t exist in this scenario. The only wealth that is meaningful in any sense of the word is in the materials and services one can command. This was true in all ancient cultures prior to the invention of money. It’s still true today. Money was only invented as a useful abstraction of the value of a given commodity or service. It’s invention doesn’t change the underlying fact that the measure of a person’s wealth is in their ability to obtain goods and services.
Tell me who is losing in town two. If you ask me, they’re all winning.
******** The Hypothetical Scenario vis-a-vis the World Economy ********
The valleys have finite resources. Analogy holds so far.
Well… some resources are renewable for these towns. A certain amount of forest is replenished yearly. The streams passing through each valley produce the renewable energy of hydro power for mills (well, mill anyway, since only town two has organized enough to harness this energy for useful purposes). But I agree the the amount of renewable and non-renewable resources has a limit to what can be used on a periodic basis. Analogy continues to hold.
Valley two also may have new outlets for exploiting a resource (the aforementioned mill being a good example). So far so good. But you haven’t indicated how this new outlet isn’t creating wealth. Isn’t easier bread production a material benefit? In what way has this new outlet shifted it’s value away from one of the individuals of town two?
Ok, let’s say the “GDP” of valley two increases. Obviously they don’t use money so the increase in wealth can only be in material goods and services available. There are still 50 people in town two drawing from the town “pot”.
The material wealth has increased. You will need to demonstrate that the “scramble” is the same for town two due to the increase.
Lissa, you say “If I gain, someone must lose. This theory is based on the fact that the resources of the world are finite.” I have to disagree with this on the basis that transactions are based on both sides getting something they value more than the thing they are giving up. If I have a widget and you have a gloober and we decide to trade, it’s because a gloober is worth at least as much as a widget to me, and a widget is worth at least as much as a gloober to you. We both win. Wealth has effectively been created.
If I take $4 and buy a widget and $6 and buy a gloober and I use my skills to put them together into a whatzit which you pay $20 for, you would argue that $20 in wealth has moved from me to you, but clearly it has not: you’ve received a whatzit, which you yourself have decided is worth at least $20. And what we’ve seen is that the closed system went from being worth $40 (my $10 + a $4 widget + a $6 gloober + your $20) to being worth $50 (the $30 cash plus your newly-acquired $20 whatzit).
You may want to argue that this extra value is artificial, and in a way it is. After all, what if I offered instead to sell you 20 grains of sand for $1 each and you accepted? Clearly you’ve been swindled (let’s assume for a moment that there’s not a secret that makes grains of sand actually worth a dollar), and no amount of arguing will convince anyone that you now possess $20 worth of sand. But note that the value of the system has not gone down – it’s stayed the same. You can definitely make the case that wealth has moved from you to me, but I’d argue that this is an extreme case that is for all intents and purposes equivalent to you just deciding, in a complete lapse of judgement, to give me $20 for no reason at all. Most “bad deal” transactions aren’t nearly so lopsided – you were willing to pay $20 for the whatzit because you perceived its value at $21, but you’ve reconsidered and decided that it’s really only worth $19 – you lost a little wealth and learned a little about the whatzit trade (namely, that you shouldn’t pay more than $19 for one).
A zero-sum does not necessarily indicate that there will always be those who have more than others. It simply indicates that the gain of one must be offset with a loss by another. If Jane, Joe, and Mark are all playing a game of keep the marbles and Jane takes one from Joe, Joe takes one from Mark and Mark takes one from Jane who has the most marbles? Assuming they all started with 3 marbles the number they each now own hasn’t changed.
All economic systems allow you to use your existing wealth (note that I did not say money) as a tool to help you obtain more wealth. Your existing “wealth”, in essence, is the resources you command. I would include the tools and diagnostic equipment owned by a mechanic, for example, in any valuation of the “wealth” at his/her command. This, however, is no different from any other economic system ever devised or tried by the human race. Every economic system does this.
Or perhaps your point was that capitalism promotes inequal distribution. Per this quote:
Let’s say the GDP of valley two is 5000 for simplicity’s sake. An equal distribution among the 50 citizens would obviously be 100 per citizen. Due to some inequality in ability and some fickle hand of weather let’s say the wealthiest citizen is worth around 150 with the poorest around 50 and an average of about 100. Let us also state that the annual cost of food, shelter, and clothing is a mere 20. Fast forward a year. Due to good weather, the development of a better axe, and a lack of disease among the herds there is an increase in GDP of 10% resulting in a new GDP of 5500. Let’s say the wealthiest citizen’s worth has increased to around 170 while the poorest citizen’s worth has increased to around 55. Is the distribution of the increase unequal? Yep. No question. Now we answer some questions:
Well, obviously, even the poorest person in the community gained due to the increases in productivity without any person suffering a loss due to said gain.
No. The basis of capitalism is enhancement of efficiency via the better allocation of resources and exchange of information regarding the use of said resources.
Not really very accurate. It would be more accurate to say “A person earning minimum wage has a limited ability to generate wealth. Many minimum wage earners can share expenses and resources in order to secure excess income. This income can be invested, generally speaking, in the same ways that millionaires can. Only the scale differs.”
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In my hypothetical increase in GDP the general increase in the valley economy was indeed disproportionately distributed with the “wealthier” citizens getting a larger share of the increase. However since no individual in the valley suffered a loss to offset the increase it isn’t possible for their economy to be zero-sum.
The pie as wealth metaphor is very poor unless you allow that ever larger pies can be produced from the same effort and resources due to increases in efficiency. If you increase the pie size by 100% but only take 10% of the increased amount leaving 90% of the increase for the other 15 people you haven’t taken anything from anyone else. Everyone sharing in the pie has more then they had before.
This is incorrect for the very same reasons that your pie metaphor is. It doesn’t allow for increases in efficiency.
I’m too tired at this point (and I assume ya’ll are tired of hearing from me) to give the wrap up a really thorough and concise summary so I’ll just ask you these questions Lissa:
Which town’s people are wealthier, one or two? (Remember, they don’t use money)
Why is that town wealthier? (Remember, they don’t use money)
Has the wealth of the richest member of that town come at the expense of the poorest? (Remember, they don’t use money)
Are we, as a worldwide society, more wealthy (material objects, leisure time, better health, etc.) on the whole today than we were (again, as a whole) say 50,000 years ago?
If we are more wealthy today and since we didn’t use money 50,000 years ago what accounts for the increase in that wealth?
If we are more wealthy today (even though we are much more populous) doesn’t it stand to reason that real “wealth” has been created and not simply redistributed over the past 50 millennia?
It blasts the idea of trickle-down economics (which rightfully deserves to be blasted) and then assumes it’s destroyed the idea that wealth is zero-sum. Ok, it’s right: making wealthy people wealthier does not make poor people wealthier. The question remains: does making wealthy people wealthier necessarily make poor people poorer? It uses some extreme examples and carefully-chosen statistics to attempt to shock us into thinking so, but it really doesn’t make its case.
For example: Home ownership equals wealth, so let’s look at home ownership trends. Well, let’s see, we have two data points: 1980=52% and 1988=45%. Difficult to draw a conclusion there, since for all I know it’s explained away by natural market fluctuations, so let’s also throw in a completely meaningless statistic that in 1990, only 24% of renters were in a situation where they could have bought a home if they wanted to. The obvious conclusion we’re supposed to draw from three seemingly-related decreasing percentages in a row is Holy God This Is Out Of Control – eventually nobody will be able to afford a house. What I want to know, in the name of Good Statistics Usage, is what percentage of renters were in such a position in 1980 and 1988? How do we know it isn’t smaller? And how about using a reasonable number of data points to establish a trend? And wait a minute: in 1990, one quarter of all renters could afford to buy a home, and yet they chose not to? Doesn’t that hint that “home ownership = wealth” is wee bit oversimplified?
The entire article consists of 1) anecdotal stories of ridiculous extremes, 2) spurious statistical correlations (mobile home sales have increased, ergo, so has poverty), and 3) emotional statements simply designed to equate “rich” and “evil”.
Feel free, I do not need your help. I have disability insurance and health insurance, as does my wife, and we both work. We are debt free except for the mortage (and it is closing on zero rapidly), and we have enough savings to carry us at least a year without either of us working (and many more years if we broke open the retirement accounts). We could live just fine on either salary if we desired.
What’s your excuse for relying on my taxes to carry your lazy a$$? I paid $36k in federal taxes last year to support leaches like yourself. I hope you die in a field so my taxes will go down.
That’s why these people should not be allowed to have children. I truly do not mind feeding the kids who have no food, or sheltering those who have no shelter. In fact, it is imperative to our societies health that we do so, for all the reasons that the liberal on this thread have raised. However, that does not mean that the baby factories (male and female) that pump out kids they do not want to raise should be allowed to have more. If the public has to raise your children, your baby producing days should be over (yes I mean involuntary sterilization).
No, I am not a nazi, just pissed about these child abusers. I no, I do not think there should be a minimum income level for having kids. My grandparents raised my father and uncles on nothing (migrant farm-workers), and the kids turned out to be productive, law-abiding citizens (Including one uncle with a Ph.D). But if you want me to pay, you can kiss my a$$.
Hell, if you want to you can feed a family of four for $5/month, which you can get in one day of begging at a street corner. Check out the prices of staples (rice, beans, cooking oil, flour, sugar). The only reason to be hungry in america today is stupidity (if you are an adult) or parents that do not want to feed you (if you are a child).
I disagree with monstro occasionally (though I haven’t specifically addressed anything to her in this thread). Even though this is the pit I feel that last sentence was out of line.
Grim_Beaker, there is some truth to what you are saying on a micro level. But your scenario cannot be compared to world economy. It’s apples and oranges. Yes, there are examples in which everyone in a community can gain from advancement, but you’re not taking into account some basic human frailties. There is always going to be one person (or more) who wishes to control the money-making production.
I wasn’t trying to argue that * wealth * cannot be created (if I gave that impression, I’m sorry) only that it will be inequally distributed. * Resources* cannot be created. They can be replenished to a certain extent, such as replanting a forest, but, again, the total amount of resources on the planet is limited.
Also, not all human beings are more well-off than they were, say, in the middle ages. “Peasants” in third-world countries are still living in much the same conditions as they were 400 years ago. Our nation is an exception in the world economy. We are extremely wealthy because of the amount of resources available in our country. A country with little resources to exploit will be an impoverished one. Or, worse, if there are resources, but they are completely in the hands of a powerful and wealthy few, such as the case of Iraq, or the African diamond mines.
Yes, wealth has been re-distributed over the past few millenia, at least to a certain extent. Insetad of hoarding the wealth as kings did in gold plates and diamonds sewn onto their clothes, we have become a consumer-driven society. There are more goods to buy, and thus, money is flowing more freely than it did in the past. We have also become an industrial society where people get wages which we spend on the goods we need and want, rather than relying on the sale of crops, and living off of what they could produce on a farm.
As to your question about more leisure time as compared to 50,000 years ago, I have seen some anthropologists who assert that hunter-gatherer societies had much more leisure time than we do today. Groups being smaller, less crops needed to be grown. Prey animals were more plentiful, and larger. (A mammoth could probably feed the tribe for a very long time.) Without jobs, errands to run and houses to keep spotless, they had much more “free time.”
Jean Auel’s * Clan of the Cave Bear * series has some very interesting assertions as to what tribes may have felt was “wealth.” Owning beautifully dyed hides, baskets and wooden bowls constituted wealth. As time progressed, other items came to symbolize wealth, such as gold. In a cashless society, ownership of items is wealth. And again, there will always be those members of the tribe who own more bowls, hides or cattle than other members. This is basic human nature: to want more than the next guy has. (This was one of the reasons why communism failed.)
Chances are, if they continue to play, that eventually, one of the players will lose all of his marbles, and one player may end up with all of them.
The zero-sum game does not require that some have more than others: capitalism, and basic human nature do.
Still, as the pie becomes larger so does the size of the piece that the wealthy takes. Just compare what was considered a “rich” man a couple of hundred years ago to today’s standard. A millionaire was considered fabulously wealthy. Today, when we think of “rich” we think of a billionaire. The pie may have gotten larger, but so has the size of the piece that the rich have taken.
Guys, this is an incredibly complex issue. I’m not an economist, and I don’t claim to be one. I am not an expert in the ins-and-outs of the capitalistic system. All I can do is relate what I have been taught, and try to help others understand it. I’m not a teacher, either, and I’m fully able to get into all of the details which would be needed to make this concept fully clear. As I said before, many long books have been written discussing this subject, and I’d probably need to write another to fully explore it.
As complex as it is, it’s very difficult to discuss over the internet. Most people have to take lengthy courses in economics to fully understand the implications. I doubt highly that I can possibly convey them to you in this manner.
Also, I suggest that if anyone wants to discuss this further, they should start a new thread in GD, rather than take this one further on what has already become a lenghty hijack from the main subject.
Please refer to the STICKIED thread RIGHT AT THE TOP of this very forum, where any asshole can clearly see it. It’s appropriately titled: Wishing death on someone… and begins with the following directive from Forum Administrator Lynn Bodoni:
P.S. Yosemitebabe, this is what I’m talking about. I sincerely wish we lived in a world where there wasn’t so much mouth-foaming hatred towards other human beings. I would like nothing more than to believe that kindness and compassion amongst humans would be so overwhelmingly prevalent that no widowed mother of 4, no abused teenager, no abandoned wife, no mentally ill or physically disabled person would go unclothed, unfed and uncared-for. Alas, my stomach sickens when I realize that the Pius Aeneas’s and culture’s of our world are far too many and far too angry and hateful to even dare to dream that could be a reality.
It is very interesting that the bulk of this debate has focused upon all those undeserving, shiftless, penny-snatching welfare dole-lees, when the OP also mentioned that veterans and medicare recipients were also being stripped of benefits. Should the care of vets and senior citizens be relegated to charities also? Should those living with disabilities that are incompatible with working just hope and pray that the kindness of strangers will keep precious calories on the table?
If so, why is that a reasonable expectation, based on what we know about ourselves at present?
All these people talking about the government stealing tax dollars…get a fucking grip and a clue. What constitutes stealing and what doesn’t is all subjective; it makes no sense to whine that welfare represents stealing when it is based on the idea that its funds come from unwilling pockets. If you believe that all tax money is extracted implicitly by force anyway, then show me what government program isn’t funded by “stolen” money. The fact that that word has been bandied about so much as if it actually means something says a lot about the mentality crippling us as a nation right now. The person who laments about having his money “stolen” to give a fucking kindergardner a two dollar lunch is not someone who I would trust to donate to charities devoted to helping the poor. Sorry if that makes me a cynic.
Compared to other nations of similar wealth, we are behind the times in terms of social welfare. And yet isn’t it interesting that we also have thehighest prison population in the industrial world? The scales are glaringly out of balance here, and I don’t think they will right themselves without government intervention.
We are all affected by poverty. Not just the poor. Welfare means about as much to the protection of society as military defense does.
But, you in the face, the fact that we have the largest prison population is precisely due to government intervention, namely the government’s insane War on Drugs.
Look at how many of those prisoners are behind bars for the ghastly cirmes of smoking and growing marijuana.
And of course, since you’re working now, you’re practically guaranteed to be working tomorrow. Especially since the economy has never been in better shape, right? Hopefully there’s some wood nearby for you to knock on because you just set yourself up for one mighty Life Lesson of the Shit Happens Variety.
Would you like a chicken-flavored scooby snack, or do you prefer beef? I ask because obviously you’re searching for some kind of reward or recognition for this awesome display of responsible fiscalness of yours, and something tells me a gentle pat on the head and a “good boy” won’t be enough to placate your ego. So which will it be. Chicken or beef?
The point of my post is that we have too much government intervention on one side and not enough on another. My feeling is that if we shift more attention to social welfare, maybe we won’t have to pump precious tax-dollars into more prisons. Take some of the money given to the War on Drugs and give it to programs designed to make povery less of a hellish experience. I believe wholeheartedly that prevention is much more important than treating symptoms. The War on Drugs is like spending billions of dollars on a cough suppressant instead of a vaccine.
Slashing welfare when the economy is struggling may not make people poor, but it will make being poor that much more devastating. That translates into more crime, more prisons, more cops, more court cases clogging up the system, higher insurance premiums, depreciated real estate value, troubled schools…more problems that everyone will have to pay for whether they want to or not. I don’t want to keep ranting on and on about this, but the pathogenesis of crime is obvious to me and I don’t understand why others just don’t get it. It is obvious to me that things will get worse–not better–if the goverment chooses to be indifferent to poor people. It makes no sense.
And selling it, don’t forget that. The people who get arrested selling the stuff tend not to be people with 401k plans and health insurance. It’s the poor. And it’s counter-intuitive to believe that the poor will find less of a reason to sell drugs when welfare is cut, so I can’t imagine that the crime rate will do anything but increase as a result of Bush’s tax plan.
You’re right – the frothy libertarians and Randroids don’t do themselves any favors by stating their case in terms of things being “taken by force” or “stolen” or being “enslaved” by others, because, while, in a sense, those are technically correct terms, most people aren’t willing to go to that logical extreme, and instead just hear the rantings of a wacko and wonder how anyone could equate “raising taxes” with “putting a gun to my head.” You can’t convince anyone to stop “stealing” from you if what they’re doing doesn’t fall under the widely-accepted definition of “stealing” in their interpretation.
I don’t know if you ever have the hope of convincing enough people that it’s not the government’s place to forcibly make everyone participate in charity, and I actually don’t care. I can really go either way on the issue, because I really and truly believe that forced charity is not the right thing to do, but I also have the pragmatic view that a society without it, while extremely just, might not be a very pleasant place even for the wealthy.
My beef with the way the system currently works is that one person’s contribution can never be “enough”. My hard work has put an awful lot of money into social programs, and I feel pretty good about that because I think they’re worthwhile. But now I’m wondering if I’m going to even be able to finance my own old age. It feels as though some of my money has been deemed “excess” and redirected to needy folks, when it’s not excess at all, and it very well could be old-aged me that ends up being the needy one.
