Calls to tax the superrich grow as economic inequality surges
Calls to tax the superrich grow as economic inequality surges
Billionaires have seen their wealth expand by 109 percent over the past decade as their fortunes increase $2.7bn a day.
You're viewing a single thread.
Trickle down never worked, this is end game capitalism, something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess.
Capitalism naturally ends up in this position. That's why it's so hard to "fix" -- to those at the top, nothing is wrong.
Exactly, capitalism is economic perpetual motion, you can't have exponential growth in a finite system.
I might be wrong, but I think you mean infinite growth in a finite system.
You can have exponential growth in a finite system can't you? As exponential is just that it gets faster and faster compared to linearly increasing variables.
I guess at some point growth has to stop being exponential in a finite system, but the same can be argued for linear growth I think.
Yeah I agree. It's still called exponential growth, even if it's temporary.
True, should be more like exponential growth in perpetuity or something but you get the idea.
Yes. Simple math.
And yet you already got a downvote for it.
It's not regulated properly, that's the problem
But those regulations are constantly labeled as "anticapitalist" -- because they are.
Why is it so wrong to poke at the inner workings of capitalism? Why must it be infallible?
Because the people benefiting from its brokenness aren't ready to stop salting the earth for numbers.
...I think you may have misread my comment.
I'm saying it's broken and asking why it should be accepted as infallible.
I thought they were just agreeing with you, FWIW
You're right - but I can see how the tone was interpreted as oppositional, I could have worded it differently to direct that more clearly. No harm afaik, lol.
Regulation and reform isn't anti-capitalist though.
"Real" anti-capitalism lies in the realisation that this system cannot be reformed, the status quo must be dismantled if we ever want to move past it and truly work towards values of freedom and equality.
That distinction would be a hard sell for most capitalists I know. Regulation itself is seen as tampering with the "free market", and therefore anticapitalist.
Unfortunately for capitalists, the "free market" isn't the defining (nor exclusive) feature of capitalism. Profit and private ownership is.
Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment. What's going on though, with unchecked companies and laughable fines, ruins the whole thing. In its current state, capitalism will be our undoing, but with proper laws, regulations and oversight, it could work.
The problem is, corps have grown too powerful already and can blackmail governments. It's like other models that could work in theory, but never benefit the people in the end. Communism tends to lead to tyranny, for example.
People are just really shit at designing and running big societies.
Capitalism isn't trading good for/with currency though. Socialist and Communist societies would still use currency as it is a lot easier than bartering everything. And in Socialists society, you can still have lending and investments.
Capitalism is the means of production and trade owned by private entities (be it a person or a corporation) to make profits.
You are right though, inevitably, capitalism leads to consolidation and monopolies which we see today.
This "barter" economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It's a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.
In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.
The proper term you are looking for is "gift economy" and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.
It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.
TIL that during the 16th to 19th centuries the aristocrats benefited from a "gift economy" because no one who ever says this knows what Mercantilism was.
Where did I mention the 16th or 19th centuries? And mercantilism was 100% not a barter economy. It was a form of market economy controlled by the state.... so I'm pretty sure it's you who misunderstands what mercantilism is.
Mercantilism was purely extractive, and thus completely immoral, I agree. However, trade does predate capitalism because capitalism was not a nominal economic system at the time and mercantilist countries traded with one another.
Trade is not barter. And if it involved coinage or it isn't barter. It's a form of market economy.
Market Economy ≠ Barter
Trading with currency is the basis for capitalism. Capitalism is lending/investing. When you don't have any actual wares at hand, but currency, virtual value, you trade for higher future virtual value.
You could barter cows and still be in a capitalistic society. It just wouldn't be
Currency is just a way to simplify a transaction. I have a cow thatis valued at 100$. I get 100$ that I then spend on whatever. I don't need to trade a cow for a 100 eggs, then keep 10 eggs and trade for butters.
Lending isn't inherently capitalistic. I can lend a 100$ to my friend to start a business and he gives me back a 100$ after a time, no interest.
Communism is when the government steals your cows and gives you back the milk as rations.
Capitalism is when you have somebody milk the cow for you and then you sell the milk and get rich and everyone calls you Mr Milkman the Millionaire.
As you can see capitalism is a much preferable system.
Colonial America enters the chat
let me bootstrap our national bank by using slaves a collateral.
Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment.
That's commerce. Commerce predates capitalism, by a lot.
Capitalism also involves other things that go beyond basic commerce, such as systems of property law to incorporate quasi-sovereignty to capital ownership. That's more or less where we get the default model of businesses as de facto dictatorships ruled by the owner, vs. being democracies organized by stakeholders or participants. It's a big, deep subject that's unfortunately talked about in reductionist terms a lot. It's probably not helpful that a lot of early (and recent) scholarship on capitalism seems to frame itself as revelation of the nature of capital and markets, as if capital and markets are natural forces and not man-made things.
This last bit- treating capital and economics as if they were laws of nature (instead of being contrived by men)- does a lot of work to obfuscate fundamental systems of power, which in turn helps keep that power unaccountable. One major source of tension between capitalism and socialism has to do with whether the sovereignty of ownership ought to be democratized or subject to democratic accountabilities.
Some examples of being subject to democratic authority is basic labor protections, the 40 hour work week, safety regulations- if the voters impose on employers the requirement that employers provide a safe working environment, it's a counterweight to the general notion that owning the business makes one king of everything in that sphere- that is, it subordinates capital to the authority of the polity in which it operates.
I don't think you understand how concentrated power causes society to serve the few over the many.
As long as the disparity in wealth (power) grows, more people are incentivized to serve fewer. It's why we see the government controlled by the wealthy. It will always be this way (and get worse) so long as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.
This is by design.
Capitalism isn't infallible. Externalities to capitalism are well-understood.
The problem is that the particular criticism being leveled there is nonsensical. We don't live within a finite system. New avenues of growth are constantly appearing, in both "typical" production methods and, most especially, service sector.
The idea that capitalism even requires infinite "growth" is problematic because "growth" is indefinable in the way this criticism is being leveled.
To add on, this criticism is generally leveled by "de-growth" elements of socialists/communists, who also cannot explain why those systems don't also require "growth" to provide for increasing numbers of people or how "growth" can be offset aside from simply not providing enough resources for people, which has unpleasant undertones.
You're splitting hairs about what people call growth when the term is used most commonly to refer to the ROI and the issue with sustainable business. A perfectly sustainable business is viewed unfavorably if it doesn't generate increased revenue beyond inflation. I.e. a company makes a revenue jump but no "new profits", it gets sandbagged.
The coop business model says "profits" get returned to member/owners as capital credits. Everyone employed can still do really well, members get value for their money, and investors can go fuck themselves.
We need more co-ops.
All* businesses that don't make money are viewed unfavorably because they aren't succeeding.
*Except, ironically, businesses buoyed by investment capital
You have been banned from c/Conservative.
Exactly. Capitalism is, ultimately, a variant of the Pirate Game, which has some spectacularly unintuitive results.
Of course, unfortunately, replace the word "capitalism" with pretty much every at scale economic "system", and you get similar results: some group granted authority and power over the rest and "everythings fine" even when they are not.
You just described all major human societies over the ages. The issue is corruption and exploitation regardless of the core sociopolitical idealogy.
Trickle down didn't work in the 1980's or anytime after that.
Trickle down did work in the 1940's, 1950's, and most of the 1960's, it just wasn't called "trickle down" at that time.
The difference was a punitively high tax rate that nobody actually paid, because they found better ways to spend their excess revenue than simply giving it to Uncle Sam.
It turns out that when the richest among us are forced to spend instead of lend, the rest of us finally start to earn fair wages.
Well, that's not really "trickle down" as championed by Reagan, that's more "use it or lose it". He wanted to reduce those crazy high tax rates to give the rich the choice of whether to keep the money for later or to spend it now, with "trickle down" being the phrase to tell people that it's fine, it'll make it's way out to everyone else... eventually?
Yeah, that and the "rising tide lifts all boats". He neglected to consider that most of us had "run aground" between the 60's and 80's.
It only worked for white people, not people of color
People of color were certainly repressed during this time frame, but not because of punitive tax rates on the highest incomes.
I can't think of any mechanism wherein people of color in the 1940s through the mid 1960s would have been better off if rich people were taxed lower. So, I would have to disagree with your assessment: The confiscatory top-tier tax rate did, indeed, benefit people of color, just not nearly enough to offset the harms of legislated segregation and institutional racism.
something else needs to be added to this mix to fix this mess
Could Universal Basic Income play a role in this?
Band aid solution. The system remains unchanged. The billionaires still make their profits off of the backs of you and me.
UBI wouldn't aim to get rid of billionaires since they would also receive payments. But it would help get rid of poverty, no?
By itself, probably not. I mean, it's not a bad idea, but it would probably just drive inflation through the roof.
The part of UBI that would be most beneficial would be the tax structure needed to pay for it. The wealthiest among us would go out of their way to avoid such taxation, and in doing so, they would buy more, spend more, charge less. All the activities they undertake to avoid taxation end up as income to the people they buy from.
Well at least after AI and robots replace a good portion of the workforce, detaching happy, educated citizens from the societies money flow.
My guess is gouverment by powerful corporation and people unable to adapt dying in gutters, rather that universal income.
There was a "this day in history" tidbit a day or two because it was the anniversary of the last guillotine execution.
The last so far.
Well there was this guy called Karl Marx, who tried to suggest solutions to the problems of capitalism.
...but I hear he's not trending these days. Wrong kind of people liked his stuff.
Actually socialism is more popular now than ever. Enough that mainstream media constantly writes scare articles about how socialist the young generations are.
The media thinking they can threaten me with a good time...
That's what the media has always done. It's just that in this age it's the easiest it's ever been to see past red scare propaganda.
"Socialism" in the form of government regulations and healthcare is popular. Not so much Marxism or proleterian revolution
I think you're seriously underestimating what most young socialists believe. It is true that they don't believe in revolution, but many of them change when they grow older and they lose faith in the system. I'm confident that will keep happening.
I'm a millennial communist - though in any practical sense, I'm socialist. I've got very little faith in the system beyond it's ability to act on its self-interest, but (as much as I'd like to believe otherwise) I believe revolution isn't a sustainable way to bring about the change we want.
Revolution before we put in the groundwork to level wealth inequality will inevitably lead to power imbalance, and a likely collapse into autocracy. On the negative side, we see the likes of China and the USSR - massive death, famine, corruption, and a failure to deliver on the promise of worker enfranchisement. The most positive example I can think of is Cuba.
I want revolution to be a practical path forward - it brings the change we need quickly when we don't have the time to wait and incremental transition will be all but impossible at this point, but I'd need to be convinced it won't almost certainly lead to a worse state. What would be different about this revolution that would see it go right (or what examples am I missing?)
What would be different about this revolution that would see it go right (or what examples am I missing?)
I would say there's no way revolutions of today will go in exactly the same path as before. Remember that China's and Russia's revolutions happened in extermely rural, agrarian, over exploited and basically completely ruined countries. If there's a revolution in the global north, just the difference in conditions and systems is already going to make a huge difference. But even if it happens in the global south, most of it is at least partially industrialized and not agrarian, as far as I know.
Anyway, other than that, I can't really give you an objective, unbiased answer. I was actually the same as you a couple of years ago, actually. I had the same concerns as you. I think you would really resonate with anarchist theory, analysis and critique of past revolutions, if you're interested in digging into it.
I haven't seen much to encourage me in more recent 'colour' revolutions and the Arab spring either. I figure I'd be more receptive if the history of this kind of thing (while circumstantially different) want near-universally bad.
Funnily enough, I feel my argument is based on anarchist principles (though I haven't read the theory) - if we don't address the practical power disparities created by wealth disparities, it'll be near impossible to fight the formation of less democratic hierarchies than we have today.
Whatever the case, this is a motivation for me to pull my finger out and go read Kropotkin though - cheers.
Kropotkin is a nice start, though if you want an introduction I think Errico Malatesta's work is a lot better for that. The essay "Anarchy" is short for leftist standards and is very good. Also "At the cafe" is honestly an amazing introduction piece and it's written in a regular language as socratic dialogues, so it's perfect for starting. It even adresses a lot of counter arguments from many perspectives.
Otherwise Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloo is also amazing.
While we might not agree on the methods, I appreciate you!
I'll look in to those.
Socialism isn't, but "SociALiSm" is.
Taxing people and providing social services is not Socialism. It's capitalism and good governance.
No, an average person in the DSA believes in wayy more than any regular social democrat. I agree that they're not radical enough, but they're an enormous organization of people against the status quo and so many of them genuinely care, so it's no surprise that a huge part of current radicals are ex-DSA members.
The DSA is not a significant political force, much less the people that radicalize out of the DSA.
In August 2023, the organization claimed 77,575 members.[1] According to the finance data for the 2021 DSA convention, the organization collected $4.6 million in membership dues in 2020.[157] The DSA allows membership dues waivers for members who "may be experiencing financial problems right now".[158]
DSA membership in 2023 declined from 2021, when membership peaked at around 95,000 members
Even at their peak, 100k people is not a significant political force, nor what I would call an "enormous organization."
Enormous by socialist standards. The fact that they can have so many members in this day and age is commendable. A few decades ago any socialist thought being given an honest platform at all among the general population was a miracle.
The internet helped lots of uninformed populists radicalize each other, sadly.
We have different definitions of "enormous organization"
For the standards of leftists in the USA, they're massive.