/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4970409]

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the income gap. What do you guys think? Is it possible redistribute wealth to the point of economic equality within a capitalist economic system?

[Anonymous No.4970412]

>>4970409
It's widening because education is becoming more expensive. The efforts to create a majority middle class in the 70s and 80s is being wound back.

And it is possible within a capitalist economy, but not in the current incarnation. There is no incentive for people to distribute wealth fairly and all the incentive to do the opposite.

[Anonymous No.4970417]

I think we need to scrap environmental protectionism policies that stand in the way of growing industries, remove the minimum wage (at the very least just for under 25 year olds, but it would work better for everyone) and privatise all government controlled industries, such as healthcare and education.

[Anonymous No.4970418]

equal opportunity =/= equal outcome. 92% of all workplace deaths are men, where is the death distribution. women also work significantly fewer hours and work in more part time positions than men. maybe thats why they make less money?

[Anonymous No.4970423]

>>4970409
Of course it isn't. Under capitalism the only change that be initiated is top-down, from the wealthy to the poor, and the only change permitted that way is the kind that will allow the wealthy to stay exactly as rich as they are. The capitalist class has no incentive to commit suicide in a way as comprehensive as wealth redistribution.

[Anonymous No.4970428]

>>4970423
I find the greed of the poor, in demanding money be given to them, to be greater than that of the elite.

[Anonymous No.4970430]

>>4970423
>assertions

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4970434]

>>4970409
>within a capitalist economic system?
Temporarily. The wealthy will always screw it all up for their gains

[Anonymous No.4970437]

>>4970417
I disagree completely

[Anonymous No.4970438]

>>4970437
Why?

[Anonymous No.4970440]

>>4970428

The greed of anyone in the poor caste is understandable.

"Hey, we're stone age physiologies divorced from the means of survival we evolved from into means of production dependent on class division and massive inequality in resource distribution. But somehow we're going to be morally blamed for not adapting to the very very very local historical cultural conditions of the current modes of production in a satisfactory way because almost nobody can think logically about human beings."

In comparison, the petulance of the rich comes off as crass and boorish.

And to OP, you can certainly fashion a better distribution dependent on political power. But there's always going to be massive inequality in agricultural societies.

[Anonymous No.4970444]

>>4970428
You find someone not wanting to work a minimum wage job with ridiculous hours for almost no pay greedier than someone hoarding vast amounts of wealth to no logical end and refusing to be taxed properly for what they earn in case it cuts into that vast amount of wealth?

[Anonymous No.4970445]

>>4970440
>But somehow we're going to be morally blamed for not adapting to the very very very local historical cultural conditions of the current modes of production in a satisfactory way because almost nobody can think logically about human beings."
This is just stupid. Humans are adaptive, if you can't handle the freedom of failure then I don't think you were cut out for life.

[Anonymous No.4970453]

>>4970444
>You find someone not wanting to work a minimum wage job with ridiculous hours for almost no pay
No, I find someone doing no work and expecting the rich to finance their existence greedy. I find people who demand that people who earned great amounts of money give it to them for nothing greedy.

[Anonymous No.4970454]

>>4970438
Because the environment is far more important than industry

[Anonymous No.4970459]

>>4970454
If the environment was important then there should be numerous competitors investing in it. If you think an industry will destroy the very environment it sustains itself from you are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4970460]

>>4970453
Then you have no idea what we're talking about. The welfare state seems to be what your issue is with; and you know that's a product of capitalism? A means for your exalted captains of finance to keep the shiftless proles from caring enough about their situation to do anything. I'm no more a fan of that than you are.

[Anonymous No.4970468]

>>4970460
>and you know that's a product of capitalism?
No it isn't. Not free market capitalism.
>The welfare state seems to be what your issue is with
No, the greedy don't have to be on welfare to demand the profits of others.

[Anonymous No.4970479]

>>4970468
I don't think I've actually argued with Ayn Rand on /lit/ before. Do you know you're a banned topic here, Ayn?

[Anonymous No.4970486]

>>4970409
>Is it possible redistribute wealth to the point of economic equality within a capitalist economic system?

No way to know until we decide to kill the rich take their shit and give it to the poor. Sounds like a plan to me.

[Anonymous No.4970487]

>>4970486
>kill the rich take their shit and give it to the poor. Sounds like a plan to me
how's high school going for you

[Anonymous No.4970489]

>>4970479
Whatever you say, Marx, you economic illiterate.

[Anonymous No.4970491]

>>4970459
the stupidity in this post is genuinely astonishing

[Anonymous No.4970495]

>>4970491
That is not an argument, that is a plain and simple ad hominem fallacy.

[Anonymous No.4970496]

>>4970489
Ayn, you naughty girl you. Stop playing hard to get. You know you want my dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.4970498]

>>4970486
Raskolnikov tried that already

[Anonymous No.4970503]

Yep, just make it illegal to own such and such amount of wealth.

>the rich will get around it

Make that illegal too. Its doable, just no politician would because of lobbying bribery.

[Anonymous No.4970504]

>>4970496
Sexual acts are incompatible with individual freedom.

[Anonymous No.4970509]

>>4970503
no politician woul because it's wrong

[Anonymous No.4970513]

>>4970503
So then why would a business owner who passes the threshold continue to operate for the year if he would just lose all his money anyway?

[Anonymous No.4970515]

>>4970504
Communism's all about freedom, baby. That little thing in Russia was no big deal. Come on. I got the ability, you got the need.

[Anonymous No.4970517]

>>4970513
Pass more laws xDDDDD #gomminism4eva

[Anonymous No.4970521]

>>4970513
He could retire.

[Anonymous No.4970525]

>>4970515
Collectivisation is explicitly anti-freedom, any form of communal living wherein the individual is expected to meet the standards of the collective is opposed to freedom.

[Anonymous No.4970528]

>>4970521
That has nothing to do with my post. If he only had to operate his business for two months before exceeding the threashold he would essentially be retired for the next 10 months.

[Anonymous No.4970529]

>>4970509
Some might argue its wrong that a guy can have a billion dollars when others are scrapping by.

Warren Buffet, who has 40 billion dollars, wrote an article about how unfair it is he paid a less percentage of tax than his secretary (who does not have 40 billion dollars)

[Anonymous No.4970531]

>>4970525
Most unsexy

[Anonymous No.4970534]

>>4970528
Yeah, or his entire life, depending on the threshold. Or he could start a new thing.

[Anonymous No.4970537]

>>4970525
Ain't the standards of the market count as limiting freedom too? Ayn, honey, you're so cute all worked up. Come on. You ain't got nothing to lose but your clothes. I can even invite Engels if you're into that.

[Anonymous No.4970539]

>>4970534
Or he could distribute his money to family members and/or other, offshore accounts

[Anonymous No.4970540]

>>4970529
if he wants to pay her taxes or to buy a bunch of homeless people homes of their own he's more than welcome to do so with his money. but for the government to make some law that would take more of his money to buy them homes or limit his earnings to some arbitrary amount is ludicrous. he's got money for a reason, and there are people that dont have money for a reason as well

[Anonymous No.4970541]

>>4970539
..not if that were illegal

[Anonymous No.4970543]

>>4970529
For some reason anon, people are retarded in clusters and apparently can only suck rich people off or tax them at 100%, and dammit we're not doing anything else!

[Anonymous No.4970545]

>>4970537
The market is a non-personal entity dependent on the transaction of free, able and willing individuals it cannot limit freedom, but is rather an expression of freedom.

[Anonymous No.4970550]

>>4970541
Well then he will just close his business when we reaches the threshold and retire for the remainder of the year while his workers are put out of a job.

[Anonymous No.4970553]

>>4970537
The market is a non-personal entity dependent on the transaction of free, able and willing individuals it cannot limit freedom, but is rather an expression of freedom

[Anonymous No.4970556]

>>4970550
Meanwhile in the real world, Wal-mart opens stores at a loss just to kill competition in an area.

[Anonymous No.4970560]

>>4970550
>workers are put out of a job.
>implying anyone needs to work at all
>implying we wont just distribute the wealth and everyone will be all happy and shit without working or doing anything but writing shitty poetry and growing out dreadlocks

[Anonymous No.4970561]

>>4970550
Or someone else takes over, do I have to spoonfeed every idea for you, think for yourself. The point is anything can be legal or illegal, if wealth inequality was a priority, then there are ways to reduce it.

[Anonymous No.4970565]

>>4970545
Shit, Ayn, I'll go tell those kids in those Chinese and Indian sweatshops that they're free to go do something else if they want. You're such a cold bitch. I love it. How about we get together and I show you my labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.4970567]

>>4970409
forbid inheritance

[Anonymous No.4970568]

>>4970561
.. to add, some governments expropriate businesses. That means, they basically steal them and they become state owned.

[Anonymous No.4970570]

>>4970561
Takes over a private business? This is some Checka shit right here.

[Anonymous No.4970571]

>>4970567
>i dont have a right to do what i want with my money
yeah fuck off m8

[Anonymous No.4970572]

>>4970553

Shit, Ayn, I'll go tell those kids in those Chinese and Indian sweatshops that they're free to go do something else if they want. You're such a cold bitch. I love it. How about we get together and I show you my labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.4970574]

>>4970567
I agree. Powerful governments like the United States have proven that governments can be trusted to handle large amounts of money and the power to wrest it from those who earned it with little harm happening to anyone anywhere

[Anonymous No.4970579]

>>4970428
>>4970453
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4970581]

There's some /pol/ tier bullshit in this thread

[Anonymous No.4970583]

>>4970581
better go run to our local fascist mod and tell him people are having a discussion

[Anonymous No.4970585]

>>4970572
China and india are not market economies, they are a product of Marxist labour theories. Go to post-USSR Estonia if you want to see a free market

[Anonymous No.4970588]

>>4970579
That doesn't constitute an argument.
>>4970581
>free market economics is bullshit
I kek'd

[Anonymous No.4970597]

>>4970560
>this is what leftards actually believe

[Anonymous No.4970599]

>>4970585
Aw, c'mon, girl. Don't blame that shit on me, that's not what I'd have done to those places. And they're part of the world market economy, ain't they? See? All this shit's linked into capitalism in the end. And you ain't gotta be so grumpy all the time. Gotta relax. Come down with me to the first workingmen's international, we'll get some drinks in.

[Anonymous No.4970601]

>>4970567
I say this because it's one of the biggest factor for everyone to want to become rich
another solution would be to impose a limit on the amount of possesions/money one can have, and lastly, very high taxes for the rich

>>4970571
you mean, the money you made by stealing/cheating and almost enslaving people?

>>4970574
I didn't say give it to the government... at least not directly. the thing is, it should be distributed somehow.

[Anonymous No.4970602]

>>4970597
the sad fact is that really is what they have envisioned for society

[Anonymous No.4970605]

>>4970588
They won't know who that image contains and will still report it, bud.

[Anonymous No.4970606]

>>4970599
State capitalism is not capitalism, Marx. When the wealth of the nation is artificially distributed to the ruling party or elite it is not a free market.

[Anonymous No.4970608]

>>4970601
>the money you made by stealing/cheating and almost enslaving people
another mentally deficient leftist that literally cant think up a single legitimate argument. im glad you folks are so stupid, lest your shit ideas actually begin to gain popularity with normal people

[Anonymous No.4970611]

>>4970608
>another mentally deficient leftist that literally cant think up a single legitimate argument. im glad you folks are so stupid, lest your shit ideas actually begin to gain popularity with normal people
tell me, in practical terms, how does one becomes rich.
btw, your rage shows something, I don't know what, I think it's hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.4970612]

>>4970601
>you mean, the money you made by stealing/cheating and almost enslaving people?
By giving them jobs which they are free to leave and/or negotiate? Maybe the government should just print money for everyone and then we won't have to work.

[Anonymous No.4970618]

>>4970601
> didn't say give it to the government... at least not directly. the thing is, it should be distributed somehow.

That doesn't constitute having a point though. You're just bitching until then, and you already seem to be implying you want to invoke the government to handle "redistributing inherence". If you postulate any form of this argument, you pretty much lose. It doesn't work. I don't like how capitalism is either friend, but apparently this is how people treat each other. Giving an enormous amount of cash to the state will result in more of what you see today.

Additionally "forbid inheretance" is laughably simple. You would have to take power from corporations and prevent people from squirreling their money in investments.

>mfw people think Warren Buffet has 40 million actual dollars

[Anonymous No.4970619]

>>4970611
>tell me, in practical terms, how does one becomes rich.

By becoming a movie star.

[Anonymous No.4970621]

>>4970612
>By giving them jobs which they are free to leave and/or negotiate?
top kek, good job m8
you should go out and talk to real people sometimes
do you know why structural unemployment exists?

[Anonymous No.4970622]

>>4970611
work hard and make fucking money. not to mention that the rich are the ones that make jobs in the first place so good luck finding a job when everyones poor just like you like it

[Anonymous No.4970624]

>>4970606
But, shit, if it weren't these savages doing all the grunt work, it'd have to be some bunch of workers, you dig? Gettin' all exploited. Ayn, you gotta mouth on you. I love the way you talk politics. Workingmen have no country, you dig? And you've got no resistance to the proletarian dick. We've got a world to win, baby.

[Anonymous No.4970626]

>>4970611
>tell me, in practical terms, how does one becomes rich.
If we knew that we'd all be rich. But all you have to do is own a successful enterprise or sell something, such as your labour in the form of acting.

[Anonymous No.4970629]

>>4970621
>everyone is entitled to a job that they want and that they believe pays them fairly

[Anonymous No.4970630]

>>4970621
Structural uemployment is when the labour supplied is no longer needed. Do you think that businesses should keep people on if they are losing money with them? That doesn't change the 90% of people who are employed, by the way, they still have people giving them jobs.

[Anonymous No.4970633]

>>4970624
Workers aren't exploited, they simply sell their labour. It is a mutual exchange in a free economy.

[Anonymous No.4970679]

>>4970618
>Additionally "forbid inheretance" is laughably simple. You would have to take power from corporations and prevent people from squirreling their money in investments.
that's be cool: transfer the ownership of the companies to the workers, and if it's too much, break it and create more jobs

>>4970619
>By becoming a movie star.
>>4970626
>But all you have to do is own a successful enterprise or sell something, such as your labour in the form of acting.
I didn't know movie stars did everything by themselves, including the marketing. I wonder if they even know how to manage a camera or how to process video? or even create the software and hardware to make such job.. there is a whole industry behind, and that industry is managed by the same people who already owned lots of money, by other means
we live in a society, we are all dependent on one each other. you don't become rich by magic. you either are rich already, or become rich by sucking golden dick and/or simply by cheating and stealing. and if you don't believe that powerful people does things behind the public knowledge... then you are naïve

>>4970630
>Structural uemployment is when the labour supplied is no longer needed.
say that to the unemployed IT workers in the US, who are being replaced by cheap foreign labor just because big companies can do it
>Do you think that businesses should keep people on if they are losing money with them?
why does this matters? the thing is, unemployment happens because capitalists need to keep their workers scared
>That doesn't change the 90% of people who are employed, by the way, they still have people giving them jobs.
exactly my point, if that 10% didn't exist, things wouldn't be as they are. btw, you should read this:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
it's not 10%, but more like 25%

>>4970633
>Workers aren't exploited, they simply sell their labour. It is a mutual exchange in a free economy.
most workers are forced to work for someone else. if I had my own land and could make my own food, I'd simply tell you to get the fuck with your shit, but instead, I need to work for peanuts to survive

[Anonymous No.4970687]

>>4970679
You don't have any idea what you're actually talking about and think that "company" and "jobs" are just general catch all things because you are an empty-headed retard who wishes he could buy more X

[Anonymous No.4970693]

>>4970679
>say that to the unemployed IT workers in the US, who are being replaced by cheap foreign labor just because big companies can do it
That's not structural unemployment, that's competition.
>unemployment happens because capitalists need to keep their workers scared
No, it happens because business owners want to make a profit and allow their business to survive.
>if that 10% didn't exist, things wouldn't be as they are
What do you suggest, genocide?
>http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
We're from different countries.
>most workers are forced to work for someone else
No they aren't, not in free countries. Nobody in my country, Australia, is forced to work. It is a voluntary exchange, labour for money.
>if I had my own land and could make my own food, I'd simply tell you to get the fuck with your shit, but instead, I need to work for peanuts to survive
You don't have to work, you aren't forced to, you just can't have everything you want without money. Sorry, but you need to realise that the world dosn't exist to cater to your every desire. You're free to buy land and live off it if you pay for it. If I had my way you wouldn't be taxed, either.

[Anonymous No.4970694]

>>4970412
> It's widening because education is becoming more expensive.
Here in Europe the leading cause is real estate. In Helsinki, Finland, real estate prices have gone up 8% a year in the last decade (inflation has been like 23% in total and nonexistant in last five years) and so.

[Anonymous No.4970708]

>>4970687
>You don't have any idea what you're actually talking about and think that "company" and "jobs" are just general catch all things because you are an empty-headed retard who wishes he could buy more X
ok m8, you seem a reasonable person

>>4970693
>What do you suggest, genocide?
I suggest capitalist-alike system, controlled by the very same people that keeps it alive. that way, they would value their own job, instead of working for leeches.
>You're free to buy land and live off it if you pay for it. If I had my way you wouldn't be taxed, either.
guess what? there are gigantic states made by the very same people who has the power, and those states enforce the current social status. you are not free to do shit.
and btw, I don't even have money to buy anything.

[Anonymous No.4970713]

>>4970708
>controlled by the very same people that keeps it alive
The business owners?
>guess what? there are gigantic states made by the very same people who has the power, and those states enforce the current social status
I would assume the people who made the state have the power. The thing is, the state is not restricting you much at all. The only way it does that is by pushing things like the minimum wage and working age laws.
>I don't even have money to buy anything.
That's the good thing about free market capitalism, you're free to go out and earn your dreams.

[Anonymous No.4970782]

>>4970412
Education is becoming more expensive? What?

[Anonymous No.4970783]

>>4970713
>The business owners?
liberalism, m8

>I would assume the people who made the state have the power. The thing is, the state is not restricting you much at all. The only way it does that is by pushing things like the minimum wage and working age laws.
capitalists imposing rules to themselves and to everyone else, to play a "fair" game

>That's the good thing about free market capitalism, you're free to go out and earn your dreams.
my dreams of hanging capitalists in public squares? that'd be expensive, mercenaries don't work for free

[Anonymous No.4970856]

>>4970783
>liberalism, m8
Like John Locke?
>capitalists imposing rules to themselves and to everyone else, to play a "fair" game
At the moment we are all capitalists. We live in a semi-capitalist mixed market economy, if you live in a western nation. We all have the same rules.
>my dreams of hanging capitalists in public squares? that'd be expensive, mercenaries don't work for free
Why do you want to destroy capitalism? Do you dislike individual freedom?

[Anonymous No.4970893]

>>4970856

>Why do you want to destroy capitalism? Do you dislike individual freedom?

I don't know about the other guy you're talking with, but I want to end capitalism because I don't agree with having the excessive freedoms of one at the cost of the basic freedoms of many.

[Anonymous No.4970906]

>>4970893
but but anon MUH FREEDOMS THE AMERICAN DREAM SELF-MADE MAN and all that bollocks

[Anonymous No.4970908]

>>4970893
What basic freedoms do you refer to?

[Anonymous No.4970952]

>>4970487
Im sure thats what King Louis said right before they executed him.
You seem to be the childish one really, denying that such things happen, living in the comfortable delusions of the times

[Anonymous No.4970982]

>>4970409
>ctrl+f "gini coefficient" 0 results

Most of the western countries are doing fairly well in terms of income disparity. Once the US understands that basic income and/or minimum wage aren't the devil their index might also fall in line.

[Anonymous No.4970991]

>>4970982
All minimum wage will do is increase unemployment.

[Anonymous No.4971028]

>>4970991
Simple statements for simple men

[Anonymous No.4971033]

>>4971028
Learn economics, please. Start with Smith, Hayek and Friedman.

[Anonymous No.4971047]

>>4970459
You seem to forget short-term and long-term investments. People tend to go with short-term investments rather then long term ones. If you had the options of having £10 today, or wait a week for it to become £10.50 pounds (this extra 50p a week continues on indefinitely until you deiced to take the money) I bet you most people would rather have the £10 now, rather than wait for it to accumulate over time.

Also, how do you moniterise the environment without destroying it? Companies that use wood for example replant trees, however, they are the tree type which is most profitable. You loose a bio-diverse environment in favor of a uniform one which is more profitable, as the wood is faster growing.

[Anonymous No.4971049]

>>4971033
>Start with Smith, Hayek and Friedman
no, you should start with the greeks

also, >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4971077]

>>4971033
and then upon seeing the idiocy of their espoused methods you learn to loathe liberalism and embrace glorious socialist ideals.

[Anonymous No.4971093]

>>4971033
>>4970991
stop being a brainwashed ideologue, it's so embarrassing
you are like literally 17 years old and discovered babby's first supply and demand graphs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Criticism_of_the_neoclassical_model

[Anonymous No.4971106]

>>4970633
>mutual exchange
It isn't always mutual. Person A may only be able to exchange with person B, but person B can exchange with C, D, E, etc. Because of this, person B is the dominate person in the power relation. It isn't a mutual relationship since person B has the greater amount of options over everyone else.

The process in itself might be mutual i.e. Person A exchanges a commodity with person B who exchanges a commodity, but the relationship and power relations behind it might not be. Why do Economists think the two and interchangeable? A slave and a slave owner might mutually exchange, but we would not claim the relationship is a mutual one. The slave always has a choice to disobey his master, but at the cost of being beaten and tortured.

[Anonymous No.4971113]

>>4971106
>It isn't always mutual.
Sorry, I've seemed to have contradicted myself somewhat. I suppose I meant the type of mutuality.

[Anonymous No.4971159]

ITT: edgy high school liberals.

[Anonymous No.4971171]

>>4970409
As a poor person, I think poor people deserve to be poor.

[Anonymous No.4971185]

>>4971159
welcome to 4chan