"in the long run, “when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit,” unless “confiscatory tax rates” are imposed."

[Capitalism is broken? - NO!] "Piketty proposes instead that the rise in inequality reflects markets working precisely as they should: “This has nothing to do with a market imperfection: the more perfect the capital market, the higher” the rate of return on capital is in comparison to the rate of growth of the economy. The higher this ratio is, the greater inequality is."

Capitalism IS the problem.

I'm still reading LOTS of links but I got so excited when I read this I had to share.

Views: 449

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You might also like this book, The Undercover Economist strikes back.

I disagree, although I haven't read the selection you mentioned. The problem with the economy is not that capitalism is broken, it's that capitalism isn't being practiced. Welfare is not part of the capitalist model. Neither is any other form of tax funded charity program.

"Welfare is not part of the capitalist model."

Right. The capitalist model is that labor is a disposable resource. The more they fire, the cheaper they become. If it weren't for the extremely limited intervention of government in protecting their constituents, millions would simply starve and those lucky enough to be employed would have all the rights a dignity of indentured servants.

Capitalism has provided a higher standard of living for some.  Emphasis on the some.    If you asked has capitalism benefited me, how do you think the following would answer:

The teen and younger who worked in the coal mines a century ago

The children in the textile mills in the south

The tenant farmers, both black and white in the south

The immigrants in NYC living in a tenement and doing piece work for pennies a day

Today, the 10's of millions in poverty and not knowing where their next meal is coming from.

The children who go to bed hungry every night.

The list can go on and on.  Capitalism is concerned with one thing and one thing only---providing maximum profit for those who own the means of production and those who own the natural resources.

Is there a better system---you bet there is.  A modified capitalism with caps on profits and the requirement that a living wage be paid.  Graft onto this a modified socialism which helps those who can't help themselves.

The revolution can't come soon enough.

" If you asked has capitalism benefited me, how do you think the following would answer:"

Sorry, I'm not understanding. Would you mind rephrasing?

I mean that not one of those groups would agree that capitalism provided even a mnimal standard of living.  Capitalism by its nature consumes workers and discards them when no longer needed.

Read Andrew Mellons solution to the great depression.  He said liquidate everything and start over and that included labor.  He, himself, had no worries.  His millions were already salted away, having been gained from the labor of others.

Before my parents brought me into the world, if they had told me the world has so many SOBs, I would have told them to leave me the hell alone.

I'm joking, of course.

My dad was trying to be a good Catholic and the old farts who run the Church had two years earlier "declared war" on all forms of family planning. He paid to send all of his five kids to Catholic schools, and before he died he knew all five of us had quit the Church. Our revenge, I suppose.

Capitalism by its nature consumes workers and discards them when no longer needed.

Of course, especially America's predatory capitalism. Its beneficiaries spend a lot of money to keep working folks divided.

Employees forming labor unions is one remedy, but capitalists can rent union leaders.

Employees owning and running the companies they work for (and sharing the profits and losses) is a better remedy. When enough employees do it, America's predatory capitalists will go extinct.

- - - - - -

A few billion years ago the big and strong pond scum (You do accept that we are ascended from such, don't you?) engulfed (ate) the nearby small and weak pond scum.

A few hundred years ago, the small and weak started replacing political tyranny with political democracy. We need to continue replacing economic tyranny with economic democracy,

"replacing economic tyranny with economic democracy" interesting concept.

The revolution can't come soon enough.

The revolution began decades ago, with employee owned and operated companies.

In the early 1970s, a Harvard Business Review story described two advantages: less employee theft and more concern for the environment.

I understand that the US federal tax code encourages owners, upon retirement, to sell their businesses to their employees. I don't know where in the tax code to look for evidence.

Political tyranny yielded slowly to political democracy; economic tyranny will yield slowly to economic democracy.

We homo not-very-sapiens might make the earth uninhabitable first.

Since just about everything else is not working to find work, I thought, "I will send my resume and letter if a senator asks for $$$, with the statement 'I will send you $$ went I get paid, and I have real skills that should be of use to YOU!' "

I agree, GM.

I don't see how SCOTUS could hold that the term "general welfare" includes the various forms of welfare you named.

The Court might, however, not want to anger the people who fund them.

In a democracy the government's job is not only to protect the country from foreign invaders but also to protect the citizenry from those among the rich and powerful who would take advantage of their (largely unearned) positions of power.

But what has to be understood is that it's not (by and large) evil capitalists who are out to enrich themselves at the expense of the working class. It's the system itself that's the problem. For example let's say a bill is introduced to raise corporate tax for the richest companies by 10%. Such a large increase would warrant a sizeable response from the owners. They would be willing to allocate hundreds of millions to sway politicians (the few that are not on their payroll already) to defeat the bill. Such opposition is NECESSARY! The boards of directors are responsible to shareholders to maximize profits. They will do whatever is necessary (up to the point of diminishing returns) to stop any assault on their profits. If they don't, they SHOULD be replaced! They will complain that the tax increase would bankrupt them, that it would put thousands out of work, that the economy will crash.

What, lately, people - including politicians have forgotten is that this opposition is THEIR JOB. If they fail to stop the tax increase, no one will really care - as long as the functionaries have done all they can. The executives will continue to collect their salaries and bonuses and, the next day, they will simply start to structure their business in response to the tax increase. The problems come when politicians BELIEVE the corporate propaganda - manufactured simply as part of their job of protecting company profits.

Contrary to the Roberts gang, corporations are not people - with their human emotions. They don't hold grudges. They don't seek revenge. They don't sulk. They just get on with business.



Working on a new project. Perhaps you can help?

Started by Morgan Matthew in Small Talk. Last reply by Morgan Matthew 21 hours ago. 3 Replies

Sustainable Living

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Simon Paynton 2 hours ago. 9 Replies

What does "earn" mean to you?

Started by Unseen in Politics. Last reply by Davis Goodman 2 hours ago. 30 Replies

Again, It's Been a While...

Started by Barry Adamson in Small Talk. Last reply by TJ 15 hours ago. 20 Replies


Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service