Serfdom and Trickle down Economics -difference?

[Steeplerot]

Wondering since some people here still think trickle down economics are relevant somehow still to them as a economic theory, what is the difference between the elite rich "job creators" -the landlords of the feudal age taking the lions share and the serfs waiting for a handout here and there? I am curious how there is a difference to people 2010.

 

[Atreus21]

Wondering since some people here still think trickle down economics are relevant somehow still to them as a economic theory, what is the difference between the elite rich "job creators" -the landlords of the feudal age taking the lions share and the serfs waiting for a handout here and there? I am curious how there is a difference to people 2010.

Are you serious?

 

[Steeplerot]

Here is another, maybe the op will not generate discussion for a bit.

Riddle me this Capitalist defenders:

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Why is it the more mixed market a country is usually the considerably higher standard of living? Why is Somalia a unregulated paradise but a total dump? But most modern first world mixed economies have almost no homeless and people are pretty well off, explain this please. (without racism for a extra 10 points)

Please also explain how when America was at it's strongest in the 50-60s the richest were taxed up to 90% with plenty of jobs and workers got paid well. Even if only one person was working in the household you could build up a decent living?

 

[BoberFett]

Wondering since some people here still think trickle down economics are relevant somehow still to them as a economic theory, what is the difference between the elite rich "job creators" -the landlords of the feudal age taking the lions share and the serfs waiting for a handout here and there? I am curious how there is a difference to people 2010.

You're talking about big government, right? Where you hope that the taxes trickle down to you instead of being given out as corporate welfare. And where the government lords run everything and you wait for a handout from them?

 

[StageLeft]

Actually, I think that with pure capitalism you would have a serfdom situation of ultra rich and almost everybody else quite destitute. Money (i.e. power) begets more and this would be a natural progression.

 

[HumblePie]

Here is another, maybe the op will not generate discussion for a bit.

Riddle me this Capitalist defenders:

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Why is it the more mixed market a country is usually the considerably higher standard of living?

Riddle me this. Most of the world has ALWAYS been poor. The percentage of poor is shrinking as capitalist markets expand.

 

[Steeplerot]

Riddle me this. Most of the world has ALWAYS been poor. The percentage of poor is shrinking as capitalist markets expand.

The important part you are missing is where. In the mixed market economies of the world you mean. Africa for example has had Capitalism and bountiful resources being used in the "market" for centuries and it is a mess. Funny how you look at struggles of the working poor all over in the first world, the decent wages, higher standards of living were FOUGHT for tooth and nail, from the capitalist system and the elites/monopolies it creates. Many workers gave their lives for the privilege people have in the first world so all these Libertarians are not born in a country like Zimbabwe.

 

[Steeplerot]

And where the government lords run everything and you wait for a handout from them?

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but of course you do have a point that our democracy is very in danger of corporate takeover, but corporations have always counted on "useful idiots" to carry their water for them (and pad their pockets) btw, shouldn't you be picking up your welfare check or looking for a job instead of wanking to Rand?

 

[hal2kilo]

This and corporate nomads.

 

[HumblePie]

The important part you are missing is where. In the mixed market economies of the world you mean. Africa for example has had Capitalism and bountiful resources being used in the "market" for centuries and it is a mess. Funny how you look at struggles of the working poor all over in the first world, the decent wages, higher standards of living were FOUGHT for tooth and nail, from the capitalist system and the elites/monopolies it creates. Many workers gave their lives for the privilege people have in the first world so all these Libertarians are not born in a country like Zimbabwe.

Nope, not missing anything. You stated a broad generalization as if it was meant to provoke thought and lend credence to your point of capitalism = bad. I made a counter argument under the same guidelines.

Now you want to go into specifics, and while I would love to do so, I won't for three reasons. A) it would take to long for me to type out since I'm about to head home from work in a bit and I usually don't go on this site at home. B) I know someone else is going to do it for me and quite probably do a better job at it. C) I don't feel like wasting my time on this topic with an idiot since the vast majority of posters around here already know it.

I don't mind arguing with idiots in other threads when I know that there might be some people who might be persuaded from their delusions. In this case, it's just stupid as it accomplishes nothing.

 

[StageLeft]

Riddle me this. Most of the world has ALWAYS been poor. The percentage of poor is shrinking as capitalist markets expand.

Or is it because it's actually shrinking as governments mature and bring in rules? Or am I confusing anarchy with capitalism? And if so is that in fact a pretty common and obvious confusion point because they have similarities?

I know the hardcore capitalists here will say that it needs laws but any law that influences it reduces its reach. I think most people think its purity is destructive.

 

[QuantumPion]

Here is another, maybe the op will not generate discussion for a bit.

Riddle me this Capitalist defenders:

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Why is it the more mixed market a country is usually the considerably higher standard of living?

Because countries that start out prosperous attract the looters, and end up sliding down the path of socialism. You can't implement socialism and big-government welfare when the country is poor and destitute to begin with.

The most destitute places in the world are also the most socialist - Cuba and North Korea. The more socialism is implemented, the poorer the country as a whole gets. See Spain, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, etc. The more freedom and market based the country gets, the richer and more prosperous they get. See China, India, etc.

Why is Somalia a unregulated paradise but a total dump? But most modern first world mixed economies have almost no homeless and people are pretty well off, explain this please. (without racism for a extra 10 points)

Because Somalia and other African countries have no rule of law. You can't have a market economy when the local warlord can decide to confiscate all your possessions and murder all your workers whenever they feel like. Anarchy is not the same thing as a free market.

Please also explain how when America was at it's strongest in the 50-60s the richest were taxed up to 90% with plenty of jobs and workers got paid well. Even if only one person was working in the household you could build up a decent living?

America was the strongest in the 50's and the 60's because the rest of the world was either a) rebuilding their piles of rubble in the aftermath of WW2 while America was pretty much the only industrialized nation able to provide all those goods and services and b) most of Europe went to all-out socialism or communism. America was strong DESPITE high taxes, not because of it.

 

[Steeplerot]

Because Somalia and other African countries have no rule of law. You can't have a market economy when the local warlord can decide to confiscate all your possessions and murder all your workers whenever they feel like. Anarchy is not the same thing as a free market.

"The Free Market myth" is not the discussion here, Capitalism is. And what you propose is controls. Really Marx and Socialism are nothing but a long winded anti-trust law for the powerless wage slave class of workers that capitalism generates. (modern serfs).

America was the strongest in the 50's and the 60's because the rest of the world was either a) rebuilding their piles of rubble in the aftermath of WW2 while America was pretty much the only industrialized nation able to provide all those goods and services and b) most of Europe went to all-out socialism or communism. America was strong DESPITE high taxes, not because of it.

You could also make the argument that the US economy was in shambles after being nationalized and geared for war production. Yet with all the nationalization and Union interference the products got out efficiently enough to rebuild the first world while building a middle class AND taxing the hell out of the people who could afford it.


Thanks for your replies, you are respectful and have relevant answers worthy of thought. (WAIT..WHERE AM I? *rubs eyes* Please feel free to post in my threads even though we do disagree on some levels.

 

[nonlnear]

Posting in an Anarchist420 thread's intellectual equivalent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope, not missing anything. You stated a broad generalization as if it was meant to provoke thought and lend credence to your point of capitalism = bad. I made a counter argument under the same guidelines.

Now you want to go into specifics, and while I would love to do so, I won't for three reasons. A) it would take to long for me to type out since I'm about to head home from work in a bit and I usually don't go on this site at home. B) I know someone else is going to do it for me and quite probably do a better job at it. C) I don't feel like wasting my time on this topic with an idiot since the vast majority of posters around here already know it.

I don't mind arguing with idiots in other threads when I know that there might be some people who might be persuaded from their delusions. In this case, it's just stupid as it accomplishes nothing.

Standard reading comprehension problems mixed with rightwing denial. You understand what you want to understand, dismiss the rest.

The OP didn't offer that capitalism was "Bad", at all, but rather that it's ultimately self destructive left to its own devices.

By its very nature, capitalism concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a very few, much the same as feudalism. It also creates destructive boom/bust cycles. If we want the benefits of capitalism w/o that, then we need to take the appropriate measures to prevent that, to create an orderly economy where capitalism thrives but can't destroy itself and the fortunes of the rest of us along with it.

Capitalism isn't honest or good or fair or reasonable or anything other than an exercise in raw power without the input and constraints imposed by egalitarian democracy.

Posting only from work? Personal responsibility at its finest, I'm sure...

 

[sandorski]

Standard reading comprehension problems mixed with rightwing denial. You understand what you want to understand, dismiss the rest.

The OP didn't offer that capitalism was "Bad", at all, but rather that it's ultimately self destructive left to its own devices.

By its very nature, capitalism concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a very few, much the same as feudalism. It also creates destructive boom/bust cycles. If we want the benefits of capitalism w/o that, then we need to take the appropriate measures to prevent that, to create an orderly economy where capitalism thrives but can't destroy itself and the fortunes of the rest of us along with it.

Capitalism isn't honest or good or fair or reasonable or anything other than an exercise in raw power without the input and constraints imposed by egalitarian democracy.

Posting only from work? Personal responsibility at its finest, I'm sure...

Should be noted that the OP is talking about the Purest form of Capitalism and not simply the existing systems that are called "Capitalism". There's a significant difference between the two. So really the point of this thread is questioning the Wisdom of those who are always pushing towards a True Form, rather than the existing form.

 

[LegendKiller]

In the purest form, over the long run, there is no difference between capitalism and serfdom. Eventually all wealth becomes aggregated to fewer and fewer hands, especially in a progressing economy. This will eventually result in slower growth, productivity, and innovation, as fewer and fewer serfs can gain education and opportunities.

Sadly, this country is heading towards more of a pure form.

 

[soccerballtux]

Wondering since some people here still think trickle down economics are relevant somehow still to them as a economic theory, what is the difference between the elite rich "job creators" -the landlords of the feudal age taking the lions share and the serfs waiting for a handout here and there? I am curious how there is a difference to people 2010.

eventually, little, especially during a recession, because everybody has to take what they can get.
I'm a fiscal conservative and disagree with Trickle Down economics.

 

[BoberFett]

Because Somalia and other African countries have no rule of law. You can't have a market economy when the local warlord can decide to confiscate all your possessions and murder all your workers whenever they feel like. Anarchy is not the same thing as a free market.

It's always nice to see people understand this concept. "Liberals" who have an IQ roughly on par with that of a rutabaga love to trot out the Somalia = Free Market nugget every now and then. The only thing they accomplish when they use that line is to prove how utterly stupid they are.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's always nice to see people understand this concept. "Liberals" who have an IQ roughly on par with that of a rutabaga love to trot out the Somalia = Free Market nugget every now and then. The only thing they accomplish when they use that line is to prove how utterly stupid they are.

In other words, Somalia is TOO free a market for you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Should be noted that the OP is talking about the Purest form of Capitalism and not simply the existing systems that are called "Capitalism". There's a significant difference between the two. So really the point of this thread is questioning the Wisdom of those who are always pushing towards a True Form, rather than the existing form.

Yeh, well, the US has been reaching towards purer forms for 30 years, from Reagan forward, except when it needs a bailout so that the whole economy isn't screwed. Near as I can tell, the bailouts have just extended the looting spree, preserved an entirely too "pure" a form of capitalism that's more destructive than constructive.

Banking is the heart of modern capitalism- make that honest, and the rest will fall in line, too.

"Pure" is a helluva term to use to describe capitalism, anyway- there's nothing pure about it, other than the greed.

 

[MJinZ]

Here is another, maybe the op will not generate discussion for a bit.

Riddle me this Capitalist defenders:

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Why is it the more mixed market a country is usually the considerably higher standard of living? Why is Somalia a unregulated paradise but a total dump? But most modern first world mixed economies have almost no homeless and people are pretty well off, explain this please. (without racism for a extra 10 points)

Please also explain how when America was at it's strongest in the 50-60s the richest were taxed up to 90% with plenty of jobs and workers got paid well. Even if only one person was working in the household you could build up a decent living?

This is easy.

Capitalism was the wool that was pulled over the sheep's eyes.

But we aren't that capitalist anyway. The US is becoming more and more socialist.

Ultimately, it's probably a good thing.

 

[MotF Bane]

Posting in an Anarchist420 thread's intellectual equivalent.

/thread

 

[BoberFett]

In other words, Somalia is TOO free a market for you.

Free market is not anarchy, vegetable-boy.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here is another, maybe the op will not generate discussion for a bit.

Riddle me this Capitalist defenders:

Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. Why is it the more mixed market a country is usually the considerably higher standard of living? Why is Somalia a unregulated paradise but a total dump? But most modern first world mixed economies have almost no homeless and people are pretty well off, explain this please. (without racism for a extra 10 points)

Please also explain how when America was at it's strongest in the 50-60s the richest were taxed up to 90% with plenty of jobs and workers got paid well. Even if only one person was working in the household you could build up a decent living?

I'm not sure whether to disagree with you because I don't know what point you want to prove. If you are arguing that a regulated capitalism system, i.e. what has been dubbed "welfare capitalism," and you have described as a mixed economy, is the optimal system, then I'd say empiricism backs you up. All the most prosperous nations in the world are welfare capitalist, with the differences being relative degrees of emphasis on the welfare aspect versus the capitalist aspect. None are anywhere near pure free market capitalism. I've made this point several times here before and I think it is painfully obvious. "Libertarianism" has no real world success story to point to. It's an elegant theory with an aesthetic appeal and that is all.

If you are trying to validate the notion of an economy that is centrally planned and has virtually no private sector, that is a different matter. There, empiracism does not support the case.

- wolf