Posted on 09/08/2024 10:08:00 AM PDT by econjack
There's a lot of discussion these days about Capitalism versus Socialism as an economic system. Most Democrats, including Harris and other left-leaning people, favor Socialism. The key tool for them to bring this about is to tax the rich and give it to the poor to even out the distribution of income. That is a flawed solution to the problem.
First, it assumes that an equal distribution of income is a desirable goal. It is not. It's the human condition to want to improve one's lot in life. If the gov't makes everyone's income the same, it removes the desire to improve, innovate, and grow.
Second, such a policy provides an incentive for the rich to go elsewhere to escape the taxes that are used to redistribute income. The exodus from high-tax states (e.g., CA, IL) is proof, as is the Brain Drain from England in the 1960's and 1970's and the wealth migration from South Africa, Spain, Cuba, and elsewhere.
Finally, politicians have tried this scheme for decades yet the distribution of income figures have barely moved. Why? Because politicians say one thing but do another. Don't forget: it is the politicians who wrote the Tax Code and, if they were serious about penalizing the rich, who are also political donors, they would have already change the Code to accomplish that goal.
Instead, lets use Capitalism as the assumed economic system. First, it rejects the idea that society wants an equal distribution of income. Instead, it wants members of its system to enjoy a rising standard of living no matter what's happening to the distribution of income. As example will show the difference.
Suppose you and I are the only two people in the economic system. I have 90% of the income and you have 10%. Under Socialism, politicians pass tax plans that, let's assume, leaves me with 80% of the income and you now have 20% of the income. Note your gain only comes at my expense. That is, income redistribution is a zero sum game.
With capitalism, the rich invest in ways that create jobs and economic opportunity. Under this system, the size of the economic pie increases. Note what this means: Even if your share of the economic pie stays at 10%, your income and standard of living increases because of economic growth.
Also, as Thomas Sowell has shown, all people move between economic brackets through time. That is, when you're in high school flipping burgers, your in the lower 10% of the income distribution. Ten years later, you might be in the 30% bracket. When you're 50, you might be in the 80% bracket, and when you retire, it might drop down to the 60% bracket.
Socialism has never worked anywhere in the long run because income redistribute penalizes those who invest and create jobs, economic opportunity, and economic growth. The goal of an equal distribution of income means everyone's paid the same regardless of effort. The system stagnates for lack of economic growth and the system eventually dies.
Redistribution also seems to produce the feeling of entitlement that spills over in the person’s behavior.
“A corporation free from gov’t interference is a free enterprise.
A corporation under gov’t control is “fascist”.”
Well what we have right now is the very real third option... We have Corporations in control of the Governments. Currently all of them but Russia including our own...
First, stop with the idea there is “distribution of income”. There is no such thing in capitalism. Income is earned, not distributed. The only ones to whom income is distributed are layabouts or those truly disabled. The layabouts will vote for more handouts because they will never earn the things they desire.
A corporation under gov’t control is “fascist”.”
Think I.G. Farben.
It creates a sense of fake royalty.
Absolutely...
🇺🇸Americanism vs. Communism
The GreatAwakening vs. The Great Reset
Thank you for the reply.
I really do agree with you, then, that the term “Capitalism” is as unbridled as you describe. That is why I believe America rejects unbridled Capitalism in favor of legal restrictions on what you can do with your money. Any loan can be usurious and usury should be illegal. This, then, represents one restriction of what you can do with your money.
This is no different than constitutional restrictions on law, itself.
But what we have now is government under corporate control...
Work is the essence of life. Without it, there will be a great (human) depression even if people are (artificially) wealthy.
I see a flaw in that comparison?
Capitalism has to do with capital; Socialism has to do with governance.
Capitalism exists in all forms of government. The difference is who controls your capital and your money, you or the government?
America's Constitution protects you and your property and encourages citizens to accumulate more property. Americanism allows the citizens to control their capital, not the government.
Which is why I prefer “Free Enterprise”.
Yes. I think people should grasp that more clearly than they do.
It’s always a market economy of Supply and Demand. Even in a “perfect” communist state, they will produce only X amount of bread and have to distribute it to Y number of people. That’s a Supply and Demand equation right there.
“Capitalism” in one form or another is everywhere. If a railroad needs to be built, or a steel factory built, then capital resources need to be applied to that problem. China, Russia, USA — it’s true everywhere.
As you point out, the really key issue can be simply summed up: “Who controls your capital?” Is it the Individual? Or the Collective?
And we know by know that Individuals will work hard if they are really earning capital. But the Collective? No one works very hard in a Collective — they figure other people are probably working hard ... so they don’t need to bother.
You get shortages whenever the Collective is in control.
No, the federal gov’t is not run by enterprise free from gov’t interference.
You’re talking about gov’t illegally taking bribes from corporations for favors. That’s still gov’t interference in the marketplace.
And that is only a small fraction of the problem. The multi-trillion unconstitutional portion of the feds has become totalitarian and the the greatest threat to your life, liberties, and well being.
Committee members who can profit on the side by selling exceptions.
“You’re talking about gov’t illegally taking bribes from corporations for favors. That’s still gov’t interference in the marketplace.”
No, I am talking about strong arm governance using extortion tactics from corporations who control debt. They are lien holders over nation governments, assets, and collateral. And who threaten on a personal basis that if they do not go along with the agenda their family and pets will be simply disappeared. But if they go along they will receive a regular salary for being a loyal member employee and representative of the New World Order. It is now far far past just lobbying and kickbacks. That is an antiquated practice. We are now in territory where corporations literally own countries through mass debt and collateral. And as the owners and lien holders they dictate actions and policies through proxy.
FWIW, the term "capitalism" is generally attributed to Marx and Engels, though they didn't coin the term.
Marx used the term to describe the economic system that emerged from the industrial revolution, which he analyzed critically in works like Das Kapital.
Marx and Engels both used "capitalism" as a perjorative term to describe a system in which private owners control the means of production, and the creation of goods and services is driven by the pursuit of profit.
However, the word "capitalism" was in use prior to Marx. It was used in a less critical sense by Louis Blanc, a French socialist, in the 1840s, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, another early socialist thinker, used the term as well. These early references to "capitalism" described the system in a more neutral or descriptive way, referring to a society organized around capital and private ownership.
Marx’s use of the term, however, popularized it as a pejorative term for what he saw as an exploitative economic system based on class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capital owners) and the proletariat (workers).
Fichte, while not writing explicitly about capitalism (since the system hadn’t fully developed during his time), did critique individualism and self-seeking behavior, which are central to later criticisms of capitalism. His emphasis on the collective good over individual self-interest reflects concerns that align with critiques of capitalist systems.
One relevant quote from Fichte that can be interpreted as a condemnation of capitalism and self-seeking is: "Self-seeking has destroyed itself by its own complete development." This quote, from Addresses to the German Nation (1808), illustrates Fichte’s belief that selfishness, when fully realized, leads to its own downfall.
This reflects his concern that individualism and personal profit-seeking undermine the moral and social fabric of society.
Let me put it this way... One of these three... BlackRock, Vanguard, or StateStreet through the debt hierarchy own the controlling interest in the very bank you financed your home and car through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.