Fully Automated Luxury Communism

[The Great Zaganza]

Capitalism leads to the creation of wealth. It does not concentrate wealth as there is no wealth without an economic system.

in a simplified system, when we assume that the ROI is a fixed percentage regardless of amount invested, those with a larger starting wealth will end up with comparatively more.
But it is even worse than that, since large fortunes have access to more lucrative investments than small ones have. Plus they have access to the best tax lawyers.

In the absence of an economic system, everyone is in total poverty.

That depends on your definition of poverty: a fully self-sustaining farm would not constitute poverty in my book.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The highlighted sentence needs more support. Creating wealth isn't mutually exclusive from concentrating wealth.

By saying capitalism does X without a relative baseline, we are comparing capitalism to the complete absence of economic activity. Therefore, it is a system without wealth.

 

[BobTheCoward]

in a simplified system, when we assume that the ROI is a fixed percentage regardless of amount invested, those with a larger starting wealth will end up with comparatively more.
But it is even worse than that, since large fortunes have access to more lucrative investments than small ones have. Plus they have access to the best tax lawyers.




That depends on your definition of poverty: a fully self-sustaining farm would not constitute poverty in my book.

You can't have a farm in the absence of an economic system.

 

[theprestige]

You can't have a farm in the absence of an economic system.

This is is either false, or so broadly defined as to be useless.

Taking into account the relevant body of work, I'm thinking, "probably useless".

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is is either false, or so broadly defined as to be useless.

Taking into account the relevant body of work, I'm thinking, "probably useless".

That is the point. Without a baseline, saying what capitalism does or does not do is meaningless. Even if we are talking about a single farm in isolation, then the farmer owns the farm (as the farmer is the only being postulated). That is also capitalism.

 

[theprestige]

That is the point. Without a baseline, saying what capitalism does or does not do is meaningless.

Not at all. I got Zaganza's meaning just fine. You're the one gratuitously trying replace meaning with nothing.

 

[portlandatheist]

in a simplified system, when we assume that the ROI is a fixed percentage regardless of amount invested, those with a larger starting wealth will end up with comparatively more.
But it is even worse than that, since large fortunes have access to more lucrative investments than small ones have. Plus they have access to the best tax lawyers.




That depends on your definition of poverty: a fully self-sustaining farm would not constitute poverty in my book.

It is in my book. The more self sufficient a person is, or a country is, the harder they have to work to feed, shelter, and clothe themselves. The extreme poor in the world are basically self sufficient subsistence people responsible for growing and hunting for their own food, making their own shelter, etc.
I love this example: Making a chicken sandwich from scratch: it only takes $1500 and 6 months:

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not at all. I got Zaganza's meaning just fine. You're the one gratuitously trying replace meaning with nothing.

I have no clue what they meant because there isn't a frame of reference to compare capitalism to.

 

[theprestige]

I have no clue what they meant because there isn't a frame of reference to compare capitalism to.

I think that the lack of clue here is a symptom of the underlying bankruptcy of your entire philosophical approach.

 

[portlandatheist]

One reason(of many) that poverty declines is technology.
https://lucept.com/2014/11/04/william-nordhaus-the-historic-cost-of-light/
Nordhaus looked into how much a person needs to work to provide themselves with an hour's worth of reading light.
1750 BCE 50 hours from a seasame-oil lamp
1800 6 hours from a candle
1880 15 minutes for a kerosene lamp
1950 8 seconds from an incandescent bulb
1992 1/2 second from a CFL

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think that the lack of clue here is a symptom of the underlying bankruptcy of your entire philosophical approach.

It is a feature.

 

[theprestige]

It is a feature.

It is exactly such features that make it bankrupt.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is exactly such features that make it bankrupt.

What does it mean to be bankrupt?

 

[theprestige]

What does it mean to be bankrupt?

Having no value. Losing whatever value was initially invested in it (if any). Unable to sustain its obligations or launch any new venture. Costing more than it produces. Yielding only deficits, not profits.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Having no value. Losing whatever value was initially invested in it (if any). Unable to sustain its obligations or launch any new venture. Costing more than it produces. Yielding only deficits, not profits.

Oh. Well that is also a feature.

 

[theprestige]

Oh. Well that is also a feature.

It takes a truly failed philosophy to count its own failure as a success.

 

[Puppycow]

That is the point. Without a baseline, saying what capitalism does or does not do is meaningless. Even if we are talking about a single farm in isolation, then the farmer owns the farm (as the farmer is the only being postulated). That is also capitalism.

Well, it's communism too. In communism, the worker owns the means of production. In capitalism, a capitalist owns the means of production but buys labour from other people (employees) but here, the owner is also the worker. Therefore, Marxism, no?

I think it takes a minimum of 2 people to have capitalism. And probably more than that, practically speaking.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, it's communism too. In communism, the worker owns the means of production. In capitalism, a capitalist owns the means of production but buys labour from other people (employees) but here, the owner is also the worker. Therefore, Marxism, no?

I think it takes a minimum of 2 people to have capitalism. And probably more than that, practically speaking.

Does communism have a stance on single proprietorship?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Capitalism leads to the creation of wealth.

No, it just redistributes wealth to the rich.

It does not concentrate wealth as there is no wealth without an economic system. In the absence of an economic system, everyone is in total poverty.

Capitalism is not the only economic system - for good reason. Pure Capitalism is inherently unstable. Everywhere it has been tried it failed.

Poverty

Poverty is not having enough material possessions or income for a person's needs. Poverty is a multifaceted concept, which may include social, economic, and political elements.

Absolute poverty is the complete lack of the means necessary to meet basic personal needs, such as food, clothing and shelter. The threshold at which absolute poverty is defined is always about the same, independent of the person's permanent location or era.

Most of us have no appreciation of what real poverty is. It's not about earning less money, it's about not being able to get what you need to live on. In a functioning Communist system everyone may be 'poor', but they are not in 'total poverty'.

Let's take a look at the countries with the highest poverty levels. Is the 'absence of an economic system' to blame, or is Capitalism a big part of it?

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 16th-most-populous country in the world, and 2nd highest poverty level in the World (76.6% earn less than $1.90 per day):-

Rich in minerals, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a difficult history of predatory mineral extraction, which has been at the heart of many struggles within the country for many decades, but particularly in the 1990s. The economy of the third largest country in Africa relies heavily on mining. However, much economic activity occurs in the informal sector and is not reflected in GDP data...

Political agendas have worsened the economy, as in times of crisis, the elite benefit while the general populace suffers. This is worsened as a result of corrupt national and international corporations. The corporations instigate and allow the fighting for resources because they benefit from it...

Economic history

The corporations that dominated the economy were mostly owned by Belgium, but British capital also played an important role. The 1950s were a period of rising income and expectations. Congo was said to have the best public health system in Africa, but there was also a huge wealth disparity.

When the Belgians left, most of the government officials and educated residents left with them. Before independence there were just 3 out of 5000 government jobs held by Congolese people. The resulting loss of institutional knowledge and human capital crippled the government.

"predatory mineral extraction"
"corporations that dominated the economy"
"huge wealth disparity"
"the elite benefit while the general populace suffers"

This is pure Capitalism at work - Rape the environment, concentrate wealth in the hands of a few elites, then get out when the huge wealth disparity you created causes the country's social structure to collapse.

But hey, for a brief moment there you created a lot of wealth for shareholders!

 

[portlandatheist]

No, it just redistributes wealth to the rich.

Capitalism is not the only economic system - for good reason. Pure Capitalism is inherently unstable. Everywhere it has been tried it failed.

PovertyMost of us have no appreciation of what real poverty is. It's not about earning less money, it's about not being able to get what you need to live on. In a functioning Communist system everyone may be 'poor', but they are not in 'total poverty'.

Let's take a look at the countries with the highest poverty levels. Is the 'absence of an economic system' to blame, or is Capitalism a big part of it?

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 16th-most-populous country in the world, and 2nd highest poverty level in the World (76.6% earn less than $1.90 per day):-
"predatory mineral extraction"
"corporations that dominated the economy"
"huge wealth disparity"
"the elite benefit while the general populace suffers"

This is pure Capitalism at work - Rape the environment, concentrate wealth in the hands of a few elites, then get out when the huge wealth disparity you created causes the country's social structure to collapse.

But hey, for a brief moment there you created a lot of wealth for shareholders!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
countries with the least economic freedom
North Korea 5.8
Venezuela 25.2
Cuba 31.9
Congo 38.9
Eritrea 41.7
Equatorial Guinea 42
Zimbabwe 44

countries with the most economic freedom:
Hong Kong 90.2
Singapore 88.8
New Zealand 84.2
Switzerland 81.7
Australia 80.9

you pick the Congo as your example of the failures of voluntary exchange of goods and services in the private sector (refer to that as an ism if you want) when it's closet neighbor in terms of economic freedom (if you have a better measurement that approximates "capitalism" I'm all ears) is Cuba on one side and Eritrea on the other?