how long can global capitalism last?

[FenderBender]

Touchy much when someone points out a pretty big flaw in what you are saying?

People buy inferior shit all the time, they operate against their own self-interest, and they are so easily manipulated that scientific studies have shown how easy it is to get them to do what YOU want. Read anything by Robert Cialdini on the subject.

You asked why people would buy an inferior product; there's your answer.

You keep arguing that capitalism is the ideal application of self-interest being mutually beneficial to all in society, but you fail to realize one thing: people are dumb. A person is smart, so on the micro scale all of your arguments are true. On the macro scale, capitalism is nowhere near the best system to raise everyone's standards, because everyone is not a rational actor.

Before you get all huffy, I'm not saying capitalism isn't the best we have seen so far, I'm just saying that you need to stop arguing shit in a black and white, idealized world.

Your definition of inferior here is too ill-formed. What is the best pair of jeans in existence? My point was simply that people buy stuff on the basis of their own personal preferences. So in that sense their idea of the best product is one that they prefer. The people who shop on Madison Avenue are not stupid. They know that they are buying status with their purchases, and in that regard they have picked the best product to do it. That doesn't mean that Walmart can't exist in the same world.

My point is simple, but you keep intentionally trying to misunderstand it. Take the headphones example. Reggie would prefer a set that doesn't break, but costs the same as the ones that do break. If it is possible to make that, what is stopping anyone from doing it, and making a profit. Who gives a shit that other people buy headphones that do break?

And your characterization of people as dumb is not only generally insulting and arrogant, but it's self-defeating as well. If people are dumb, then who should tell them what to do? You? These so-called smart people? The government? If they're too stupid to buy the headphones that best reflect their needs, then how the hell could they reliably pick the overlords that control their lives?

 

[chalupa]

The people who shop on Madison Avenue are not stupid.

You don't know what "Madison Avenue" means. It means advertising. Madison Avenue was the hub of advertising for the vast majority of the twentieth century, and it is still used as an expression to describe the entire industry.

You are thinking of Park Avenue, where the rich people go shopping for status.

And your characterization of people as dumb is not only generally insulting and arrogant, but it's self-defeating as well.

Please. You know this is true, and if you don't, I'd like to introduce you to www.peopleofwalmart.com.

If people are dumb, then who should tell them what to do? You? These so-called smart people? The government? If they're too stupid to buy the headphones that best reflect their needs, then how the hell could they reliably pick the overlords that control their lives?

What this has to do with the conversation is beyond me.

 

[reggie jax]

the headphones example was just an arbitrary hypothetical i came up with to make the point. the point isn't that a company can't make a better product for the same price, it's that the calculus that goes into a product's design doesn't necessarily reflect what will best meet the consumer's needs. if it is more profitable to make a product with a limited life span - that is, you gain more sales through faster turnover than you lose through costumer dissatisfaction - then it is a strategy that makes sense and companies will do so. nothing is to stop a competitor from making a product that outperforms them for the same price. but there is also no guarantee that such a product will actually prevail. for all we know the customer won't even know which product is more reliable at the time of purchase. that doesn't mean it is always the right strategy, nor does it even mean my headphones example is a real example.. that could very well just be a limitation of the product based on cost-effectiveness. but my point was basically that the idea that the invisible hand of the market works to deliver the optimal product to the consumer for their buck is flawed... it relies on the consumer being more informed than they realistically can be.

Well we've had all sorts of authoritarian governments. And again perpetual growth comes from production not capitalism. Sometimes production slows when people are poorly invested. That doesn't mean that the trend isn't generally positive. Short term fluctuations don't take away from the fact that over the past 200 years there has been more economic progress than in all of human existence.

but you said recessions aren't necessarily bad, when you were trying to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't necessarily require perpetual growth. so if you agree that these 'fluctuations' are generally bad for people and that a growing economy is generally good for people, does that not undermine your point?

You can call it semantic if you want, but I don't have a right to my property if someone else can determine how much of it they own. The fact that they've let me keep a portion doesn't mean I have a right to it since, that percentage is clearly subject to change according to their desires. I either own my property or someone else does, by definition. If they don't have to ask me for it, then I don't own it.

then i guess you don't have a right to your property, because that's the way things are and it is more or less the way things have always been.

i mean... we could argue the merits of taxation. i could say the govt controls a certain territory and within that territory you are bound to obey its laws, and that if you don't want to do so you can simply leave its territory. and you could respond that no matter where you go you will have to submit to some govt or another. but one way or another your point about history showing that a lack of property rights is a dangerous precedent goes out the window if you argue that pretty much every country now and throughout history would have infringed on said property rights.

 

[FenderBender]

You don't know what "Madison Avenue" means. It means advertising. Madison Avenue was the hub of advertising for the vast majority of the twentieth century, and it is still used as an expression to describe the entire industry.

You are thinking of Park Avenue, where the rich people go shopping for status.

Ok. I'm still not sure what you're point is.

Please. You know this is true, and if you don't, I'd like to introduce you to

I would say that approximately 50% of the population is of below average intelligence, and 50% is above. Fat people wearing abnormal clothing are no less capable of making their own life decisions than you are.

What this has to do with the conversation is beyond me.

It's the whole fucking conversation. You're saying capitalism isn't the best because people have limited intelligence. I'm saying limited intelligence is the source of our problems, not capitalism.

the headphones example was just an arbitrary hypothetical i came up with to make the point. the point isn't that a company can't make a better product for the same price, it's that the calculus that goes into a product's design doesn't necessarily reflect what will best meet the consumer's needs. if it is more profitable to make a product with a limited life span - that is, you gain more sales through faster turnover than you lose through costumer dissatisfaction - then it is a strategy that makes sense and companies will do so. nothing is to stop a competitor from making a product that outperforms them for the same price. but there is also no guarantee that such a product will actually prevail. for all we know the customer won't even know which product is more reliable at the time of purchase. that doesn't mean it is always the right strategy, nor does it even mean my headphones example is a real example.. that could very well just be a limitation of the product based on cost-effectiveness. but my point was basically that the idea that the invisible hand of the market works to deliver the optimal product to the consumer for their buck is flawed... it relies on the consumer being more informed than they realistically can be.

Consumer Reports
Better Business Bureau
Angie's List
Yelp
Customer Reviews
CNet

All free-market inventions. You're arguing that businesses build in failure to get people to come back and ignoring the fact, that screwing people over is the one sure way to keep a customer from coming back. If companies make a good product they want people to know they make a good product.

but you said recessions aren't necessarily bad, when you were trying to demonstrate that capitalism doesn't necessarily require perpetual growth. so if you agree that these 'fluctuations' are generally bad for people and that a growing economy is generally good for people, does that not undermine your point?

No. People living through the 2007 recession substantially better of than the people living through the post-WW2 boom. Fluctuations in the market are a reality. So is the long-term trend towards greater productivity and efficiency.

then i guess you don't have a right to your property, because that's the way things are and it is more or less the way things have always been.

i mean... we could argue the merits of taxation. i could say the govt controls a certain territory and within that territory you are bound to obey its laws, and that if you don't want to do so you can simply leave its territory. and you could respond that no matter where you go you will have to submit to some govt or another. but one way or another your point about history showing that a lack of property rights is a dangerous precedent goes out the window if you argue that pretty much every country now and throughout history would have infringed on said property rights.

You're right in that through history the majority of people have not had the right to their property. In general the wealth disparity has always been massive. But the trend has been towards giving citizens more autonomy, and its coincided with huge gains in prosperity. I don't think it's a coincidence that the economic booms of India and China started around the same time their free market reforms did.

 

[chalupa]

No, I'm saying that you are predicating your arguments on people being rational, self-interested actors, and they simply aren't.

But why would people buy something that is equal in all rights with the one exception being that it breaks more easily. Your scenario requires the world as a whole to collude to produce a substandard product when they don't need to. If there are no barriers to entry in to the market then all it takes is one person to fix the wrong and they have the market cornered. You're leaving out the agency of the consumer in your calculation.

You are giving the "agency of the consumer" way too much credit in all of your discussions. Consumers are easily manipulated cattle, and are fed inferior products all the time. Collusion isn't necessary, because manipulation rules the day.

Now, I'll go back to saying that in its truest form, capitalism is a great concept, but not only does it not exist today in that form, it is practically impossible for it to exist, because it demands the people not be retarded, growth be unlimited, and nobody abuse the system. Ergo, it is doomed to fail because it is based on humans, and humans are greatly flawed.

Even today you are seeing the move towards oligarchy in the US, with the disparity of wealth growing to levels never before seen (or so closely seen that the bottom fell out)...yet people keep supporting policies that are in direct conflict with what is best for them. Capitalism cannot exist in a true form because people just won't let it. ...which ties back to the thread -- global capitalism cannot last indefinitely because the basis of it so very flawed in execution.

 

[reggie jax]

Consumer Reports
Better Business Bureau
Angie's List
Yelp
Customer Reviews
CNet

All free-market inventions. You're arguing that businesses build in failure to get people to come back and ignoring the fact, that screwing people over is the one sure way to keep a customer from coming back. If companies make a good product they want people to know they make a good product.

i am saying that according to my business textbook planned obsolescence is a real business strategy that actually exists, and is defined as intentionally designing a limited life span into products for the purposes of higher turnover. i didn't invent the idea.

No. People living through the 2007 recession substantially better of than the people living through the post-WW2 boom. Fluctuations in the market are a reality. So is the long-term trend towards greater productivity and efficiency.

well... to be honest that doesn't actually address my point. even if people were better off during the 2007 recession than the post ww2 boom, that doesn't change the fact that in general people want the economy to grow because that means more wealth and more prosperity in general. the people living during the recession period would have been even better off if there wasn't a recession at the time. so the incentive is always to keep the economy growing and avoid recessions and depressions.

but i am curious what standard you're using to say we have it better now (economically) than we did then. i've heard plenty of people say the opposite.

You're right in that through history the majority of people have not had the right to their property. In general the wealth disparity has always been massive. But the trend has been towards giving citizens more autonomy, and its coincided with huge gains in prosperity. I don't think it's a coincidence that the economic booms of India and China started around the same time their free market reforms did.

i would concede the point on india and china, and clearly in an environment of global capitalism it makes sense to have market friendly laws. but we also had an economic boom in the united states while having much higher taxes than today, and since we've lowered them over the last 30 years economic disparity has increased dramatically.

 

[reggie jax]

No, I'm saying that you are predicating your arguments on people being rational, self-interested actors, and they simply aren't.


You are giving the "agency of the consumer" way too much credit in all of your discussions. Consumers are easily manipulated cattle, and are fed inferior products all the time. Collusion isn't necessary, because manipulation rules the day.

Now, I'll go back to saying that in its truest form, capitalism is a great concept, but not only does it not exist today in that form, it is practically impossible for it to exist, because it demands the people not be retarded, growth be unlimited, and nobody abuse the system. Ergo, it is doomed to fail because it is based on humans, and humans are greatly flawed.

Even today you are seeing the move towards oligarchy in the US, with the disparity of wealth growing to levels never before seen (or so closely seen that the bottom fell out)...yet people keep supporting policies that are in direct conflict with what is best for them. Capitalism cannot exist in a true form because people just won't let it. ...which ties back to the thread -- global capitalism cannot last indefinitely because the basis of it so very flawed in execution.

i don't think there is any difference between modern capitalism and capitalism in its truest form. its truest form is unbridled competition, which leads to exactly the results you see today. there's no such thing as abusing the system - anything that makes money is fair game imo.

but at the risk of derailing my own thread in an already dead forum, i'm curious to hear your thoughts on democracy given your apparent misanthropy. like fender said, if we're easily herded cattle, then how can we really be expected to pick the right leaders to rule our society?

 

[chalupa]

There is a massive difference between modern capitalism and the true definition of capitalism in that we certainly don't have unbridled competition. If that were the case, there would have been no auto bailout, let alone a million other ways the system is rigged.

As for your democracy question -- we don't have a democracy, we have a republic, and we have a weak one at that. Most voters know very little about politics, and are driven by wedge issues, that is, when they participate at all. Our participation rates are so abominably low that I'm not sure we even qualify for republic status. On top of that, people are manipulated (again, there's that word) into voting against their own best interests.

Our capitalism is corrupted by the intertwining of it with the government, and the government is run very much by a small percentage of people who are using it to corrupt our capitalism. The system is not true in its form, not even remotely, and the people keep sitting back and letting it happen. If people were smart, and again I'll say that a person is smart, but if people were smart, they would not stand for what is going on right now.

...and that's the problem, any system of economics (and governance) can be set up in an ideal fashion, only to have it ruined by the involvement of the masses. Capitalism is definitely doomed to failure, if only because we will let it.

 

[reggie jax]

i would argue that even govt intervention is fair game in truly unbridled competition. it seems rather arbitrary to say that using money to fund marketing campaigns in order to purchase popular influence is competition at work yet using money to fund lobbying groups or political campaigns in order to purchase political influence is corruption. if it is strategically beneficial to do so than what 'rational self-interested' entity would forgo such an opportunity?

and i know we don't have a direct democracy, but when i think about it i don't feel that direct democracy would be better nor would it solve the fundamental flaw in our system - that the democratic ideal relies on the knowledge of the same common man that your idealized version of capitalism relies on.

 

[FenderBender]

i am saying that according to my business textbook planned obsolescence is a real business strategy that actually exists, and is defined as intentionally designing a limited life span into products for the purposes of higher turnover. i didn't invent the idea.

I'm not saying it's not a real strategy. I'm saying that it's not a selling point to customers. It devalues a product, and there is no reason you can't find a product without built-in obsolescence in a capitalist market. The fact that producers have strategies to maximize value, doesn't mean consumers don't as well.

well... to be honest that doesn't actually address my point. even if people were better off during the 2007 recession than the post ww2 boom, that doesn't change the fact that in general people want the economy to grow because that means more wealth and more prosperity in general. the people living during the recession period would have been even better off if there wasn't a recession at the time. so the incentive is always to keep the economy growing and avoid recessions and depressions.

but i am curious what standard you're using to say we have it better now (economically) than we did then. i've heard plenty of people say the opposite.

Yes a recession-less economy would be a wonderful thing, but it is not intrinsic to capitalism. It is a result of changing trends in markets.

People now experience less hunger, better access to education, better access to healthcare, long life expectancy, lower crime, less war. The poorest in the US today, still largely have access to cell phones, TV's, refrigerators, stoves and ovens, air conditioning, when they didn't in the 1950's.

i would concede the point on india and china, and clearly in an environment of global capitalism it makes sense to have market friendly laws. but we also had an economic boom in the united states while having much higher taxes than today, and since we've lowered them over the last 30 years economic disparity has increased dramatically.

Can you be more specific about the taxes? I think there are lots of reasons for high economic disparity, and taxes is probably a part.

 

[FenderBender]

No, I'm saying that you are predicating your arguments on people being rational, self-interested actors, and they simply aren't.


You are giving the "agency of the consumer" way too much credit in all of your discussions. Consumers are easily manipulated cattle, and are fed inferior products all the time. Collusion isn't necessary, because manipulation rules the day.

Now, I'll go back to saying that in its truest form, capitalism is a great concept, but not only does it not exist today in that form, it is practically impossible for it to exist, because it demands the people not be retarded, growth be unlimited, and nobody abuse the system. Ergo, it is doomed to fail because it is based on humans, and humans are greatly flawed.

Even today you are seeing the move towards oligarchy in the US, with the disparity of wealth growing to levels never before seen (or so closely seen that the bottom fell out)...yet people keep supporting policies that are in direct conflict with what is best for them. Capitalism cannot exist in a true form because people just won't let it. ...which ties back to the thread -- global capitalism cannot last indefinitely because the basis of it so very flawed in execution.

I think you need a vacation. Your pessimism about life is really not justified. It's true that you can look at some aspects of life and see bad news, but the picture is overwhelmingly good. We're richer, freer, safer and less violent than we've ever been. Yes, some people are still trying to thuggishly force our will, but that's no reason to just say we're all fucked. We think of manipulation/persuasion as a bad thing, but it really isn't. It's basically the only way to change people's minds. Really the only other way to solve disagreements is violence.

The perception that people are dumb is not only cynical, it's unproductive. People can learn. If you think that you have a better answer share it with people. If you just assume that everybody is the worst case scenario you imagine them to be, you have to realize that they're probably looking at you the same way. It becomes self-fulfilling.

 

[chalupa]

I will have to go through this point by point, which I hate doing. Here goes:

I think you need a vacation.

I like the beach.

Your pessimism about life is really not justified.

Make no mistake, I'm not pessimistic about life, I'm pessimistic about people. Big difference. I could rattle off tons of reasons why I'm pessimistic about people, but the very existence of this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7

...is a good example. That's just dumb. There is no reason for it, and they are intentionally creating pollution.

It's true that you can look at some aspects of life and see bad news, but the picture is overwhelmingly good.

I tend to see the glass as 2x too big, if that helps you understand me.

We're richer,

The normal person's purchasing power has been greatly diminished by the actions of our elected officials, and the CPI is not a true metric of the reality of the situation. Technically we are not richer, we are worse off vis a vis immediate prior generations. Compared to like a few generations back, that is true, but not against our more recent cohorts.

freer,

Have you not been paying attention to the trampling of our rights in the name of safety?

safer and less violent than we've ever been.

I agree here.

Yes, some people are still trying to thuggishly force our will, but that's no reason to just say we're all fucked.

I never said we're all fucked, I said the system is fucked and is doomed to failure because of the actions of the players. I'm not even saying it will fail this week, but capitalism will eventually implode on itself, and a new system will take over. Then back to capitalism, then something else, over and over. It will be cyclical in nature simply because people are not actually rational actors. if we were, we would all live in a Rawlsian society (see: Veil of Ignorance).

We think of manipulation/persuasion as a bad thing, but it really isn't. It's basically the only way to change people's minds. Really the only other way to solve disagreements is violence.

There is a difference between changing someone's mind and tricking them to operate against their own interest, and sadly it appears that the second is the easier of the two to accomplish.

The perception that people are dumb is not only cynical, it's unproductive.

It is also true.

People can learn.

A person can learn.

If you think that you have a better answer share it with people.

Better answer for what?

If you just assume that everybody is the worst case scenario you imagine them to be,

I don't.

you have to realize that they're probably looking at you the same way.

...so I don't have to worry about this.

It becomes self-fulfilling.

You fulfill me.


My point is as follows, as you aren't seeing it: the debate you and reggie are having is about an idealized notion of capitalism, and we are not even close to living under such a system. I think capitalism, in theory, is the best thing we have had so far and I don't really have something better that is practical. I don't have something better that is practical because people are not rational actors and will inevitably fuck it up.

Capitalism, in its truest sense, was highjacked by the creation of the Fed and the governmental control of the money supply. Once the government could create money to pay off its debt, it invented a new way to tax people out of their access to the real halls of power. Only a select few can truly afford to rule, and they have re-written the rulebooks in their favor.

My solution would be a true Fed audit, and in an ideal world, Fed abolishment. I would have liked to see the bottom truly fall out of the financial industry so that the phoenix could really rise from the ashes to create a better world, but government intervention only maintained a flawed system, and we are currnetly on track for another asset bubble implosion. This cycle will continue because the people cannot figure out what is best for themselves (stopping the cycle), and instead will follow the lead of the few because they are manipulated. The manipulators will continue to use the system to their advantage, and herd the people in the direction that they want.

 

[FenderBender]

etc.

That link is depressing, but it's not like that is ever going to become the norm. It is a few people behaving stupidly. And I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of climate change skeptics, while disagreeing with the theory are not actively seeking to be mindlessly destructive. Some people do dumb things, but that doesn't make it the average. After all there is a small percentage of the world's population that routes for the Penguins. Life goes on.

I agree the CPI is poor reflection of purchasing power, but I come to a different conclusion. The country's poor are dealing with different concerns than they were 50 years ago. Instead of things like starvation, we're now worried about things like air conditioning. And there certainly are attempts to limit our freedom, but at the same time things like the internet have given us great freedom as well. And countries with long abusive histories are improving in this area as well.

Finally, I see your point, but I don't think I'm arguing idealistically. I think the optimal is respect of human rights, including life, liberty, property. There are plenty of potential conflicts that come from putting a system like that in to place. But any move in the direction of increased respect of those rights will improve life in my opinion. The progress may be slow, but compare life now to any time in history and we are continuing the trend in this direction. It's just hard to see from in the middle of it. People have been forecasting economic, environmental, and population crises for decades, but they've been wrong so far.

 

[chalupa]

You're right in the respect that the predictions don't come true, except that they do on a smaller scale, all the time.

In addition to being a completely retarded species, humans are also incredibly creative when we need to be...but it just takes us so long to get to the answer.

People had to die in Donora, PA, from just breathing, for there to be a Clean Air Act. Rivers had to catch on fire. Stock markets had to crash, depressions, recessions, etc, etc. it's like if we could demonstrate the slightest bit of prescience, a lot of our problems would be solved. Same thing on an individual basis...ask anyone, and they will say credit card debt is bad (unless it is an investment), but people still do it, a lot, anyway.

Maybe the whole paradox of humanity is the wildcard here, not just patent stupidity. We are an incredible species, both good and bad. I think that's why I'm arguing for the economic systems' cyclic nature, regardless of the system. Dumb actors spoil it, smart actors recreate it, over and over.

To everythiiiiing, turn, turn, turn,
There is a season, turn, turn, turn...

Also, I did not miss the dig at the Pens, but being from Philly is so hard on people that I figured I shouldn't make you feel any worse about yourself.

 

[reggie jax]

I'm not saying it's not a real strategy. I'm saying that it's not a selling point to customers. It devalues a product, and there is no reason you can't find a product without built-in obsolescence in a capitalist market. The fact that producers have strategies to maximize value, doesn't mean consumers don't as well.

but it wouldn't be a real strategy if it never worked, which seems to suggest the consumers don't always make purchasing decisions that maximize value. it is actually really unreasonable to expect them to be able to do so imo. i feel similarly to chalupa that this is a serious bottleneck in the efficacy of the market's invisible hand, but i won't even call people stupid. you don't have to be stupid to not maximize value with purchasing decisions. these decisions can actually be pretty complex and a lot of people probably don't have the same resources that companies have to do the necessary research it would take to always know how to maximize your dollar's value. i think people pretty much wing it most of the time which leaves quite a bit of room for error, and companies are much more vigilant than consumers about this sort of thing.

Yes a recession-less economy would be a wonderful thing, but it is not intrinsic to capitalism. It is a result of changing trends in markets.

right... my point is that the incentive is to continue to have perpetual growth in the economy. it might not be possible to always achieve this, but as you say the general trend will continue to be upward.

People now experience less hunger, better access to education, better access to healthcare, long life expectancy, lower crime, less war. The poorest in the US today, still largely have access to cell phones, TV's, refrigerators, stoves and ovens, air conditioning, when they didn't in the 1950's.

i think you're right in general, though there are things in here i might nitpick, but it's not important enough to do so. but the one thing i'd say is that technology is directly related to scientific advancement and i don't necessarily think the market is responsible for scientific progress. it does work to proliferate said technology, but at the same time you would expect to see access to technology increase as it becomes easier to make and thus more abundant.

Can you be more specific about the taxes? I think there are lots of reasons for high economic disparity, and taxes is probably a part.

sure. tax rates have been decreasing for some time, pretty drastically over the last half a century. income taxes are the lowest they've been since before the great depression, same with corporate and capital gains taxes though their decline is less dramatic as they were never as high to begin with. since the late 70's, income inequality has increased as the top 1% and the top .1% grow their wealth exponentially while most of the rest of the population has been more or less stagnant, adjusting for inflation. i have charts that make this point easier to make but this site won't let me use any links. i'm not suggesting this is necessarily a causal link - that lower taxes is increasing wealth inequality. some liberals do make that claim but i think it has yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated. but the correlation is clear - so i am saying that it has failed to help the situation and that we seem to be on the path to a two-tiered system.

 

[FenderBender]

but it wouldn't be a real strategy if it never worked, which seems to suggest the consumers don't always make purchasing decisions that maximize value. it is actually really unreasonable to expect them to be able to do so imo. i feel similarly to chalupa that this is a serious bottleneck in the efficacy of the market's invisible hand, but i won't even call people stupid. you don't have to be stupid to not maximize value with purchasing decisions. these decisions can actually be pretty complex and a lot of people probably don't have the same resources that companies have to do the necessary research it would take to always know how to maximize your dollar's value. i think people pretty much wing it most of the time which leaves quite a bit of room for error, and companies are much more vigilant than consumers about this sort of thing.

Yes some people make ignorant purchases with little research. And some people research products for a living. But the law of averages says that on average, the winners should win and the losers should lose. Toyota and Honda are the biggest sellers in the US, because they make reliable, efficient, affordable cars. The US car industry folded, because in spite of the fact that some people said "Buy American!", people by and large still recognize that they didn't want the cars they were making. And the best way to reduce the effectiveness is open up the market. With more competition comes better products. The most regulated industry in the US is probably the finance industry, and we know how full of land mines that is.

right... my point is that the incentive is to continue to have perpetual growth in the economy. it might not be possible to always achieve this, but as you say the general trend will continue to be upward.

Right but my original point was perpetual growth can't happen in that monotonic sense. The horse carriage industry needed to collapse to make way for the car industry. I think you can say that the economy is perpetually growing in the long run, while going through short term fluctuations.

i think you're right in general, though there are things in here i might nitpick, but it's not important enough to do so. but the one thing i'd say is that technology is directly related to scientific advancement and i don't necessarily think the market is responsible for scientific progress. it does work to proliferate said technology, but at the same time you would expect to see access to technology increase as it becomes easier to make and thus more abundant.

Technology has come from the market. You don't expect drugs to work because of the charity of Merck or Pfizer. You expect them to work, because they expect to get paid for the drugs they provide.

sure. tax rates have been decreasing for some time, pretty drastically over the last half a century. income taxes are the lowest they've been since before the great depression, same with corporate and capital gains taxes though their decline is less dramatic as they were never as high to begin with. since the late 70's, income inequality has increased as the top 1% and the top .1% grow their wealth exponentially while most of the rest of the population has been more or less stagnant, adjusting for inflation. i have charts that make this point easier to make but this site won't let me use any links. i'm not suggesting this is necessarily a causal link - that lower taxes is increasing wealth inequality. some liberals do make that claim but i think it has yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated. but the correlation is clear - so i am saying that it has failed to help the situation and that we seem to be on the path to a two-tiered system.

It's true that the marginal tax bracket rates have gone down, but that's not the entire picture. The actual percentage of taxes paid by the top brackets represents the overwhelming majority of tax revenue, and it has been rising since the 80's. Right now I think it's something like top 40% of earners pay 106% of tax revenue, while the bottom 40% pay -9% through earned tax credits.

 

[reggie jax]

Yes some people make ignorant purchases with little research. And some people research products for a living. But the law of averages says that on average, the winners should win and the losers should lose. Toyota and Honda are the biggest sellers in the US, because they make reliable, efficient, affordable cars. The US car industry folded, because in spite of the fact that some people said "Buy American!", people by and large still recognize that they didn't want the cars they were making. And the best way to reduce the effectiveness is open up the market. With more competition comes better products. The most regulated industry in the US is probably the finance industry, and we know how full of land mines that is.

but i think on average the consumer knows significantly less about how to maximize value than a company does.

Right but my original point was perpetual growth can't happen in that monotonic sense. The horse carriage industry needed to collapse to make way for the car industry. I think you can say that the economy is perpetually growing in the long run, while going through short term fluctuations.

so is that perpetual growth indefinitely sustainable in your view? even if it isn't uninterrupted... is the general upward trend indefinitely sustainable?

Technology has come from the market. You don't expect drugs to work because of the charity of Merck or Pfizer. You expect them to work, because they expect to get paid for the drugs they provide.

the drugs wouldn't exist without scientific advancement, which sometimes comes through private research and sometimes comes through state funded research. bottom line is the research is what produces the advances, not the state nor the market exclusively. thus technological advance doesn't necessarily rely on either one. it only relies on the will to do said research and the resources required to do so.

It's true that the marginal tax bracket rates have gone down, but that's not the entire picture. The actual percentage of taxes paid by the top brackets represents the overwhelming majority of tax revenue, and it has been rising since the 80's. Right now I think it's something like top 40% of earners pay 106% of tax revenue, while the bottom 40% pay -9% through earned tax credits.

which is easily explained by the fact that they are taking home a bigger portion of the wealth. they pay a disproportionate amount of the total taxes to the same extent that they make a disproportionate amount of the total income. in either case they pay less of their money (as a percentage) in taxes than they previously did and economic disparity is still drastically increasing.

 

[FenderBender]

but i think on average the consumer knows significantly less about how to maximize value than a company does.

And generally speaking they don't need to know more. Ideally nobody should know more about a product than the person who is making it. But the people who really care blog about it, they write consumer reviews, and post ratings. If the information is particularly newsworthy then it makes it to the news. If your point is what do we do about people who active avoid information on products before buying, I think you're seeking a level of economic utopia that could not exist.

so is that perpetual growth indefinitely sustainable in your view? even if it isn't uninterrupted... is the general upward trend indefinitely sustainable?

Only as long as growth is in demand.

the drugs wouldn't exist without scientific advancement, which sometimes comes through private research and sometimes comes through state funded research. bottom line is the research is what produces the advances, not the state nor the market exclusively. thus technological advance doesn't necessarily rely on either one. it only relies on the will to do said research and the resources required to do so.

It can't be said that drugs wouldn't exist without the government, since we need had an alternative. But even when the government hands out money for research, the researchers respond acting in their own private interest for those funds.

which is easily explained by the fact that they are taking home a bigger portion of the wealth. they pay a disproportionate amount of the total taxes to the same extent that they make a disproportionate amount of the total income. in either case they pay less of their money (as a percentage) in taxes than they previously did and economic disparity is still drastically increasing.

Maybe the problem with disparity is not related to taxes in a world where the rich already provide all the income tax revenue to the federal government.

 

[reggie jax]

And generally speaking they don't need to know more. Ideally nobody should know more about a product than the person who is making it. But the people who really care blog about it, they write consumer reviews, and post ratings. If the information is particularly newsworthy then it makes it to the news. If your point is what do we do about people who active avoid information on products before buying, I think you're seeking a level of economic utopia that could not exist.

my point is that even if both the consumer and the producer have ways to maximize value, the producer has better and more thorough ways and is thus to some extent capable of exploiting lapses or errors in consumer judgment. i'm not even saying there is necessarily anything to be done about this. just a simple observation. i think it is an intrinsic part of capitalism tbh.

Only as long as growth is in demand.

1)what governs whether or not growth is in demand?

2) what about scarcity? can that put a limitation on perpetual growth?

It can't be said that drugs wouldn't exist without the government, since we need had an alternative. But even when the government hands out money for research, the researchers respond acting in their own private interest for those funds.

my point is basically that you can decouple the research from the way it is funded. ultimately scientific progress drives technology, and there are various ways it can be funded. i do think that there is some research that has lead to technological advances which would probably be unlikely to be taken on by companies because they don't have an immediate profit incentive.. but that is beside the point. i'm just saying that a lot of the benefits of modern society come from technological progress as opposed to increased economic prosperity. basically you can do more with less thanks to technology.

Maybe the problem with disparity is not related to taxes in a world where the rich already provide all the income tax revenue to the federal government.

the rich always pay the lion's share of taxes. the disparity does seem to correlate with the cutting of tax rates though.

 

[Brian]

yall mothafuckas need jesus