[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
It’s pretty clear that, without unions, capital will always hold all the power and wealth. There will be no rolling back of protection for capital if labor is weak.
[/quote]
1. We live in a democracy. Why do advocate for labor laws rather than advocate for removing protections from the capital side. Why do we propose solutions to the symptoms of a problem rather than the removal of a problem. Organized labor can be weak as long as the electorate remains strong. Granted the population of the United States has been piss poor at electing real representatives.
[quote=CA renter]
If you can show us some examples of countries without labor protections that have a better economy/society than developed nations where labor has more power, I’d like to see it.
[/quote]
2.This depends on how you define a better economy. If I simply define a better economy as one that grows faster than another I could point to China, India, and Brazil as countries that have better growth with weaker labor. I can also point to France, Italy, and Greece as countries with strong labor and negative growth.
Granted growth isn’t the end all be all but all these economists seem to think that growth is the way out of the debt hole. It would seem moving further in the direction of socialistic policies that much of Europe has is going to mean that growth is never going to come.
[quote=CA renter]
You still haven’t addressed how highly concentrated wealth/power would benefit society or our economy, the platitudes about “wealth and growth,” notwithstanding. The rhetoric in favor or capital and supply-side economics does not match reality.
[/quote]
3.I never said highly concentrated wealth benefits society. I said that allowing competitive forces to happen without many government regulations would increase growth. You seem to think that unregulated competition logic means that wealth will naturally concentrate into the hands of the few but there isn’t a ton of evidence of that. Most companies grow and then die. There’s far more Kodak’s and GM’s in the world than GE’s or IBM’s.
4.I do think we need to do something with estate taxes. I would like to see the business playing field leveled somewhat based on ability rather than inheritance. Fixing the estate tax situation would lessen the feared massive concentration of wealth scenario.[/quote]
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I wanted to respond with a more thoughtful post. I’ve numbered your points in bold, above, in order to address them directly.
1. Regarding living in a democracy, per the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Full Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges :
Under no circumstances do we live in a democracy. Those with power (read: money) control our government and our laws, and they are becoming more brazen about it as unions and workers flounder. An individual capitalist — one who makes a living from capital as opposed to working for a living — will ALWAYS have more power than an individual worker. This is why unions were necessary to level the playing field between capital and labor.
It is only when working people join together with common goals and interests that they can put in place the checks and balances necessary to grow an economy that benefits a majority of the working population. Individual working people, all focusing on their own, individual self-interest will NEVER be able to affect the economy in a way that would benefit workers at the expense of capital (and it is almost always zero-sum).
As far as having an “educated electorate,” it should be obvious by now that most people hardly vote, much less understand the issues. And that’s exactly how “capital” intends to keep it. They control the MSM and the popular messages that become mainstream thinking. Haven’t you noticed that truly important issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are hardly ever (if ever!) mentioned in the MSM, while Miley Cyrus’ “twerking” at the VMAs is blasted to millions on a regular loop.
2. “Growth,” does not necessarily correlate with a strong or healthy economy. It depends on how one defines growth: rising prices? increasing production and exports? growing debt burdens? How are the benefits of this growth allocated among the population of workers and/or investors? Are we using more resources than what is sustainable over time? All of these things help determine whether or not “growth” is good or bad…and it can indeed be very, very bad, IMHO.
And as far as those “socialistic policies” in Europe…the problems in Europe are primarily with the Mediterranean countries, and the causes of their problems are varied, but I don’t know of any of them that have been caused by socialism unless they have “socialism without taxation” (as tax evasion is a national pastime in some of those countries), OR “socialism with open borders.” Neither of those situations will ever work, for obvious reasons, but the problem does not lie with a pro-worker agenda nor with decent social safety nets; there is much more to the story than “socialism.” Some of the most socialistic European countries are also the most successful:
Personally, I define a successful economy as one in which the greatest possible number of people have their basic needs met, and one in which those who produce the most and work the hardest are rewarded the most. A successful economy enables the majority of the population to save for a rainy day/retirement and feel secure in their financial well-being, but doesn’t allow a handful of people to hoard an outsized portion of the country’s finite and/or natural resources to the detriment of the masses. A successful economy provides ample room for individual advancement as a result of hard work, but ensures that those who reap all the rewards accept an equal, or greater, amount of risk (with limited liability/corporate protection, bankruptcy laws, etc., that is not the case in our country).
—————–
3. You believe that, absent regulations and restrictions, there will always remain a balance of power and lack of corruption at the highest levels…ensuring that nobody takes advantage of their powerful position by manipulating markets and regulations in a way that benefits them at the expense of the many. I think this is quite naive. It has never happened in history. Capital and resources will ALWAYS flow to those who already own or control the greatest amount of wealth and resources. It is the very nature of capitalism. This is why I favor regulations and tax laws that seek to balance the power of the few with the interests and needs of the many.
———–
4. Estate tax:
Contrary to popular belief, inheritance does NOT concentrate wealth. In all but a very few instances, it dilutes it. More often than not, a very wealthy person has multiple heirs/beneficiaries of their estate. In order for inheritance to concentrate wealth, you’d have to have multiple wealthy ancestors and a single heir (or fewer heirs than the number of wealthy ancestors). This is very, very, very rare.
Though I’m a socialist, I believe very strongly in (certain) property rights; and once money is fairly and honestly earned*, and fairly and honestly taxed*, then it should be held free and clear (absent property taxes necessary that fund services/infrastructure that benefit the particular asset/owner).
*I do not think that all assets have been “fairly and honestly” earned and/or taxed. When people obtain wealth by manipulating markets or manipulating laws, etc., then it’s not fairly earned. If people are paying lower tax rates than people who’ve had to work for a living, then it is not “fairly and honestly” taxed.
What I would strongly advocate for — and what would greatly reduce the tendency for capital to accumulate to certain families/people — would be the elimination of the ability to “step up” the cost basis of assets upon the death of the estate owners. I understand the argument about not taxing cap gains that are the result of inflation, but that ability should extend to EVERYONE, not just the heirs of wealthy ancestors. If anything, everyone should be able to adjust the cost basis of their assets by a certain inflation calculation.
More than anything, we need to tax ALL types of income at the same, steeply progressive rates (and I would greatly increase the curve as it closes in on $1MM/year, though would agree with “smoothing” income over three years or so to reduce tax shocks). It is because of the low rates for “investment” income that capital is able to accumulate so rapidly among those who don’t have to work for a living.
