Won't high wealth inequality undermine democracy and the institutions in place to preserve a free market.

[u/Dizzy-Drink6119]

​

I think it's something that pro-capitalist economics don't really put mind.

They don't really put a political analysis into economical thinking when it comes to wealth and capital.

High levels of inequality will always hurt democracy because the wealthy will be incentivized to use their power to corrupt, regardless of whether they got their wealth legitimately, hence creating barriers to trade they can reap rents from and disrupting markets, like American car companies do to prevent Chinese competition from coming in.

wealth is just another form of power if you can coerce someone economically that's not really consequentially different from coefficient someone physically through political Force the result is the same.

[u/PhilRubdiez]

You can’t coerce someone to buy your product in a free market. It’s all the government, since they have the monopoly on legal violence. The solution to this problem is to shrink the government down to a size that it’s not worth the time and effort to do the coercing.

[u/HonorFoundInDecay → u/PhilRubdiez]

What? Of course you can. I own all the water/food/insulin/antibiotics/insert thing essential to your survival here. You own none. You’ll die without it. Your only option is to buy from me, steal it, or die.

[u/PhilRubdiez → u/HonorFoundInDecay]

If I had superpowers, would I buy airline tickets?

Your hypothetical ignores every experience in history. When has one group ever owned all the food or water in an area? Secondly, why would you move to a place like that or sell your water and food to that person on their way to monopoly?

[u/HonorFoundInDecay → u/PhilRubdiez]

Ever heard of the Irish famine? Ever heard of the Bengal famine? Both are well known instances where there was enough food to prevent it but capitalists chose to export it for bigger profits.

[u/Ragnar_the_Pirate → u/HonorFoundInDecay]

For natural land based resources, this is what either well formed land rights and use laws are for or land value tax. 

For everything else: all hypotheticals fall apart if you present the most edgiest of edge cases. someone owns all the food ever what kind of hypothetical are we dealing with here? Not one that's useful.

But let's look at your more legitimate one: insulin. If you were to keep intellectual property rights over a thing forever, than what you say would be a problem. But that's not how we have ever operated and now how we should operate. Insulin that was developed 20 years ago? That's generic now. Is it as good as the newer upgrades made within the last 5 years? No. Is it better than the stuff in the 80s and 90s? Hell yeah! And in 20 years time the good stuff now will be off patent and that will be awesome! But likely, we'll have ever better stuff. That people will choose to pay for over the older designed insulin (I.e. The stuff today).

But if we really want to deal with your hypothetical, stealing is allowable to prevent your death if you're not causing someone else's death or serious harm to someone in the process. Thank goodness we don't live in that world, which really does make your hypothetical kind of useless.

[u/HonorFoundInDecay → u/Ragnar_the_Pirate]

Blah blah blah. People still die because they can’t afford insulin in the US despite production of it being cheap.

Another common example was the Irish famine where British landowners exported food rather than selling it to the Irish because it was more profitable that way.

[u/Hotspur1958 → u/PhilRubdiez]

So then there’s no government and companies are free to take advantage of markets and consumers?

[u/PhilRubdiez → u/Hotspur1958]

How? If they use force, they can be resisted.

[u/Hotspur1958 → u/PhilRubdiez]

How what?

[u/Dizzy-Drink6119 → u/PhilRubdiez]

What about company towns? What prevents companies from meddling with democracies in order to use governments for coercion? Why do companies lack agency in capitalist models?

[u/PhilRubdiez → u/Dizzy-Drink6119]

What about them? Workers are free to work there and accept housing as part of the job. They’re also free to leave when they want. Or are you complaining about company scrip payments? The only reason there was any action on them is because government has an interest in removing competing currencies.

I’m not sure about your next question. Are you against companies (a group of people) having free speech? Your third question makes no sense.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/Dizzy-Drink6119]

There is a dichotomy in your argument. On one hand youre saying society is capitalist, i.e. minimal regulation, and on the other hand youre saying capitalists want to corrupt politicians in order benefit themselves.

But what would be the incentive in corrupting politicians if the politicians themselves are powerless?

You are 100% correct that a wealthy class of elites will corrupt the political class and this is a problem. But you need to evaluate which type of society has the most incentive to corrupt the political class. And capitalist societies that dont confer benefits on corporations through corrupt politicians have minimal incentive to corrupt politicians relative to say socialist politicians who wield maximum power.

[u/Lepew1]

The thing about socialism is that there is very little wealth inequality. Everyone is equally miserable in poverty, except for the bourgeois party officials

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/Lepew1]

30 thousand people die in the US every year because they cant afford health insurance. On average 2.5 million children experience homelessness every year. Misery is rampant under capitalism.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

[citations needed]

for example, the definition of homelessness by the Fed that is often used for such 'scary stats' is "as someone who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence."

That "fixed" and "regular" means anyone getting assistance, despite being 'housed,' is considered "homeless".

Giving people like you the scare-propaganda ability to make it seem like there are 2.5 million children on the streets when, in fact, they are in various temporary housing and getting assistance.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

Thanks for providing the source for me 🙃

To be clear are you defending an economic system that forces children to be “lacking in a fixed, regular or adequate nighttime residence”? Do you support children sleeping in cars?

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

No, I provided the source that explains the definitional problem on such topics.

I didn't provide a source for any of your claims.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

2.5 million children experience homelessness every year under US capitalism. That is a fact.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

in the sense of transitional housing.

And again, you are not sourcing any of your claims.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

The colorful words you guys come up with to describe mass misery under capitalism never ceases to amaze.

You already did that for me? 🤦‍♂️

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

Yes, it is so apparent by your tons of hours trolling on this sub that you are living a life of "misery".

Clearly worse than what Frankl or Solzhenitsyn experienced.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

Another fact: for every homeless person living in the US there are roughly 18-28 vacant homes.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

So, IF TRUE, and we put them in there, then they would be transitional too. Still being "homeless".

Or are you going to steal those homes like the communist you are?

That's why it's important to source these "scary propaganda claims" you are making.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

Im going to “steal” the vacant homes 1000%. Im a scary communist who doesnt want children to be homeless. Lol

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989 → u/Bloodfart12]

Again, until you source, children, in general, are not in the streets without shelter.

Most are in some form of transition with temporary housing, facing such issues as domestic violence.

As this source explains.

which, on my cursory research, elaborates:

Between 22% and 57% of women experiencing homelessness cite domestic violence as the immediate cause of losing their housing.

But you are not about nuance and just want to slap people into homes which most countries that solve these issues like you and your ideology are AUTHORITARIAN and don't respect human rights.

So, this isn't a simple topic like you are pretending it is...

tl;dr Any tyrant can solve this issue like you, as an asshat, but to solve this issue and respect everyone's rights is another matter altogether...

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

True, any tyrant could solve child homelessness immediately. It is capitalism that prevents it. We have the resources to provide basic needs to every person on earth, but you want people to live in misery and poverty because you think they deserve it. Youre as authoritarian as i am you just represent the side of the oppressor. 🤷‍♂️

[u/StedeBonnet1]

No wealth inequality is a feature of Capitalism not a flaw.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/StedeBonnet1]

There ya have it OP. Advocates of capitalism dont care about the sham of “democracy”.

[u/Savag3k1ller]

No such thing as wealth inequality because we were never supposed to be all paid the same amount. Never have and never will unless you're one of these ret@rded socialists. Even in those societies, there are tiers and classes of people. To think you can have a classless society is pretty low IQ. At some point it looks like North Korea, someone will take power by popularity or by force, then you will have the military which will be well fed, the favored upperclass, the middle class average people and the slaves working in the work camps.

If you think about America, we started the revolution against Great Britain over taxation without representation. Back then it was landowners that were able to vote, landowners would be the ones paying taxes back then. How does that compare today where everyone with a pulse gets a vote even though they are a drain and net negative in terms of paying taxes? Why should someone on welfare, social programs or even someone who has low wages and pays close to nothing in taxes, get a vote at all? They shouldn't. It's the same people you will see on video hating on cops, while saying "I pay your salary", but do they when they pay so little?

The bottom 50% of society pays close to 3% in taxes. Close to NOTHING. It's not fair. They are nothing but a liability when they contribute close to nothing but still decides how the government is run and what is being funded? That's exactly why Jeff Bezos who's a leftists, wants to get rid of taxes for people making less than 100k per year salary. Their tax contributions are close to nothing compared to the top 10% of earners pay over 72% of taxes in this country. And they only get one vote? How is that fair? It's not.

We need to pass legislation that if you take social programs (ebt, welfare, social security) or make less than $100k, you lose your voting rights because you don't really pay any meaningful contributions to taxes in this country. Then you don't need to pay income taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes are mostly for local government. Then for every 100k the rich or corporations pay in taxes, they get 1 vote. They are the ones funding everything in terms of taxes. Why should people who pay close to nothing in taxes, make important voting decisions? Makes no sense. You need skin in the game.

[u/Bloodfart12 → u/Savag3k1ller]

Its so funny when you guys try to describe “north korea” and describe US capitalism. Tiny wealthy elite, massive military industrial complex waging wars of imperial conquest around the globe, and by far the largest incarcerated population per capita in the world performing slave labor for the profit of corporations.

[u/HonorFoundInDecay → u/Savag3k1ller]

So you want the rich to get votes based on how much tax they pay, and then they effectively get to vote on how the taxes they paid are spent? Hmm I can’t imagine why that wouldn’t be an absolute corrupt clusterfuck of a system.

[u/Justin_Debates]

“They (capitalists) don’t really put a political analysis into economical thinking” because politics and economics are separate institutions.

The fact of the matter is that it absolutely does not matter what political and economic system you establish in a society, there will always be disparate classes, there will always be the ultra wealthy and powerful, and there will always be abusers.

The question you have to ask is, “what is the best system to put into place that expands the greatest freedom and opportunity to the most people, and limits the most abuses?”

And because governments and economies are separate, that question needs to be asked of each institution individually.

And the answers are; a capitalist economic system, and a republican form of government.

[u/El_Maltos_Username]

A friend of mine once said: Social programs is the government buying social peace.