Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Scot Dutchy]

Too true. This has been going on for years of course.

[Brian Peacock]

Warning: Contains scenes of police brutality.

[Animavore]

Hint: This isn't about video games even though it is.

[Brian Peacock]

Ah, another follower of Mr Thorn. Have you seen his soliloquy on Steve Bannon?

[Animavore]

Only discovered him today. Will check it out.

[PsychoSerenity]

It's good to see someone addressing what I think is one of the most fundamental flaws of mainstream economics; the assumption that the amount someone will pay for something is equal to how much they value it. Almost all of microeconomic theory has this ridiculous assumption at its heart, starting with the most basic supply and demand curves and building from there.

I tend to frame the argument against it with the following scenario: Imagine a billionaire with multiple mansions across the world all with 24/7 kitchen staff, and imagine a hungry and homeless person without a penny to their name. Which of them will most value additional food and shelter, and to which of them will the market system provide additional food and shelter?

The only situation where the assumption holds true is one of complete wealth equality. If everyone has the same amount of money to spend (and of course no additional life situation inequalities that might disadvantage them like disabilities) then people who value something more can fairly chose to pay more for it. The greater the level of wealth inequality in an economy the further from reality most of these economic theories get. It's not reasonable or rational to talk about the way markets price goods being automatically correct, while ignoring the fact that people can be entirely priced out of those markets as if it's a small, inconvenient complication.

It's always frustrated me because I find economics fascinating, but so much of it is essentially pseudoscience - logical fallacies, ridiculous assumptions, ignoring evidence - mostly it seems for the purpose of providing simplistic political propaganda to keep the wealthy in power.

[Tero]

Many times I wonder how the evonomists are able to measure the value of things. We even measure entertainment value in dollars. Goods and services is sensible enough.

[Brian Peacock]

We should measure value in Calories or Watts.

Liberal economics are systems of regulated relationships by which people with power secure their status and influence. As Baron Harkonnen so aptly put it, "He who controls the Spice controls the universe."

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...people with power secure their status and influence...

And one of the most important ways that happens in western democracies is the power leverage flowing directly from wealth. Top legal protection, clever tax accountants, and most importantly, bribes donations to political parties to get decisions to bolster your power...

[Brian Peacock]

We might call it the financialisation of politics, as some do.

Dr Grace Blakeley's recent book, "Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation" (amazon), lays out the case for a deliberate mitigation of the structural economic shifts in power towards capital and away from ordinary citizens post 2007/08. Well worth a punt.

Here's a short lecture to Oxford students from 2018 (rather poor audio) in which she outlines the broad history of post WWII shifts towards asset price inflation up to the 2007/08 crisis, and the consequences for economies and society thereafter.

[Hermit]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...people with power secure their status and influence...

And one of the most important ways that happens in western democracies is the power leverage flowing directly from wealth. Top legal protection, clever tax accountants, and most importantly, bribes donations to political parties to get decisions to bolster your power...

Equally important is control of the mass media. It's used to bamboozle the havenots into believing that:
1) Billionaires have actually earnt their wealth rather than acquired it by keeping the difference between the value of the stuff workers have created and what they are being paid for.
2) The trickledown economy functions as advertised.
3) Nobody will bother getting stuff done unless there is the incentive of increased remuneration.
4) Anybody can be wealthy by working hard.
5) There are only two options: Laissez faire capitalism and socialism (where socialism is equated with communism).
6) Social democracy is the slippery slope leading to communism where everybody lives in poverty-stricken shitholes.
7) Even the slightest move toward social democracy results in the end of freedom. Politicians will tell you where, how and when you take holidays, what car you can buy etc, or even if any of these things are possible.

More often than not enough havenots get sucked in by this bullshit to elect governments that are deleterious to their own welfare, and I fear this is not about to change any time soon. In Australia Scott Morrison's conservative coalition was recently reelected, in the UK Boris Johnson's Tories are odds-on to retain government and in the USA Donald Trump stands a good chance to win a second presidential term. Elsewhere, neoliberals do as they will; Macron in France, Merkel in Germany, Trudeau in Canada...

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm starting to fear that capitalism may have effectively ended the little democracy we had in this country and replaced it with an oligarchy and just the illusion of democracy. There's not any single entirely undemocratic power structure, but instead a many layered system, with each layer slightly limiting democracy in a different way, but that all added together prevents real power from going back to the people. I really hope I'm proved wrong in a couple of week's time.

[Brian Peacock]

I share your concerns, and your hopes PS.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep the 'illusion of democracy' is what many so called first world countries have. The UK and USA are prime examples although there are many more.

[Svartalf]

pfff, the populace may be the fools electing the people in official authority, but BIG £ $ is actually who put them in a place where they could be canidates, it whom the elected officials actually obey.