Will The Economy Collapse?

[median]

We must look to re-distribute the resources.

The philosophy of the idea that people cannot own their own property is one in which 1) I disagree strongly, 2) is unAmerican, 3) denies basic human rights, and 4) is simply unrealistic (which is really, in my view, how communism has always looked).

The redistribution idea (Robin Hood) sounds nice, for some, but doesn't work in practice - unless of course all you're talking about is a small tax but that's not really what were talking about, is it? Most people who talk about actual redistribution see the 1% (holding most the wealth) and want that money to be "distributed" equally throughout. Is that what you're arguing for?

Of course, none of this has to do with my OP but I found it worth mentioning. So you're answer is a yes then?

---

How did my OP get twisted to start talking about capitalism vs socialism vs communism etc? Let's stick to the OP!

[HorribleOffensiveScouser91]

I agree, the markets certainly are not capitalist in that they eliminate the very concept capitalism is based on, competition!

I was just trolling to be honest, it seems people find it hard to think outside the boxes, we seem to crave to identify with labels...I personally don't associate with any label because I believe it limits your thinking.

I just enjoy shouting things in forums. I was shouting that I was a communist yesterday and a socialist the day before ha!

[jonb]

We must look to re-distribute the resources.

The philosophy of the idea that people cannot own their own property is one in which 1) I disagree strongly, 2) is unAmerican, 3) denies basic human rights, and 4) is simply unrealistic (which is really, in my view, how communism has always looked).

The redistribution idea (Robin Hood) sounds nice, for some, but doesn't work in practice - unless of course all you're talking about is a small tax but that's not really what were talking about, is it? Most people who talk about actual redistribution see the 1% (holding most the wealth) and want that money to be "distributed" equally throughout. Is that what you're arguing for?

Of course, none of this has to do with my OP but I found it worth mentioning. So you're answer is a yes then?

---

How did my OP get twisted to start talking about capitalism vs socialism vs communism etc? Let's stick to the OP!

The distribution of wealth has a lot to economics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts...010-4?op=1

The proportion of wealth held by the top 1% and the general economic state has a strong relationship. It is actually a good predictor of slump when the richest gain over a certain level of the general proportion of wealth. To say that is not socialist or capitalist it is just an observation of how the market works.

[median]

I agree. Actually I'm not making a case for the reverse of communism, total free market (look what it got us into!). Rather I think the problem is not that easy to solve, given all the forces currently at work. When a wealthy man's wealth is threatened he will unite with others to keep his place.

Getting back to the OP, I'm not so sure that something like a progressive tax at this point will fix it. Aren't we too far in the hole? Wouldn't we need to decrease entitlements drastically AND increase taxes on everyone to balance the budget?

[HorribleOffensiveScouser91]

I agree. Actually I'm not making a case for the reverse of communism, total free market (look what it got us into!). Rather I think the problem is not that easy to solve, given all the forces currently at work. When a wealthy man's wealth is threatened he will unite with others to keep his place.

Getting back to the OP, I'm not so sure that something like a progressive tax at this point will fix it. Aren't we too far in the hole? Wouldn't we need to decrease entitlements drastically AND increase taxes on everyone to balance the budget?

I wasn't arguing from a Communist point of view, I think you just judged it that way because it was attacking Capitalism. Just because I was doing that does not mean I'm a Communist...it just means I have my own mind!

My argument was pointing out that it is quite clear the Economic meltdown is strongly related to the Capitalist way of running it. ( I do agree that I may have been wrong to label it Capitalist at all, but Capitalism is an economic system) What I am simply saying which DOES relate to your thread is that YES your economy will collapse but it could be prevented if you stopped looking for growth and started distributing...whilst it wouldnt benefit Eco growth ( obviously as growth stays at 0% ) it would improve quality of life in America generally.

Also to say it is unrealistic is ridiculous, unless you've lived in any other country than America you cannot state that it is 'unrealistic' ... I would never say it is unrealistic to get the best out of Capitalism...it is the people in the society that manipulate the ideology...Capitalism as an ideology is actually a bloody good idea....in some areas.

[jonb]

I agree. Actually I'm not making a case for the reverse of communism, total free market (look what it got us into!). Rather I think the problem is not that easy to solve, given all the forces currently at work. When a wealthy man's wealth is threatened he will unite with others to keep his place.

Getting back to the OP, I'm not so sure that something like a progressive tax at this point will fix it. Aren't we too far in the hole? Wouldn't we need to decrease entitlements drastically AND increase taxes on everyone to balance the budget?

So you could envisage social change by economic means which is socialism. But that is what all governments are doing anyway. This is why I stand against seeing this debate though existing terminology, because it tends to draw lines rather than examining the problem.
Current taxes tend to be around earnings and expenditure, which results in those that work the hardest being taxed the most, however it does not have to be that way. Ownership could be taxed rather than income. Tax of that form would produce a different set of winners and losers.

Any society has to protect its key institutions, The problem is what are the key institutions of a society. Even a simple idea that the fundamental part of society is its people leads to problems. For instance 'Rayaan', and 'A theist' might think what constitutes an American are different things. Now even if you can decide that the main purpose of a society is to protect its people and you can identify who those people are, what tools do you need to do that? For instance should you protect financial institutions? If you do during a falling market this is going to damage your own people, but if you don't your society will loose a lot of power, the power it needs to protect your people.

My personal view is that our governments are very much locked in to the paths they are on. As such as resources for each individual becomes harder to get, there is a sort of inevitability that societies in general will become less equitable.

[Cinjin]

I hope the whole world goes tits up... I'm one of those fellows who just wants to watch the world burn.

I definitely remember feeling that way for a long time. That attitude changes when you have a child/children. Suddenly, this shitty world we live in slowly starts to matter as you start to see your son's future eroding away.

[median]

These are some good points, and I'm glad we are clarifying terms. When I took my undergrad BA in Philosophy I very badly wanted to study economics, and I did take some classes. However, for me they were not enough and my views on these things have been changing over the years (naturally turning from "Conservative" - with a capital C - Christian to something different). So for me, these issues are not all worked out - which is partially why I started this thread (great article at Business Insider btw).

So, are we basically saying that redistribution is the best idea? That is, a progressive tax on higher earners? Or am I missing something? Is there more to the cake than that? More details perhaps? If we could get such a progression "done" (i.e. - passed), and that's a big IF...Wait, nevermind. How will we get this thing passed?

I'm certainly troubled by this inequality too. Heck, I am self employed and business is down. Times are TOUGH. It's hard to get people to commit etc. And I've been doing my particular line of work, professionally, for 15+ years. Would I like to make more money? Of course! How we will get there exactly, I just don't know b/c I am (to be honest) somewhat conflicted. If I worked hard all my life to provide for myself and protect my family, and then some government agency came along and took a bunch of what I earned saying, "You don't really need all this" I would be pissed. Yet, this inequality of wealth obviously sucks too. How can we create an environment that is fair for all?

I suppose this problem may very well relate to human nature itself (or at least a clash between two generally differing ways of thinking). One side wants "free markets" (free for all/every man to himself, etc) and the other side wants CO-operation. Would that be fair to say?

[jonb]

You seem to be presuming the main way of taxation has to be through income, so high earners pay more than low earners and to make things more equitable would be to tax high earners more.
I would suggest there are alternatives, You could for instance tax property and decrease income taxes. To be honest I do not know enough about the American situation to talk usefully about your situation, but for the British situation this could be worth thinking about and you may find synergies.
From the industrial revolution onwards earning from industry has been used to bolster the price of land. In many ways the British industrial decline has been encouraged by successive governments because investment in property has been subsidised, while investment in commerce has been taxed.
This has moved British society so far that the average brit will invest all that they can in their housing, but will think to invest in business is dangerous and will avoid it if they can find other outlets for their wealth.
This has over heated the housing market, so much that it has become the mainstay of the British economy, and housing prices are so heated that the average working British family are subsidised by the government because they cannot afford the cost of their own home. Now with the general economic slow down the government cannot balance the books, but to withdraw the subsidy from the housing market would cause a property crash, but industry and finance are proving incapable of producing enough wealth to finance the property market as it is currently structured in Britain. A property crash would on its own destroy the british economy.
Secondly to keep the housing market as it is constituted prices must rise, however this means the chance of younger workers buying into the market becomes harder, this is partly due to the ways the government subsidises the market. This results in the market being driven by landlords buying available property and renting it out. However this strategy only works if the landlord can get more from rent than it costs to borrow the money to buy the property
This means if the government with draws the subsidies from the property market the landlords will default, that will destroy the british banks, because they would not have the finance to be tenable and the british banks are the main earner of money coming into the british economy.
This is the situation and to unpick it will cause distress, but politicians are not assessed on long term objectives of what the economy will be like in ten or twenty years, but how it stands at the next election, so what happens is rather than restructuring a system which is failing, politicians plug up small holes and hope for the best, and ignore the inevitable long term collapse that will happen during somebody else's administration.
I think most analysts know this, but to put it forward now will take away any faith in the system and the markets will collapse directly, so there is a blind eye being turned to the situation, by many to give time that a possible solution maybe thought up, but as the structure moves on it means the market default when it comes will be worse.

Personally I would take the hit now and restructure, but governments are not constituted to explain and lead. This is because voters like to believe in strong men in government who are wise an know more than we do and will sort all those complicated things out for us so we don't have to think about it. For a government to turn around and say most of you that have spent your lives working to own a house, are going to loose everything and be no better off than those who have done nothing, is not going to be in power for long. And because we are in a world economy we can't put up trade barriers without that causing just as big problems, you all have to accept a drop in living standards that will make you cry in pain.
So this is the song for our age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SeZe1CKRv8

[Minimalist]

Will The Economy Collapse?

No....although the republicunts do seem determined to beat it with a stick for a while.