Help with debate

[Issaiah1332]

First, let's define "Capitalism". When I say "Capitalism" I mean a free market with private ownership of property. I assume you mean something resembling the corporatist state capitalism seen in the US (something that I'm also opposed to).

Now, let's define exploitation. The dictionary says "To use selfishly for one's own gain." Now, there's nothing wrong with selfishness in and of itself. So let's look at the rest of the definition. Using for one's own gain. This is inherent in every market transaction. When you buy from the grocery store, you are exploiting them, insofar as you are using them and their infrastructure selfishly for your own gain. At the same time, they are exploiting you, but using you selfishly for their own gain. All market transactions are necessarily exploitative, as all market transactions are mutually beneficial (otherwise they would not take place at all).

If we use this definition of exploitation and apply it consistently, all trade, all allocation of resources, anything you do to interact with another person, is exploitation.

We must come to the conclusion that if we're going to have any kind of economy at all, exploitation is going to exist.

There really is nothing inherently wrong about exploitation stictly understood as such for that reason alone. Now, there are certain forms of exploitation (taxation for instance) which are wrong, but not because they are exploitive, it is wrong because it threatens violence.

The Corporation is a creation of governments. Big business might exist without being incorporated, but the legal corporate identity comes from government.

Another such corporation is the government itself. Is there a significant difference between an exploitive government and an exploitive business? Both might be rightly seen as a leeching body living off the labor of others while not working much themselves.

The Labor Theory of Value is at best a questionable economic theory. It is NOT a theory of morality, of what is right and wrong. How marxists manage to confuse these two is completely beyond me.

Polar opposite to communism and at the same time so very much the same, you have agorism.

Considering the stupidity of Marxist class theory isn't something I want to do when someone else has already done it for me. Thus I offer you Agorist Class Theory, with a special emphasis on why Marx was wrong, comparing and contrasting agorist and marxist class theory.

Agorism advocates lasseiz-faire, but lasseiz-faire is as completely misunderstood by most communists as communism is by most republicans (who say they advocate lasseiz-faire but really don't).

An economy cannot be planned, simply because too much information is required to plan it and this information is beyond the ability of the planners to recieve and factor in.

Without free-floating prices and private property in capital goods no rational means of allocating the resources exists.

The idea of "need" should be analyzed. A need is conditional to a goal. Nothing is necessary in and of itself. So if you have a need, for example food, if the goal of persistent living is for some reason dropped (depressed, suicidal), then the need for food is also dropped.

Now, how do we evaluate needs? How to compare one person's needs against another's? In a free market, we use the system of prices. If you value X at $A, and I value X at $B, whether A>B or B>A determines who wants it more. Both need it to fulfill their goals, but the value of the goal is translated into the urgency of the need and this is how we know what is needed and what is not.

Under communism, there is no way to know. Two people may need the same roll of toilet paper, and to hear them tell you how much they need it, you might think they'd die from poor sanitation if they did not get it. You have no way to compare how much they actually need them, however.

We also need to consider individualism as opposed to collectivism. See my post "Let me explain" for more on this topic, and why communism, being collectivistic, is just plain stupid.

There are other ways to refute it, but I think this is quite enough and covers many of the most important points.

While arguing on a message board on capitalism and, of course, Marxism...this was brought up. I really dont know what to say, so my comrades...could someone help me prove him wrong.

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly, point out to him that in Marxist analysis, exploitation is an objective process based on the Surplus Labour theory of value, whereby workers are renumerated with the ability to purchase goods and services with a cumulative value less than the value that the worker contributed towards the production of a commodity (the difference being surplus value). THis makes his entire opening dictionary-based tirade on exploitation utterly innane.

Secondly, make it clear that the state is a direct product of Capitalism, and that Capitalism could not exist without a state - for the simple reason that the state is the product of the class antagonism and is a mechanism by which the ruling class can maintain the existing economic system during periods of active class confrontation. In this sense he is correct in suggesting that the state is violent, because the state commands 'bodies of armed men'. However, question him on why taxation is worse than other economic transactions, especially in the case of a worker selling his labour power, a case in which a coercive force is also involved.

In relation to prices etc, discuss the ways in which Capitalism is inefficient - especially with regard to the business cycle, where there is a vast oppurtunity cost in goods and services that could potentially be produced if the under-utilisation of resources did not exist. In addition, question him on whether it is fair that, because one does not command sufficient financial resources, one should not be able to purchase a given commodity.

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:04 am
Firstly, point out to him that in Marxist analysis, exploitation is an objective process based on the Surplus Labour theory of value, whereby workers are renumerated with the ability to purchase goods and services with a cumulative value less than the value that the worker contributed towards the production of a commodity (the difference being surplus value). THis makes his entire opening dictionary-based tirade on exploitation utterly innane.

Secondly, make it clear that the state is a direct product of Capitalism, and that Capitalism could not exist without a state - for the simple reason that the state is the product of the class antagonism and is a mechanism by which the ruling class can maintain the existing economic system during periods of active class confrontation. In this sense he is correct in suggesting that the state is violent, because the state commands 'bodies of armed men'. However, question him on why taxation is worse than other economic transactions, especially in the case of a worker selling his labour power, a case in which a coercive force is also involved.

In relation to prices etc, discuss the ways in which Capitalism is inefficient - especially with regard to the business cycle, where there is a vast oppurtunity cost in goods and services that could potentially be produced if the under-utilisation of resources did not exist. In addition, question him on whether it is fair that, because one does not command sufficient financial resources, one should not be able to purchase a given commodity.
ty

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:04 am
Firstly, point out to him that in Marxist analysis, exploitation is an objective process based on the Surplus Labour theory of value, whereby workers are renumerated with the ability to purchase goods and services with a cumulative value less than the value that the worker contributed towards the production of a commodity (the difference being surplus value). THis makes his entire opening dictionary-based tirade on exploitation utterly innane.

Secondly, make it clear that the state is a direct product of Capitalism, and that Capitalism could not exist without a state - for the simple reason that the state is the product of the class antagonism and is a mechanism by which the ruling class can maintain the existing economic system during periods of active class confrontation. In this sense he is correct in suggesting that the state is violent, because the state commands 'bodies of armed men'. However, question him on why taxation is worse than other economic transactions, especially in the case of a worker selling his labour power, a case in which a coercive force is also involved.

In relation to prices etc, discuss the ways in which Capitalism is inefficient - especially with regard to the business cycle, where there is a vast oppurtunity cost in goods and services that could potentially be produced if the under-utilisation of resources did not exist. In addition, question him on whether it is fair that, because one does not command sufficient financial resources, one should not be able to purchase a given commodity.

issaiah1332 wrote:
Firstly, in Marxist analysis, exploitation is an objective process based on the Surplus Labour theory of value, whereby workers are renumerated with the ability to purchase goods and services with a cumulative value less than the value that the worker contributed towards the production of a commodity (the difference being surplus value). This makes his entire opening dictionary-based tirade on exploitation utterly innane. -(Thanks to a comrade, at rev. left who helped me in this)

1. That doesn't make exploitation wrong.
2. The LTV is absurd.


Quote:
Secondly, the state is a direct product of Capitalism, and Capitalism cannot exist without a state - for the simple reason that the state is the product of the class antagonism and is a mechanism by which the ruling class can maintain the existing economic system during periods of active class confrontation. In this sense you are correct in suggesting that the state is violent, because the state commands 'bodies of armed men'. However, why is taxation worse than other economic transactions, especially in the case of a worker selling his labour power, a case in which a coercive force is also involved?

You are using a different definition of capitalism. I want to see if you can use another word than simply "Capitalism" with a capital C and no adjectives and still make sense. You're deliberately using a charged, ambiguous word. Knock it off. Use a precise, universally-understood word or words instead. Otherwise we just can't have any meaningful communication whatsoever.


Quote:
In relation to prices etc, Capitalism is inefficient - especially with regard to the business cycle, where there is a vast opportunity cost in goods and services that could potentially be produced if the under-utilization of resources did not exist.

The business cycle is a product of national banks, owned and operated by the government. Not a product of the free market. When the government prints more and more money, this depresses the interest rate, making easy credit. However because the public's time horizons haven't changed (they still want less goods now as opposed to more good later), calculations based on the depressed interest rate anticipating consumers to want more goods later as opposed to less goods now, tend toward failure. When this failure occurs, it's called the "bust" of the boom-bust cycle. The government causes the business cycle, not the market. In reality, this bust is reality asserting itself. The bubble of inflationary expansion artificially created by the government cannot be sustained.


Quote:
In addition, how is it fair that, because one does not command sufficient financial resources, one should not be able to purchase a given commodity?

It's fair because you didn't do enough to earn it.


That was his counter...his thoughts are bolded.

[Issaiah1332]

I have no idea how to respond...to his rebuttal.

[ComradeR]

This guy is a joke, he dodges the bit about how the state is a direct product of Capitalism, and then goes on to say that the flaws and inefficiency of Capitalism are caused by the state and not the Capitalist system. <_<

[Lenin II]

Firstly, “exploitation” is not necessarily defined as any action done for one’s own benefit, as he seems to be implying. That is called survival. When discussing capitalism, exploitation DOES mean the type that threatens violence. A person can work for the machine or starve to death. A person contributes hours of intense labor to the corporation he works for, making much excess money for them and doesn’t see another dime, or at best receives a share unequal to that amount he contributed, while the higher-ups take most the profits. Labor is the sole cause of all profit, and in this scenario, how exactly is the worker “exploiting” back? He did his work and receives no benefits from it. Tell him that inequality is required for capitalism, and ask him if he thinks it is right that certain types of people should have access to better health care simply because they have more money.

Secondly, communism is way to ensure that both exploitations are equal, which is something that almost never happens in capitalism. He claims that all market transactions are equally beneficial, which is just plain false. Price-gouging is a fact of the capitalist system, just look at Big Oil and what the De Beers family did to diamonds. Furthermore, interaction with another person is trade, but NOT exploitation, because assumingly the interactions are equal: you converse with them and they converse with you. Communism is simply a way to ensure both parties have equal speaking time and receive equal benefits from the conversation.

Thirdly, I do agree with him about the relativism of the word “need.” However, there has got to be a better way than the system of simple prices.

[Janus]

The Corporation is a creation of governments. Big business might exist without being incorporated, but the legal corporate identity comes from government.
Corporations usually arise independent of government involvement. Rather, government is usually the enemy of monopolies as can be seen by the US&#39;s "trust-busting" policies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


The Labor Theory of Value is at best a questionable economic theory. It is NOT a theory of morality, of what is right and wrong. How marxists manage to confuse these two is completely beyond me.
:blink: Where do Marxists mix morality and economics? Marxism is amoralistic, that&#39;s what separates it from Christian socialists,etc.


We must come to the conclusion that if we&#39;re going to have any kind of economy at all, exploitation is going to exist.
What kind of capitalist fatalism is that? Exploitation is a persistent social relationship in which certain people are mistreated,abused, and unfairly used by others. It&#39;s not simply defined by a degree of selfishness.

[bezdomni]

Get him to post here in OI and explain how the LTV is absurd.

[Issaiah1332]

Zhzi, you refuse to accept that the state is a direct result of capitalism, yet you say that the flaws of capitalism are caused by the state and not the system.

Define "Capitalism". If it&#39;s a "Free market of private property", then your charge makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as that definition of capitalism is incompatible with the state.

I&#39;m not defending your strawman idea of "Capitalism". I can&#39;t. What you think of when you say "Capitalism" is something I don&#39;t like either. We are using the same word to mean two different things. I asked you to define Capitalism, and so far you haven&#39;t.

Define "Capitalism".


issaiah1332 wrote:
Corporations usually arise independent of government involvement.

A Corporation is a fictive legal identity you can buy from a government in order to immunize yourself from personal liability for debts incurred in the corporate name. A big business is not necessarily a corporation, nor is a corporation necessarily a big business.


Quote:
Rather, government is usually the enemy of monopolies as can be seen by the US&#39;s "trust-busting" policies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

You&#39;re assuming the government cannot do both. Just as the government subsidizes tobacco farming and taxes cigarettes, the government creates monopolies and then breaks them apart. Here&#39;s a page about the Bell/AT&T monopoly, a classic example.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html


Quote:
Where do Marxists mix morality and economics? Marxism is amoralistic, that&#39;s what separates it from Christian socialists,etc.

Then why is exploitation wrong if right and wrong don&#39;t exist?


Quote:
What kind of capitalist fatalism is that? Exploitation is a persistent social relationship in which certain people are mistreated,abused, and unfairly used by others. It&#39;s not simply defined by a degree of selfishness.

Exploitation as most people use the word is not what you say it is at all. Exploitation as you use the word is a result of government regulation creating oligopsonies in labor markets, giving the businesses more bargaining power than they deserve.

Again I bolded his responses.

[Raúl Duke]

I&#39;m not an expert but.....


QUOTE
Quote:
Where do Marxists mix morality and economics? Marxism is amoralistic, that&#39;s what separates it from Christian socialists,etc.

Then why is exploitation wrong if right and wrong don&#39;t exist?

Actually its not that marxist view it as right or wrong; its that the workers/marxist view the exploitation to be against their material interests. (i.e.; "my labor creates wealth, yet my wealth creation, commodity, is exploited by someone elses&#39; capital. I think I deserve a bigger peace of wealth or I think I deserve all the wealth created by my labor")


QUOTE
Quote:
What kind of capitalist fatalism is that? Exploitation is a persistent social relationship in which certain people are mistreated,abused, and unfairly used by others. It&#39;s not simply defined by a degree of selfishness.

Exploitation as most people use the word is not what you say it is at all. Exploitation as you use the word is a result of government regulation creating oligopsonies in labor markets, giving the businesses more bargaining power than they deserve.

Intersting, but there where times when there was less government intervention, I think (the gilded age), and monopolies were created anyway.

However, I might be wrong because the government did intervene to protect their economy against others.


QUOTE
Zhzi, you refuse to accept that the state is a direct result of capitalism, yet you say that the flaws of capitalism are caused by the state and not the system.

Define "Capitalism". If it&#39;s a "Free market of private property", then your charge makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as that definition of capitalism is incompatible with the state.

Why not just give a Marxist definition of capitalism ? ;)

Actually, I think this person believes capitalism "doesn&#39;t exist" today because of the state. :rolleyes:

In my opinion (I&#39;m not an expert marxist.... :( ):
The idea is, even if the economy is a mixed one (thus making it in his head not capitalist), what is the most predominant economic form? The most predominante is not the state capitalism and property, but private capitalism and private property.
Marx mentioned in historical materialism that even though there was an age of feudalism, other economic forms existed yet in a minor role. The idea was that feudalism was the predominate mode of production in its era.
This is a capitalist era because the predominate mode of production is capitalism, even though other mode of production exist such as state ownership ("state capitalism"?) of property/businesses, etc.

[Janus]

Then why is exploitation wrong if right and wrong don&#39;t exist?
Being amoralistic doesn&#39;t mean that right and wrong don&#39;t exist. Most Marxists are moral relativists, the defining morals of a certain epoque are simply the morals of the ruling class. Exploitation by its very definition means that the act is objectively harmful, there&#39;s no reason to bring morality into it.


Just as the government subsidizes tobacco farming and taxes cigarettes, the government creates monopolies and then breaks them apart.
All this shows is that big business has strong influence within the government. However, when it gets too large and too monopolistic then the gov. will begin to pursue actions against it.

[Issaiah1332]

issaiah1332 wrote:
I do not think that the Great Depression was a result of the "Lasseiz-faire" because government was involved. I do, however, stress that the state is a direct result of capitalism and therefore a "Lasseiz-faire" form will never be possible.

Establish a relationship between cause and effect.


Quote:
The Great Depression was a result of constant boom, bust cycles. You are right, in some sense, the government is the reason,

The government is the only reason boom-bust cycles occur. It was a confusing and unwelcome cycle when it first arose, and had economists puzzled.


Quote:
but the government intervenes due to there not being perfect competition in capitalism nor the free market, and therefore government must intervene.

Non sequitur. Perfect competition is not possible or desirable or practical.


Quote:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. That is the actual definition.

Now define privately owned. Privately owned in contrast to what? Does the number of owners make it no longer privately owned? Does it have to be owned by the government in order to be owned by the public, and if so, how is ownership by a group calling itself the government different from ownership by a group calling itself the stockholders? Changing labels does not change anything.

The means of production must be in somebody&#39;s control if they are to be used. This means ownership. As all individuals are private individuals, all ownership is necessarily private, unless one buys into the myth of the public or archoexceptionalist doublethink hypocrisy, both of which are refuted by the fact that collectivism is a load of bullshit.

If we assume any kind of other ownership than private ownership is possible, then let&#39;s consider what ownership is. Can we agree that ownership is control? Now, if the government controls something, then it has effective ownership of it. If it regulates a business, then it is exercising a kind of ownership over the business.

Either Capitalism is the only possible way for things to exist, or Capitalism is incompatible with government, and your "state is a product of capitalism" line just got it&#39;s wings clipped.


Quote:
Capitalism will inevitably always move to oligopolistic monopoly capitalism.

Prove it. Regulation certainly does lead to oligopoly, but it is not capitalism.


Quote:
Free markets do not deal with externalities. Just wanted to throw that in there.

Externalities do not exist except where invasions of property rights exist. The public good problem of the lighthouse contradicts the fact that private lighthouses have existed for hundreds of years. The externality problem of pollution is a problem created by the government. Under the common law before the industrial revolution, one could sue polluters. Statutory and case law bought and paid for by the corrupt industrialists had to aviscerate this principle.

Free markets do deal with externalities. When they are free to.


Quote:
An employee is not paid according to the true worth of his labor but according to what the employer is willing to pay him.

Value is subjective. The labor is worth only what someone is willing to buy it for. Labor itself has no value except as it is valued by people.


Quote:
The employer pays him less than what his labor is worth so that the employer can make a profit when he sells the produce.

This assumes of course that product prices are set by input prices, which is false. Prices are set by supply and demand. The employer does not have complete control over either the prices of labor or the prices of products. Any effective or percieved control is not a result of the market, but a result of regulation creating labor-market oligopsony and giving employers more bargaining power than they would rightfully have otherwise, and this oligopsony is a result of government. The laborer and employer both must agree on the price. The store and customer both must agree on the price. Otherwise no transaction takes place.


Quote:
In this way, the employee&#39;s labor is being exploited.

Premises refuted, this statement no longer holds water.


Quote:
Wealth and unequal distribution can create social problems (such as higher crime rates). These problems affect both poor and rich. If you live in the ghetto you should be able to understand this.

Unequal distribution is a result of metaphysical justice. If you attempt to overcome metaphysical justice, an instristic part of reality, an inherent side effect of the cause-effect universe in which we live, you are contradicting reality. And you just can&#39;t win that arguement, reality will win every time.

Social problems are not inherent to social division. If everybody is living a middle-class lifestyle, there won&#39;t be more problems than if 99% lived a middle-class lifestyle and 1% lived in castles.

There are social problems in places where everybody is poor and nobody is rich, like Somalia. There is a much lesser degree of it where most people live somewhat comfortably and other people live in mansions.

Lack causes social problems, not inequality. The means to economic equality (taxation and redistribution) creates lack (distorts the economy creating surpluses and shortages) creates social problems.

Inequality isn&#39;t just about ends, it&#39;s about means. There has to be consistency between ends and means. Redistribution necessarily creates two very new classes. Taxpayers, and tax consumers. The inequality of this process should be perfectly evident. You cannot promote social equality by promoting a different kind of social inequality.


Quote:
Government interference in markets can be used to benefit the wealthy.On the other hand, wealthy people have the ability to influence governmental officials.

I don&#39;t argue with this point one bit.


Quote:
Many people have little wealth left over after living expenses, so they can&#39;t make it grow quickly.

Understanding the way taxation effects living expenses, the way incorporating affects the tax burden, and things like that illustrate that even when government taxes the rich, this cost eventually trickles down to the poor in the form of higher prices.


Quote:
This further deepens the disparity between rich and poor.

But it is a result of the government&#39;s regulatory interferance, not the market itself.


Quote:
This is due to people having to sell their labor as a commodity, and capitalists having a monopoly over living necessities.

Capitalists having a "monopoly" (oligopoly would be a much more accurate word, although it&#39;s actually only a restricted number of entrepreneurs, not a very small number) over living necessities is a result of government interferance. It is harder to start a business and to compete in a regulated than in an unregulated economy.


Quote:
Persistent long-term inequality of wealth undermines the motivation of the poor to improve their stance. This creates not only direct but perpetual sociological inequity.

It does not. The poor are not a homogenous herdthinking class unable to escalate into the rich and unable to be joined by failing entrepreneurs.


Quote:
Wealthy people save relatively more than poor people. Unequal distribution of wealth undermines an economy&#39;s mass buying power, effectively leading to lower aggregate sales, reduced wealth production, unemployment and many other crisis.

Keynesian nonsense. Wealthy people do not save, they invest. That&#39;s how they became wealthy. Investing increases the number of tools of production which increases the economy&#39;s mass producing power, effectively leading to lower overall prices, increased wealth production, employment, and many other good things.


Again...I bolded his responses to my statements (quoted)

[ComradeRed]

May I suggest that you study economics a bit more before going in to debates like this?


Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:57 pm

issaiah1332 wrote:
I do not think that the Great Depression was a result of the "Lasseiz-faire" because government was involved. I do, however, stress that the state is a direct result of capitalism and therefore a "Lasseiz-faire" form will never be possible.

Establish a relationship between cause and effect.
Cause: feudal aristocracy promotes production of more goods.
Effect: cottage industry is organized and orchastrated under the guidance of proto-capitalists.

Cause: these proto-capitalists are gaining wealth but are not recognized for it and still forced to be part of the peasentry.
Effect: these proto-capitalists seek to change this so they may spend more time to orchestrate their industry.

Cause: Feudal lords refuse to recognize these proto-capitalists.
Effect: These proto-capitalists revolt against these feudal lords.

Cause: These proto-capitalists revolt against these feudal lords.
Effect: New thought and philosophy (read: superstructural changes) arise to justify the proto-capitalists&#39; revolt.

Cause: The old regime is overthrown.
Effect: The proto-capitalists want to hold on to their newly gained power.

Cause: The proto-capitalists want to retain their power.
Effect: These proto-capitalists form a government where wealth buys power; this would effectively exclude the aristocracy since they inherit wealth rather than "make" it.




Quote:
The Great Depression was a result of constant boom, bust cycles. You are right, in some sense, the government is the reason,

The government is the only reason boom-bust cycles occur. It was a confusing and unwelcome cycle when it first arose, and had economists puzzled. Not true according to basic financial economics.





Quote:
but the government intervenes due to there not being perfect competition in capitalism nor the free market, and therefore government must intervene.

Non sequitur. Perfect competition is not possible or desirable or practical. No, it&#39;s no a non-sequitur. Without perfect competition, there becomes inertia for starting up companies.

Then there is a concentration of capital. This is how corporate oligopolies are formed.

Of course there may be a "Mom and pop" shop, but it doesn&#39;t pose any significant challenge because the market has all ready "settled down". There&#39;s inertia in the system&#33;

So what do you do when the concentration of capital is so signficant that only a few firms own 99% of the market?



Quote:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. That is the actual definition.

Now define privately owned. Privately owned in contrast to what? Does the number of owners make it no longer privately owned? Does it have to be owned by the government in order to be owned by the public, and if so, how is ownership by a group calling itself the government different from ownership by a group calling itself the stockholders? Changing labels does not change anything. As opposed to workers&#39; controlled firms.


The means of production must be in somebody&#39;s control if they are to be used. This means ownership. As all individuals are private individuals, all ownership is necessarily private, unless one buys into the myth of the public or archoexceptionalist doublethink hypocrisy, both of which are refuted by the fact that collectivism is a load of bullshit. :lol: Interesting reasoning...by which I mean "nonsensical reasoning". "The means of production" does not presuppose ownership.

There&#39;s no magic in there being commodities used in the production of new commodities. Nothing there presupposes any kind of ownership.


If we assume any kind of other ownership than private ownership is possible, then let&#39;s consider what ownership is. Can we agree that ownership is control? That&#39;s the entire premise to the argument to capitalism created the current state.


Now, if the government controls something, then it has effective ownership of it. If it regulates a business, then it is exercising a kind of ownership over the business. This tacitly assumes that "regulation = control". Is that always the case that regulation of an industry is control of an industry?

When something&#39;s regulated, it&#39;s rate is adjusted. When something is controlled, it&#39;s under the sole influence of the controller.


Either Capitalism is the only possible way for things to exist, or Capitalism is incompatible with government, and your "state is a product of capitalism" line just got it&#39;s wings clipped. No, the state isn&#39;t a by-product of capitalism. The current state that exists at this time is a by-product of capitalism so the proto-capitalists could consolidate power.




Quote:
Capitalism will inevitably always move to oligopolistic monopoly capitalism.

Prove it. Regulation certainly does lead to oligopoly, but it is not capitalism. Sophistry&#33; And not even good sophistry.

The trick here is that this chap is going to say "Well that&#39;s not capitalism." Well, tell him to suck it because it is capitalism. There is surplus value, thus it&#39;s capitalism.

Ask him about the robber barons from the time when the U&#036; was laissez-faire. If he says it&#39;s not capitalism, he&#39;s got a contradiction.



Quote:
Free markets do not deal with externalities. Just wanted to throw that in there.

Externalities do not exist except where invasions of property rights exist. The public good problem of the lighthouse contradicts the fact that private lighthouses have existed for hundreds of years. The externality problem of pollution is a problem created by the government. Under the common law before the industrial revolution, one could sue polluters. Statutory and case law bought and paid for by the corrupt industrialists had to aviscerate this principle.

Free markets do deal with externalities. When they are free to. I don&#39;t understand what is meant by "externalities" here.



Quote:
An employee is not paid according to the true worth of his labor but according to what the employer is willing to pay him.

Value is subjective. The labor is worth only what someone is willing to buy it for. Labor itself has no value except as it is valued by people. Value is not subjective, that would make it immeasurable.

If we go by this guy&#39;s theory, that utility determines the demand (which is conventional economics -- the demand curve is derived from diminishing marginal utility), then how does he measure utility? Utility&#39;s spectrum is {0,1} or {it&#39;s not useful, it&#39;s useful}.

He&#39;s banking on it being the set of real numbers. It&#39;s not, at least not empirically.



Quote:
The employer pays him less than what his labor is worth so that the employer can make a profit when he sells the produce.

This assumes of course that product prices are set by input prices, which is false. Prices are set by supply and demand. Oh Really? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t56640.html)


The employer does not have complete control over either the prices of labor or the prices of products. This chap obviously has no clue how a firm works in reality.


Any effective or percieved control is not a result of the market, but a result of regulation creating labor-market oligopsony and giving employers more bargaining power than they would rightfully have otherwise, and this oligopsony is a result of government. The laborer and employer both must agree on the price. The store and customer both must agree on the price. Otherwise no transaction takes place.
Wrong, the laborer has to agree to the employer&#39;s offer or else the laborer walks.

The customer either accepts the store&#39;s price or the customer walks.

If we were talking about a barter economy, you may have a point. But if you haven&#39;t noticed, we&#39;re not in a barter economy.

Try bartering with a computer firm like Dell or Gateway over a computer. They won&#39;t even talk to you face-to-face, they&#39;ll just hang up on you&#33;



Quote:
In this way, the employee&#39;s labor is being exploited.

Premises refuted, this statement no longer holds water. "I refute it thus" is not a refutation.



Quote:
Wealth and unequal distribution can create social problems (such as higher crime rates). These problems affect both poor and rich. If you live in the ghetto you should be able to understand this.

Unequal distribution is a result of metaphysical justice. Oh really? So unequal distribution is something beyond the scope of physics?


If you attempt to overcome metaphysical justice, an instristic part of reality, an inherent side effect of the cause-effect universe in which we live, you are contradicting reality. And you just can&#39;t win that arguement, reality will win every time. Philosophical psychobabble.


Social problems are not inherent to social division. If everybody is living a middle-class lifestyle, there won&#39;t be more problems than if 99% lived a middle-class lifestyle and 1% lived in castles. An assertion is not an argument. There is no proof to back this up either, it&#39;s just an assertion.


There are social problems in places where everybody is poor and nobody is rich, like Somalia. Could that be because everybody&#39;s poor and nobody&#39;s rich?


There is a much lesser degree of it where most people live somewhat comfortably and other people live in mansions. Could that be because everybody&#39;s rich and nobody&#39;s poor?


Lack causes social problems, not inequality. If you say so :lol:

But if you actually think about the logical conclusion of this, "lack" is "inequality". So thank you for agreeing.


The means to economic equality (taxation and redistribution) creates lack (distorts the economy creating surpluses and shortages) creates social problems. Too bad there isn&#39;t any empirical proof to back up this baseless assertion.

But there is proof to the contrary.

Back in the 1980s when vietnam was privitizing, they went to the world bank and asked what crops they should grow. The world bank said coffee.

The vietnamese farmers grew so much coffee that it deflated the price and they had to destroy a signficant portion to get a profit.

There&#39;s your glorious free market for you. Or would you prefer something more laissez-faire where the government has absolutely no control over the means of production? You know, like modern Russia.


Inequality isn&#39;t just about ends, it&#39;s about means. There has to be consistency between ends and means. Redistribution necessarily creates two very new classes. Taxpayers, and tax consumers. The inequality of this process should be perfectly evident. You cannot promote social equality by promoting a different kind of social inequality. That&#39;s supposing you work within capitalism.

If you totally destroy the capitalist mode of production and start a gift economy, you no longer have this problem.




Quote:
Government interference in markets can be used to benefit the wealthy.On the other hand, wealthy people have the ability to influence governmental officials.

I don&#39;t argue with this point one bit. Because you can&#39;t.



Quote:
Many people have little wealth left over after living expenses, so they can&#39;t make it grow quickly.

Understanding the way taxation effects [sic] living expenses, the way incorporating [sic] affects the tax burden, and things like that illustrate [sic] that even when government taxes the rich, this cost eventually trickles down to the poor in the form of higher prices. This argument makes no sense.

1. The government taxes firms.
2. ???
3. "Incorporating" (whatever that refers to) affects the "tax burden".
3.5 Even if it&#39;s just the rich taxed instead of firms you have the same problem
4. This hurts the poor somehow.



Quote:
This further deepens the disparity between rich and poor.

But it is a result of the government&#39;s regulatory interferance, not the market itself. That&#39;s also sophistry. Maybe if you have a proof rather than an assertion, someone would listen.




Quote:
This is due to people having to sell their labor as a commodity, and capitalists having a monopoly over living necessities.

Capitalists having a "monopoly" (oligopoly would be a much more accurate word, although it&#39;s actually only a restricted number of entrepreneurs, not a very small number) over living necessities is a result of government interferance. It is harder to start a business and to compete in a regulated than in an unregulated economy. Pure sophistry, no argument or proof present.



Quote:
Persistent long-term inequality of wealth undermines the motivation of the poor to improve their stance. This creates not only direct but perpetual sociological inequity.

It does not. The poor are not a homogenous herdthinking class unable to escalate into the rich and unable to be joined by failing entrepreneurs. This supposes that there is a limitless amount of wealth in society. But if no new goods are produced (i.e. we&#39;re talking about a "freeze frame" of an economy) there is a finite amount of wealth.

But that means that this "escalation" of class would cause someone to descend class-wise.



Quote:
Wealthy people save relatively more than poor people. Unequal distribution of wealth undermines an economy&#39;s mass buying power, effectively leading to lower aggregate sales, reduced wealth production, unemployment and many other crisis.

Keynesian nonsense. Wealthy people do not save, they invest. That&#39;s how they became wealthy. Investing increases the number of tools of production which increases the economy&#39;s mass producing power, effectively leading to lower overall prices, increased wealth production, employment, and many other good things.
OK that doesn&#39;t change the fact that someone on minimum wage couldn&#39;t even pay for three meals a day whereas wealthy people don&#39;t even chew the same food twice in one meal.

[Demogorgon]

I am not sure if you realise it, but this guy is trying to confuse you with complicated and often meaningless terms in the hope that you will throw in the towel without realising he hasn&#39;t even made a coherant argument in the first place. ComradeRed is right to call this sophistry, the trick is you&#39;ve got to realise it is sophistry right off the bat or you will fall into the trap of arguing on his terms. Which needless to say is not a good idea because they don&#39;t mean anything at all, more often than not.

Your central problem is this guy has created his wn definition of capitalism. Or more accurately he is taking a definition created by other people that doesn&#39;t relate to capitalism as it actually exists. This puts him in a good arguing position if you don&#39;t realise what he is up to, because it allows him to wiggle out of any criticism of capitalism by saying it isn&#39;t capitalism at all. Of course he might as well be arguing the elves and the dwarves can sort out the trouble rather than saying this magical completely free market can. At least they are better defined.

Try and pin him down on a definition of capitalism, eventually he will have to admit his definition is something that has never existed and presumably never will. Why then is he arguing so strongly for it? My guess is he is trying to defend modern capitalism as it really exists by dressing it up as some ideal we will one day achieve.

Anyway to his actual points, ComradeRed knows more about economics than I do, so I won&#39;t go through all his points as you already have a superior set of answers in the post above, but there are a few points he makes that I just can&#39;t resist replying to.


The government is the only reason boom-bust cycles occur. It was a confusing and unwelcome cycle when it first arose, and had economists puzzled.Hang on a minute. Where is the evidence for this. We haven&#39;t got any economy with no government at all to test this on. So effectively he is just saying his system is better because he says so. However if we look at trends within economies we do have, it doesn&#39;t seem the presence of a government is causing the boom and bust. Sometimes they make such things worse as he will no doubt point out, but at other times government fiscal policy slows down and sometimes even temporarilly halts the cycle. I don&#39;t say that as a defence of any Government, just to say that that wouldn&#39;t be happening if the presence of Government is the only reason for this cycle.


If we assume any kind of other ownership than private ownership is possible, then let&#39;s consider what ownership is. Can we agree that ownership is control? Now, if the government controls something, then it has effective ownership of it. If it regulates a business, then it is exercising a kind of ownership over the business.Hang on, there is an interesting contradiction here. This guy no doubt sayscapitalism is wonderful because each man has freedom and "ownership over himself". At least that&#39;s what followers of this kind of thinking like to say. But here he is saying that the government regulating something gives it a kind of ownership. But hang on, when I go to work, work regulates me, doesn&#39;t it? That&#39;s a kind of control. Does that mean work actually owns me. I doubt that&#39;s what he wants to argue.

Regulation certainly does lead to oligopoly, but it is not capitalism.I always enjo sentences like these. I find it quite intruiging how such a short sentence can have so many things wrong with it. Regulation is not capitalism? Hang on... Isn&#39;t capitalism about property, freedom, the rights of man and all that jazz. That&#39;s what he was going on about before anyway. Now property is the funny one. If we have property rights, presumably they have to be guaranteed in some way, otherwise someone else can run off with our property. Normally this is the government prrotecting property through law (a lot more enthusiastically than it protects people I might add). Now here&#39;s the thing, property law is one of the most complicated and restrictive forms of market regulation that there is. So there is a regulation inherant in capitalism already. After all it makes sense that if capitalism is (in theory) going to be about competition then there will be a kind of referee governing the rules of the game so to speak.

The next problem is he is saying that regulation itself rather than any other aspect of capitalism is causing oligopoly. I wonder what proof he has of that? Certainly my understanding of economics doesn&#39;t point me in that direction. I guess governments with a leaning towards corporatism do occasionally deliberately create oligopolies. I think Franco&#39;s government did it for its own corrupt reasons. But that isn&#39;t the normal course of an oligopoly emerging, is it?


Externalities do not exist except where invasions of property rights exist. The public good problem of the lighthouse contradicts the fact that private lighthouses have existed for hundreds of years. The externality problem of pollution is a problem created by the government. Under the common law before the industrial revolution, one could sue polluters. Statutory and case law bought and paid for by the corrupt industrialists had to aviscerate this principle.

Free markets do deal with externalities. When they are free to.What is he trying to say here? I mean it is true that under common law prior to the industrial revolution you could sue over pollution (incidentally at that time common law was really only present in England and Wales) but the courts are a form of government as well. Is he saying he does favour the government dealing with externalities, it&#39;s just that he would prefer it to be the judicial branch?

And what is this about externalities being an invaasion of property rights? Where does that leave us with positive externalities like external benefits? Has he forgotten they sometimes exist? And if it is only about property, imagine I am renting a flat which is filled with smoke from a nearby factory. Is it only the owner of this flat rather than me affected?

Capitalist economists usually answer the problem of externalities by saying the firms should be forced to "internalise the external" but that means government imposed taxes. How is the free market magically going to do it on its own? There&#39;s a lot of capitalist economists crying out to know apart from anyone else.

Unequal distribution is a result of metaphysical justice. If you attempt to overcome metaphysical justice, an instristic part of reality, an inherent side effect of the cause-effect universe in which we live, you are contradicting reality. And you just can&#39;t win that arguement, reality will win every time.What on earth does this mean? It must be the most pretentious form of "because I say so" ever written. I have studied philosophy for several years now, and hope I can say with a degree of authority that that does not mean anything at all.

Contradicting reality? Metaphysical justice? Wait a moment, this justice must exist beyond the material universe, but it is definitely real according to him. Where is it then? In our minds, perhaps? But they are still simply the result of our very real and very physicl brains working. Is this justice beyond the universe? If so surely it isn&#39;t part of our reality, because we are part of the universe. What evidence is there for it? God?

He is saying if I try and understand this meaningless babble that an unequal distirbution of wealth is the only just distribution. Okay, we have extracted a premise from amonst that gunk. That get&#39;s us somewhere I suppose. But surely such a premise requires evidence to back it up? He hasn&#39;t offered us anything. Just said it is "metaphysical justice" whatever that might be. I am guessing he means it asa kind of morality, though he might not use that word. But morality not coming from people (as it must do if it is metaphysical in nature)? Where on earth (or not on earth as it happens) is it coming from? And how come he knows about it if it is going beyond the physical universe?

Thi is what I mean by him using pretentious but meaningless phraises to confuse you.


Capitalists having a "monopoly" (oligopoly would be a much more accurate word, although it&#39;s actually only a restricted number of entrepreneurs, not a very small number) over living necessities is a result of government interferance. It is harder to start a business and to compete in a regulated than in an unregulated economy.Really, what if part of the regulation is involving the government offering start up grants? At any rate though where is this evidence that an unregulated market lacks serious barriers to entry? It&#39;s another baseless assertion.

Keynesian nonsense. Wealthy people do not save, they invest. That&#39;s how they became wealthy. Investing increases the number of tools of production which increases the economy&#39;s mass producing power, effectively leading to lower overall prices, increased wealth production, employment, and many other good things.
Actually wealthy people do save a lot more. Even Milton Friedman conceded that. Further more they often move their money abroad, which will not do the domestic economy much good. I don&#39;t suppose he thought of that?

[ComradeRed]

Anyway to his actual points, ComradeRed knows more about economics than I do, so I won&#39;t go through all his points as you already have a superior set of answers in the post above, but there are a few points he makes that I just can&#39;t resist replying to. Yeah please do, I lost my patience with this chap after the first few quotes. It&#39;s hard to believe there are such philistines in the world.

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+March 30, 2007 03:47 am--> (ComradeRed @ March 30, 2007 03:47 am) May I suggest that you study economics a bit more before going in to debates like this?


[email protected] 29, 2007 04:57 pm

issaiah1332 wrote:
I do not think that the Great Depression was a result of the "Lasseiz-faire" because government was involved. I do, however, stress that the state is a direct result of capitalism and therefore a "Lasseiz-faire" form will never be possible.

Establish a relationship between cause and effect.
Cause: feudal aristocracy promotes production of more goods.
Effect: cottage industry is organized and orchastrated under the guidance of proto-capitalists.

Cause: these proto-capitalists are gaining wealth but are not recognized for it and still forced to be part of the peasentry.
Effect: these proto-capitalists seek to change this so they may spend more time to orchestrate their industry.

Cause: Feudal lords refuse to recognize these proto-capitalists.
Effect: These proto-capitalists revolt against these feudal lords.

Cause: These proto-capitalists revolt against these feudal lords.
Effect: New thought and philosophy (read: superstructural changes) arise to justify the proto-capitalists&#39; revolt.

Cause: The old regime is overthrown.
Effect: The proto-capitalists want to hold on to their newly gained power.

Cause: The proto-capitalists want to retain their power.
Effect: These proto-capitalists form a government where wealth buys power; this would effectively exclude the aristocracy since they inherit wealth rather than "make" it.




Quote:
The Great Depression was a result of constant boom, bust cycles. You are right, in some sense, the government is the reason,

The government is the only reason boom-bust cycles occur. It was a confusing and unwelcome cycle when it first arose, and had economists puzzled. Not true according to basic financial economics.





Quote:
but the government intervenes due to there not being perfect competition in capitalism nor the free market, and therefore government must intervene.

Non sequitur. Perfect competition is not possible or desirable or practical. No, it&#39;s no a non-sequitur. Without perfect competition, there becomes inertia for starting up companies.

Then there is a concentration of capital. This is how corporate oligopolies are formed.

Of course there may be a "Mom and pop" shop, but it doesn&#39;t pose any significant challenge because the market has all ready "settled down". There&#39;s inertia in the system&#33;

So what do you do when the concentration of capital is so signficant that only a few firms own 99% of the market?



Quote:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. That is the actual definition.

Now define privately owned. Privately owned in contrast to what? Does the number of owners make it no longer privately owned? Does it have to be owned by the government in order to be owned by the public, and if so, how is ownership by a group calling itself the government different from ownership by a group calling itself the stockholders? Changing labels does not change anything. As opposed to workers&#39; controlled firms.


The means of production must be in somebody&#39;s control if they are to be used. This means ownership. As all individuals are private individuals, all ownership is necessarily private, unless one buys into the myth of the public or archoexceptionalist doublethink hypocrisy, both of which are refuted by the fact that collectivism is a load of bullshit. :lol: Interesting reasoning...by which I mean "nonsensical reasoning". "The means of production" does not presuppose ownership.

There&#39;s no magic in there being commodities used in the production of new commodities. Nothing there presupposes any kind of ownership.


If we assume any kind of other ownership than private ownership is possible, then let&#39;s consider what ownership is. Can we agree that ownership is control? That&#39;s the entire premise to the argument to capitalism created the current state.


Now, if the government controls something, then it has effective ownership of it. If it regulates a business, then it is exercising a kind of ownership over the business. This tacitly assumes that "regulation = control". Is that always the case that regulation of an industry is control of an industry?

When something&#39;s regulated, it&#39;s rate is adjusted. When something is controlled, it&#39;s under the sole influence of the controller.


Either Capitalism is the only possible way for things to exist, or Capitalism is incompatible with government, and your "state is a product of capitalism" line just got it&#39;s wings clipped. No, the state isn&#39;t a by-product of capitalism. The current state that exists at this time is a by-product of capitalism so the proto-capitalists could consolidate power.




Quote:
Capitalism will inevitably always move to oligopolistic monopoly capitalism.

Prove it. Regulation certainly does lead to oligopoly, but it is not capitalism. Sophistry&#33; And not even good sophistry.

The trick here is that this chap is going to say "Well that&#39;s not capitalism." Well, tell him to suck it because it is capitalism. There is surplus value, thus it&#39;s capitalism.

Ask him about the robber barons from the time when the U&#036; was laissez-faire. If he says it&#39;s not capitalism, he&#39;s got a contradiction.



Quote:
Free markets do not deal with externalities. Just wanted to throw that in there.

Externalities do not exist except where invasions of property rights exist. The public good problem of the lighthouse contradicts the fact that private lighthouses have existed for hundreds of years. The externality problem of pollution is a problem created by the government. Under the common law before the industrial revolution, one could sue polluters. Statutory and case law bought and paid for by the corrupt industrialists had to aviscerate this principle.

Free markets do deal with externalities. When they are free to. I don&#39;t understand what is meant by "externalities" here.



Quote:
An employee is not paid according to the true worth of his labor but according to what the employer is willing to pay him.

Value is subjective. The labor is worth only what someone is willing to buy it for. Labor itself has no value except as it is valued by people. Value is not subjective, that would make it immeasurable.

If we go by this guy&#39;s theory, that utility determines the demand (which is conventional economics -- the demand curve is derived from diminishing marginal utility), then how does he measure utility? Utility&#39;s spectrum is {0,1} or {it&#39;s not useful, it&#39;s useful}.

He&#39;s banking on it being the set of real numbers. It&#39;s not, at least not empirically.



Quote:
The employer pays him less than what his labor is worth so that the employer can make a profit when he sells the produce.

This assumes of course that product prices are set by input prices, which is false. Prices are set by supply and demand. Oh Really? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t56640.html)


The employer does not have complete control over either the prices of labor or the prices of products. This chap obviously has no clue how a firm works in reality.


Any effective or percieved control is not a result of the market, but a result of regulation creating labor-market oligopsony and giving employers more bargaining power than they would rightfully have otherwise, and this oligopsony is a result of government. The laborer and employer both must agree on the price. The store and customer both must agree on the price. Otherwise no transaction takes place.
Wrong, the laborer has to agree to the employer&#39;s offer or else the laborer walks.

The customer either accepts the store&#39;s price or the customer walks.

If we were talking about a barter economy, you may have a point. But if you haven&#39;t noticed, we&#39;re not in a barter economy.

Try bartering with a computer firm like Dell or Gateway over a computer. They won&#39;t even talk to you face-to-face, they&#39;ll just hang up on you&#33;



Quote:
In this way, the employee&#39;s labor is being exploited.

Premises refuted, this statement no longer holds water. "I refute it thus" is not a refutation.



Quote:
Wealth and unequal distribution can create social problems (such as higher crime rates). These problems affect both poor and rich. If you live in the ghetto you should be able to understand this.

Unequal distribution is a result of metaphysical justice. Oh really? So unequal distribution is something beyond the scope of physics?


If you attempt to overcome metaphysical justice, an instristic part of reality, an inherent side effect of the cause-effect universe in which we live, you are contradicting reality. And you just can&#39;t win that arguement, reality will win every time. Philosophical psychobabble.


Social problems are not inherent to social division. If everybody is living a middle-class lifestyle, there won&#39;t be more problems than if 99% lived a middle-class lifestyle and 1% lived in castles. An assertion is not an argument. There is no proof to back this up either, it&#39;s just an assertion.


There are social problems in places where everybody is poor and nobody is rich, like Somalia. Could that be because everybody&#39;s poor and nobody&#39;s rich?


There is a much lesser degree of it where most people live somewhat comfortably and other people live in mansions. Could that be because everybody&#39;s rich and nobody&#39;s poor?


Lack causes social problems, not inequality. If you say so :lol:

But if you actually think about the logical conclusion of this, "lack" is "inequality". So thank you for agreeing.


The means to economic equality (taxation and redistribution) creates lack (distorts the economy creating surpluses and shortages) creates social problems. Too bad there isn&#39;t any empirical proof to back up this baseless assertion.

But there is proof to the contrary.

Back in the 1980s when vietnam was privitizing, they went to the world bank and asked what crops they should grow. The world bank said coffee.

The vietnamese farmers grew so much coffee that it deflated the price and they had to destroy a signficant portion to get a profit.

There&#39;s your glorious free market for you. Or would you prefer something more laissez-faire where the government has absolutely no control over the means of production? You know, like modern Russia.


Inequality isn&#39;t just about ends, it&#39;s about means. There has to be consistency between ends and means. Redistribution necessarily creates two very new classes. Taxpayers, and tax consumers. The inequality of this process should be perfectly evident. You cannot promote social equality by promoting a different kind of social inequality. That&#39;s supposing you work within capitalism.

If you totally destroy the capitalist mode of production and start a gift economy, you no longer have this problem.




Quote:
Government interference in markets can be used to benefit the wealthy.On the other hand, wealthy people have the ability to influence governmental officials.

I don&#39;t argue with this point one bit. Because you can&#39;t.



Quote:
Many people have little wealth left over after living expenses, so they can&#39;t make it grow quickly.

Understanding the way taxation effects [sic] living expenses, the way incorporating [sic] affects the tax burden, and things like that illustrate [sic] that even when government taxes the rich, this cost eventually trickles down to the poor in the form of higher prices. This argument makes no sense.

1. The government taxes firms.
2. ???
3. "Incorporating" (whatever that refers to) affects the "tax burden".
3.5 Even if it&#39;s just the rich taxed instead of firms you have the same problem
4. This hurts the poor somehow.



Quote:
This further deepens the disparity between rich and poor.

But it is a result of the government&#39;s regulatory interferance, not the market itself. That&#39;s also sophistry. Maybe if you have a proof rather than an assertion, someone would listen.




Quote:
This is due to people having to sell their labor as a commodity, and capitalists having a monopoly over living necessities.

Capitalists having a "monopoly" (oligopoly would be a much more accurate word, although it&#39;s actually only a restricted number of entrepreneurs, not a very small number) over living necessities is a result of government interferance. It is harder to start a business and to compete in a regulated than in an unregulated economy. Pure sophistry, no argument or proof present.



Quote:
Persistent long-term inequality of wealth undermines the motivation of the poor to improve their stance. This creates not only direct but perpetual sociological inequity.

It does not. The poor are not a homogenous herdthinking class unable to escalate into the rich and unable to be joined by failing entrepreneurs. This supposes that there is a limitless amount of wealth in society. But if no new goods are produced (i.e. we&#39;re talking about a "freeze frame" of an economy) there is a finite amount of wealth.

But that means that this "escalation" of class would cause someone to descend class-wise.



Quote:
Wealthy people save relatively more than poor people. Unequal distribution of wealth undermines an economy&#39;s mass buying power, effectively leading to lower aggregate sales, reduced wealth production, unemployment and many other crisis.

Keynesian nonsense. Wealthy people do not save, they invest. That&#39;s how they became wealthy. Investing increases the number of tools of production which increases the economy&#39;s mass producing power, effectively leading to lower overall prices, increased wealth production, employment, and many other good things.
OK that doesn&#39;t change the fact that someone on minimum wage couldn&#39;t even pay for three meals a day whereas wealthy people don&#39;t even chew the same food twice in one meal. [/b]
You are right Comrade...I am still studying the basics of economics and do not know much, yet. I came into the debate, when he was saying that Capitalism is not oppressive. I had to come in...I do think that he and me know about the same amount on the subjects, I refuse to use vague and sophistic rhetoric and try to use facts. He has an advantage of backing me into corners with stuff that means nothing. I often do not know how to respond to his vague rhetoric.

Thanks for the help :)