What government interventions create the most poverty and social inequality? I feel that this is very important when talking to socialists since they say that capitalism satisfies petty wants of some while others don't even have their basic needs.
The minimum wage, which effectively outlaws jobs below an arbitrary minimum.
Kenneth: What government interventions create the most poverty and social inequality? I feel that this is very important when talking to socialists since they say that capitalism satisfies petty wants of some while others don't even have their basic needs.
Pretty much anything the Central Bank/FED does.
A close second would be welfare, but this would be a hard fact for a Socialist to swallow (What do you mean? But welfare gives to the poor!).
Also, what's wrong with some people earning more money than others?
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
Just like to say, most rich people today have their wealth because of the state
Kenneth: Just like to say, most rich people today have their wealth because of the state
Proof of claim?
Large banks, Big Pharma, Agribusiness like Monsanto and subsidized agribusiness in Europe. Noam Chomsky's research reveals a lot about this. Hans Hermann Hoppe also admits that rich people who gain their wealth honestly or natural elites are becoming extinct.
You think that's sufficient evidence and not a sort of hasty generalization? I mean sure, some people get rich with the help of the state. But to say "most" without some really strong proof seems irresponsible to me. Not that anything on this forum is going to be taken too seriously by anyone outside of this forum, but just saying. Your point of view seems to be gained from a worldview that you have, not necessarily by any kind of thorough investigation. Now whose side bears the burden of proof? I don't know. But it seems to me that by stating "most rich people today have their wealth because of the state" is to indict a large percentage of rich people unfairly. Let's start with some criteria. What is "rich?" How many people in the US qualify based on that criteria?
Acquiring wealth by theft is wrong, but that doesn't imply that acquiring wealth is wrong.
Similarly, income inequality produced from the State may be ethically wrong, but it does not imply that income inequality is ethically wrong.
I found an article that could help us here.
A new survey by Chicago-based Spectrem Group asked affluent households (those with investible assets of $500,000 or more) how much it takes to be rich. Of the respondents, 45% said $5 million or more, 25% said $25 million or more, and 8% said $100 million (It’s a good bet that the 8% lives in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.)
Only 22% said $1 million is enough to be rich.
EDIT: So how are we going to define "rich?" A million dollars? 5 million? 25? 100?
Ok. I was wrong in saying 'most rich people gain their wealth through the state'. What I would like to say was that the richest of the rich or at least a large number of them gain their wealth through the state. Do you really think that people like Rothchild are natural elites?
Kenneth: Ok. I was wrong in saying 'most rich people gain their wealth through the state'. What I would like to say was that the richest of the rich or at least a large number of them gain their wealth through the state. Do you really think that people like Rothchild are natural elites?
I don't know enough about the history of the Rothschilds to be able to say whether or not they are only rich because they are "servants of the state." From what I understand, historically, they're just a family of Jewish bankers who happened to do business with various governments over the centuries. They're basically just good with money. State or no state, that family would probably be rich.
When we talk about "richest of the rich" are we now talking about billionaires? Last I read, there were about 1000 billionaires worldwide (trying to find a source for this.) We could try to find the names and origins of each of these people's wealth and figure out who got rich because of state sanction and who got rich because of the market. I'm not saying I'm up to the task, just saying that before we start accusing these people of being "rich because of the state," we should probably see if there's any evidence to back up said claim.
EDIT: Upon further review, I have found that Fortune released a list of the known billionaires: They say there are 793. down from 1125. Are all these people rich because of the state? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to try and find out.
bloomj31: Kenneth: Just like to say, most rich people today have their wealth because of the state Proof of claim?
What about the bailouts?? If the FED wasn't around (or any other central bank for that matter), almost all of those banks would be long gone if they attempted to expand credit. Also look at some of the regulation(s) passed within the last few years, like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. What about the unions, the ABA, the AMA? What about the Military Industrial Complex?
LvMIenthusiast: What about the bailouts?? If the FED wasn't around (or any other central bank for that matter), almost all of those banks would be long gone if they attempted to expand credit. Also look at some of the regulation(s) passed within the last few years, like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. What about the unions, the ABA, the AMA? What about the Military Industrial Complex?
I'm not arguing that those government actions/institutions/programs haven't made some people very wealthy. But whether or not they constitute "most wealthy people' is another question entirely.
Seems like either a biased sample or a hasty generalization.
bloomj31: LvMIenthusiast: What about the bailouts?? If the FED wasn't around (or any other central bank for that matter), almost all of those banks would be long gone if they attempted to expand credit. Also look at some of the regulation(s) passed within the last few years, like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. What about the unions, the ABA, the AMA? What about the Military Industrial Complex? I'm not arguing that those government actions/institutions/programs haven't made some people very wealthy. But whether or not they constitute "most wealthy people' is another question entirely. Seems like either a biased sample or a hasty generalization.
I probably should of said "some", instead of "most". Sorry about that.
LvMIenthusiast: I probably should of said "some", instead of "most". Sorry about that.
Just trying to keep things fair is all.