A MODEST PROPOSAL

Sorry for double post. My computer is being bombarded with pop-ups.

favor is the problem; address the problem, not the natural means of accumulating the wealth in the first place.

Possible solutions:
1. Limit inherence to (just for a possible example)100 times the average workers annual income. This would spread the inheritance of crazy large fortunes out sufficiently that the capitalists, be they the inheritors or not, would put that money back to work to improve the productivity of us all, as a whole.

2. Accomplish the same with a wicked high "death tax" that gradually takes an enormous percentage of enormous wealth... whenever it is not sufficiently distributed prior to death... which would of course lower the burden on the lower and middle classes.

My fundamental disagreement with your position is my recognition that capitalism is inescapable; so you may as well embrace it. While I'll agree that the majority should benefit from a "rich nation"; I disagree that any additional laws should be passed to hamper the accumulation of wealth. Changes of distribution upon demise; is a way to accomplish the same without extinguishing the flame that warms us all. In my tiny town(s), my State and my Nation; fettering Capitalism would hurt us all. Why not attack the real enemy of civilization instead (corruption and the unfair rules that accompany it)?
Capitalism is not your enemy. It is a simple fact of life.

Holy smokes, I'm well and truly intimidated by you people. I'll refrain from posting my more serious two cents for fear of being seen as a fool.

Naj.

This week is the fiftieth anniversary of the TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit) better known as the shipping container. This devise and the system it is part of has reduced international shipping costs to the point that for some products shipping costs are nearly non existent when calculated on the individual item ( a shirt, VCR etc.) Labor costs then become the deciding factor in manufacturing, thus the rise of east Asia as the "work shop of the world". Thus economists current fascination with free trade which other than in theoretical economic models is a disaster. What is driving the current rise of an international plutocracy in rapidity technological change coupled with an ideology that values efficiency and low cost over sustaining populations at a reasonable standard of living At present no one seems to knows how to predict or deal with the outcome.

O'Bill: I am not saying that capitalism is the enemy, i am saying that unfettered capitalism is the tool of plutocracy, which is the enemy. We don't have unfettered capitalism, which is why people go off-shore to find places which place the fewest restraints in the way of doing business--greed in that respect seems to seek a level, like water. My remarks apply to the entirety of the human race, so the (relative) success of "western" industrial nations at making capitalists behave gets averaged into the nations with few to no restrictions.

You are misunderstanding the term capitalist; either that, or i misundertand your position in your restaurant. The capitalist simply provides the funds with which the enterprise is funded. S/he may or may not be a working member of the business, but for the terms of this discussion, that is not relevant. All that is relevant is that capitalists provide capital, and seek investment opportunities. Whether or not any particular capitalist earned the capital which she provides does not matter to the discussion. Whether or not any particular capitalist also happens to earn and accumulate capital from productive work does not matter to the discussion of capitalism. People in socialist societies earn as a result of their labor--if they then invest their earnings in any enterprise, they become, to that extent, capitalists. Obviously, though, their ability to invest, and the terms under which they invest, are going to be far different in a socialist state than would be the case in a plutocratic republic.

So, you fail to see that i don't say that there should be no capitalism, i am saying that there should be no unfettered capitalism.

Acq has gone straight to the heart of the matter, and stated in an elegant and succinct matter what i intended, but have only managed to gabble about so far.

Interesting reading. I have my whole life believed in a firmly regulated capitalism as our best bet.

Set,

Exactly which social ills/aspects do you want to heal/advance and, in your opinion, which aspects of capitalism need to be fettered in order for these advance to take place?

I'm surprised to hear this from you, O'bill.

Not only have the makers of large fortunes more than likely paid the same 5 tax dollars for every one in profit that you complained about a few paragraphs above, but, as long as it was made in a lawful manner, it is their money to do with as they wish. Why should their children pay a price for having hard working and succesful parents?

Even assuming that 100% of inherited money does no good towards social advancements, the government has certainly not proven that they are any more able or effective at spending money than those that inherit money.

The whole idea reeks of fairness by the lowest common denominator.

JP asks:

"Exactly which social ills/aspects do you want to heal/advance and, in your opinion, which aspects of capitalism need to be fettered in order for these advance to take place?"

The social ills to redressed are the economic inequities between nations. Food is a good deal cheaper in many third world countries than in the United States--but their earnings are so far less than the average income of Americans, that the cost of food looms larger in their budgets than it does in ours. Multi-national corporations intentionally target poorer countries in which they will not only be obliged to pay far less for the labor which produces goods which will still fetch the same high prices in industrialized nations, but they will also likely not be obliged to pay for health plans, for pension plans, the cost of workplace health and safety programs, unemployment compensation, and the cost of non-poluting production facilities.

One can, as has been done in this thread more than once, point out that this is just the way capitalism works. Fine--and one of the ways that government works is that the people can choose to hedge corporations around with legislation which makes them responsible corporate citizens whether or not it is their natural inclination.

**************************************

The point of this thread is to look to what the next major area of human social development will be--we have lived in the communication age since about 1450, and the effect has been accelerating. The Japanese invaded Korea in the 16th century, preparatory to an invasion of Manchuria (which never got off the ground), and no one gave a rat's ass. No one in Europe cared, because they likely didn't know--and those few who eventually learned of it, only had vague notion of where Japan, Korea and Manchuria were to be found in this world.

In 1906, in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan took effective control of Korea (they did not actually colonize, but they had long despised the Koreans, and only intended to exploit them). People still likely did not care, but they knew--they (meaning literally millions of people) both knew that it had happended and knew where Japan and Korea were, and what it meant to the world (which, at the time and unfortunately for the Koreans, was not much). But in 1931, the Japanese crossed the Yalu River and invaded Manchuria. They set up the puppet state of Manchuko, and by 1933 were poised to invade the rest of China. The rest of the world knew, knew what it meant, and many did not care for the implications. The United States, for one, passed an embargo on the export of petroleum (we actually used to ship the stuff overseas) and scrap metal to the Japanese--which would eventually be the prime factor leading to war between the United States and the Empire of Japan.

***********************************

Culture matters--the Chinese had movable type for literally millenia, but Mandarin (as are all the other dialects which eventually came to be written) is a difficult language in which to be literate, and foreign trade was discouraged by the Mandarin class in all dynasties. Few of the Chinese were functionally literate (as a proportion), and there was little value to their lives to become literate before the twentieth century. Europeans were little better in the 14th century, but with the explosion of printed material in the 15th century, being literate mattered, because so many Europeans were involved in trade across borders with other states (even if only a modest trade), and a continent of many different languages necessitated people who spoke and read Latin, as well as several other languages. The communication age began in Europe, and has lead to the world in which we live today. No, it is not a single cause, but it went hand in hand with the cultural, technological and social factors which lead to the creation of the modern world, largely by Europeans (in whom are included the North and South Americans).

For those reasons, i consider the communication age (roughly, 1450 to the present) to have been characteristic of the last great development of human society. And i posit that the next great development of human society will be economic equity, and that because of the implications of the communication age, everyone realizes this to a greater and greater extent, whether everyone is willing to face up to it or not. People in Mali, once one of the world's richest and most extensive empires (in the 15th century, and with Timbuktu as its capital), is now a dirt poor desert nation in Africa. People in Mali know how we live, nevertheless, and know that we are wealthy, and that for whatever their past glories, they are not. They are not less worthy than are we, and they are no less intelligent and willing to work hard. Eventually, and it were better that it were sooner rather than later, the economic inequities of the world must be redressed, for the human race to continue to progress in the aggregate.

First, I would like to admit that the idea of equality as part of such a broad vision (worldwide economic equality) immediately makes me skeptical. Even in controlled environments nations given the same oportunity to succeed will not see the same outcome. Many poor nations are poor because they have a failed economic policy. No amount of aid will help until the failed economic policy is replaced with a new model that works. No matter how much water you pour in a leaky drain it continues to lose water until the leak is fixed.

Other nations are poor due to a geography or climate not condusive to farming and food production, hostile governments/oppressed people and a myriad of other factors that have nothing to do with how corporations conduct thier business.

That being said, I think there is merit to the idea, but am not sure that fettering captialism is the right idea. We have shipped job after job over to China and India and no matter how many cries there are of sweatshops and low pay for workers, it is hard to deny that China and India are becoming major economic players on the world stage. This is due, in part, to the money invested, by capitalists, in their economy.

As their economy grows, I surmise that people in their respective countries will begin to work things out on their own. As you stated earlier, the end of child labor and restrictions on hours worked were not the end of the economy here and don't see why it would be in those countries either.

However, in order for the poeple to have power, they need some leverage. The early industrialists here built their empires on the backs of many people. Those people eventually organized and forced change in this country. The same can happen there but there first needs to be an empire for them to build.

If we regulate the wages our corporations pay in foreign countries (or whatever regulations you had in mind), there is no, or at least less, incentive to continue investing in those countries.

Furthermore, we have done nothing to force the government of that country to change. The real problem is the lack of labor laws in the counties in which corporations are shipping jobs. Of course if there are no jobs there, the whole idea doesn't matter anyway.

I think a much more effective idea would be to allow capitalists to invest heavily in countries. The more they invest there the more they have to lose and the more power the workers will gain.

*******************************

As a side note, I do not think the fair trade agreements we have passed are a good idea. I think the cheap goods we are getting right now will not be so cheap in the future once the emerging economies of China and India reach their full potential.

I think the answer needs to lie within these countries and while we should certainly support the peoples of oppresses or poor countries, we shouldn't have to sell the farm in order to initiate that change.

I have not suggested that this is something which can be "solved" by throwing money at it. Discussions of specific policies were less what i had in mind than the principles inherent in the inequity of economies. I've already stipulated that many nations' economic policies (if they ever even had any) were a problem, and that for many states the state revenues went to the military, to fuel tribal wars within the nations, or wars with neighbors. I rather think that it goes without saying that such stumbling blocks must be removed before any progress can be made toward economic equality. How corporations conduct their business is the biggest factor in economic inequality, when the issues of foolish or failed economic policy has been addressed.

Corporations use their economic leverage to their advantage, doing business with those nations which are willing to forego protective legislation for their people, and environmental regulation, in order to get the jobs. It isn't just a problem in third world countries, either. The North American Free Trade Agreement has adjudication provisions which make a mockery of self-determination. A local governmental authority in Mexico, the U.S. or Canada could shut down a business from one of the other nations for violating local statutes, or for poluting, and that business could go to an appointe council, the members of whom are nominated by private business, and get a judgement against the local government, up to and including compensation and injunctions. States and municipalities in the United States routinely attempt to make the best "sweetheart" deals with businesses by paying out of taxpayer revenues the cost of developing the property on which it is proposed their operations be located, and with tax abatements which essentially shift the buren of public services from which the corporate entities will benefit to the resident taxpayers.

Money gets invested in India because of low labor cost, and minimal operating cost associated with meeting local legislation, while the work force still is largely English-speaking and well-educated. China has used virtual slave-labor (often in prisons, in which Chinese who have fled the country allege that inmates are kept indefinitely for the value of their labor) and the practice of dumping to run competitors out of business for low-end shoes, clothing and consumer electronics. Many nations have used cheap labor and dumping as an entre into lucrative markets--few have done it on the scale which China has recently done.

I haven't advocated specific legislation to set wage levels by businesses who wish to sell their products here. However, i am looking for suggestions which people may make for acheiving economic equity, and if someone advocates something similar, you might have an argument with that member.

I guess I am not understanding exactly what you are advocating then. Yes there are inequities. I think this is more a fault of the governments of those countries than of capitalism, though.

How will fettering capitalism provide a solution to the prison/slave labor in China?

************************************
JP, I have long been of the opinion that the current tax system needs to be scrapped. I don't suggest a high death tax on large fortunes to increase revenues; rather to take some of the burden off other sources. That's the sales pitch. The reality; were the law constructed to my liking, would simply increase the amount of spending and redistribution of wealth... though not necessarily to the lower and middle classes (directly). A wealthy man could gift his fortune in chunks not greater than, say 10% for instance, penalty free, and thereby avoid that money being soaked up by very high death taxes. The idea is to keep the money moving... which is, IMO, paramount to keeping our economy on the rise. The children of the rich wouldn't lose; rather they'd likely start receiving their inheritance much sooner. As they invested, or wasted (it makes little difference) that money would provide jobs and increase the tax base, thereby reducing the burden on us all. Those who hoard would pay the most. Those who spread the wealth would pay the least. Think of it like an advanced anti-trust law. It is a way to play Robin Hood without actually stealing anything from the man who produces, during his lifetime.

If I now understand Set correctly, I think I agree with him. While it's unrealistic to expect countries to play by our rules; I think it would be a fairly simple matter to leverage taxes on a sliding scale against goods coming from countries that don't meet a reasonable minimum standard of ethics (child labor laws, living wages, subsidies, etc.)(yes, fix ours too). There is room for improvements without stifling the profitability of a global economy (which I believe is the only shot the human race has at uniting us all). To not use the economic might of the United States' buying power for the good of mankind, is in my opinion, a short sighted, tragic squandering of opportunity. I believe that terrorism, bigotry, etc. all take a back seat to the almighty dollar to a man with a decent shot at earning a decent lot in life. Some fettering is almost mandatory to accelerate the transition... and at the rate technology has advanced compared to humanity; I think we need to act fast, or suffer horrible consequences.

To turn the blind eye to conglomerates that seek labor outside of the United States is no different than doing away with the restrictions we've set up to limit unscrupulous behavior here. Fetter it? You betcha!

Imagine a global economy where a Billion Chinese and a Billion Indians can realize Henry Ford's vision and purchase an automobile. Among the reasons the United States is at the top of the food chain is our brand of Capitalism itself. Immigrants with work ethics (most), thrive in our society. Is there a fundamental difference between importing people and exporting the system that they come here for?

I for one do not believe there is a finite amount of wealth to be had. Babies of every nationality bring a smile to my face... and I'd like them all to share the opportunities I have. I fear no amount of competition whatsoever. I believe that their will always be poor, middle and upper classes in terms of wealth and seek only to see the opportunities for individual change improve.

It is a common belief that "small business" is what drives our economy upwards. It is the small businessperson who creates jobs and keeps the money moving to serve us all. With this in mind; I think our policies should be designed to promote individual opportunity... not just for citizens of the United States, but the world in general.

Internally, scrap the production discouraging income tax structure and move to a sales tax that cares not at all where the money comes from. Next; punish the hoarders of stagnant money to encourage it's flow (force the trickle down theory from a greed perspective with appropriate legislation), while redistributing the wealth of those who refuse to spend.

Externally; create an import tax structure that encourages the leadership of other countries to follow in suit if for no other reason than to realize the greatest piece of our pie.

Our financial might is every bit as powerful as our military might... and is currently being squandered on shortsighted foolishness. We stand to gain as much by globalization as those outside of the United States, if we use our might to our mutual benefit. I can ill-imagine anything more shortsighted than intentional isolationism. Our current tendency to stand on our potential competitors necks in some cases, while rewarding opportunity squashing foreign labor laws in others, as well as discouraging individual production in our own nation with idiotic tax laws is a reflection of Joe Public's apathy. Business is always at it's height of production when value is exchanged for value to the mutual benefit of every party involved. The United States has the wealth, and the opportunity that accompanies it, to encourage such practice on a global scale. IMO, not using that opportunity is as shortsighted as it is counterproductive almost across the board. Let's start fettering immediately!

JP, i am not saying that fettered capitalism will solve the problems in China. I am saying that economic inequity arises from the self-interested tactics of international capital. I have not said what ought to be done, other than having once mentioned debt forgiveness. I believe that debt forgiveness and debt restructuring can go a long way to reducing the overwhelming scale of economic inequity in many nations.

I am largely calling for discussion of what might be done. Whereas i have mentioned that nations might use legislation to circumscribe the activities of capital, i am not necessarily advocating any specific measures. It is my intent in this thread to discuss what might be done. I am also asserting, as a first premise, that capitalism cannot be allowed to operate internationally in an unfettered manner--and like anything else in a discussion or a debate, that premise is subject to be questioned. I suspect that you do not agree, although i don't know that for a fact.

O'Bill wrote:



I appreciate this statement. I agree that there is no finite amount of wealth. I would add to this statement that it is short-sighted greed which thinks that there is a finite amount of wealth, and that the object of any business is to grab as much as possible as fast as possible, and the consequences be damned. "Wealth" is the product of ideas, capital and labor. Labor is circumscribed, and intellectual property is circumscribed--there is no reason not to also circumscribe the use of capital.

I'm not entirely sure myself. Like I stated before, the very idea of equality among nations seems far-fetched to me considering all the things beyond anyones control that factor into the inequality between nations.

However, O'bills idea of a sliding tax scale on countries that meet (or not) minimum labor laws, I think, does hold some merit (although he hasn't sold me on that whole robinhood scheme of his yet). This would indeed help hold corporations more accountable in the eyes of consumers. If a company can do business in a country with fair labor laws at the same cost of doing business in countries with unfair labor laws, the choice should be obvious. If the wrong choice is made, the consumers can be made aware and help make that company make the right choice.

We will end up paying higher prices for products, but don't necessarily see this as to bad of a thing. Those at the lowest economic rung of our country will be the hardest hit, however, and may contribute to economic inequalities within our own country.

Yes, certainly, those are important considerations, with regard to the inequalities of both nations, and of individuals within nations. I mentioned before the communication age, which began more than 500 years ago, and doesn't look like ending any time soon. I think that the "age of man" in which economic equity (note i don't specifically stipulate individual equality) becomes a paramount issue may last many centuries, as well.

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Why should heirs pay less taxes on inheritances than they would pay on ordinary income?

I didn't propse they pay less. O'bill proposed they pay more and that is what I had an issue with.