Study: U.S. Economic Status: Again, #1 in the World

Post Reply New Topic

I hate grammar and don't care much for it.

Well, we need farmers and manufacturers and other groups.


Ok. Um... you are making very bold claims. Not only that, but how does feudalism prove the ruling class seeks a monopoly on knowledge? Are you going to consider the Catholic monks to be the only ruling class? After all, most rulers were not that educated at that time if I recall correctly.

Your concept of value is the most out of whack I have ever heard. The value of a human is what he or she can do and every capability increase increases the capability of the whole society. The more the members of society become capable in different ways the more new possibilities open up for both the individual and society in general and not all of those possibilities can easily be predicted. It befits a society to take advantage of an individual's capabilities to the maximum and when that capability is not fully developed society suffers. No one can predict where or when an informed individual can produce a valuable new direction to society and the only way to gain that unpredictable advantage is to see to it that as many possibilities as can be afforded be developed.

There is the concept of cost vs. benefit that I hope you are aware of. You are essentially arguing we should overqualify most people because there is an off chance that one of those people who we forced to be overqualified will do something really good for society. That's like saying we should subsidize research and production of new nuclear weapons because there is an off chance society may gain some unexpected benefit from it. We obviously should not subsidize everything imaginable because there is an off chance some new, unexpected development may occur. Besides, don't most people know their own desires and abilities better than you? If someone does not want to be pushed to their maximum capability, you shouldn't force them. Why does society suffer? Society still functioned, and developments were made before WW2 and the GI bill.

Incorrect. It depends on what you view as economic oppression. I see economic oppression as wage slavery, and the use of capital to oppress people. This is clearly evident in many far left market economies, and disguised as "freedom". The command end of the scale can also result in such, a different kind of economic oppression, denying people wealth. The middle, mixed economic ground should mean that most people, except the obscenely greedy, are content.
Intervention is definitely neccessary, in order to ensure that supplies are sufficient, and that there is no foul play, etc. The "trickle-down" effect does not entirely work.
Sorry, I don't buy into neo-liberal economics.

Sargon: the main reason for your saying such a thing is that inequality happens to be in your self-interest! You have NOT provided an OBJECTIVE reason why its "not a bad thing". For OTHER people(myself included), inquality is NOT in their self-interest and those who support it anyway are subservient losers. I DO object to people being treated negatively(or positively)for something that is beyond their control! Its not just "unfair", its unacceptable! As for Bill Gates, he did NOT work his way up from the Bottom;not at all. He personally WAS born into a position of priviledge and happend to be in the Right Place at the Right Time such that he was able to exploit market forces to make himself one of the richest people on the planet.



That is NOT a true statement, and I think(or I sincearly hope)you know that Sargon.

To point out the obvious, Bill Gates was also born in the US. Even the poorest Americans are born into opportunities unavailable to most of the world; all native-born Americans alive were born into opportunities and relative prosperity.

So, the only reason people who are not bluebloods are rich in the U.S. is because they are lucky and were in the right place at the right time? Inequality not being a bad thing isn't really in my self-interest either (at least presently), as I do actually have objective reasons for not caring about inequality. One being what you tax you discourage, what you subsidize you encourage. I think we should encourage people to work hard or create new innovations, by taxing them in the name of "equality" you make them more lazy or less likely to engage in their pursuits (since now there are less profits). On more of a moral standpoint, I work for my paycheck and I've by and large made it to where I am on my own without much help from the government or other people (and I was into the middle class and my parents divorced when I was young, so I would not qualify as being born rich)(although the market helped me ). Therefore, I don't feel I owe these people who don't know and who do not help me significant portions of my paycheck just so they feel more "equal". My abilities, knowledge, logic, and conscientiousness probably surpasses those who would be the receiving my money, so shouldn't I be encouraged to keep on using those attributes (if I do and my money rises only to be taxed more, it disencourages). Also, if I feel I should help out the poor, it should be done by choice, not force. Inefficiencies also emerge if you try taxing like that. Awhile back, AT&T had a profit tax imposed on them, a result of which was gold platted water fountains at their HQ (because the gold platted water fountains were part of their costs). They would probably have been better off with the money used on said water fountains being used on other things, but the tax changed their behavior in perhaps an unfavorable way. If you could have a $300 vase that you value at $50 (but it still costs you $300), or $300 cash, which would you pick? The efficient (and hopefully correct) choice is the cash so you can spend it on what you value (whereas taxing people for fairness may encourage them to pick the vase).



True, to even be born in America is "not fair" by world standards because even poor Americans have it pretty good compared to Europe. Using D1nk0's logic, maybe we should deport Americans to other parts of world and import immigrants from other parts to make the world more "fair".



So, economic oppression for you is economic freedom? Ironic. I'm surprised there are still Marxists around today, but I suppose they need a few more intellectual and worldly defeats to finally go away. Still, how is it not true specifically?




So called wage slavery and "use of capital to oppress people" (more Marxism, eh?) does not really exist in the United States. People willingly chose to work in exchange for money, I don't see how this could be called slavery anymore so than choosing to work on a farm is farm slavery. One of the great things about the market is it is able to efficiently allocate resources, whereas when government does it, we tend to see shortages and inefficiency.

the UN should tax the countries at the top to help the ones at the bottom

There is no such thing as an objective reason for an ethical answer, such would demand the existence of a moral fact, and well, those are hard to determine. We could argue for inequality on the basis of marginal productivity theory, and thus say it is good to allow for inequality so to entice people away from less productive activities towards more so without denying their free will. As well, the issue then falls down to "beyond their control", as that ends up leading to rather large philosophical questions of what human beings can or cannot control, and then slips into a debate over free will, all of these fuzzy things then have to be translated into a non-fuzzy policy that can promote our objectives, often times considered "the public good". As Sargon points out, poorly designed policies can be worse than no policy by discouraging certain activities. Frankly, risk means getting something, not based upon work, but rather upon forces beyond one's control, and risks are important for an economy to manage and work with.


Actually, I think that Sargon falls into a school of thought that believes that the statement is true.

Well, the issue is then setting the amount of taxation and then funneling the money from taxes into useful economic stimulus for the countries at the bottom so that way we don't make this a permanent drain of resources. Both tasks can be difficult to handle.

Depends where in Europe, the Swiss have it pretty good compared to Americans (the myth that the US has the highest standard of living and highest quality of life in the world is getting boring). But is true that being in the right place at the right time has a huge impact on where you end up. Obviously not the only factor, but I've met enough rich idiots and intelligent hard-working people that never made it past the lower-middle class to have much faith that wealth is a meritocracy.


D1nk0, many medieval monarchs were illiterate. They cared about military power above all and then wealth (which didn't depend on the knowledge economy but on the land).

pandabear, what, exactly, is the point of PhD's doing unskilled labour or any type of labour that doesn't require a PhD (like skilled manual labour)? No economy in the world needs anywhere near a majority of PhD-educated people, let alone everybody. Not to mention that not everybody even wants to go to university (which is overrated in my opinion).

The whole point of Tax Breaks for the wealthy is to enable them to hold on to their money and their power! Part of me wants to say the ONLY terms on which I'll accept social inquality is if I am on Top! I dont need or care to hear the song-and-dance from the right about why the tax burden should NOT fall onto the rich. Furthermore, if you are part of the working middle class do you feel you Owe sizable portions of your paycheck to the Goverment while those who are RICH, and I mean so RICH they dont even have to work should pay less to the Goverment than YOU do? Just so you know I am NOT A Marxist and I DO believe in Capitalism and PERSONAL freedom! However, I do NOT believe in UNRESTRICTED, UNREGULATED, Laissez-Faire Capitalism!! The 2 choice offered by the american right are BOTH totally Unaccetable. I will NOT choose between those 2 when there are other alternatives. BTW, many of americas noveau riche, certainly those in the TOp 500 were born and Educated ELSWHERE before the came to the US .

I believe the point of tax breaks is to encourage people to spend more money or some moral rights thing. Are the rich really that powerful anyway? Sure, they can buy lots of stuff, but they can't actually force you personally to do anything (i.e. Bill Gates cannot walk up to you and order you to shine his shoes). Through money, they can indirectly have power over you via lobbying the government, but that applies to all special interest groups and politicians (and you don't see many rich people doing so). It seems for you the tax system is not about paying money to the government in exchange for the services government provides, but a system to punish the "rich" (and using the government to specifically punish others is one of the worse offenses you can do with power, similar to the Communists and other systems that promote class warfare). I should remind you the top 50% of wage earners pay around 96% of all federal income taxes (the top 5% paid around 50%). The amount they pay seems fairly reasonable to be. Although, what would be more reasonable and fair is if everyone pays some flat tax (causes the least distortions), but I know that isn't too viable. The "rich" are already subsidizing you considering if you aren't in the top 50% of wage earners you get most of your income taxes back from the government, you should be grateful towards them. Also, the "rich" probably pay much more into the system than they will ever take out (how many rich people do you know who will use the various social services their tax dollars provide including social security), further subsidizing you.

I agree, D1nko.

When you either work for someone or starve, it's not freedom and choice, it's slavery. A forcible choice between life and death is not a choice at all. You don't have to be a Marxist to know that wage slavery exists, to a much lesser extent in the west, but definitely in developing countries. And it's undeniable that it existed in 19th century England. Ahh, the subtleties of modern capitalist domination. The only real choice for many, employment wise, is where to work. Some societies definitely have perverse perceptions of "liberty". It goes beyond that. There are many other forms of domination through capital.

Efficiency isn't the point. Equality and fairness are. For the record, I do not support a command, but a social market economy. Thus, you get the best of both systems. Innovation and efficiency; and stability and common wellbeing.

Ah, but the person still has a choice for even death is a choice. So, by your definition, aren't all humans wage slaves then (except for farmers and college professors maybe). In this world, everyone regardless if the system is capitalism, communism, or a variant of socialism has to work in order to live (unless you leech off society and that is your ideal). You can't sit lazily and do nothing all day with no income and live (although you still have the choice under capitalism to do that). Those in the third world willingly choose to work in our "imperialist" factories. The reason is not because they are forced (hence willing part), but because it is the best of their available alternatives (which would most likely be going back to the farm for longer hours and less pay).

Efficiency and advancement/growth is the point of the system. For those are the things that make everyone under it better off. The reason wages have risen since the 19th century in America is because of gains in worker productivity, not because of any sense of fairness. Equality and fairness does not matter, and attempts to attain them only slow down growth. The most fair system is one where the government does not try and impose any sense of fairness on its populace.

For the record "social market economies" still have strong command elements to them, and you don't get the best of both worlds. Look at France, low worker productivity, low innovation, and most importantly, low GDP growth rates.

France in fact, does NOT have the kind of civil liberties that the US constitution grants American citizens and I do NOT want the US to be like France-with the exception of Nuclear Energy.There actually ARE places in this world where those born into extravagant wealth can pretty much sit on their butts all day without working. Many 3rd world countries have wealth concentrated into the hands of a handful of people who use it to engorge themselves without developing the rest of the country.
Workers in many third world countries are often literally trapped in the place that they work(think SweatShops)and in some extreme cases CHAINED UP inside the factory to keep them working constantly in what amounts to effective slave labor. Here in the US we do not allow that to happen because of LABOR LAWS. If those laws didnt exist than Corporations certainly WOULD do it if they could get away with it!