Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Javaman » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 10:10:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'P')lease explain the major differences between North and South Korea.

Please explain the differences, in economic terms and standard of living, between West Germany and East Germany before the reunification.

Also, please explain what the purposes of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain were.


What, you want simple answers? Okay. South Korea, West Germany, and Western Europe in general were attached to the sole remaining major power not destroyed in the course of the Second World War, which went around the world acquiring assets in a literal global fire sale.

Now, please explain to the rest of us why the hard-and-fast planned economies of Eastern Europe were more affluent than fully-free market economies in Africa and Latin America.

Please explain to us why China, a planned economy, is in a position to lend money to Western economies (the United States in particular), and a creditor to free market economy debtor nations.


You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The people in East and West Germany had similar history and experience prior to the Cold War, so the countries could be easily compared. North and South Korea should also be more similar to each other than they actually are. West Germany and South Korea were not "attached" to the US, but their more open political and economic systems encouraged trade and development. West Germany didn't build the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall either.

Many African and Latin American countries tend to lean socialist, which doesn't do much to encourage investment, from either foreign or domestic sources. Maybe a better business climate would help.

China now has a much more market-based economy, even though the government itself is still considered communist; it doesn't have as much of a planned economy than it did in decades past.
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Javaman » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 10:27:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('simplelife', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')nd who put the money up to start the co-op ghost?


Where did that money come from in the first place? The exploitation of other human beings, or do you purport that the wealthy are blessed people who literally sh!t gold?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'I')f it was the employees then they were rich in the first place if they could fund a start up biz.


That's exactly what they are, collectively, and the majority of their industry is taken from them by the wealthy. Effectively, it's pooled by one person or corporation to create industries that could not easily otherwise come about -- which would leave everyone in the field hoeing turnips. But a state can do exactly the same thing. It's praiseworthy to conservatives when a selfish individual does this largely to his own benefit, but anathema to them for the collectivity of the people to do the same themselves. Curious.


U.S. is a free county if people want to pool their assests and start a business then they certainly can. You seem to imply they cannot?


(Sarcasm to follow:)

It seems that if a group of people get together and voluntarily pool their resources (money, tools, expertise, ideas, etc.) to form a business from which they expect to make a profit, well that's bad and smacks of exploitation of "The People." It seems to be even worse if an individual tries to start a business on his own. Then you have a case of one person trying to take advantage of everyone else. We can't have that! These things have to be done by force through taxation, wealth redistribution, regulations. Then it's OK.

(End of Sarcasm.)
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:18:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'Y')ou are trying to compare apples and oranges.


No, countries with access to an uncompromised system of global resources and finance post WWII, and countries without. Simply waving it off doesn't explain why A) some communist countries were better off than others, or B) why they were better off than free-market economies in the Third World, or C) why the Soviet Union gave us a run for our money for 50 years as the other superpower, surpassing the might of all free market economies but one, and looks on the verge of doing so again.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'C')hina now has a much more market-based economy, even though the government itself is still considered communist; it doesn't have as much of a planned economy than it did in decades past.


Now YOU want to compare apples and oranges. China has a planned economy; nothing happens without government permission and oversight -- particularly involving foreign investment. Controlling interest in businesses remains vested in the government, which has within its purview the ability to open, close, and reassign business as suits the needs of the nation. If you're fooled by appearances, you're meant to be. China's playing a game that adopts convenient aspects of our "rules" in order to facilitate the largest transfer of wealth, infrastructure, and technical know-how in human history. What China will do, or become, when the process is completely realized, only China can say. But it won't be constrained by our counsel, needs, or expectations, but their own.

Purporting that "some" Third World countries lean left -- and given the history of US involvement in Latin America, that's a pretty flaccid excuse -- ignores that truth of the matter that most didn't and don't and were under the direct or indirect tutelage of the Western powers who economies they serviced. Panama uses the US dollar for its own currency. Why, then, are such countries not universally well-off? You haven't answered that question, nor the question of internal disparities within these relative systems (though I did limit myself to asking about the economies of the East Bloc).

You seem interested in absolutes. It should be clear that the approach is the wrong one to take. Countries in any particular "system", if we are being broadly categorical, can be well run or poorly run, relatively speaking. Czechoslovakia and Hungary (or even East Germany, for that matter), for instance, were unquestionably preferable to North Korea. Likewise, contemporary West Germany was preferable to Greece or Mexico; indeed, in most regards, life in Czechoslovakia circa 1985 would have been preferable to life in Mexico.
Last edited by Nickel on Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:35:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:22:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'I')t seems that if a group of people get together and voluntarily pool their resources (money, tools, expertise, ideas, etc.) to form a business from which they expect to make a profit, well that's bad and smacks of exploitation of "The People." It seems to be even worse if an individual tries to start a business on his own. Then you have a case of one person trying to take advantage of everyone else. We can't have that! These things have to be done by force through taxation, wealth redistribution, regulations. Then it's OK.


The point addressed was not actually the moral merits of either example, but to illustrate the point that the "rich" do not create, in and of themselves, job opportunities or industries. Like governments, what they are doing is redistributing wealth. A possible moral aspect is raised by the consideration, thought, that unlike governments, a portion of that redistribution is private and does not directly benefit society.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby graham » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:32:23

A really insightful book on the merits of capitalism that I recommend you read is 'how to get rich' by Felix Dennis. This guy is at the top of the publishing industry in both the U.K. and U.S. and yet he admits that virtually everything nickel and byron100 have said is correct. Besides this arguing over old style socialism vs capitalism is somewhat irrelevant given our current predicament, yes?
User avatar
graham
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri 20 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Byron100 » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:38:31

Speaking of morality, is it any way moral that a factory owner in a 3rd world country pay starvation wages while he rakes in the profits? Is it moral for bosses to force people to work insane hours in hellish conditions just so *they* can make more money for themselves?

And why is it that employees are supposed to be "loyal" to their employer - i.e., showing up on time each day, working their fannies off, giving their heart and soul to the "company", and yet, when times go "bad", the employer has every right to lay that person off. Is that in any way shape or form "moral"???

The reason I have such a burning desire to see capitalism go away in my time is that it's about the most immoral system that's ever been invented by humankind. Every single person who labors is entitled to 100% of the fruits of their effort - anything less is a form of slavery, IMO.

Sure, if a group of people form a biz and everyone splits the profits *equally*, then everything is fair and square - that's exactly how it should be. But this paradigm of one man at the top while the rest slave under him for the lowest wage the market will allow just doesn't fit any definition of what I consider "moral". I'll be deliriously happy to see all of that go away, even at the cost of we call "modern society".
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!
User avatar
Byron100
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu 08 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Atlanta, GA
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 11:54:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'A') really insightful book on the merits of capitalism that I recommend you read is 'how to get rich' by Felix Dennis. This guy is at the top of the publishing industry in both the U.K. and U.S. and yet he admits that virtually everything nickel and byron100 have said is correct. Besides this arguing over old style socialism vs capitalism is somewhat irrelevant given our current predicament, yes?


Some years ago, I read a book called The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Its central thesis to explain the affluence of a handful of what we'd consider "core West" countries wasn't that we have smarter people or more intrepid entrepreneurs or more dedicated workers, but that we have a tradition of land registry. It sounds almost silly at first hearing, but the book goes on to contrast the systems in the Anglosphere and Western Europe with other places participating in the free market system where capitalism has been less effective. Sophisticated and systematic programs of land registration, going back hundreds of years in most of our countries, enables people to unambiguously demonstrate ownership of land and property, its location, exact extent down to the inch, known services and structures... all of which, further, enables people to borrow against these assets because creditors know exactly what's being borrowed against, and will risk extending credit because they have the means to recover the loan. In much of the "free" world, this is not the case; land registration is a long, laborious, and often corrupt process that is frequently circumvented or ignored altogether. In much of the world, it is unusual for streets to have names, or even for homes and business to have numerically-specific addresses. All of this makes even getting a phone installed a logistical nightmare.

Given the nature of the discussion, however, it's worth noting that this is not strictly a tip of the hat to free enterprise. In such a system, governments and public corporations are equally empowered to borrow against assets. This is why the government of a country like Canada, with relatively few people, is able to avail itself of much greater credit than many other, numerically much greater countries.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 12:04:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'S')ure, if a group of people form a biz and everyone splits the profits *equally*, then everything is fair and square - that's exactly how it should be. But this paradigm of one man at the top while the rest slave under him for the lowest wage the market will allow just doesn't fit any definition of what I consider "moral". I'll be deliriously happy to see all of that go away, even at the cost of we call "modern society".


Relatedly, I think society would benefit from the disestablishment of the concept of the corporation. The idea of piece of paper creating a legal "person" and letting real people off the hook for the terrible and often monstrous decisions they make and actions they take outweighs the fluidity of the form. Limited companies, where the people who come together to form the company are responsible for what it does, as well as entitled to what it earns, ought to be the form in a just society. But we're living in a world where the people of Bhopal weren't murdered by the selfish, dangerously miserly actions of certain people, but by an immortal, untouchable "person" called Union Carbide. And it's knowing that that encourages other corporate officers and workers who would otherwise be responsible to feel free to behave irresponsibly because they are unlikely to be held accountable.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby graham » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 12:27:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'A') really insightful book on the merits of capitalism that I recommend you read is 'how to get rich' by Felix Dennis. This guy is at the top of the publishing industry in both the U.K. and U.S. and yet he admits that virtually everything nickel and byron100 have said is correct. Besides this arguing over old style socialism vs capitalism is somewhat irrelevant given our current predicament, yes?


Some years ago, I read a book called The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Its central thesis to explain the affluence of a handful of what we'd consider "core West" countries wasn't that we have smarter people or more intrepid entrepreneurs or more dedicated workers, but that we have a tradition of land registry. It sounds almost silly at first hearing, but the book goes on to contrast the systems in the Anglosphere and Western Europe with other places participating in the free market system where capitalism has been less effective. Sophisticated and systematic programs of land registration, going back hundreds of years in most of our countries, enables people to unambiguously demonstrate ownership of land and property, its location, exact extent down to the inch, known services and structures... all of which, further, enables people to borrow against these assets because creditors know exactly what's being borrowed against, and will risk extending credit because they have the means to recover the loan. In much of the "free" world, this is not the case; land registration is a long, laborious, and often corrupt process that is frequently circumvented or ignored altogether. In much of the world, it is unusual for streets to have names, or even for homes and business to have numerically-specific addresses. All of this makes even getting a phone installed a logistical nightmare.

Given the nature of the discussion, however, it's worth noting that this is not strictly a tip of the hat to free enterprise. In such a system, governments and public corporations are equally empowered to borrow against assets. This is why the government of a country like Canada, with relatively few people, is able to avail itself of much greater credit than many other, numerically much greater countries.


Its interesting to note that in Argentina reform of land registry laws has not resulted in the desired increase in credit supply to new land owners, primarily as the deeds are owned by slum dwellers not deemed credit worthy. Having a stable income seems to be more important- for example, the development of micro finance is having more of an impact than reforming land registry laws.
User avatar
graham
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri 20 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby graham » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 12:32:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'S')ure, if a group of people form a biz and everyone splits the profits *equally*, then everything is fair and square - that's exactly how it should be. But this paradigm of one man at the top while the rest slave under him for the lowest wage the market will allow just doesn't fit any definition of what I consider "moral". I'll be deliriously happy to see all of that go away, even at the cost of we call "modern society".


Relatedly, I think society would benefit from the disestablishment of the concept of the corporation. The idea of piece of paper creating a legal "person" and letting real people off the hook for the terrible and often monstrous decisions they make and actions they take outweighs the fluidity of the form. Limited companies, where the people who come together to form the company are responsible for what it does, as well as entitled to what it earns, ought to be the form in a just society. But we're living in a world where the people of Bhopal weren't murdered by the selfish, dangerously miserly actions of certain people, but by an immortal, untouchable "person" called Union Carbide. And it's knowing that that encourages other corporate officers and workers who would otherwise be responsible to feel free to behave irresponsibly because they are unlikely to be held accountable.


This is exactly what i've been saying for years. The failings of capitalism seem to be the result of the way individual businesses have been designed in law, particularly the privatisation of the banking system.
User avatar
graham
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri 20 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: U.K.
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Javaman » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 12:54:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'Y')ou are trying to compare apples and oranges.


No, countries with access to an uncompromised system of global resources and finance post WWII, and countries without. Simply waving it off doesn't explain why A) some communist countries were better off than others, or B) why they were better off than free-market economies in the Third World, or C) why the Soviet Union gave us a run for our money for 50 years as the other superpower, surpassing the might of all free market economies but one, and looks on the verge of doing so again.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'C')hina now has a much more market-based economy, even though the government itself is still considered communist; it doesn't have as much of a planned economy than it did in decades past.


Now YOU want to compare apples and oranges. China has a planned economy; nothing happens without government permission and oversight -- particularly involving foreign investment. Controlling interest in businesses remains vested in the government, which has within its purview the ability to open, close, and reassign business as suits the needs of the nation. If you're fooled by appearances, you're meant to be. China's playing a game that adopts convenient aspects of our "rules" in order to facilitate the largest transfer of wealth, infrastructure, and technical know-how in human history. What China will do, or become, when the process is completely realized, only China can say. But it won't be constrained by our counsel, needs, or expectations, but their own.

Purporting that "some" Third World countries lean left -- and given the history of US involvement in Latin America, that's a pretty flaccid excuse -- ignores that truth of the matter that most didn't and don't and were under the direct or indirect tutelage of the Western powers who economies they serviced. Panama uses the US dollar for its own currency. Why, then, are such countries not universally well-off? You haven't answered that question, nor the question of internal disparities within these relative systems (though I did limit myself to asking about the economies of the East Bloc).

You seem interested in absolutes. It should be clear that the approach is the wrong one to take. Countries in any particular "system", if we are being broadly categorical, can be well run or poorly run, relatively speaking. Czechoslovakia and Hungary (or even East Germany, for that matter), for instance, were unquestionably preferable to North Korea. Likewise, contemporary West Germany was preferable to Greece or Mexico; indeed, in most regards, life in Czechoslovakia circa 1985 would have been preferable to life in Mexico.


You haven't explained why capitalist countries do better than comunist countries when all or most else is equal. If West Germany and South Korea really were doing well because they had "help" from the US, why weren't Eastern Europe and North Korea not doing better with the "help" they had from large communist nations? And again, why the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall?

China remains very authoritarian, but there is more business ownership and investment. They have money to lend because people are buying the products they make.
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Javaman » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 13:12:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'I')t seems that if a group of people get together and voluntarily pool their resources (money, tools, expertise, ideas, etc.) to form a business from which they expect to make a profit, well that's bad and smacks of exploitation of "The People." It seems to be even worse if an individual tries to start a business on his own. Then you have a case of one person trying to take advantage of everyone else. We can't have that! These things have to be done by force through taxation, wealth redistribution, regulations. Then it's OK.


The point addressed was not actually the moral merits of either example, but to illustrate the point that the "rich" do not create, in and of themselves, job opportunities or industries. Like governments, what they are doing is redistributing wealth. A possible moral aspect is raised by the consideration, thought, that unlike governments, a portion of that redistribution is private and does not directly benefit society.


If I take some of my savings (money I didn't spend) and risk it by using it to start a small business, are you saying that I shouldn't hire any one who is flat broke and who can't bring anything into the deal except some time and labor?
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Javaman » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 13:30:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'S')peaking of morality, is it any way moral that a factory owner in a 3rd world country pay starvation wages while he rakes in the profits? Is it moral for bosses to force people to work insane hours in hellish conditions just so *they* can make more money for themselves?

And why is it that employees are supposed to be "loyal" to their employer - i.e., showing up on time each day, working their fannies off, giving their heart and soul to the "company", and yet, when times go "bad", the employer has every right to lay that person off. Is that in any way shape or form "moral"???

The reason I have such a burning desire to see capitalism go away in my time is that it's about the most immoral system that's ever been invented by humankind. Every single person who labors is entitled to 100% of the fruits of their effort - anything less is a form of slavery, IMO.

Sure, if a group of people form a biz and everyone splits the profits *equally*, then everything is fair and square - that's exactly how it should be. But this paradigm of one man at the top while the rest slave under him for the lowest wage the market will allow just doesn't fit any definition of what I consider "moral". I'll be deliriously happy to see all of that go away, even at the cost of we call "modern society".


Then I guess someone needs to decide just what is "100% of the fruits of their effort."

Can we assume that each of the people starting the business provided exactly the same amount of cash and other resources, so that the profits can be split equally? What about employees? Are the owners going to hire any?
User avatar
Javaman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Jester » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:09:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '
')He's got your number, Cube; he's answered your challenge. You just don't like what he said. But he did rather ably reveal the fatuity of your thesis that affluence is simply a matter of bean-counting by evoking Zimbabwe.


Thank you Nickel. It seems one can understand this when they aren't too busy being defensive or making attacks instead of replying constructively.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'W')hy did you reply to me first?
Why did you initiate a discussion with me and then start avoiding the question?


It is a message board, a place of discussion. If you post on it, people will reply. Thats how it works. You don't get to decree what people say in their replies to you, and often their opinions will differ from your own.

Please realize that just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the question wasn't answered.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')The answer is obvious. It was your intention from the very beginning to simply try and annoy me.
Nice try --> it did NOT work.
I think it is you who needs to grow up and act like an adult.


No, I don't really care if you're annoyed. You post like you're annoyed, but thats your issues, not mine. My replies have been logical and reasonable and yours have seemed ignorant and rude... so who needs to grow up?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')There's a word for people like you and it's called being a Troll.


News flash for you. Just because someone shows that your logic was a failure, doesn't mean they're a troll, it simply means you failed.

Image
User avatar
Jester
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Snowrunner » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:20:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'A')nd why is it that employees are supposed to be "loyal" to their employer - i.e., showing up on time each day, working their fannies off, giving their heart and soul to the "company", and yet, when times go "bad", the employer has every right to lay that person off. Is that in any way shape or form "moral"???


Little anecdote:

A few years ago I had lunch with a VP of HR and over the course of the lunch he started complaining about the disloyality of "modern employees" who jump on the next best offer that comes their way.

When I pointed out to him that companies hire and fire people with gusto as they see fit he replied that for companies it is just business, nothing personal. He had a hard time to see that for the people who jump ship it is business also and that loyality goes both ways.

Funnily enough, my current boss still doesn't get his head around it that the only reason I am doing my job is because he pays me, we had this discussion a few times where he was trying to coax out of me that I do the job I do because I love working for the company and everytime I tell him it's just business, it's about the money and as long as he pays me an appropriate fee I will do a good job he looks at me in disbelief.

On a tangent here, it is funny too, talking with people when they are starting to look for a new job, a lot of people go into these interviews and applications almost as "beggers" ("Please, hire me"). I always approach them from: "Why would *I* want to work for YOU?" kind of deals.
Last edited by Snowrunner on Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:25:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby Snowrunner » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:24:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'A') really insightful book on the merits of capitalism that I recommend you read is 'how to get rich' by Felix Dennis. This guy is at the top of the publishing industry in both the U.K. and U.S. and yet he admits that virtually everything nickel and byron100 have said is correct. Besides this arguing over old style socialism vs capitalism is somewhat irrelevant given our current predicament, yes?


Some years ago, I read a book called The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Its central thesis to explain the affluence of a handful of what we'd consider "core West" countries wasn't that we have smarter people or more intrepid entrepreneurs or more dedicated workers, but that we have a tradition of land registry. It sounds almost silly at first hearing, but the book goes on to contrast the systems in the Anglosphere and Western Europe with other places participating in the free market system where capitalism has been less effective. Sophisticated and systematic programs of land registration, going back hundreds of years in most of our countries, enables people to unambiguously demonstrate ownership of land and property, its location, exact extent down to the inch, known services and structures... all of which, further, enables people to borrow against these assets because creditors know exactly what's being borrowed against, and will risk extending credit because they have the means to recover the loan. In much of the "free" world, this is not the case; land registration is a long, laborious, and often corrupt process that is frequently circumvented or ignored altogether. In much of the world, it is unusual for streets to have names, or even for homes and business to have numerically-specific addresses. All of this makes even getting a phone installed a logistical nightmare.

Given the nature of the discussion, however, it's worth noting that this is not strictly a tip of the hat to free enterprise. In such a system, governments and public corporations are equally empowered to borrow against assets. This is why the government of a country like Canada, with relatively few people, is able to avail itself of much greater credit than many other, numerically much greater countries.


Its interesting to note that in Argentina reform of land registry laws has not resulted in the desired increase in credit supply to new land owners, primarily as the deeds are owned by slum dwellers not deemed credit worthy. Having a stable income seems to be more important- for example, the development of micro finance is having more of an impact than reforming land registry laws.


A lot of things that made the West what it is is timing too. We got "our s**t together" and went out and in the case of Europe via the different trading companies dragged goods and labour (slaves) back to our homestead and this enabled us to build these institutions first hand.

Any country coming into the "free market" right now has to compete with countries that had in some cases hundred of years to amass wealth and power and can "outbid" anybody they want.

Of course, it looks like this is coming to a screeching halt right now, but the rise of the "West" has nothing to do with Western Superiority, if anything it comes down to unabashed greed and good timing.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby cube » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 17:20:40

I have a question for anybody here.
Or more specifically anybody who actually wants to
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Who will accept the challenge? :wink:

There are plenty of countries that have *tried* income redistribution.
But there is no country on this planet where the average salary started with $40,000 and jumped up to $80,000 by having government taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the rest of society. ---> NO such country exists.

Simply stated: Why does income redistribution not work?

// add on
It does not have to be a nation that went from $40K to $80K average salary. It can be any income level.
My assertion still stands:
There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?
Last edited by cube on Sun 21 Dec 2008, 18:20:32, edited 1 time in total.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby bodigami » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 18:17:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I') have a question for anybody here.
Or more specifically anybody who actually wants to
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Who will accept the challenge? :wink:

There are plenty of countries that have *tried* income redistribution.
But there is no country on this planet where the average salary started with $40,000 and jumped up to $80,000 by having government taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the rest of society. ---> NO such country exists.

Simply stated: Why does income redistribution not work?


Capitalism is also income redistribution, but one that many think is not fair.

A system that makes it even possible that some people have so much money as to not even know what to do with it, while others are starving, is not just...

sure, overpopulation also has to be considered, which makes the portions of pie smaller and smaller.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby cube » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 18:27:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bodinagamin', '.')..
Capitalism is also income redistribution, but one that many think is not fair.
maybe - but that is not question

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bodinagamin', '.')..
A system that makes it even possible that some people have so much money as to not even know what to do with it, while others are starving, is not just...
maybe - but that is not question

There are 4 theoretical scenarios:
1) both the rich and middle class move up
2) both the rich and middle class move down
3) the rich moves up but the middle class moves down
4) the rich moves down and the middle class moves up

scenario 4) has NEVER happened.
My question is why???
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 18:46:49

Easy--capital flight.

j on c:
"You don't get to decree what people say in their replies to you"

Yep, that's cube for ya. He even wants to control the content of posts by people he has put on ignore (like me and some dozens of others).

He occasionally has interesting things to say, but his maturity level is about the lowest I've seen of anyone on these threads.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests