The rational analysis will show that the financial sector provides an actual service.
The parasite class, by definition, does not.
Merely hoarding and "supplying" capital is not an actual service.
I can see more than one reason for demanding English to be the national language.
Our first agreement. "Demanding English to be"? :2wave:
Providing capital is a purpose, is it not?
Providing capital is a necessary purpose, is it not?
Therefore, your argument that they're useless is invalidated by your own words.
The provision of capital is a necessary purpose. Merely "providing capital" and engaging in no other productive activity is both unnecessary and inefficient.
Since the people (government) claiming the money didn't do anything or take any risks to earn it, clearly their claim should be null and void and 100% of all inheritance should be passed on to the heirs of the estate.
Considering the positive connection between efficiency and equity, it's mere economic rationality to ensure equality of opportunity. I know John and Ken don't tell you about this stuff, but please do try to keep up.
?? where are you gettting those crazy ideas??
From basic economic principles supported by empirical research.
competition nearly always increases efficency
I haven't actually claimed otherwise in this thread. Your problem is that you've committed the standard economic error of assuming socialism to be synonymous with a command economy and central planning.
if you have an example of the efficency of collective economies you need an example before you type that.
Certainly. We could refer to the beneficial effects of the establishment of libertarian socialism during the Spanish Revolution on the Spanish region of Aragon. Will that suffice?
I can name some, India, China and Singapore.
Please elaborate. I'd certainly be interested in hearing about the advent of socialism in India, China, and Singapore.
What do you mean wealth is "possessed" instead of created in the world?
I'm referring to the private ownership of the means of production being an inheritance from an openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation, as well as the relative idleness of the financial class in providing any socially useful purpose.
how do you explain the large economic growth in China from some free market principles? Therefore, the wealth is created and is not stagnant in each country.
There are no "free markets" present in China any more than there are "free markets" present in the capitalist economy. The markets that exist in China are state capitalist in nature, subject to bureaucratic and authoritarian management rather than collective ownership and management.
you need example and evidence for what you say.
Which has been presented and summarily ignored by you.
I'm curious to know what you find is a "legitimate effort" or "just gain".
Actual work and fair acquisition. The current state of affairs violates the Lockean provisos established by so prominent an advocate of capitalism as Robert Nozick in
Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
So what non-idleness must be met to satisfy your demands else you believe it "justified" to take their wealth for more "purposeful" means?
"Take *their* wealth"? Capital accumulation is based on theft (considering the role of the openly coercive phase of primitive accumulation), and the private ownership of the means of production creates a state of affairs that would accurately be condemned as an authoritarian social structure if manifested through the vessel of a state, and involves conditions wherein much economic structure is owned and controlled by an elite few not subject to democratic check or recall, and institute hierarchical management on the individual firm level.
Because we all know:
1) attaining wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you make.
2) managing wealth is easy and only gets easier the more you have.
3) perpetuating your wealth is easy and only gets easier the longer you have it.
4) attaining more wealth once you have wealth is child play.
:roll:
I'd never claim anything of the sort. Considering the limited social mobility that hampers equality of opportunity in the U.S., the reality is starkly different.
Yes, however, were we to get rid of Heath and Human Services and Social Security, the fiscal equation balances out quite nicely. If you produce nothing, you can consume only what other people choose to share with you. If there is no charity, than the unemployed worker will be forced to work harder in order to maintain employment, thus encouraging more productive citizens in a more productive society.
This is an absurdly crude and utopian understanding that fails to incorporate the reality of
frictions, for one thing. A welfare state is a necessary component in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class; for instance, job search frictions function as obstacles to a quick and easy selection, and unemployment benefits thus enable one to conduct a more thorough and effective search, which encourages skill set matches and the elimination of underemployment.
I see no credibility whatsoever to the claim that worker-owned companies are in any way more efficient. It's utterly counter intuitive.
This isn't an impressive spectacle. You've managed to ignore the empirical research on the matter because damn it, you've got a hunch! :roll:
Now, we'll see how GM does. That is a worker-owned company, in part. If GM becomes increasingly efficient and efficacious over the next twenty-five years, then maybe we'll have ourselves a real case study. But, human nature and every experience we have of it, demonstrates that people work harder the more invested and responsible they are for the product.
That's very much correct, and since the divorce and ownership of control that characterizes the conventional capitalist firms causes principal-agent problems, such a state of affairs acts directly
contrary to the establishment of personal investment and responsibility. You must suffer from a rather uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
So long as there is an inequality in self-motivation, character, and self-discipline, there will be more and less productive people, demanding an inequitable, uneven, but nevertheless fair, distribution of wealth. People that try to curb, manipulate, or condition human nature, simply by ignoring the obviousness of the truth, tend to do so at their own peril.
You've illustrated a rather expansive ignorance of human nature yourself by effectively reducing the labor market to a collection of factors of production. Conversely, socialists long ago mastered knowledge of human nature and its political applications. I sense that you've not heard of Peter Kropotkin or
Mutual Aid.