Citigroup: The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of everyone else

[Kuya]

Oh, no, that is the point of new technology. Industrial technology eliminated the need for blacksmiths and field hands and seamstresses. Goods are of higher quality, quantity, and cheaper and now the blacksmiths, field hands and seamstresses are out of work. As a special interest group they can argue against industry for robbing them of employment and income for which the public is no longer willing to pay them, and the cost to the public would be both the cost of their pay and the opportunity cost of not implementing industrial technology, which is greater than the benefit to the outmoded seamstresses blacksmiths of being employed.

A similar argument can be aimed at protectionist policies to preserve employment, as came up in a previous thread.

Another way to frame it is with the luddite fallacy. When labour saving technology is created it cheapens goods which stimulates demand and hence the need for more labour. Increased productivity doesn't result in unemployment, at least in the long run. Wealth isn't measured in money, it's measured in consumption (which is measured with money).

Yes i see the point now. In this case, the weakening of manufacturing jobs in return for technologies that made the process more efficient could end up being a net benefit for society.

The way the professor framed it was that the progressive replacement of industrial jobs by technology, which is where labour was strongest, plays a role in the weakening of this movement. The market that replaces this industrial market is the service market, which produces less jobs than the industrial market as the latter was labour intensive. So then, with fewer jobs and lower salaries and benefits due to the weakening of labour, the way the system works is that credit instead is what these workers with lower wages and benefits rely on, and via this system of credit, finance capitalism manages to amass great wealth in smaller number of hands. This was the gist of his argument, which a few parts i know to be facts, but what made it most convincing was the coherent way it was narrated, which, of course, does not mean it's a fact. Furthermore, it could be that this entire process, if true, could still be a net benefit for society, however, in this thread, you and I seem to be on that side that argues that concentration of wealth is probably not a net benefit for society. Our acknowledgement of concentration of wealth, of course, is not an acknowledgement that this professor's narrative is factual.

[Beckwin]

has plow made a point yet? it seems he's just saying "lol beckwin and kuya hate freedom" now. even though it's pretty damn well supported that concentrations of wealth lead to disproportionate political influence. honestly is this even something that conservatives/free-marketeers would debate? if anything they'd justify it somehow, but I don't think they'd deny it.

also it's pretty retarded to say there's no constitutional way to address some of my and kuya's (and cadsuane's and rhinox's, let's not be exclusive here) grievances, seeing as the constitution for one gives power of taxation, as well as has an ammendment process.

[Plow]

I'll bother again when anyone has any remote response whatsoever of what to do when big groups of middle class people do the exact same thing.


I'm sure no labor union has *EVER* gotten the government to do things for them that the general populace didn't agree with, ever, under any circumstances, so feel free to use hypotheticals since I'm being so unrealistic.

[Beckwin]

big groups

not a problem. you still don't get it

[archibaldcrane]

I'll bother again when anyone has any remote response whatsoever of what to do when big groups of middle class people do the exact same thing.

Plow, I think the point is this. When large groups of people lobby the government for certain changes advantageous to them, it's "less bad" than when small groups of people do it. The government should be serving the interests of the greater American population - if wide swaths of the population get what they want, that's better than if it's only a small number who do, at the expense of others. It's "more democratic" when a larger population is served.

The idea that the superrich are the ones successfully lobbying isn't as problematic is how few they are.

[BarthelloSylph]

If anyone saw the stock market today, then they'll realize it'll be a bit longer before the rich get richer

[archibaldcrane]

If anyone saw the stock market today, then they'll realize it'll be a bit longer before the rich get richer

Fucking Greece. They need to wake up and go to work.

http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20100306-25707.html

[Max™]

Want a new brand of insanity to insert into the neo-luddite argument?

Probably not, but here it is: if you automate everything, and run an economy tuned to produce goods rather than provide jobs, eventually you must automate to compete. After a while, the ability to do things without automation is lost, and you obsolete your workforce.

Then, you build an A.I. that capitalizes on this infrastructure, and obsolete humanity entirely!


Now back to your regularly scheduled bitching.

[Plow]

Plow, I think the point is this. When large groups of people lobby the government for certain changes advantageous to them, it's "less bad" than when small groups of people do it. The government should be serving the interests of the greater American population - if wide swaths of the population get what they want, that's better than if it's only a small number who do, at the expense of others. It's "more democratic" when a larger population is served.

The idea that the superrich are the ones successfully lobbying isn't as problematic is how few they are.

Then they're fucking dumber than I ever imagined, because the super rich lobbying is not a problem if they're not doing bad things with their power.

[Rothbardian]

It's because i still don't completely understand what the fallacy means. Or more specifically, how it applies to the argument that revolution of technology was more about replacing workers.

Anyway, yes i am aware that the large leaps in technological advancement weren't just about machines for labour, and i realize that the idea that the revolution in technology was *specifically* for replacing labour (as if it were enginered with that in mind) is absurd. If i gave the impression that i believed it was true, then no, i don't believe it is true because i haven't seen enough evidence other than some guy saying it in a conference once. I am merely sympathetic of the statement because i've always had a, perhaps irrational preocupation, that technology would progressively face out labour.

And how is that bad in any way? I mean, sure, we could all go back to the agriarist society you envision where everyone is equally destitute, and having the standard of living of the 17th Century peasant or serf, but I would conclude, even you would cede to the rationality, and reason that by increasing productivity and continously lowering the amount of time that is required to work in order to sustain a high standard of living is in the very least, beneficial.

If one logically conceives of a time where human work is not required and where machines do not require maintenance, programming, or other such human interactions, then yes, that is the definition of a Semi-Utopia (Albeit, we would still live in a world of scarce resources...). Who wouldn't want that? A masochist, possibly?

Anyways, the one law of the universe is that resources are scarce, as such, there will always be some avenue of work to be found. Don't worry about there not being enough wage-jobs. You could always if you wanted, live on your own farm and trade for what modern amenities you want.

I also wonder why socialists/communists have this pre-occupation with the sacro-sanct of labor. Labor is merely an economic good. Perhaps you could explain?

Also, the fallacy, among a lot of others was first extrapolated by the premier Classical Liberal -- Frederic Bastiat. I recommend reading "The Law" a 60 or so page primer on the primacy of liberty, and laissez-faire freedom.

[Cadsuane]

I also wonder why socialists/communists have this pre-occupation with the sacro-sanct of labor. Labor is merely an economic good. Perhaps you could explain?

Along with modern liberals, they're concerned with labourers' tendency of being shoehorned into a social class that can't or is compelled not to own capital and hence can't dictate what it is used for, thereby being alienated from the result of their own labour. That's the classical response anyway.

[Rothbardian]

has plow made a point yet? it seems he's just saying "lol beckwin and kuya hate freedom" now. even though it's pretty damn well supported that concentrations of wealth lead to disproportionate political influence. honestly is this even something that conservatives/free-marketeers would debate? if anything they'd justify it somehow, but I don't think they'd deny it.

also it's pretty retarded to say there's no constitutional way to address some of my and kuya's (and cadsuane's and rhinox's, let's not be exclusive here) grievances, seeing as the constitution for one gives power of taxation, as well as has an ammendment process.

Mr. Socialist himself Bernie Sanders seems ok with appropriating your money to corporations, the Government, and the Banking Elites. The Federal Reserve and our Monetary Policy is the #1 factor in why their is such disparity in wealth gaps. This is no secret, even Thomas Jefferson saw what would become if a Private Banking Cartel would be given part and parcel to monopolize Monetary policy through the monopoly that is the State.

The out-cry is deafening! The liberals rallying around Ron Paul on Audit the Fed! Rah-rah...oh wait. They aren't. You yell and scream about "wealth inequality", but really, when it comes down to it, from all the liberals I've encountered all they seem to preach is giving more and more power to the Government. Yeah, real good the Socialist Bernie Sanders is. Replacing the Paul Fed amendment/language S604 his own Senate version of the House, with the Mel Watt Banking Bill that literally does jack shit. Why the sudden change Mr. Socialist?

Will you liberals come together with us libertarians in opposing the Watt amendment, Obama and his fascist policies, and the Federal Reserve? Will you End the Fed, with us? At the very least will you support HR4248, the Free Competition in Currency Act?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- TJ

I would also disagree with your sentiment that concentrations of wealth brings about political influence, rather, political influence, brings about concentrations of wealth. To easily see this, imagine if the large energy companies did not have Utility Monopolies, and subsidy. Moreover, if the Federal Government had very little if any power, no one would lobby (Bribe), the Government for privilege, because they wouldn't have the power to grant it in the first place. If you are truly for the most egalitarian society, then you must be for a very limited, very small Government, or No-State Autarchism.

As for the Constitution granted the powers to tax. Yes. Only in two scenarios. The only direct tax allowed is an excise tax. The Federal Government cannot Constitutional directly tax%2 money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered[/I]." -- TJ

I would also disagree with your sentiment that concentrations of wealth brings about political influence, rather, political influence, brings about concentrations of wealth. To easily see this, imagine if the large energy companies did not have Utility Monopolies, and subsidy. Moreover, if the Federal Government had very little if any power, no one would lobby (Bribe), the Government for privilege, because they wouldn't have the power to grant it in the first place. If you are truly for the most egalitarian society, then you must be for a very limited, very small Government, or No-State Autarchism.

As for the Constitution granted the powers to tax. Yes. Only in two scenarios. The only direct tax allowed is an excise tax. The Federal Government cannot Constitutional directly tax anything else (ala Income). The second is apportionment%2

[Cadsuane]

Not this shit again.

Quick skim...

Central monetary policy has fuck all to do with income inequality, inflation only taxes those who hold currency (and no one holds much of it), hence inflation taxes constitute a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenues of the western governments.

[Rothbardian]

Not this shit again.

Quick skim...

Central monetary policy has fuck all to do with income inequality, inflation only taxes those who hold currency (and no one holds much of it), hence inflation taxes constitute a fraction of a fraction of the tax revenues of the western governments.

Yeah, I guess running the printing presses (Or in todays case, the numerical keys on a keyboard) and passing out money to your friends, either directly or indirectly, has little to do with income inequality...Similarly, being the beneficiery of that new money before it circulates, resulting in a much higher buying power (Which is, in fact, all that matters in terms of economics concerning this particular issue), also does not consolidate capital, and wealth.

Gotcha.

A quick look at Zimbabwe before and after the rampant inflation clearly illustrates your point....

[Cadsuane]

Yeah, I guess running the printing presses (Or in todays case, the numerical keys on a keyboard) and passing out money to your friends, either directly or indirectly, has little to do with income inequality...Similarly, being the beneficiery of that new money before it circulates, resulting in a much higher buying power (Which is, in fact, all that matters in terms of economics), also does not consolidate capital, and wealth.

Gotcha.

Yeah, good thing none of that qualifies as monetary policy. A central bank is a bank. It sells bonds, sets interest rates, buys and sells on the exchange market, and acts as a creditor to the government and other banks. It doesn't print money arbitrarily and so the governor can spend it on hookers and blow.

[Rothbardian]

Yeah, good thing none of the qualifies as monetary policy. A central bank is a bank. It sells bonds, sets interest rates, buys and sells on the exchange market, and acts as a creditor to the government and other banks. It doesn't print money arbitrarily and so the governor can spend it on hookers and blow.

Do you actually believe that subsidy of industry, and especially to particulars, comes from the direct taxes levied on you? The Income Tax doesn't even cover 20% of the Governments expenses, moreover, who do you think benefits from the "law"? Having you just proclaimed the BRF and Frederic Bastiat, I would have thought you would have learned a bit more from reading:

What is Seen and Unseen, and The Law, which goes over this explicitly. Secondly, you only have to look at the MIC to see how Government law, and policy, consolidates wealth and power. Yeah, no one is benefiting from that printing press concerning our Empire..Sure, it may not be arbitrary, but it is a direct policy of lining the pockets of large Corporations at the expense of everyone else. It is anti-Free Market. It is the epitome of Economic Fascism (Or, more precisely, Mercantilism). You are aware, that Bastiat, and the Laissez-Fairests of the 19th Century were rabid anti-Mercantilists, right?

You are also aware, that without the Federal Reserve, these Corporations would be unable to exist, because the Government couldn't finance the Welfare/Warfare system without an unlimited press. Fiat money coupled with Central Banking give rise to the disparity in income.

[Cadsuane]

Do you actually believe that subsidy of industry, and especially to particulars, comes from the direct taxes levied on you? The Income Tax doesn't even cover 20% of the Governments expenses, moreover, who do you think benefits from the "law"? Having you just proclaimed the BRF and Frederic Bastiat, I would have thought you would have learned a bit more from reading:

What is Seen and Unseen, and The Law, which goes over this explicitly. Secondly, you only have to look at the MIC to see how Government law, and policy, consolidates wealth and power. Yeah, no one is benefiting from that printing press concerning our Empire..Sure, it may not be arbitrary, but it is a direct policy of lining the pockets of large Corporations at the expense of everyone else. It is anti-Free Market. It is the epitome of Economic Fascism (Or, more precisely, Mercantilism). You are aware, that Bastiat, and the Laissez-Fairests of the 19th Century were rabid anti-Mercantilists, right?

Yeah, I actually believe that central banks don't subsidy industry, or even directly finance investors besides the government, and hence what you're talking about has fuck all to do with central monetary policy.

So since you've abruptly switched topics from central banking policy (rawr inflation taxes) to uh, some unspecific corporations and blah blah free markets mercantilism or whatever, what is your actual point again?

[Cadsuane]

You are also aware, that without the Federal Reserve, these Corporations would be unable to exist, because the Government couldn't finance the Welfare/Warfare system without an unlimited press. Fiat money coupled with Central Banking give rise to the disparity in income.

It's not an unlimited... jesus you really have no fucking idea how financial markets work. Many economic factors contribute to income disparity, monetary policy is not really one of them. Something else your classical liberal gods purported: the classical dichotomy.

[Rothbardian]

Yeah, I actually believe that central banks don't subsidy industry, or even directly finance investors besides the government, and hence what you're talking about has fuck all to do with central monetary policy.

So since you've abruptly switched topics from central banking policy (rawr inflation taxes) to uh, some unspecific corporations and blah blah free markets mercantilism or whatever, what is your actual point again?

The Government is financed by the Central Bank, hence, influenced directly. Moreover, the Governors of each Bank, and the shareholders (Rockefellers, Morgans, Rothschilds, etc.), are not-coincidently, holders of the vast majority of capital in the country. Laws instituted by the Government is therefore influenced by the power, and sway, of the Central Bank, considering that the Bank holds sway over all Monetary decisions.

Why do you think Amschel Rothschild said this:

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.

When you control in essence, all capital (The ability to create money out of thin air), it is of no fanciful imagination that capital will naturally be consolidated to those who hold power over the press. Incidentally, it is why notable economist J. Schumpeter, also wrote this:

An ‘automatic’ gold currency is part and parcel of a laissez-faire and free-trade economy. It links every nation’s money rates and price levels with the money-rates and price levels of all the other nations that are ‘on gold.’ It is extremely sensitive to government expenditure and even to attitudes or policies that do not involve expenditure directly, for example, to foreign policy, to certain policies of taxation, and, in general, to precisely all those policies that violate the principles of [classical] liberalism. This is the reason why gold is so unpopular now and also why it was so popular in a bourgeois era. It imposes restrictions upon governments or bureaucracies that are much more powerful than is parliamentary criticism. It is both the badge and the guarantee of bourgeois freedom—of freedom not simply of the bourgeois interest, but of freedom in the bourgeois sense. From this standpoint a man may quite rationally fight for it, even if fully convinced of the validity of all that has ever been urged against it on economic grounds. From the standpoint of etatisme and planning, a man may not less rationally condemn it, even if fully convinced of the validity of all that has ever been urged for it on economic grounds.

Now, if you even for a second believe that the Federal Reserve is independant, then why do you think Greenspan and Bush worked hand in hand, as did Hoover/FDR did with Roy Young, Eugene Meyer, Eugene Black, and Marriner Eccles? You also fail to note how the institution of the Federal Reserve, and the powers of Reserve Banks, give rise to this disparity. Interest rates, are at the heart of all economic transaction. Yes, I am a proponent of ABCT.

So since you don't believe that the Bank, which loans money at interest to the Government (take a guess who pays on that interest...), doesn't actually, finance the bills signed into law, by...the Government. Well, who then funds, this? Overseas investors, who buy T-Bonds? Sure, some (and who sets the interest rates to entice, overseas investors? FR) Taxes? Considering that taxes only account for about 30-40% at most of the Budget, you then find it very auspicious to where and how the Government finances its activities. Not only, do they then fund the money back into the large corporations, but we the people are now on the hook for interest payments!

Edit: What the fuck happened to my post...deleting the last few paragraphs and repeating the former...Anyways, I recommend reading some Murray Rothbard when it comes to this subject. He more clearly articulates the fundamental reasons behind the Fed Reserve and how it elicits monopoly privilege, and capital control.

[Beckwin]

I'm pretty sure there was vast income inequality in the eras prior to Fiat systems.