Quote from: btcbug on March 01, 2016, 05:42:32 AM

Quote from: cjmoles on March 01, 2016, 04:46:54 AM

Okay, I'm neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your reasoning here. However, I am curious about how you would explain the observation that wealth in capitalist countries is being concentrated into the portfolios of a small percentage of people. If there is an increasing income disparity between the very rich and the very poor, why is that so?

Well if you think my logic is reasonable than how would you answer that question?

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect it's precisely for the reason that they are becoming increasingly Socialist.

You could probably say that an increasing wealth disparity is the same thing as a decreasing or shrinking middle class, correct? Just like you could say that a lessening of wealth disparity would indicate a growing middle class. It's always been seen as a great success of the USA and similar western societies that they've had a large middle class where anyone could earn a decent living at a job.

To me it seems to make sense that in an environment with the most economic freedom you'd have a lesser wealth disparity. 100 or 200 years ago there was next to nothing for regulation, income tax did not exist, people understood that nobody had the right to steal their productive output. Liberty was just common sense! Fast forward and we've seen increasing regulations, increasing taxes, welfare state, war on drugs, and an overall decrease in individual freedom. It costs a TON of money to police the world, incarcerate people, wage perpetual wars, and promise everybody free shit under the illusion of "rights". The problem is it's extremely wasteful and so resources that should be in the hands of the poor and middle class are being taken to administer this monstrosity called the US government. Huge wealth disparity is the price we pay for bureaucracy!

There is a difference between productive work and unproductive work. Production and wealth come from growing food, building things, and saving! Whereas what government (socialism) does is pays people to dig ditches all day and then somebody else to fill them back in every night.

Okay, bear with me here because this is a bit of an abstraction. If we equate dollars with labor/hours, goods and services with product, and we distinguish the laborer from the capitalist, then we might illustrate the disparity in income as such:

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist. The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours. The laborer cannot afford the product so he has to work for the capitalist for four more hours. The laborer then gives those 12 labor/hours he earned back to the capitalist to purchase the product he produced in eight hours. This cycle repeats itself across industries for a few hundred years until the income gap between the laborer and the capitalist is exasperated.

The income inequality is inevitable in such a system. As long as the laborer is getting less than the value of the product he produces, wealth will always move in an upward direction toward the top. And, the wider the gap becomes, the more social unrest there will be. The more social unrest, the more need for police, prisons, and regulation...etc. So, social programs are not the cause of the income disparity but more of a result of it.

I'm gonna stop there because I feel we are over simplifying a complex problem but much more could be added. I have no opinion as to what form of economy is best but I do know that there is a disparity in the way wealth is distributed, not only in the US, but all around the world. It's not just an American problem, it's world wide!