Could you expand on that? Which policies & how would that create income inequality?
Yes. But it's going to take a few pages to outline the prerequisites to understand. I'm well outside of the overton window in my thoughts, so there is much explaining to do. It's going to take a while to get that out, and too much to apply in this thread. I'll come back and link to it, when I write it. Apologies in the meantime, it's unfair to start a criticism without the gumption to back it up, and right now, all my gumption is otherwise occupied.
The price of something is always equal to its value... Humans are self-interested, logical economic machines
Seriously, has anyone ever met anyone who actually believes this? It's a simplification, a part of a set of assumptions so that models can be produced. All models are wrong, some models are useful. Pointing out that assumptions for a model may be inaccurate is valid criticism. Assuming people using those models believe in the accuracy of the assumptions, is to miss the whole point.
This is white belt thinking. It's greater than typical member of the public thinking, in that at least it has some basis in the subject, but it is far from even knowing how much there is to understand.
But realistically there's always going to be some form of government intervention. The question is what set of models, ideas, philosophy are these interventions based on. Currently it's based on "neo-liberalism" or crony capitalism, but could it we bring it back in line? There's other things going on too like the notion of the corporation itself, should a corporation even have personhood, should there even be limited liability, should CEOs be legally beholden to shareholders to seek profit and maximize growth? I'm not sure what your stance is there, it seems strange to not mention the corporation in this discussion.
Yes! This is where I believe the answers are. But I don't believe that the rules need to change, or that we need new systems. I believe most people's economic/systemic/governmental complaints with the world as we see it, can be resolved using existing laws and market systems. We just need to use them more efficiently, and I'm crazy enough to think I know how to make that transition. I just haven't been able to get it down on paper.
I'm all for a very lassez faire true capitalism situation that doesn't have a crazy limited liability thing going on, doesn't necessarily have crazy financial engineering going on, and a tax on the absolute winner take all 1%ers to redistribute to the rest. I generally am of the notion that governments should be a bit simpler in structure, they shouldn't be creating cottage industries like the tax income industry, etc. Basically something that would make a liberal libertarian happy.
But on the other hand, politics is all about power, and making backroom deals etc, so it's pretty hard to end up with a minimal government.
I sorta agree. I believe we are in the habit of charging the government with problems we don't want to deal with, personally, and don't like the existing solutions. Then, we forget about them. Never bothering to understand how the problem is being addressed, or what the fallout is. At this point, we tend to complain about the "unintended consequences", as though they are somehow completely new problems that need solutions, rather than going back to the reason we are facing these "unintended consequences". Perhaps, better solutions will give us preferable consequences. I just don't believe better solutions can be found at the same sources we have been using to create our current predicaments.
We can't solve these problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems.
This sounds like a very american or libertarian notion, is it actually even true?
And herein lies the problem. Everything I have read about economics (as opposed to everything I have read in economics, ie, journalism vs academic papers, theory and books) is a lie. Pretty bold statement, I know.
Several years back, Felix and I went 12 rounds over the stagnating wage claim. It's here somewhere. IIRC, the conclusion I came to, as we dug through the data, was the same numbers could be used to justify:
Average wages have stagnated for X years!
The median worker has experienced economic growth to an all time high, and maintained that pinnacle of achievement for decades as below median workers have been experiencing massive growth to catch up.
Same data. Which is true? Both. Each is just a simplification. Claiming one is true, and the other is false, can't really be done with the data we have. It's just narrative.
Most people lose interest, before even looking at the data. That's why the NYT, (or Atlantic Monthly, Christian Science Monitor, New Yorker, The Nation) is still in business. People like to feel informed more than they like to be informed.
I agree with most of what shemp said, but I just consider these to be influencing, rather than determining factors.
Defenders and opposers of capitalism are all toadies?
Yup. See what I said above about narrative.
But how do you explain that we had oligarchy before (feudalism) in European countries and then those countries moved away from that towards democracy?
Firearms are democratic, in that a commoner (of whatever society we are discussing) can be trained to use them quickly, whereas a sword takes many years of practice. Now compare the outcome of 3 novices with swords against an expert with a sword, vs 3 novices with a firearm, vs an expert with a firearm. Swords support higher hierarchy (professionals have a greater suppression effect), firearms support a lower hierarchy.
Much of this has been discussed here before.