Leftism: How Wide the Divide Continued.

[_Droopy]

The core question of my "What if There Were no Poor Among us" thread seems to have gotten sidetracked onto some connected but peripheral arguments, and those to did attempt to engage the main question appear to have not understood it, or, to have understood it, and hence, to have avoided grasping it by the horns directly.

Therefore, I'm going to restate the question again, paired down to its essentials, and then be crystal clear as to the exactly the central problem I wish to elicit responses to. First, the original text:

Now, here is the question: if poverty could be abolished in this manner, under these economic conditions, would this be preferable, or not preferable, to a socialist system in which the central focus was on, not necessarily making the poor that much less poor, but on making them equal in their claim on the available resources and wealth of the society?

In other words, is economic equality as an ideal and societal goal of more importance than the actual abolition of poverty? Is equality of income distribution of greater importance, in the overall scheme of things, than the creation of wealth by the poor themselves and the addition of that wealth to, not only their own temporal condition, but to the net wealth of the entire society?

If it were possible to abolish poverty from the human condition utilizing either a free market capitalist economic order, or a socialist economic order, which would be preferred, assuming, for all intents and purposes, the same outcome?

Why?

So here I am really asking whether economic equality, or the absence of poverty are the most salient aspects of any "better" society. If you could only choose one, and not both, which would be more important to a "just" society, economic equality, or general high living standards among all, while still retaining numerous levels or degrees of economic condition among individuals?

Secondly, this resolves itself into a further question: If the abolition of human poverty could be achieved in either a free market capitalist, or highly controlled socialist society, and the outcomes would be ostensibly the same, what aspects of either would make one or the other preferable, if you still preferred one over the other? That is, this is a question of the ethical/moral aspects of the means.

Specifically, if you had the choice of achieving the virtual elimination of poverty from a society, and you had a choice of doing so by punishing and leveling those at higher economic levels, or by raising most incomes to well above the level of poverty and providing a safety net for the few who need assistance (either temporarily or permanently) that would require some contribution from the affluent, but which would not have as its intent the punitive removal of wealth from the affluent on a moral theory that claims inequality of economic level among a population is morally suspect, which would you choose?

For the abolition (or, lets just say, alleviation) of poverty to be satisfactory, must it be punitive to be legitimate?. Or, can the class warfare element be removed from it completely such that the rich help the poor out of poverty together with the poor as the poor are employed in the factories and stores the rich create and a growing economy is used to "soak up" the productive labor of the poor instead of forced leveling of economic condition (and a concomitant leveling and truncation of the economy) through punitive taxation.

Should the poor resent the rich - or aspire to be more like them?

[_Droopy]

Moving back to the central theme of my current discussion of leftism and the gospel, this question posed above got sidetracked into some other economic questions and moved, thanks to the usual suspects, down to the Terrestrial. I'd like to get the discussion back on an intellectually serious and focused track by a return to a focused discussion of the above question, which was in part still being pursued in the "no poor among us thread" by basically only one poster, Analytics, who has been kind enough to stay on topic throughout.

[_Analytics]

So here I am really asking whether economic equality, or the absence of poverty are the most salient aspects of any "better" society. If you could only choose one, and not both, which would be more important to a "just" society, economic equality, or general high living standards among all, while still retaining numerous levels or degrees of economic condition among individuals?

I would say that a society with generally higher living standards would be “better”, but I don’t know if it would necessarily be more “just”.

Secondly, this resolves itself into a further question: If the abolition of human poverty could be achieved in either a free market capitalist, or highly controlled socialist society, and the outcomes would be ostensibly the same, what aspects of either would make one or the other preferable, if you still preferred one over the other? That is, this is a question of the ethical/moral aspects of the means.

Specifically, if you had the choice of achieving the virtual elimination of poverty from a society, and you had a choice of doing so by punishing and leveling those at higher economic levels, or by raising most incomes to well above the level of poverty and providing a safety net for the few who need assistance (either temporarily or permanently) that would require some contribution from the affluent, but which would not have as its intent the punitive removal of wealth from the affluent on a moral theory that claims inequality of economic level among a population is morally suspect, which would you choose?

I like the idea of raising most incomes to well above the level of poverty.

For the abolition (or, lets just say, alleviation) of poverty to be satisfactory, must it be punitive to be legitimate?. Or, can the class warfare element be removed from it completely such that the rich help the poor out of poverty together with the poor as the poor are employed in the factories and stores the rich create and a growing economy is used to "soak up" the productive labor of the poor instead of forced leveling of economic condition (and a concomitant leveling and truncation of the economy) through punitive taxation.

I find it interesting that you give full credit to the rich for creating factories and stores. Could the rich create such things without the labor of the poor? Would stores and factories have any value if it weren’t for the poor who are employed there? I think this gets to the core of our divergent world views: I think the rich and poor are in a symbiotic relationship—the rich couldn’t be rich without the poor people who work at their stores and factories.

So if it really is the working poor who create the factories and stores that make the rich even more rich, what’s the moral justification for them being paid only a fraction of the value they actually contribute, with the balance being hoarded by the bourgeoisie?

Should the poor resent the rich - or aspire to be more like them?

I believe people should aspire to be more virtuous. Aspiring to be more like the rich isn’t necessarily the same thing.

[_ludwigm]

...
I find it interesting that you give full credit to the rich for creating factories and stores. Could the rich create such things without the labor of the poor? Would stores and factories have any value if it weren’t for the poor who are employed there? I think this gets to the core of our divergent world views: I think the rich and poor are in a symbiotic relationship—the rich couldn’t be rich without the poor people who work at their stores and factories.

So if it really is the working poor who create the factories and stores that make the rich even more rich, what’s the moral justification for them being paid only a fraction of the value they actually contribute, with the balance being hoarded by the bourgeoisie?
...

This should be carved in stones. (maybe to the back side of that other stones...)

The first paragraph is the correct description of the base mechanism of that admirable free market capitalism the droopies would die for.

The second paragraph is the answer, formulated by us, damned leftists.


Additionally, the capitalism invented the bankers, who multiply their richness by writing imaginary money from one paper to another. The real money will be paid by poor millions, during the next crisis, generated by the bankers.

There is another thread:
What is the "Cause" of poverty?

The cause of poverty is the craving for money of the riches.

[_bcspace]

So here I am really asking whether economic equality, or the absence of poverty are the most salient aspects of any "better" society.

Official LDS doctrine on the United Order/Law of Consecration expressly forbids these types of definitions of "equal".

[_Droopy]

I would say that a society with generally higher living standards would be “better”, but I don’t know if it would necessarily be more “just”.

Why would a society in which everybody was living in a state of economic security and comfort well above what reasonable people in the West would consider "poverty" not be considered "just"?

I like the idea of raising most incomes to well above the level of poverty.

You have just agreed with me. Atlantis has risen.

I find it interesting that you give full credit to the rich for creating factories and stores. Could the rich create such things without the labor of the poor? Would stores and factories have any value if it weren’t for the poor who are employed there? I think this gets to the core of our divergent world views: I think the rich and poor are in a symbiotic relationship—the rich couldn’t be rich without the poor people who work at their stores and factories.

First, I nowhere gave "full credit" to "the rich" for creating the factories and the stores. I do give full credit to "the rich" (the job and opportunity creating class) for the savings (capital accumulation) and investment that make the stores and factories - plant and equipment - possible at the outset.

It is quite true that the wealth produced in factories or sold in stores is in a symbiotic relationship. Entrepreneurs need employees to work in the factories and stores, and the average person relies on the existence of factories and stores (and service jobs - plumbers, electricians etc.) for their livelihood.

However, it is not true that it is the "workers" per se who make "the rich" wealthy, but the market, which is to say, and let's take the U.S. as our example, some 300,000,000 human beings (less children who do not directly participate in buying and consuming, but do influence adults who do) who choose, each day, which productive activities will succeed, which will not, and of those who do, which will be marginal produces and which highly successful.

Did Michael Jordon's basketball skills determine his high earnings, or the market that is willing to pay to watch him play? Or is it the entrepreneurs that create and maintain organizations like the NBA?

So if it really is the working poor who create the factories and stores that make the rich even more rich, what’s the moral justification for them being paid only a fraction of the value they actually contribute, with the balance being hoarded by the bourgeoisie?

Now we enter the exotic reptile house of Marxist ideology and leave the realms of serious economics. In the first instance, you have now contradicted your previous assertion that all aspects of production on a human level, from savings and investment by "the rich" to the labor in the factories and stores by employees, are symbiotic, and a part of a system of production and consumption. Now you retreat to the traditional Marxian labor theory of value, in which you now claim that it is only "the workers" who create value "for" the rich while investors, entrepreneurs, CEOs and stock holders appear now as inert parasites.

This entire view, a view which many, including the distinguished Dr. Sowell, with whom I concur, have described as a "crackpot" economic view, is not only worthless as a framework for understanding what actually happens in a market economy, and what "value" really is, but leads inevitably, as it always has, to authoritarian to totalitarian attempts to right the abstract theoretical wrongs of the imagined "capitalist system."

The most obvious theoretical and practical problem of thinking that workers create all of the value inherent in a finished product (before it becomes "alienated" from them in the process of mass production and sale to others in distant places) is that, if this was so, and all the "surplus" value added to a product was returned to the employees, there would be no profits generated for the actual entity manufacturing the products (from which wages, saleries, and dividends are paid). productive economic activity would cease (or, at least, anything like economic activity much beyond subsistence level) and economic growth - wealth creation and rising prosperity for the many - would be impossible.

I believe people should aspire to be more virtuous. Aspiring to be more like the rich isn’t necessarily the same thing.

Let me clarify, by aspiring to be more like the rich, the poor do not need to desire to be Donald Trump (nor could most of us). What I mean is to imitate and internalize the personal attributes - hard work, study, preparation, saving, education, certain attitudes and work habits - that tend toward economic success, and hence, away from chronic poverty.

[_Droopy]

So here I am really asking whether economic equality, or the absence of poverty are the most salient aspects of any "better" society.

Official LDS doctrine on the United Order/Law of Consecration expressly forbids these types of definitions of "equal".

Indeed.

[_Droopy]

The first paragraph is the correct description of the base mechanism of that admirable free market capitalism the droopies would die for.

No, its a part of a long discredited secular gnostic religion masquerading as economic and social theory known as Marxism.

The second paragraph is the answer, formulated by us, damned leftists.

An answer that has raped numerous economies, entrenched desperate poverty as a permanent condition, and dug well over 100,000,000 graves in pursuit of its "moral" ends.

Additionally, the capitalism invented the bankers, who multiply their richness by writing imaginary money from one paper to another. The real money will be paid by poor millions, during the next crisis, generated by the bankers.

"The bankers" did not generate the present economic crisis, but the leviathan interventionist welfare states throughout the West, including the Untied States, who have lived for decades at the expense of each other and of future generations on phantom money, debt, and inflation to keep their unsustainable welfare states, rapacious union wage, benefit, and pension liabilities, countless vote buying schemes (such as sub-prime "affordable housing" programs and mandates), corporate welfare ("green" industries, among others) and control of economic behavior through the manipulation of money and credit from collapse.

Private financial incentives have been horrible perverted and corrupted by all this activity, and so certainly private financial institutions bear some of the blame. However, if government had not made economically irrational decision making, such as within housing markets, so profitable, and socialized the risk among the taxpayers, the sub-prime meltdown likely never would have happened

The cause of poverty is the craving for money of the riches.

To answer my own poll question, poverty is an individual matter (at least in a free, economically open society), and "causes" vary from individual to individual. There is no "cause" of poverty in any collective or overall sense.

[_Analytics]

Why would a society in which everybody was living in a state of economic security and comfort well above what reasonable people in the West would consider "poverty" not be considered "just"?

Everybody living in a state of economic security and comfort simply isn’t a sufficient condition for justice. Let's take your example and turn it upside down. Let's say everybody was living in a state of economic security and comfort well above what reasonable people in the West would consider "poverty", but it was done in such a way that the wealth was redistributed so that the workers with calouses on their hands were paid several multiples more than the investment bankers who spend their days in really comfortable chairs. Would such a world be "just"?

I like the idea of raising most incomes to well above the level of poverty.

You have just agreed with me. Atlantis has risen.

It’s funny that you think anybody would disagree with you on this basic point.

It is quite true that the wealth produced in factories or sold in stores is in a symbiotic relationship. Entrepreneurs need employees to work in the factories and stores, and the average person relies on the existence of factories and stores (and service jobs - plumbers, electricians etc.) for their livelihood.

However, it is not true that it is the "workers" per se who make "the rich" wealthy, but the market…

The workers are an integral part of the market.

… which is to say, and let's take the U.S. as our example, some 300,000,000 human beings (less children who do not directly participate in buying and consuming, but do influence adults who do) who choose, each day, which productive activities will succeed, which will not, and of those who do, which will be marginal produces and which highly successful.

Did Michael Jordon's basketball skills determine his high earnings, or the market that is willing to pay to watch him play? Or is it the entrepreneurs that create and maintain organizations like the NBA?

I get your point. “The market” determined his high earnings. But the example you raise is a curious one. It illustrates the winners-take-all aspect of our economy, where a small group of winners who are only marginally harder working, better endowed, or luckier win the vast majority of the wealth.

So if it really is the working poor who create the factories and stores that make the rich even more rich, what’s the moral justification for them being paid only a fraction of the value they actually contribute, with the balance being hoarded by the bourgeoisie?

Now we enter the exotic reptile house of Marxist ideology and leave the realms of serious economics. In the first instance, you have now contradicted your previous assertion that all aspects of production on a human level, from savings and investment by "the rich" to the labor in the factories and stores by employees, are symbiotic, and a part of a system of production and consumption. Now you retreat to the traditional Marxian labor theory of value, in which you now claim that it is only "the workers" who create value "for" the rich while investors, entrepreneurs, CEOs and stock holders appear now as inert parasites...

I never said nor implied that it was only “the workers” who create value. I said the workers do in fact “contribute” value. Are you claiming that they don’t contribute value? If not, you are arguing against a straw-reptile.

The real issue is the relationship between the value they actually contribute and the wages they are paid.

[_ajax18]

Could the rich create such things without the labor of the poor?

If by poor you're referring to the poor undocumented Latino working for pennies and providing a descent product, I'd agree with you. If you mean the poor Latino who has just become a full citizen and is no longer working but enjoying the welfare benefits that pay just as well, I'd have to disagree with you.

The problem with economic justice is that everyone chooses to start counting at a different point. Human beings are very good at ignoring certain things in the past and keeping alive age old injustices to factor into their formulas so as to acheive a justice that would please them. I just don't see how you could ever be truly fair and just in dollars and cents in world with such savage and unfair roots.