galanthus

If you get rid of the rich, what will you do then? The institutions we have now, the social order we have now, what will you replace it with? Who will control the economy and by what means?

Bourgeoisie amd aristocracy are very different kinds of elites. You assume too much about what I believe.

Education and upbringing certainly play a role in forming character, but what does it matter, if we know that most people are still probably better off not having a significant degree of power. Maybe if they were brought up differently they wouldn't be, but they were not, were they?

In my experience most people do not like responsibility. They just want things to go well for them. Vote for someone and hope they solve all your problems, work for eight hours(I am sure they would rather not work at all, to be fair), recieve a wage and not have to think about it for the rest of the day.

How many people you know that refuse to put money in a pension fund? That instead of investing or being responsible with their money buy stupid things? That go into debt to buy non-essential stuff?

Most people are extremely irresponsible and inert, and I do not blame them for that, I think they should be compensated fairly for their labour, but I do not think they should run the economy.

Also, you are underestimating the role of culture in humanity. The idea that humans should be equal was unthinkable to the people of antiquity, as the seeds of that were planted by Christianity. They only sprouted in the Enlightenment.

"Ookay... So what's the issue with taxing them? It's not like the office chair they own suddenly becomes useless if they get taxed. Their capital in the most general sense will stay the same."

No, it will not stay the same. That's the point of taxation.

"Ah yes, we were all hunter gatherers until capitalism was invented. We didn't improve our production methods, we didn't improve our tools, we didn't educate ourselves. No offense but that's an absolutely moronic argument."

This just shows how bad faith all of your arguments are. I clearly do not mean competition and profit are necessary, just that they lead to capital accumulation, which is what you denied.

Next we have, honestly, an incredibly wrong understanding of what I said. I will try to explain.

A market compels economic agents to act a certain way, as they are driven by profit, and markets provide information on what is in demand/profitable. Within a market framework, establishing a monopoly is highly profitable and makes a lot of sense. Which is why your accusation of incompetence you made in a previous comment falls apart, since while that, which is profitable is not the same as that which is good for society(governments should try to make sure the markets exist in contexts that make them beneficial) this is irrelevant and they did act rationally.

If you do not accept this, I see no point in talking to you any longer. You are thinking in one line slogans and do not see the context of what I, or you for that matter, are saying.

So you think there is a distinction between investment capital and some other capital I do not know about?

Yes it does. If there is not an expectation of profit, private property, etc this does not work at all. If there are, it will lead to capital accumulation.

Yes they do. Creating a monopoly is not an example of unreasonable decitions. What? Google has a lot of money, and experimenting with possible products is not what I would call an example of stupid decisions. The point is, they have those resources, their market cap crows by the day(well, until recently), they are effective. Bying a competitor is a terrific idea. Why do you say this is an example of unreasonable behaviour if it benefits the owners of these companies?

The wall street did not crash because of individual mistake of investors, but because of market tendencies. This is completely unrelated.

"The more they slave the more profitable they will be" is, of course, true in a sense that paying less can increase profit margins amd you can force the workers to work more, but this is not always possible as there are usually regulations that protect workers, unions, and some positions are highly competitive. I do not know what is the case in America, but here government jobs pay less than private sector. Often a lot less. Goverment workers are as likely to overwork because they are understaffed. They are still less efficient. There is no research that reflects what you are saying. This is just your opinion.

You said the govenment ahould decide how capital is allocated, and not capitalists. What is it if not central planning?

You are talking about wealthy individuals, how they are not special and can get ripped off, do not know more than other people, etc. But this is not the point. The competency of the individual matters, but less than the incentive structures that exist around them.

Competition and profit motive create incentives to decrease production costs, increase production, look for new markets and lower the price(not always, do not tell me about when this is not the case, I know).

And both capitalists and upper management exist in a very pressured environment. Capitalists have to allocate resources correctly, because they own them. For that reason, they are careful when investing, and only do economically sensible things(if they themselves are sensible, and if they are not they will see their capital diminish). The organisations that manage finances and corporations are held accountable by that: they have to make sure they are making correct decisions to attract capital.

Corporate structure in America is characterised by a prominence of markets in management. High publicity of company actions and results, coupled with a structure that holds management accountable to the shareholders creates a system where both good and bad decisions are reflected in the capitalisation and management is, as I said, under great pressure to perform because the will have to pack their bags and leave otherwise.

This is the system that made America the largest economy in the world.

The same can not be said about government owned firms. I said nearly unlimited, and this is more or less the case. Governments throw money at the problem until it is solved, since there is no profit motive, no pressure to perform, costs are higher, performance is worse, etc. Of course, they try to optimise, but history shows that they are almost always less efficient than private firms.

They should still be employed in certain parts of the economy, like social services, infrastructure, etc. But probably only when there are good reasons for that.

That is actually a good point. Unusual, but welcome.

What then? What would you do?

Well they can always change their policy, and once their economy sufficiently grows they likely will. They are very far from a revolution.

No concrete goals?

I am just saying, Marxist projects seem to fail. Many formerly Marxist parties are now capitalist. I respect it as an intellectual tradition, but as a popular movement it is much more primitive.

They are competent at allocating resources according to market tendencies, which, if the economy is mismanaged by the government, can cause damage lick the 2008 financial crisis. Crises are a well known trait of market economies, and successful government intervention should prevent them, as it has for quite a while.

Information that is provided by the market to capitalists and is expressed in price is exclusive to market actors. Price shows what should be invested in, what should be bought, built, etc. What is needed, to summarise. This is impossible under the command economy, and this is why since the economy is very complex it csn't be effectively managed by the government.

It is still a tax haven, and no capital gains taxes apply if you pay the wealth tax, which is even better for speculation.

Well I can see Marxists want to destroy society, but I have doubts that what they repalce it with will be any good.