Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[AlexES16]

Did you know that this so-called 'free market' was imposed by a dictator who overthrew a democracy and murdered thousands of his political opponents in a reign of terror?

I presume you also know that said dictator's coup was supported by the US.

Actually Free Market helped to build a democratic society and in the 90s with a democratic government more market oriented reforms were implemented.

 

[Sea Cow]

Actually Free Market helped to build a democratic society and in the 90s with a democratic government more market oriented reforms were implemented.

Chile had a democratic society in 1973 before Pinochet's coup. The 'democracy' that was slowly rebuilt in the 1990s was of an extremely limited kind, with the old dictator still in the background with the effective power of veto. The country is still, now, deeply divided over the general's legacy and the thousands of torturers and murderers who walk freely in the streets.

 

[brainstorm]

Socialism should really refer to any form of social control exercised within a capitalist free market. The idea that socialism is oriented toward equality simply isn't true. Equality is used as an impetus to garner support for various forms of economic control, and then relatively rigid hierarchies and organizational constraints develop for regulating access to work and income. The income gap between rich and poor may shrink some because the rich no longer have to worry as much about losing their position, but the fixing of social distances more than makes up for increased income equality.

 

[Kajahtava]

Obviously both have failed, both rationality and empirically this is easy to see.

Socialism obviously fails because people are evil, they will not help their fellow man and they will not work if they have no incentive to work.

Capitalism obviously fails because people are stupid, capitalism relies on the assumption of competition and a pressure to companies to offer the best for the lowest price. Consumers are completely unable to determine what is the best, and are even dumb enough to buy more expensive products because they believe that once it's expensive it's automatically better, even though there is no indication of that. The existence of crippleware shows that companies often have an oeconomic gain from putting time and effort into reducing the capabilities of their products.

However indices such as the Human Development Index clearly favour countries that lean towards socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Also, capitalism is often based on the assumption that hard work rewards, I wouldn't say that, the statistics are pretty clear that the American dream is indeed mostly... a dream... I'd personally say on gut feeling that success is 4 parts birthright, 5 parts damned dumb luck, and maybe 1 part hard work or having a good idea. For some reason, a lot of models in this rule out the 'dumb luck' factor, would Bill Gates be synonym for obscene wealth if IBM just didn't need an OS back then and were willing to take on every-thing so desperate they were? Would Apple and Adobe be huge companies if they just didn't find each other to use postscript? What if the first KFC was just seated at the wrong place and went bankrupt? I'm sure that for every person that became obscenely rich with things like this there are a hundred other people that went bankrupt while they had the same adequacy of business practice, you also need luck.

Of course, fairness set aside, is it better from utilitarian principles? Does it increase the overall wealth to just let the oeconomy be free and let the market evolve as it does on its own. Empirically it seems that this is not the case by a slight margin, rationally, I think the chance of a complex system evolving where you want it to go to is pretty slim, it's like blowing up a block of granite and hoping it turns into a statue. Evolution selects upon the fittest, where 'fittest' in oeconomy is for a great deal determined by 'willingness to exploit the consumer and enrich by leeching from others, not to mention bribing officials.'

 

[brainstorm]

Obviously both have failed, both rationality and empirically this is easy to see.

Socialism obviously fails because people are evil, they will not help their fellow man and they will not work if they have no incentive to work.

Capitalism obviously fails because people are stupid, capitalism relies on the assumption of competition and a pressure to companies to offer the best for the lowest price. Consumers are completely unable to determine what is the best, and are even dumb enough to buy more expensive products because they believe that once it's expensive it's automatically better, even though there is no indication of that. The existence of crippleware shows that companies often have an oeconomic gain from putting time and effort into reducing the capabilities of their products.

However indices such as the Human Development Index clearly favour countries that lean towards socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Also, capitalism is often based on the assumption that hard work rewards, I wouldn't say that, the statistics are pretty clear that the American dream is indeed mostly... a dream... I'd personally say on gut feeling that success is 4 parts birthright, 5 parts damned dumb luck, and maybe 1 part hard work or having a good idea. For some reason, a lot of models in this rule out the 'dumb luck' factor, would Bill Gates be synonym for obscene wealth if IBM just didn't need an OS back then and were willing to take on every-thing so desperate they were? Would Apple and Adobe be huge companies if they just didn't find each other to use postscript? What if the first KFC was just seated at the wrong place and went bankrupt? I'm sure that for every person that became obscenely rich with things like this there are a hundred other people that went bankrupt while they had the same adequacy of business practice, you also need luck.

Of course, fairness set aside, is it better from utilitarian principles? Does it increase the overall wealth to just let the oeconomy be free and let the market evolve as it does on its own. Empirically it seems that this is not the case by a slight margin, rationally, I think the chance of a complex system evolving where you want it to go to is pretty slim, it's like blowing up a block of granite and hoping it turns into a statue. Evolution selects upon the fittest, where 'fittest' in oeconomy is for a great deal determined by 'willingness to exploit the consumer and enrich by leeching from others, not to mention bribing officials.'

This was a good post. I don't think people realize that true free market capitalism would very decentralized, with easy entry and exit of markets. What that means is that business formulas would not evolve as patented corporate plans but as market trends. KFC would only evolve from a local culture of publicly frying chicken and selling it at local farmers markets or out of one's house. In fact, KFC as a corporation wouldn't evolve out of such a chicken-frying culture, because that would be a form of market control. The culture of frying chicken publicly would simply spread through migration from town to town, where it would rise or fall in popularity based on local supply and demand and not on marketing or business quid-pro-quo's or some other form of manipulative control.

True free market capitalism would work wonderfully imo if people could accept the freedom and simplicity of it, but they can't seem to let go of the vast possibilities for establishing contractual obligations and other forms of market control at various scales to protect themselves from the whims of market shifts. So fear of the free market leads to relative forms of social-economic control, which eventually evolves into a widespread belief that government should guarantee a national-scale socialist economy and ensure everyone's participation in it as both right and responsibility.

Freedom is slowly swapped out with social-control, while money and trade remains the economic basis, which allows socialism to continue to appear as a slightly modified version of free-market capitalism, when in fact there are numerous layers of institutional constraints designed to restrict freedom and guide decision-making according to various cultures of governance.

 

[Al68]

Capitalism obviously fails because...

Have any idea how the overwhelming majority of humans lived prior to the rise of capitalism?

Claiming that the current shortcomings of society are the result of capitalism is like claiming that an egg shortage is the result of chickens.

 

[Sea Cow]

Have any idea how the overwhelming majority of humans lived prior to the rise of capitalism?

I presume you mean prior to the Industrial Revolution, in which case the answer is that most humans lived as peasant farmers, although there were still a fair few hunter-gatherers dotted about. Some lived quite decent lives if they could avoid such things as the plague and stay out of the way of wars. Others didn't.

What's your point?

With a good harvest, a medieval peasant had a pretty good life. Work hard when there's work to be done; eat, drink and have lots of sex when there isn't... They may have lacked political freedom, but their lord exerted much less influence over their day-to-day lives than a 19th-century factory owner did his workers.

 

[brainstorm]

With a good harvest, a medieval peasant had a pretty good life. Work hard when there's work to be done; eat, drink and have lots of sex when there isn't... They may have lacked political freedom, but their lord exerted much less influence over their day-to-day lives than a 19th-century factory owner did his workers.

I don't think sex was quite as exciting before the repression of the victorian era propelled it to contemporary levels of eroticism.

 

[Kajahtava]

Have any idea how the overwhelming majority of humans lived prior to the rise of capitalism?

What was this 'before capitalism' you speak of?

There was always capitalism, perfect ideal capitalism is taking no artificial steps to control the market. Even primitive tribes trading is capitalism, supply and demand.

There was capitalism in the renaissance, in the mediaeval ages, in classical times, in prehistoric times and so on. Socialism is a fairly new innovation, before that, all markets essentially worked without artificial control, the idea of socialism is for some governing authority to take active control and steer the market.

Claiming that the current shortcomings of society are the result of capitalism is like claiming that an egg shortage is the result of chickens.

I can't remember to ever having named the word 'current'.

In all fairness, it's the result of advertisement campaigns. Capitalism works on the assumption that the consumers will always buy the best product for the lowest price, thereby forcing companies to produce the best for the lowest.

However that's not true, that's only one factor that plays, and a very slim one, in the end, the best advertisement campaign wins, not the best product. If I advertise and overpriced and bad product brilliantly, it will out-sell a cheap and high quality product without an advertisement campaign.

 

[Frame Dragger]

What was this 'before capitalism' you speak of?

There was always capitalism, perfect ideal capitalism is taking no artificial steps to control the market. Even primitive tribes trading is capitalism, supply and demand.

There was capitalism in the renaissance, in the mediaeval ages, in classical times, in prehistoric times and so on. Socialism is a fairly new innovation, before that, all markets essentially worked without artificial control, the idea of socialism is for some governing authority to take active control and steer the market.

I can't remember to ever having named the word 'current'.

In all fairness, it's the result of advertisement campaigns. Capitalism works on the assumption that the consumers will always buy the best product for the lowest price, thereby forcing companies to produce the best for the lowest.

However that's not true, that's only one factor that plays, and a very slim one, in the end, the best advertisement campaign wins, not the best product. If I advertise and overpriced and bad product brilliantly, it will out-sell a cheap and high quality product without an advertisement campaign.

Hell, a good portion of The Code of Hammurabi (circa 2250 BCE) deals with how one is to be compensated with money or grain for various jobs, hirings, fines, etc. It didn't seem to be a new or shocking notion at that time either. That said, there are many different flavours of capitalism, as with socialism.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't think sex was quite as exciting before the repression of the victorian era propelled it to contemporary levels of eroticism.

I don't know, being given a copy of the Kama Sutra as standard fare, along with the various forms of art which were, frankly, quite explicit would seem to indicate that sex, like food, is a matter of taste and technique.

Repression is interesting, but then, sex without fear and with a skilled partner is MUCH better than a lifetime of fumbling caresses and petticoats.

 

[brainstorm]

There was capitalism in the renaissance, in the mediaeval ages, in classical times, in prehistoric times and so on. Socialism is a fairly new innovation, before that, all markets essentially worked without artificial control, the idea of socialism is for some governing authority to take active control and steer the market.

Capitalism and socialism have never existed without the other in some form. They are two sides of the same coin. One is freedom in economic activity and the other is any attempt to control it for the benefit of (some or all) people at the expense of the freedom (of some or all).

Free market capitalism is predicated on the absence of market control (except to ensure the basic conditions of a free market) and what reason is there for any form of market control except the social benefit of some or all people.

Sometimes people argue with me that socialism is only socialism when it involves the intent to create more equality through redistribution. That's not true, because socialism never redistributes more than it has to in order to keep the poorest people happy and consenting to the regime. Some people always benefit more than others, while other people have to keep working at tasks they may not like but nevertheless have to do because if they don't, others would have to go without their product. It's not like those who govern or those who benefit from redistribution are offering to share in the productive labor of those whose products and services they consume.

So socialism really comes down to modern aristocracy, with fixed social positions and a relatively flat distribution of income to legitimate maintaining class distinctions. Office workers and trash collectors may make closer to the same amount of money, but the reason the office workers support paying the trash collectors more, is because they expect them to be happy and continue to take care of their trash as a result. Socialism, in other words, is buying off the poor when communist revolution or other economic crisis/failure of capitalism is feared. It's saying, "we'll pay you more and guarantee your job - just keep preserving the system that privileges us."

 

[Kajahtava]

Capitalism and socialism have never existed without the other in some form. They are two sides of the same coin. One is freedom in economic activity and the other is any attempt to control it for the benefit of (some or all) people at the expense of the freedom (of some or all).

No, that's oligarchy, socialism, or communism as the words suggest is chiefly trying to control it for the people.

Communism, to commune, community? It basically means 'sticking together'.

There is a distinct difference between socialism and a market that is not free. If I suddenly ban the selling of certain drugs that has nothing to do with socialism or not. And indeed, many advocates of capitalism call for banning of drugs and prostitution for instance, while many socialists simply advocate treating it as a business like any other.

Free market capitalism is predicated on the absence of market control (except to ensure the basic conditions of a free market) and what reason is there for any form of market control except the social benefit of some or all people.

None.

Sometimes people argue with me that socialism is only socialism when it involves the intent to create more equality through redistribution.

Did you ever read Das Kapital?

Just asking, because you're re-defining the term socialism here.

That's not true, because socialism never redistributes more than it has to in order to keep the poorest people happy and consenting to the regime.

Counter-example: Netherlands, the country that I live in. It re-distributes a lot more than that, it also subsidizes art from taxes for instance, often pretty high culture art that has no appeal to at the poorest layers of society.

Some people always benefit more than others, while other people have to keep working at tasks they may not like but nevertheless have to do because if they don't, others would have to go without their product. It's not like those who govern or those who benefit from redistribution are offering to share in the productive labor of those whose products and services they consume.

I have no idea what this means, sorry.

So socialism really comes down to modern aristocracy, with fixed social positions and a relatively flat distribution of income to legitimate maintaining class distinctions. Office workers and trash collectors may make closer to the same amount of money, but the reason the office workers support paying the trash collectors more, is because they expect them to be happy and continue to take care of their trash as a result. Socialism, in other words, is buying off the poor when communist revolution or other economic crisis/failure of capitalism is feared. It's saying, "we'll pay you more and guarantee your job - just keep preserving the system that privileges us."

You almost make it sound as if the richer layers of society willingly give it up to the poorer.

Of course not, they're forced to do so by the law.

 

[brainstorm]

No, that's oligarchy, socialism, or communism as the words suggest is chiefly trying to control it for the people.

Communism, to commune, community? It basically means 'sticking together'.

"Sticking together" and "for the people" are just legitimating ideologies. In reality "the people" or "the collective good" are never really about distributing all privileges and work equally among everyone. It's just about buying off the lower classes in order to guarantee the social position of those with higher status. The logic is, "the government treats you so well, why should you complain about doing your job."

There is a distinct difference between socialism and a market that is not free. If I suddenly ban the selling of certain drugs that has nothing to do with socialism or not. And indeed, many advocates of capitalism call for banning of drugs and prostitution for instance, while many socialists simply advocate treating it as a business like any other.

Drugs and prostitution are businesses like any other, except the product is highly addictive and the consumers lose control over their ability to resist consuming. This means basically guaranteed sales for the producer/dealer/pimp. It also means guaranteed tax revenues for the government that taxes it. I'm familiar with the Dutch rhetoric legitimating the toleration of drugs and prostitution, but I'm afraid it's just the result of some people being addicted to the products and others being addicted to the level of business and tax revenues that the industries generate.

Did you ever read Das Kapital?

Just asking, because you're re-defining the term socialism here.

Yes, it's short. Marx saw socialism as the worst enemy of communism. I am basically repeating his critique here. He saw it as the bourgeoisie's attempt to buy off the working class to avoid communist revolution. I'm not for revolution, personally, but I think a free republic is very close to Marx's ideal communism, except the means of production are owned individually by the workers instead of collectively. The main benefit of Marx's communism anyway, imo, in the synthesis of proletariat and bourgeoisie, which basically translates to everyone having a universal consciousness in which they both perform productive labor and take responsibility for the means of production. Capitalism, according to Marx, is what alienates each class from the consciousness of the other.

Counter-example: Netherlands, the country that I live in. It re-distributes a lot more than that, it also subsidizes art from taxes for instance, often pretty high culture art that has no appeal to at the poorest layers of society.

Again, I'm familiar. That government is basically subsidizing class-culture pluralism. It's called "pillarization," I think. There is little if any class mobility. Workers work, cleaners clean, artists paint, and intellectuals communicate. Each is guaranteed in their position and income and is forbidden from branching out into other sectors. Individuals are imprisoned within a formalized division of labor, supposedly instituted by unions in their own interest and protection.

I have no idea what this means, sorry.

It means that true redistributive equality would also include redistributing forms of labor and places to live every so often. In other words, a college professor would switch to sweeping the street after a couple years, then to working in a supermarket, etc. Also, someone living in a nice expensive apartment in Amsterdam would move to Groningen or some small town, and vice-versa. The fact that these kinds of trades do not take place indicates to me that while income and consumption-opportunities are somewhat leveled by Dutch government, class distinctions based on profession and where people live is not addressed for redistribution/sharing/equalization.

You almost make it sound as if the richer layers of society willingly give it up to the poorer.

Of course not, they're forced to do so by the law.

It seems that way, doesn't it. The truth is that by funding the poor through government, the rich make the poor dependent on a lifestyle they provide them. The government and unions are just used to propagate the belief that the poor are exercising power by taking money from the rich. In reality the ideology, which is explicit for the most part, is to share the spoils of capitalism to make everyone happy with it.

Of course it would be wonderful if everyone could live at the standards provided by the Dutch government, but obviously it isn't or else there wouldn't be such strong resistance to migration. Dutch social benefits fuel the desire of citizens to "protect their paradise from outsiders." Again, this is an effect of being on a payroll. I have been trying to figure out what interest there is in making people so protective of their nanny-state, and I think it has to do with creating solidarity and national pride, and also maintaining high population density, since that stimulates high property prices for relatively small living areas.

Ideally the Dutch way of life could be extended to a global universal, but I wonder if it would be either feasible or sustainable if there was no exploitative/exploitated capitalist markets outside the socialist paradises to use as investment markets to generate the surplus wealth that gets redistributed to the beneficiaries of the system.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You almost make it sound as if the richer layers of society willingly give it up to the poorer.

Of course not, they're forced to do so by the law.

I believe that Brain means the "rich" or "upperclass" are the ones who make the laws and they mandate higher wages for workers in order to keep them happy and preserve their own place in the social structure.

Brain also brings up an interesting idea of equality. At least the question of whether or not economic equality is really a true measure of equality. Just because one has money does not necessarily mean that they are possessed of the same equality of opportunity for liberty and self fulfillment as anyone else. While I, as a garbageman, may make the same amount of money as some technician it does not mean that I am anywhere near as happy or fulfilled as the technician. For individualists in particular happiness and liberty are rather valuable commodities and most strive for economic advancement for little other reason than to attempt to attain these more abstract desires. In fact giving me more money may only be a means of oppressing me by making me feel that I should be happy with my occupation and not disrupt the allegedly equal social structure.edit: Looks like Brain beat me to it.

 

[SixNein]

Personally, I find all of these ideologies suck.

Capitalism contains a contradiction.
Pure socialism contains a contradiction.
Both systems involve government, so they carry the baggage of politics.
Both systems can be abused so easily that its too tempting for those with the opportunity to resist.

Why not a brand new ideology rooted in the scientific method? Why are we stuck between two failed economic ideologies?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Personally, I find all of these ideologies suck.

Capitalism contains a contradiction.
Pure socialism contains a contradiction.
Both systems involve government, so they carry the baggage of politics.
Both systems can be abused so easily that its too tempting for those with the opportunity to resist.

Why not a brand new ideology rooted in the scientific method? Why are we stuck between two failed economic ideologies?

I don't know that either ideology sucks in theory, but in practice no ONE ideology can encompass the sum of humanity in an ideal fashion. The thing is, in the absence of a stable ideology around which you form a lasting rule, once your benevolent/effective president/king/congress/synod/etc... DIES, you're hoping for more of the same. That tends not to work. (Henry V -> Henry VI for instance).

 

[Thetom]

I was just going to make a quick comment. Seems I wrote a small book. Needed to get it of my chest though...

I'm not sure which is best (capitalism or socialism) as I have never experienced either. All I know coming from England is a twisted form of equality. Corrupt, and masquerading as an opportunists dream.

I know people who have worked hard all their life and still have nothing to show for it. The majority of us have to work long, hard hours for pittance while others become rich from half the effort. Why do bankers deserve more money than bin men or street sweepers? Which is really more important? Why do celebrities deserve hundreds of thousands of pounds for appearing on a t.v show when I know people who shovel chicken poo for twelve hours a day and barely get anything for it. It's incredibly unfair.
If you think that in this world most people are rewarded for their hard work you are gravely mistaken. Me and the other billion below the poverty line will gladly attest to that. Many of us work till out hands bleed, yet politicians claim second homes as expenses from our tax. Capitalism is dog eat dog - anything goes - each to their own - look after number one. And people wonder what is wrong with the youth of today. We even coin new phrases to describe it: 'anti-social behavior'. Well capitalism is anti-social behaviour. The children are just following our social ideals.

I like the idea of socialism. Spread the wealth. I would happily give half of what I have to the next man. Maybe then the little old lady who lives down my street could afford to eat and heat her home and wouldn't have to worry about tyrants taking her possessions. And I'm not talking about the kids. Maybe, if we all shared the global resources abit then people from poverty stricken countries could actually eat. Poverty stricken countries, ha! Capitalist stricken more like it. Take America, was once a free and promising place until we brits took it by force and enslaved the indigenous people. Now we go about attacking other countries, in the name of peace, no-less. Basically to steal their resources. Oh, and to 'give them democracy'. Well our version of democracy is really pick your new dictator. When was the last time you voted on anything? never right? America uses enough resources each year to support the rest of the planet three times over. Three times over! I suspect england is just as bad. Why do we deserve to be so selfish and wasteful? because we have earned the right through hard work? I don't think so. There is a huge imbalance. Can you not see it?

All under the farce of capitalism. Equal opportunities for all? If you work hard you will be rewarded? Don't make me laugh. Maybe capitalism could work but what we have now is pure corruption. Anyone advocating capitalism,... you do realize that most of our wealth was stolen don't you? We didn't earn it. It is no coincident that some countries are rich, and others poor. We made them poor. We have murderer and enslaved millions in our history and stolen any resource worth having. I think we should give it all back! Spread the wealth. Maybe then Planet Earth could see a true golden age.

 

[SixNein]

I don't know that either ideology sucks in theory, but in practice no ONE ideology can encompass the sum of humanity in an ideal fashion. The thing is, in the absence of a stable ideology around which you form a lasting rule, once your benevolent/effective president/king/congress/synod/etc... DIES, you're hoping for more of the same. That tends not to work. (Henry V -> Henry VI for instance).

Even in theory, I do not see these ideologies working because they contain contradictions.

For example, look at capitalism.
In a capitalist market, owners of production want to increase profits. Workers are a cost of production. In order to gain more profit, the owners want to pay the workers less. The workers are also the consumers of the products being produced, and they can no longer afford to buy the product. America is debating if it wants to return to a pre-ww1 era economy. By the look of the inequality, I think the economy is well on its way to mirroring that period of time.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Even in theory, I do not see these ideologies working because they contain contradictions.

For example, look at capitalism.
In a capitalist market, owners of production want to increase profits. Workers are a cost of production. In order to gain more profit, the owners want to pay the workers less. The workers are also the consumers of the products being produced, and they can no longer afford to buy the product.

Owners of the means of production want to make a profit. Capitalism does not necessitate a need for increased profits. Corporatism requires increased profits because the corporation is at the mercy of its investors.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Even in theory, I do not see these ideologies working because they contain contradictions.

For example, look at capitalism.
In a capitalist market, owners of production want to increase profits. Workers are a cost of production. In order to gain more profit, the owners want to pay the workers less. The workers are also the consumers of the products being produced, and they can no longer afford to buy the product.


America is debating if it wants to return to a pre-ww1 era economy. By the look of the inequality, I think the economy is well on its way to mirroring that period of time.

Contradictions abound... that's why you need people to apply ideologies to circumstances, and not broadly. That then goes back to "the good leadership" dying, and being left with someone less... effective.

 

[SixNein]

Owners of the means of production want to make a profit. Capitalism does not necessitate a need for increased profits. Corporatism requires increased profits because the corporation is at the mercy of its investors.

The same is true in all forms of companies working in capitalism. If someone makes an investment, he or she wants the highest return possible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The same is true in all forms of companies working in capitalism. If someone makes an investment, he or she wants the highest return possible.

If I own a shop then I need to make a profit or the shop will not last. I do not however need to make increasingly larger profits to have my shop and to make enough money to live on. The average business owner attempts primarily to maintain a steady profit to live on. In contrast a corporation must continue to increase profits just to maintain itself because it needs its investors.

Too many people seem to think that corporatist mentality is the core of capitalism. It is not. I often see people defining capitalism as if it were corporatism. It seems that people are brainwashed into believing that they are one and the same.

 

[brainstorm]

I like the idea of socialism. Spread the wealth. I would happily give half of what I have to the next man. Maybe then the little old lady who lives down my street could afford to eat and heat her home and wouldn't have to worry about tyrants taking her possessions. And I'm not talking about the kids. Maybe, if we all shared the global resources abit then people from poverty stricken countries could actually eat. Poverty stricken countries, ha! Capitalist stricken more like it.

It is true that capitalism creates poverty, but if the market were truly free, poverty would become so widespread that everyone would gain access to get what they need. It's only by virtue of the fact that certain markets privilege certain beneficiaries that prices and wages are kept artificially high enough to guarantee some poor people getting better access to resources than others.

It's a nice fantasy to imagine that spreading money around would make it possible for everyone to get more, or at least enough, of the things they need and want. In reality, this is a self-defeating fantasy because money itself is designed to create scarcity. The way it works is this: each person who gets/has money to spend tries to get the most value for it they can. This means that businesses compete to provide the lowest prices on the highest value goods and services. The more people consume those goods and services, the more prices rise to prevent existing buyers from depleting the available supplies. If the supply of something exceeds the demand for it, a glut results from the abundance and, in theory at least, competition between sellers drives the price down until the poorest individual can afford it.

So, the more money you give to the poor to spend, the more they consume, which drives up the scarcity of goods and services, generating more revenues and profit for the businesses selling the products. This raises the incomes of the people with the privilege of profiting from the increased sales and prices, and by so doing makes it possible for them to pay even more for things, which drives the prices up even higher.

Eventually, the result is that prices inflate to levels that once again make it difficult for relatively poor people to consume at the level of those with more income. The situation is once again the same, with some people being able to consume more and others able to afford/consume less.

So if you really want to help the poor, the best thing you can do is get the rich or middle class to conserve their spending to the point of creating so much abundance in goods and services that the prices drop to levels that everyone can afford. This is actually the natural result of a free market in which relative abundance replaces relative scarcity. The problem is that the people who make money on business don't like to see prices fall, because it cuts into their revenues, profits, and incomes - so they market and otherwise encourage people to pay higher prices and buy more of their product more often, which creates a class-culture that is even further out of reach for the poor.

 

[Thetom]

Well I understand what you said brain. I am very much an idealist when it comes to these things. My brother tells me to get real. I say we cannot loose our ideals. What exactly are we striving for? Where are we heading? What is our goal, if not to realize our ideals?
I can't get over the feeling that if i eat steak for breakfast, lunch and dinner and someone else eats only rice and beans, then with abit of a swap, we could both eat well (i'm a pretty simple sort).

The capitalist system does seem to have an inherent inability to provide well for all. This is a bad system IMO. It leads me to wonder what is beyond the capitalist (and indeed socialist) system. Are these really our only options. There must be a better way. Ignore any technicalities at this point. Identify our ideal. Radical change is almost impossible, but with a clear goal (abundance for all) we can get there incrementally, surely. Capitalism seems stagnant. Where is it heading? hopefully not here..

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/579/42207552evolution4200.jpg
^that is the human race evolved into a multi-cast society.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well I understand what you said brain. I am very much an idealist when it comes to these things. My brother tells me to get real. I say we cannot loose our ideals. What exactly are we striving for? Where are we heading? What is our goal, if not to realize our ideals?
I can't get over the feeling that if i eat steak for breakfast, lunch and dinner and someone else eats only rice and beans, then with abit of a swap, we could both eat well (i'm a pretty simple sort).

The capitalist system does seem to have an inherent inability to provide well for all. This is a bad system IMO. It leads me to wonder what is beyond the capitalist (and indeed socialist) system. Are these really our only options. There must be a better way. Ignore any technicalities at this point. Identify our ideal. Radical change is almost impossible, but with a clear goal (abundance for all) we can get there incrementally, surely. Capitalism seems stagnant. Where is it heading? hopefully not here..

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/579/42207552evolution4200.jpg
^that is the human race evolved into a multi-cast society.

I wouldn't worry... we'll all have modified ourselves or be dead long before evolution changes us in such a meaningful way. I can imagine a future in which the very wealthy have access to superior means of self-modification (longevity, hardiness, beauty), but as with all tech, that will eventually become more widely available through legal and illegal means.

 

[brainstorm]

I can't get over the feeling that if i eat steak for breakfast, lunch and dinner and someone else eats only rice and beans, then with abit of a swap, we could both eat well (i'm a pretty simple sort).

This is coming from a vegetarian, but meat costs a great deal more in terms of land-use and water to produce than vegetables. I have actually read that this is a major problem when people who were previously poor gain access to some purchasing power, the first thing they tend to spend it on is increasing the amount of meat in their (family's) diet. Ironically, this results in greater diversion of farmland and water resources to livestock and slaughter (slaughter requires LOTS of water for sanitation) - which drives up the price of other crops by making land and water more scarce.

The capitalist system does seem to have an inherent inability to provide well for all. This is a bad system IMO. It leads me to wonder what is beyond the capitalist (and indeed socialist) system. Are these really our only options. There must be a better way. Ignore any technicalities at this point. Identify our ideal. Radical change is almost impossible, but with a clear goal (abundance for all) we can get there incrementally, surely. Capitalism seems stagnant. Where is it heading? hopefully not here..

The inherent inability of capitalism to provide well for all lies in its misapplication, which results from the elevation of social interests over rational market behavior. In fact, while many people behave rationally in markets, their rationality has been conditioned to immediate short-term gains that are not ultimately rational in the long-term or bigger picture. For example, many consumers are rational enough to buy meat that is priced more attractively or on sale, but they don't make the rational choice of foregoing meat altogether to save money for other things. If they would, presumably the meat industry would disappear or shrink to a level where agricultural resources would be used to generate more abundant crops.

What happens instead is that the relatively high demand of meat compared with vegetables causes both types of food to become relatively more expensive and scarce. This, in turn, motivates people to seek more money to avoid hunger. People seeking money creates a labor pool. And competition for income drives down wages, as does unemployment since practically any income is better than none.

Capitalism doesn't create the initial scarcity and poverty. It just regulates it. What creates it is the consumer choices and preferences for what to buy, and what pressures those products put on resources and labor markets. Capitalism just ensures that if people consume something to the point of scarcity, the price will go up which motivates producers to (try to) produce more in order to make more money on the higher prices.

The problem is that some resources are simply limited, which means that if enough people buy enough of them, the price will be high, which will allow an elite class of wealth-controllers to form. Those who control wealth actually want as many people as possible to consume as much as possible, because that generates as much scarcity as possible, which raises the prices of everything they control, allowing them to make more money and control more resources.

I don't think any other system can replace capitalism as the basis for economic regulation, because supply and demand are practically economic laws of human behavior. People are willing to give something that's abundant more easily than they are of something that is scarce. Social-control of economics, in whatever form, can attempt to make expensive things more accessible, but if the reason they're expensive is because they're very resource-intensive (like meat), how can they make such goods available to everyone without running out?

The other option is to substitute relatively scarce products with more abundant ones, like growing crops on farmland used for livestock-raising. The problem with that, however, is that if government tries to mandate that, when consumers are willing to pay more for meat, farmers will complain that government isn't allowing them to make as much money as they could and they will call that oppression.

So really the only way to create more equality and reduce poverty for the maximum number of people is to allow capitalism to regulate the production and distribution of goods, and attempt to convince consumers to modify their cultural behavior and choices to avoid buying products that result in greater scarcity. E.g. if you and everyone else who eats meat gives it up, there would be more farmland and water available and a lower price to produce vegetable crops more abundantly, which would drive the price down to a level hungry poor people could afford, but that would also cause relatively prosperous westerners to have to give up many of their privileges and luxuries - and many are willing to allow poor people to be killed or starved to avoid modifying their consumption cultures.

So, in principle I'm with the socialists that everyone's standard of living should rise. I'm just not naive enough to think that raising the standard of living of the poorer classes in wealthy economies will contribute to a rise in the global standard of living. If anything it would worsen it. Therefore, the best thing to do is allow capitalism to continue impoverishing people and hope for culture to evolve to the point where the impoverishment of many results in a higher minimal standard of living for everyone.

The reason the process goes slow is that each time a wave of people is impoverished to the point of giving up consumption and lifestyle privileges, other people swoop in and take over the goods that those people lost access to. If lots of people become vegetarian, sell their cars, etc. the price of meat, cars, gas, etc. goes down and the other people who don't change their lifestyle choices get stimulated to consume more meat, cars, gas, etc. at the lower price. Ironically, though, the more scarce goods are consumed by an increasingly small elite of consumers, the harder poverty hits them when the next wave of people are ejected from prosperity and they're part of it.

 

[Thetom]

I can imagine a future in which the very wealthy have access to superior means of self-modification (longevity, hardiness, beauty), but as with all tech, that will eventually become more widely available through legal and illegal means.

Hey that sounds great! I can't wait for the future :tongue2:

 

[Frame Dragger]

Hey that sounds great! I can't wait for the future :tongue2:

Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I think many of the fears we have regarding a "ruling class" are unfounded, and more importantly, they subsume far more relevant concerns that have nothing to do with social ideologies. Hell, Brainstorm just explained why, I believe, human nature will be our doom, rather than some shadowy and irrationally cruel oligarchy. We'll manage to **** ourselves over, or we'll manage to lower the price of energy (production, transmission, and stoage), and find alternative foods which even people with newfound access find satisfying.

Some believe culture and nature can be modified to that degree... I don't.

 

[Thetom]

The inherent inability of capitalism to provide well for all lies in its misapplication

Yes, I guess 'we' are using it badly. It seems that it compels us to do so. It never occurred to me that it's 'us' users of capitalism that are the problem (or part of), and that if we where to personally regulate the prices of goods we could create a stable economy.

My economics (and sociology) are dire. But I can see the problems you describe. And the ebb and flow of economic divides, driven by the relentless desire to acquire more is particularly interesting. It sounds like it could escalate, creating an even vaster gap between the rich and the poor. My initial thoughts where of regulation, but as you explained this would be seen as oppression. No one should be limited like that.
It makes sense that raising the living standard of the lower class can, in-fact, create a greater economic disparity (in a pretty twisted way - screams broken). I can also see the power of the buyer in this system, too. Better education could help. People don't realize they have an such an impact. It would take more than just telling everyone though.

how can they make such goods available to everyone without running out?

Ok, so (and I don't pretend to have any answers here, just exploring the subject) exotic items aren't abundant enough for every one to have a fair share of. Possible solution could be...
basic rationing of abundant stuffs with a free market system for everything else. arggh. it gets me annoyed. If we didn't pump resources into the war machine, we could easily supply everyone with basic food, water, shelter right away, without disrupting the current system too much atall.

I can see that trading is actually natural. I can see that capitalism drives progression. Where I live, every citizen is given a basic living condition standard. After that you must earn your way. This is a good idea. I think the given reason is to 'raise living standards'. But I think its just being humane. Maybe every one can't eat cake (i'm sorry if the steak example offended, btw) but we should all be able to eat.

 

[brainstorm]

Yes, I guess 'we' are using it badly. It seems that it compels us to do so. It never occurred to me that it's 'us' users of capitalism that are the problem (or part of), and that if we where to personally regulate the prices of goods we could create a stable economy.

My economics (and sociology) are dire.

It astounded me that you could immediately understand the concept that users instead of capitalism as a system could be responsible for economic plight. Maybe it is thanks to the level of distance you've maintained from the academic discourse that allows you to escape the tendency to conform to a view that systems determine individual behavior instead of being betrayed by it.

But I can see the problems you describe. And the ebb and flow of economic divides, driven by the relentless desire to acquire more is particularly interesting. It sounds like it could escalate, creating an even vaster gap between the rich and the poor. My initial thoughts where of regulation, but as you explained this would be seen as oppression. No one should be limited like that.

I've watched with fascination as the government supposedly pumps out unimaginable loads of money into private hands. The amazing thing is that the same people who want the government to spend less money are the ones who want private sources to spend more to stimulate revenues and jobs. I'm waiting to see if people start to process that the government is the people, and if they want government to spend less, they have to get the people to spend less.

It of course widens the gap between rich and poor when government and private people spend less, but at the same time it should reduce demand for goods driving prices down to the benefit of the very poor. This is of course contingent on whether the supply-side lowers prices to make the surpluses available to more people for cheaper. The problem is that there's a lot of consumption-resistance needed to get consumption down to the level where the poorest people can afford to buy in. And, what's more, there are lots of producers who don't see it as worth the investment to continue producing at increasingly lower levels of revenue, especially when their input-costs aren't going down.

It makes sense that raising the living standard of the lower class can, in-fact, create a greater economic disparity (in a pretty twisted way - screams broken). I can also see the power of the buyer in this system, too. Better education could help. People don't realize they have an such an impact. It would take more than just telling everyone though.

Middle-class parents used to live very modestly to avoiding showing off their wealth, which they preferred to save anyway. Many middle- and upper- class people still practice this culture of conservative consumption - it is, imo, more so those who are upwardly mobile in terms of income that celebrate their increasing purchasing power with greater consumption. They "live it up" because they didn't have it before. Those who have gotten used to having it to spend avoid spending it more, I think, and as a result are satisfied with consuming less. It's a strange paradox, and I think it causes poverty to actually increase when redistribution of money to the middle- and working- classes increases their purchasing power.

Ok, so (and I don't pretend to have any answers here, just exploring the subject) exotic items aren't abundant enough for every one to have a fair share of. Possible solution could be...
basic rationing of abundant stuffs with a free market system for everything else. arggh. it gets me annoyed. If we didn't pump resources into the war machine, we could easily supply everyone with basic food, water, shelter right away, without disrupting the current system too much atall.

Nice idea, but you're still missing the idea that free market capitalism is supposed to be a rationing mechanism in itself, through supply and demand. I suppose the US farm bill, for example, does a somewhat good job of stimulating lots of farmers to grow abundantly by offering them subsidized prices for their crops. The problem is that even with all that food being grown, it doesn't get adequately distributed to everyone who's hungry because there are too many wasteful practices in between the fields and the poor hungry consumer.

The only real way, I think, to get the people who are poor and hunger enough to eat is to put them in direct contact with the farms. This can be done by allowing migrant farm labor for people who don't have access to local farms OR it can be done by establishing prolific farms locally in areas where people are hungry. Of course, some people always complain that starting a farm next to a bunch of poor hungry people and getting them to work on it is a form of slavery. The question then is how to allow people access to food without enslaving them.

I can see that trading is actually natural. I can see that capitalism drives progression. Where I live, every citizen is given a basic living condition standard. After that you must earn your way. This is a good idea. I think the given reason is to 'raise living standards'. But I think its just being humane. Maybe every one can't eat cake (i'm sorry if the steak example offended, btw) but we should all be able to eat.

I guess steak and other meat offends me on some level but it's so common that I don't really think about it. I think guaranteeing a basic standard of living is nice, but you probably live in a post-industrial economy - which means the production of most products that maintain your basic standard of living are produced by people who don't have access to it. The question is whether they would continue to produce it for you if they had access to it themselves, or if they would hold out for better work/jobs.

 

[Frame Dragger]

It astounded me that you could immediately understand the concept that users instead of capitalism as a system could be responsible for economic plight. Maybe it is thanks to the level of distance you've maintained from the academic discourse that allows you to escape the tendency to conform to a view that systems determine individual behavior instead of being betrayed by it.


I've watched with fascination as the government supposedly pumps out unimaginable loads of money into private hands. The amazing thing is that the same people who want the government to spend less money are the ones who want private sources to spend more to stimulate revenues and jobs. I'm waiting to see if people start to process that the government is the people, and if they want government to spend less, they have to get the people to spend less.

It of course widens the gap between rich and poor when government and private people spend less, but at the same time it should reduce demand for goods driving prices down to the benefit of the very poor. This is of course contingent on whether the supply-side lowers prices to make the surpluses available to more people for cheaper. The problem is that there's a lot of consumption-resistance needed to get consumption down to the level where the poorest people can afford to buy in. And, what's more, there are lots of producers who don't see it as worth the investment to continue producing at increasingly lower levels of revenue, especially when their input-costs aren't going down.


Middle-class parents used to live very modestly to avoiding showing off their wealth, which they preferred to save anyway. Many middle- and upper- class people still practice this culture of conservative consumption - it is, imo, more so those who are upwardly mobile in terms of income that celebrate their increasing purchasing power with greater consumption. They "live it up" because they didn't have it before. Those who have gotten used to having it to spend avoid spending it more, I think, and as a result are satisfied with consuming less. It's a strange paradox, and I think it causes poverty to actually increase when redistribution of money to the middle- and working- classes increases their purchasing power.


Nice idea, but you're still missing the idea that free market capitalism is supposed to be a rationing mechanism in itself, through supply and demand. I suppose the US farm bill, for example, does a somewhat good job of stimulating lots of farmers to grow abundantly by offering them subsidized prices for their crops. The problem is that even with all that food being grown, it doesn't get adequately distributed to everyone who's hungry because there are too many wasteful practices in between the fields and the poor hungry consumer.

The only real way, I think, to get the people who are poor and hunger enough to eat is to put them in direct contact with the farms. This can be done by allowing migrant farm labor for people who don't have access to local farms OR it can be done by establishing prolific farms locally in areas where people are hungry. Of course, some people always complain that starting a farm next to a bunch of poor hungry people and getting them to work on it is a form of slavery. The question then is how to allow people access to food without enslaving them.


I guess steak and other meat offends me on some level but it's so common that I don't really think about it. I think guaranteeing a basic standard of living is nice, but you probably live in a post-industrial economy - which means the production of most products that maintain your basic standard of living are produced by people who don't have access to it. The question is whether they would continue to produce it for you if they had access to it themselves, or if they would hold out for better work/jobs.

Re: in bold: I have a very good friend who has NEVER liked meat... even when she was a young girl. Yes, she loves animals, but she's no vegan... she just doesn't like the texture, flavour... or the notion of eating an animal. I WISH I had the strength of that conviction, but as with you... I think some people are just disgusted by the very notion. I find that quite respectable.

For the rest: Much of what you've said has a real remedy: EDUCATE PEOPLE. Teaching people how to deal with money, even small amounts, is critical if they are not able to learn this at home. Teaching people that while government and social structures may keep them from abject poverty (barring crippling mental/physical illness, or addictions), only they can actually elevate themselves and others.

I spent a great deal of time listening to a (now deceased) friend of mine, who was black. He was in the HS I attended, on a full scholarship, and he had a PLAN for life. He saw the poverty he grew in (Slums which replaced Cabrini Green, as "Urban Renewal" merely shuffled the poor) and was determined to avoid that. The thing is, he lacked any sense of social consciousness, and was completely "in it for himself". He was going to enter the (us) military, use that as a lever to enter a political career, etc... etc...

He did enter the US Army, did 2 full tours in Iraq (the current 'war'), and thereby achieved his goal. Instead of entering politics however, he wanted to make some more money, quickly. He joined Blackwater, and was killed by an IED. I can't help but wonder if he had lived for more than himself, that an ancillary benefit would be that he would alive right now. He had the offer of a full ride to college, and after his service he had plenty of money (he was a SAVER, not a spender), but he wasn't comfortable with that.

Maybe I'm not being kind, and maybe growing in poverty shaped what he felt he needed, but I knew him well (boarding school) for 3 years... I doubt that. My point, is that often people don't consider the benefit of living and treating others in a fashion they wish to be treated. The Golden Rule... is a good one. Applied to economics, it can temper the harsher edges of capitalism, but it's something that is competing with corporatism, which is unsustainable, and merciless.

This kid wasn't lacking in brains, but he didn't know when to stop, and gambled with his life, for money. Is it such a leap from that to gambling with the lives of OTHERS for money? Gambling with their homes, or their crops, or their jobs? I don't think so. We have a trickle-down effect to be sure, but it's not money... it's the ideology of an apex predator that has no concept that it's writing its own extinction in every excessive kill. Corporatism is a game that a few people play, at the cost of the rest, an it kills people.

 

[brainstorm]

This kid wasn't lacking in brains, but he didn't know when to stop, and gambled with his life, for money. Is it such a leap from that to gambling with the lives of OTHERS for money? Gambling with their homes, or their crops, or their jobs? I don't think so. We have a trickle-down effect to be sure, but it's not money... it's the ideology of an apex predator that has no concept that it's writing its own extinction in every excessive kill. Corporatism is a game that a few people play, at the cost of the rest, an it kills people.

One of the main problems with corporatism, and with division of labor and economic complexity in general, is that it becomes very difficult to connect ones actions with things happening to others elsewhere, or to yourself at a future point in time. There are very long and complex series of chain-events that connect people to others and to themselves.

I think you hit it on the head when you talk about writing your own extinction in every excessive kill. I think everyone is doomed to die eventually sooner or later (in body anyway) but it could be sooner or later depending on how you live. When you live your life going around slaughtering people, why would you be surprised if you end up losing it when someone comes around to slaughter you?

I definitely think sustainability is created not just in yourself but in social-patterns that emerge from good choices and ethics. The more people see the connection between how they live, consume, and treat others and the things they end up having to endure in their lives, the better they will be able to choose actions like the ones they would hope others would choose when they are doing things that end up affecting them.

This is starting to get into a complexified expression of the golden rule so I'll stop, but it's very hard to see, especially when you're so consumed with desire for something(s) that it's blinding in many other ways (which we all are in various ways, I think).

 

[Frame Dragger]

One of the main problems with corporatism, and with division of labor and economic complexity in general, is that it becomes very difficult to connect ones actions with things happening to others elsewhere, or to yourself at a future point in time. There are very long and complex series of chain-events that connect people to others and to themselves.

I think you hit it on the head when you talk about writing your own extinction in every excessive kill. I think everyone is doomed to die eventually sooner or later (in body anyway) but it could be sooner or later depending on how you live. When you live your life going around slaughtering people, why would you be surprised if you end up losing it when someone comes around to slaughter you?

I definitely think sustainability is created not just in yourself but in social-patterns that emerge from good choices and ethics. The more people see the connection between how they live, consume, and treat others and the things they end up having to endure in their lives, the better they will be able to choose actions like the ones they would hope others would choose when they are doing things that end up affecting them.

This is starting to get into a complexified expression of the golden rule so I'll stop, but it's very hard to see, especially when you're so consumed with desire for something(s) that it's blinding in many other ways (which we all are in various ways, I think).

Well said. It's hard for people to know "how much to want" sometimes, and that distribution of blame and responsilbity is as much a factor in corporate cultures as it is in a violent mob. If you haven't already, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had in fact, you might enjoy reading about a portion of our brain called The Nucleus Accumbens.

That said, I'm not religious, I don't believe in Karma or absolute morality... but even then, as you say... you choose many of the circumstances we find ourselves in. We can choose not to kill people, and thereby spare ourselves the chance of retribution. Granted, some people will be murdered anyway, but being in a warzone is not improving your chances. Yes, good people who treat others kindly do suffer, but if you look at violent crime, the two biggest catagories are: Friends/Family killing other Friends/Family... and rival criminal organizations.

I understand wanting comfort and safety, but there is a point where that desire can be perverted and Greed becomes the real issue. Greed on the scale that we experience it, spills over into society as a whole; for example: people born in the 90's in the USA, have RADICALLY different views on what portion size for food should be. If you believe that you need a bucket of pasta, or a 16 oz steak to be "well fed", that's going to distort your view of what you need to live!

In the same way, people "need" things which are merely convenient, and not necessary. I see little harm in that, if one is aware of that fact, and not driven by it. The culture however, begins with very young people, and those habits often last a lifetime. Perceptions are even harder to change, be it beuaty, how much to eat, who "deserves" to live or die... etc. What is "rich"? Is it a million dollars? 10 million? A billion? At what point do people say "enough!"?

 

[brainstorm]

I understand wanting comfort and safety, but there is a point where that desire can be perverted and Greed becomes the real issue. Greed on the scale that we experience it, spills over into society as a whole; for example: people born in the 90's in the USA, have RADICALLY different views on what portion size for food should be. If you believe that you need a bucket of pasta, or a 16 oz steak to be "well fed", that's going to distort your view of what you need to live!

Interesting. Still at least 2000 calories per day, I hope? Where do you think this idea came from if it is such a generational trend, as you claim? I like a reasonably large breakfast, no lunch, and a reasonably large afternoon meal, personally.

In the same way, people "need" things which are merely convenient, and not necessary. I see little harm in that, if one is aware of that fact, and not driven by it. The culture however, begins with very young people, and those habits often last a lifetime. Perceptions are even harder to change, be it beuaty, how much to eat, who "deserves" to live or die... etc. What is "rich"? Is it a million dollars? 10 million? A billion? At what point do people say "enough!"?

When you say that certain conveniences are "necessary," and there's no harm in it, it makes me suspect that there is some harm in it that you can't bear to consider because it would break your heart to think it was harming anyone. Gandhi wrote about "himsa," which is the inevitable violence done by all life and acts of living. The classical example is how we kill microbes just by breathing. The philosophical point is that harm can be reduced but never avoided completely. Christians actually regard the denial of sin as itself a sin. You don't have to subscribe to any of these religious views to comprehend the logic that when people are driven to define themselves and/or their actions as harmless, it's because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

The only way for anyone to be able to totally stop harming anyone or anything else would be to die. But by dying, the person would be harming themselves and others as well. So the tricky thing is to become mindful of all the ways that harm occurs and attempt to reduce those for everyone involved as much as possible, including yourself. What makes it so tricky is that it's not possible to achieve complete peace and harmony, ever. In fact, often times I think that people who overemphasize peace and harmony are actually assaulting others by displacing blame for the inherent violence that everyone commits and should take responsibility for.

Finally, I said it before I think, but I'll say it again. Wealth and poverty are relative and go beyond the individual's personal possessions. Some people are wealthy because they have a secure job with a lifetime of benefits and salary before them. Others have no job but they have a government that guarantees them basic necessities and healthcare so they never have to lose peace-of-mind. Most of the damage done by money is caused by people doing things to try and get it. Giving it to them is only a temporary fix, because they or others will figure out new damage to do to get more as soon as they feel unsatisfied again.

The thing that I believe creates the most economic peace and widespread well-being is when prices are going down relative to real wages. This occurs when economic abundance is growing and there is more to sell at a lower price to fund the same salaries or even increase jobs.

When people work efficiently, more can be produced with the same amount of labor and equipment. This means that more people can consume for the same total production cost, which translates into a lower cost per unit consumption. If people would better share the small amount of work needed to sustain everyone, each person would need to work relatively little to enjoy the same level of consumption, plus they would theoretically be able to afford it while working less because the price of consumption would decrease to match the amount of labor needed to produce it.