If you move towards socialism when you vote left and move towards capitalism when you vote right, isn’t it possible to be halfway and be happy with being there?
Even the analysis of who has the political power. Democracy implies one person one vote, but the US has one dollar one vote. This is not democracy. It is capitalist yes, but it’s also possible to have capitalism with institutions that prevent money from getting too much political power both in terms of influencing politicians and media.
Btw, capitalists are not bound to get richer than workers. Over time, economic theory suggest that this remains in balance due to competition.
You will find that the wealth to income ratio has risen over time. But wealth is not capital. Stiglitz argues quite convincingly that the only difference between wealth and capital is the capitalized value of economic rents. This is what I mean by rentier capitalism. Economic rents are the root of inequalities, stagnating growth, recurring recessions, unaffordable housing and urban sprawl. I recommend reading up on Georgism. You probably agree with it a lot more than you think ;)
You don’t move towards Capitalism if you vote right or move towards Socialism if you move left. You don’t change the entire base like that. Eventually, a build up of quantitative pressure will result in a qualitative change, but you won’t be halfway at any point.
It really isn’t possible to have Capitalism, a system where private ownership holds the large firms, key industries, and state power, while genuinely restricting it. Regulations in Capitalist countries serve to punish small firms and ensure large Capital succeeds, it solodifies their status.
“Economic theory” does not suggest workers and owners reach a balance. Economics and history prove that wealth and Capital concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, as large firms supercede the small ones. Further, financial Capital is Capital of a different sort, and is the means by which the US and EU Imperialize countries in the Global South. Stiglitz may make a decent argument rhetorically as you read, but his writings don’t hold up to history while Marx’s do.
I’m aware of Georgeism, it isn’t some grand secret trump card to pull. It’s just a more restricted form of Capitalism, it doesn’t address the base. Land Value Tax may be a neat idea, but it would only slow the progression of Capitalism to fewer and fewer firms. Further, Capitalists would just wind it back when it suits them, even if by some miracle you could get them established.
I’m on board that the complicated nature of our legal system is exploited by companies to increase barriers of entry. I don’t think this means that institutions can’t do the opposite too. I think laws should be made simpler, but it’s possible to do so in way that also realigns them with societal goals of minimizing market power.
I’m also on board with the idea that there are certain industries that should be state owned such as management of natural resources, roads, rails, heating, health care etc.
You say that economics and history proves that capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. If you dissect what kind of capital that is, it’s actually housing that explains 87% of the rise in wealth to income ratios. And land explains 80% of changes in house prices. So Georgism may not be as small of a part of the problem as you think. Land is not capital.
The complicated system we have is because of megacorporations lobbying to make it that way. We cannot push against that. Further, the vast rise of large industry and megacorps plays a larger role in society than housing, which is still important, but not the dominating aspect of the economy.
Georgism isn’t really a part of the problem, but it’s also not part of the solution.
Well according Stiglitz, Zucman, and Josh Ryan-Collins, housing is the dominant aspect. Land is the main explanation for both inequality, housing unaffordability, recurring recessions, stagnating growth and urban sprawl - all of which Henry George (the first big advocate of land value taxes) predicted. The rest is what plays a smaller role according to the data they present on wealth. Housing makes up more than half of all wealth (it used to be more like 20%). Land is worth more than 25% of GDP. Housing makes 30-40% of people’s budgets and this is increasing rapidly. Every cohort is less about to buy a house.
Kuznets argued that inequality wouldn’t rise based on some very fundamental economic laws. These include Kaldor’s stylized facts. One of them says that the share of growth accruing to capital is expected to remain constant.
Piketty said that this is no longer true. Capital share of gdp is rising. His argument was initially that this is happening because the return to capital is rising above the general growth rate.
However the discussion has shifted in light of new data. Rognlie found that if you exclude housing from the equation, capital share is no longer rising. Meaning capitalists in general terms are not getting richer, property owners are. Or to be more exact, landowners are. Knoll found that 80% of changes in house prices are due to land scarcity. Keep in mind how much of company assets are tied to land wealth.
Stiglitz concludes from this discussion and his own analysis that wealth-to-income ratios rising is not because capital is increasing, but because we are including types of wealth in the term “capital” that are not actually capital. Land is not capital. He says that the main cause of the rise in inequality and stagnating growth is the rise in the capitalized value of rents, and that the majority of these rents come from land. But he says they also come from market power rents, political rents, patent rents and information asymmetry rents and other researchers focus on these rents.
This is what is meant by rentier capitalism. Without rents, capital wouldn’t accumulate. What you’re essentially arguing is that capitalism is bound to be rentier capitalism - there’s nothing we can do to stop it so, we should go a different route. Im happy to go on that route, I just don’t think it means the same as you. I’m a bit more optimistic if we manage to get society to target this rent-seeking behavior and create strong institutions against rent seeking.
An important aspect of your argument is that land is not capital. I suspect that differing definitions of capital between you and Cowbee is leading to you both largely talking past each other. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Georgist conception of capital has some fundamental differences with the Marxist one.
Your fundamental argument relies on it even being possible to peacefully go against the ruling class and bend the state in the favor of the Proletariat. This assumption leaves your analysis dead in the water. Combining that with a failure to analyze Capital to any meaningful degree, and the failure of analysis as regards the ever-increasing complexity of production and the benefits of central planning, means you’re left with the equivalent of universal healthcare in a Capitalist economy.
A good idea, no doubt, but will always be undermined by the ruling class, and thus is both incomplete and not a real solution.
If you move towards socialism when you vote left and move towards capitalism when you vote right, isn’t it possible to be halfway and be happy with being there?
Even the analysis of who has the political power. Democracy implies one person one vote, but the US has one dollar one vote. This is not democracy. It is capitalist yes, but it’s also possible to have capitalism with institutions that prevent money from getting too much political power both in terms of influencing politicians and media.
Btw, capitalists are not bound to get richer than workers. Over time, economic theory suggest that this remains in balance due to competition. You will find that the wealth to income ratio has risen over time. But wealth is not capital. Stiglitz argues quite convincingly that the only difference between wealth and capital is the capitalized value of economic rents. This is what I mean by rentier capitalism. Economic rents are the root of inequalities, stagnating growth, recurring recessions, unaffordable housing and urban sprawl. I recommend reading up on Georgism. You probably agree with it a lot more than you think ;)
You don’t move towards Capitalism if you vote right or move towards Socialism if you move left. You don’t change the entire base like that. Eventually, a build up of quantitative pressure will result in a qualitative change, but you won’t be halfway at any point.
It really isn’t possible to have Capitalism, a system where private ownership holds the large firms, key industries, and state power, while genuinely restricting it. Regulations in Capitalist countries serve to punish small firms and ensure large Capital succeeds, it solodifies their status.
“Economic theory” does not suggest workers and owners reach a balance. Economics and history prove that wealth and Capital concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, as large firms supercede the small ones. Further, financial Capital is Capital of a different sort, and is the means by which the US and EU Imperialize countries in the Global South. Stiglitz may make a decent argument rhetorically as you read, but his writings don’t hold up to history while Marx’s do.
I’m aware of Georgeism, it isn’t some grand secret trump card to pull. It’s just a more restricted form of Capitalism, it doesn’t address the base. Land Value Tax may be a neat idea, but it would only slow the progression of Capitalism to fewer and fewer firms. Further, Capitalists would just wind it back when it suits them, even if by some miracle you could get them established.
I’m on board that the complicated nature of our legal system is exploited by companies to increase barriers of entry. I don’t think this means that institutions can’t do the opposite too. I think laws should be made simpler, but it’s possible to do so in way that also realigns them with societal goals of minimizing market power.
I’m also on board with the idea that there are certain industries that should be state owned such as management of natural resources, roads, rails, heating, health care etc.
You say that economics and history proves that capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. If you dissect what kind of capital that is, it’s actually housing that explains 87% of the rise in wealth to income ratios. And land explains 80% of changes in house prices. So Georgism may not be as small of a part of the problem as you think. Land is not capital.
The complicated system we have is because of megacorporations lobbying to make it that way. We cannot push against that. Further, the vast rise of large industry and megacorps plays a larger role in society than housing, which is still important, but not the dominating aspect of the economy.
Georgism isn’t really a part of the problem, but it’s also not part of the solution.
Well according Stiglitz, Zucman, and Josh Ryan-Collins, housing is the dominant aspect. Land is the main explanation for both inequality, housing unaffordability, recurring recessions, stagnating growth and urban sprawl - all of which Henry George (the first big advocate of land value taxes) predicted. The rest is what plays a smaller role according to the data they present on wealth. Housing makes up more than half of all wealth (it used to be more like 20%). Land is worth more than 25% of GDP. Housing makes 30-40% of people’s budgets and this is increasing rapidly. Every cohort is less about to buy a house.
Kuznets argued that inequality wouldn’t rise based on some very fundamental economic laws. These include Kaldor’s stylized facts. One of them says that the share of growth accruing to capital is expected to remain constant.
Piketty said that this is no longer true. Capital share of gdp is rising. His argument was initially that this is happening because the return to capital is rising above the general growth rate.
However the discussion has shifted in light of new data. Rognlie found that if you exclude housing from the equation, capital share is no longer rising. Meaning capitalists in general terms are not getting richer, property owners are. Or to be more exact, landowners are. Knoll found that 80% of changes in house prices are due to land scarcity. Keep in mind how much of company assets are tied to land wealth.
Stiglitz concludes from this discussion and his own analysis that wealth-to-income ratios rising is not because capital is increasing, but because we are including types of wealth in the term “capital” that are not actually capital. Land is not capital. He says that the main cause of the rise in inequality and stagnating growth is the rise in the capitalized value of rents, and that the majority of these rents come from land. But he says they also come from market power rents, political rents, patent rents and information asymmetry rents and other researchers focus on these rents.
This is what is meant by rentier capitalism. Without rents, capital wouldn’t accumulate. What you’re essentially arguing is that capitalism is bound to be rentier capitalism - there’s nothing we can do to stop it so, we should go a different route. Im happy to go on that route, I just don’t think it means the same as you. I’m a bit more optimistic if we manage to get society to target this rent-seeking behavior and create strong institutions against rent seeking.
An important aspect of your argument is that land is not capital. I suspect that differing definitions of capital between you and Cowbee is leading to you both largely talking past each other. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Georgist conception of capital has some fundamental differences with the Marxist one.
Your fundamental argument relies on it even being possible to peacefully go against the ruling class and bend the state in the favor of the Proletariat. This assumption leaves your analysis dead in the water. Combining that with a failure to analyze Capital to any meaningful degree, and the failure of analysis as regards the ever-increasing complexity of production and the benefits of central planning, means you’re left with the equivalent of universal healthcare in a Capitalist economy.
A good idea, no doubt, but will always be undermined by the ruling class, and thus is both incomplete and not a real solution.