By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 09 December 2013
Edit Thread
SamuelRSmith said:
BMaker11 said:
I don't think economic equality is achievable, period, in a capitalistic society. The largest thing I took from my senior Econ class (don't make fun of it! I did go on to go to Purdue) was that in order for there to be rich people, there must be poor people.

I've heard conservative pundits say "see, they think that if I make $100, that's $100 they can't get. But in actuality, we want to increase the amount of money for everyone". But that can't ever happen. Money is finite. There has to be, and will be, a difference in income in people. Because consumers control prices. Even if we all made the same amount of money, if I want an item more than the next guy, I'll pay more, meaning the supplier will have more money than he "should". That simple concept will eventually make a gap in income.

Not to mention that the moment everyone starts making even remotely similar wages across the board, there will be screams of socialism, and people will fall back on "why would I go through years of training to become a doctor when I can just work at McDonald's?"


This is false. Just about everything you said.

In a purely capitalistic system, there's only one way to make money: by trading something you have for it. How can there be losers in trade? If I thought I was going to get poorer through by trading something, I would never do it! When I go into a shop and buy X with $Y, I'm not $Y poorer, I'm X - $Y richer.

Value is subjective, everybody perceives things to be valued different things. This has to be true, or trade simply could not exist. When I buy a burger in McDonald's, it's because I value the burger more  than the money, and when McDonald's sells me the burger, it's because they value the money more than the burger.

Everybody wins in trade, everybody gets richer, it's a win-win situation. There are no losers.

You overlooked the point about if I want something more than you, I'll pay more for it. Capitalism is driven by greed, which sounds malicious, but it isn't a bad thing. But trade isn't just between you and the supplier. It's between you, me, and everyone else, and the supplier. When you buy a burger, it may be because you value the burger more than money, but you don't factor in that someone like me might value the burger more than you, and thus, pay more money to obtain it.

Competition. It happens for goods with consumers in the same fashion that it happens for money with producers. It's the same reason PS4s and XBones on eBay are selling for $600+ instead of the retail price of $400 or $500. You may only value the console at $400, but I want it more, so I pay upwards of $600.

I, personally, don't see myself as a loser in this scenario (McDonald's or consoles), because I would think I was getting my money's worth. So in that endgame, you're right, there isn't a loser between me and the person with the good that I want. 

Going back to the original comparison, McDonald's would have a greater benefit from me wanting the item more and, as a result, paying more (they made more money than they thought they would). And then, what would happen if people repeatedly valued the burger more than you, and paid what I paid? Eventually, McDonald's would catch on, and raise the price of burgers across the board (to maximize profits, also something that drives capitalism), and now you can't afford burgers there. And if you can't afford something, or goods are valued more than the amount of money you have across the board, you're, by definition, poor. You would be the loser in this endgame because you are no longer able to trade your money for a good. It's not win-win. There are losers.