Are Democracy and economic equality fundamentally incompatible? | |||
| Yes | 43 | 40.57% | |
| No | 40 | 37.74% | |
| Its Grey. | 22 | 20.75% | |
| Total: | 105 | ||
Economic equality doesn't exist in reality, and we should all be fortuante it doesn't. If a society were ever to achieve this white whale it would crumble instantly.
The sad thing is your professor actually thinks economic equality is probably something to try and achieve.
whatever said:
Nice trolling. |
What do you feel was innacurate?
End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)
Wii- 72 million 3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases
360- 37 million Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak
PS3- 29 million Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut
Nature is unequal. It is only through artificial constructions that man can create equality, and usually man fails because of natural forces, and/or the calculation problem. This is why many support the concept of a spontaneous ordered market-economy that has a distribution for the most productivity and that is the only way by which poverty is reduced. One can't equalize poverty away. As long as there is scarcity and limited resources in the world there will be inequality.
Aielyn said:
You seem to confuse "people being rewarded based on their contribution" with "people being given gifts based on their contribution". What I'm talking about is a society where those who contribute more get more money as a general rule. Not some great judgment system where a person's worth is determined by some sort of panel or authority, but where society does it automatically, through ordinary economic processes. I'm not confusing anything here. For something to follow a "rule," there needs to be some way to enforce it (whether it is government or not). Judgement will be made by someone because how "hard" someone works is highly subjective in terms of worth, and benefits to society will not come in the same form everywhere. It ends up that what you're thinking is that the people determine who deserves what. You're kind of trying to ask for a completely free market. That is not at all what would promote economic equality. For you see, the whole capitalist vs communist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a properly-created system to bring the best of both sides, by doing things like utilising market forces to achieve better equality. I've even got a few ideas on that front as a specific starting point, although they're too detailed to put here, and a quick summary wouldn't do them justice. Maybe you weren't saying this to me directly, but I know what Capitalism and Communism is, and I didn't even bring it up. Also, I highly doubt you have a system that would work in the real world. There are many factors at play, and for many countries their economic state is determined by other states. Beyond that, there are features of modern democracies that are rather outdated. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed a large portion of the political system that worked well 100 years ago - the result is a combination of corruption and populism. 100 years ago, people became politicians to make a difference - it's as much about public exposure as anything else now, thanks to TV. There are more, but this isn't really the place for an essay. I don't think you know your stuff as well as you think you do if you think corruption is anything new. Corruption is just more transparent now. Do you even know what the definition of corruption is, anyway? Our "news cycle" doesn't "allow" corruption. It is possible that our entertainment-focused society has made a certain form of corruption more prevalent, but our information-society and our political system makes it harder for political leaders to get away with corruption. Nice job ignoring the actual point of my post, though. I see no way how I ignored the actual point of your post. I pasted it down below so you can go reread what you posted. I responded to your post, and obviously the point of your post is that there's a "correct" way to set up a democracy, and you gave a small brief of what your idea would fix and what you think the problem is. I countered it. Offended? |
Aielyn said:
Please clarify the definition of "Economic Equality".
If you mean "Everyone has the same economic capability", then that would be communism, and is not really compatible with Democracy.
If you mean "Everyone has access to the same potential for economic success", then I'd say that it's entirely compatible, and if the system is set up correctly, it will be the necessary outcome. But no democracy has been set up correctly, yet.
The key difference between the former and latter cases has to do with the difference between rewarding harder (or smarter, or more important, or more beneficial) work and treating everyone as equal independent of their contribution. Both are different from what we have right now, which is where economic capability is tied to parents' economic capability, social circumstances, etc. A kid in a poor family has far less chance to succeed than a kid in a rich family if both kids have the same skills, dedication, etc.
|
MDMAlliance said:
|
I'm going to stop you right there. At no point did I say anything about "a completely free market". Indeed, a completely free market would destroy any vestige of economic equality. No, a properly regulated market is what I'm talking about - one that is set up to make the "rational choice" for each person the same as the best outcome for society. Right now, it works a lot more like the prisoner's dilemma, where the system encourages people to make decisions that are to the detriment of society in the long run.
Indeed, if you notice, I referred to a "general rule". Not a "Rule", as in a requirement, but a "General rule", as in "a rule of thumb" or "a typical result". And this rule wouldn't be imposed, it would be engendered - people would follow it of their own volition.
You seem to have misinterpreted everything I've said, in fact. I didn't say that the 24 hour news cycle is the sole cause of corruption, I said that the result of the 24 hour news cycle's impact on politics is corruption. If I said that spending too much time at the beach results in skin cancer, it wouldn't mean that skin cancer didn't exist prior to people spending time at the beach.
The point of my post was to get clarification as to what the original posted considers "economic equality", with details on how those two concepts differ, and thus why I need the clarification. Economic equality could mean "everyone is treated equally", or it could mean "everyone is on a level playing field with respect to things like family wealth, etc". Note that I never said that there's "a correct way" to set up a democracy. I said that if it's properly set up, then it can be compatible with economic equality (using the "level playing field" version). See, words have meanings - "correct way" is very different from "properly set up". The former implies a specific approach, whereas the latter is more like fine-tuning to make it run correctly. Any democratic system could be set up "properly" to be compatible with economic equality, and for each system, the result would be different. I am simply asserting that it is possible to tweak or change any democracy to work towards the economic equality ideal. Of course, being an ideal, it will never be 100% achieved... but that doesn't mean it can't be compatible.
And I find it fascinating that you have a psychic power sufficient to determine that my system wouldn't work in the real world, when I haven't even described ANY of it to you. In case you didn't know, I'm an applied mathematician. I know all about theory vs practice, and I have incorporated that into my ideas. I've also looked into the various systems currently in play, and I have formulated ideas that address what I perceive as holes in the current systems.
What is your definition of economic equality? Is it: everybody has the same? Or is it: everybody has the opportunity to earn according to their contribution?
Economic equality would look much like the book "faith of the fallen" by terry goodkind.
Michael-5 said:
I 100% agree with you, but more often then not, the weathier people in todays society did not work for their money, they inherited it. For instance I have a friend who works at a private golf course. The bulk of players there are either retired, or youth who drive Audi R8's at 19. The spread between CEO and common worked is growing, quickly. in 1910 the average CEO made 40x as much as an everage employer, not it's more like 800x. Sure companies are getting larger, but this just means fewer and fewer "families" are getting richer and richer. I think corporate taxes, and the taxes of high income individuals (people who generate over 1 million in income annually) needs to be increased. There is no use for this much income, you don't need a multiple Ferrarri's, only to see them depreciate because you don't drive them. However we do need more funding in Education, Roads, Homeless shellters, Mental Health Research Facilities, etc. |
If I weren't dating a girl who's dad is one of those CEO guys then I might agree with you. *might*
But I've seen proper work ethic and a respect for money instilled by very wealthy men into their children, so I would disagree. Some men desire to create an empire for their children, so by hard work they deserve to be able to give that to them.
Those men who's sons drive R8's (damn sexy car) at 19 perhaps, are more often than not, very poor fathers. That does not mean that they didn't deserve the money they have.
How many millionaire's do you know? The one family I've gotten to know that are very, very wealthy certainly deserver it - all of them.
| freedquaker said: I am an economics Professor, and I only have this to say : Democracy has nothing to do with economic equality. Democracy is not an economic system, so the question is flawed to begin with. However, if you would change the question to ; "Is capitalism incompatible with economic equality?" Then the theoretical answer would be yes, they are incompatible. However, an economic system creating a perfect income equality is neither possible nor desirable. So this "incompatibility" does not automatically render capitalism wrong. But what kind of economic system do people want? This is where capitalism conflicts a social democracy (with more of a humanitarian view) : Social Democracy wants : a) Equal fundamental access & opportunities to broadly defined rights, regardless of income or status b) Equally distributed or proportional public responsibilities and rights c) Active State reflecting the social conscious d) Heavily regulated market system e) Earnings based on "worth", and "social value" etc... etc... Capitalistic Economy wants a) Equal capability for entrepreneurship, market and funding access, b) Self correcting and operating efficient market system c) Non-disturbing and low level of taxation d) Near complete private ownership, with state serving only as a regulatory body e) Free floating and deregulated market system f) Earnings based on "demand & supply" etc... Both of those systems are inherently utopia. Neither of them produces perfect equality or inequality. Social democracy is not socialism because there are well functioning markets with a large but minority share of state operating. The equality will also be much smaller in a social democracy. The question is, "Is pure capitalism really possible?"... Current experiences disagree. Kuznets famous inverse U shape inequality patterns are not observed and inequality in US (one of the last bastions of pure capitalism) has been increasing tremendously; especially the wealth inequality (Gini > 80%). This is basically unsustainable. So there you have it. Capitalism in its pure form is incompatible with democracy, just like socialism was an unnatural unsustainable regime. However, democracy with "domesticated" social capitalistic policies seem to be not only very much possible but also lucrative and sustainable. |
Amazing and insightful post, thank you!
| freedquaker said: The question is, "Is pure capitalism really possible?"... Current experiences disagree. Kuznets famous inverse U shape inequality patterns are not observed and inequality in US (one of the last bastions of pure capitalism) has been increasing tremendously; especially the wealth inequality (Gini > 80%). This is basically unsustainable. So there you have it. Capitalism in its pure form is incompatible with democracy, just like socialism was an unnatural unsustainable regime. However, democracy with "domesticated" social capitalistic policies seem to be not only very much possible but also lucrative and sustainable. |
Would you really consistute the U.S as "one of the last bastions of pure capitalism?" The U.S economy is very coporate-oriented and in many areas centralized (fiscally, for example.) If anything I'd say it's a prime example of the corporatism that took root in the 1930's. If there is any place that is the "bastion of pure capitalism" it's Hong Kong, and even then it's not laissez-faire.
Hell, the U.S is 10th on the Economic Freedom Index.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
