tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post8266085766421549256..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Capitalism 2.0?Dan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-45049303582478624482016-06-18T12:53:39.059-04:002016-06-18T12:53:39.059-04:00Hans -- point taken and corrected.
Kate -- I don...Hans -- point taken and corrected. <br /><br />Kate -- I don't think we're as close to equity in property ownership as you suggest. Certainly the problems of corporate governance you mention are important; but the bottom 35% own virtually zero, 35-70% own under 7% of wealth; and the top 10% own 76% of wealth. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/) If wealth were only as unequal as income -- itself dramatically skewed -- the bottom 70% would be doing much better. And disparities by race are even more shocking -- white households in the US own about 20 times the wealth of median black household ownership. The disparity is almost as severe for hispanic households. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/)<br />Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-40459909759532046562016-06-18T12:49:19.233-04:002016-06-18T12:49:19.233-04:00Or, as is perhaps more likely, the hierarchical go...<i>Or, as is perhaps more likely, the hierarchical governance structures of our corporations and our financial markets (read: intermediaries, i.e., Wall Street) <b>ensure that profits get steered into certain places rather than others.</b> </i> Kate Jackson [bold added]<br /><br />Such as to the banks and top management via debt-financed stock buybacks?<br /><br />Yes, large corporations should be roughly equally owned by the population but unless government-subsidies for private credit creation are abolished then the banks will forever entice/compel us to steal from one another - so that no one profits ultimately though sin has its pleasure for a season.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-86877396897576245392016-06-18T11:11:05.605-04:002016-06-18T11:11:05.605-04:00What about "pre" distribution?
Rawls us...What about "pre" distribution?<br /><br />Rawls used the examples of democratic socialism and property-owning democracy. But I suspect that these collapse into the same thing, if you understand how corporate law works.<br /><br />"Property Owning Democracy" (POD) envisions a capitalist market where everyone owns equity in our companies. Now, we're pretty close to this already -- what with the proliferation of 401ks -- and it doesn't seem to be working for a large segment of the population. His goal was to ensure that everyone got a decent share of the profits arising from our productivity -- this is the point of the dispersion of assets both intangible and tangible.<br /><br />Either we don't own enough shares, or not enough people own enough shares, etc. Or, as is perhaps more likely, the hierarchical governance structures of our corporations and our financial markets (read: intermediaries, i.e., Wall Street) ensure that profits get steered into certain places rather than others. <br /><br />Obviously Rawls didn't predict that intermediaries and hierarchical internal governance structures would hold up the profits flowing to the democratic distribution of assets. He assumed the market would work more like it was supposed to work, that competition would prevent these sort of barricades and channels.<br /><br />So to make POD work like it is supposed to, the "Democratic Socialism" option ought to kick in. This means that including workers, etc., in corporate decisions about the distribution of profits might even out some of the intra-firm wage inequalities. It means that shareholder voices in financial intermediary decisions might redirect funds from brokers' paychecks and from investments *not* obviously tied to the real economy (the most notorious example being HFT)<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117977713957364221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-26957097642567801072016-06-18T05:09:21.211-04:002016-06-18T05:09:21.211-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hans Suterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643533748766695159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-6786918892379018572016-06-18T04:48:28.449-04:002016-06-18T04:48:28.449-04:00You don't mention social democracy. The 8 soci...You don't mention social democracy. The 8 social democratic countries, especially the Nordic countries always rank as the best places in the world to live. They have problems and some of those problems have been increasing lately but these countries have distinct advantages over the liberal democracies which are more capitalistic and more unequal. Jonas Pontusson's book, Inequality and Prosperity, does a good job of comparing the different types. Don't the social democracies give us a model for the future? They could be improved on and we should be thinking about that but too many people ignore them.Doug Korty dougkorty@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05917776988908917362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-26814378457573916952016-06-17T13:48:05.121-04:002016-06-17T13:48:05.121-04:00It is a sad fact that over the past 150 years, the...It is a sad fact that over the past 150 years, the US has attempted to implement every aspect of the societal change you propose. There is a historical analog for each of the desirable changes mentioned in your post. But the net effect has left us with an economic situation closely approximating the Gilded Age of the 19th century. The real question is why the many past attempts to "tame" capitalism have failed so utterly and why so many citizens today seem compelled to act against their own best economic interests. <br /><br />The answer may be that until the political system that generates the change (and enforces it) is reformed, the hope for real, lasting change is small. But the ability of entrenched economic interests to use racial, ethnic and economic differences to separate us will make this difficult.Craig Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947181491808317276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-55127508230999710512016-06-17T12:59:53.511-04:002016-06-17T12:59:53.511-04:00Our money system forces* the poor, the least so-ca...Our money system forces* the poor, the least so-called creditworthy to lend to banks to lower the borrowing costs for the rich, the most so-called creditworthy.<br /><br />Any one think that might be a cause of gross wealth inequality?<br /><br />*or be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, aka "cash."Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-80372963326209242312016-06-17T11:36:59.090-04:002016-06-17T11:36:59.090-04:00I do not see in what sense the Swiss referendum wa...I do not see in what sense the Swiss referendum was "narrowly defeated". Almost two thirds of voters rejected it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060<br />David Strohmaierhttp://davidstrohmaier.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com