Well, then the answer is "yes". The whole issue being debated here is whether capitalism inevitably leads to a concentration of wealth which can then be leveraged into political power to create more concentration of wealth in a positive feedback cycle. The theory goes that after a couple iterations of that cycle, the wealthy will dismantle the social safety net entirely so they can cut their taxes.
Which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
2) The wealthy cutting their taxes does not necessarily mean the social safety net has to be dismantled. You can have lower taxes and a high safety net. It all depends on what your tax revenue is and where you spend it. The US has trillions in tax revenue coming in every year, and yet we had something like 60 billion dollars of medicare fraud in a single year, exorbitant spending on useless military ventures, etc. If we slashed wasteful spending and fraudulent activities at the governmental level, we could afford a lot more safety net with less tax revenue.
The issue is that cronyism in government results in government only ever being satisfied with getting by with more funding and more budget, and never less.
No, that's a highly theoretical model that doesn't exist in the real world.
> When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself.
No True Capitalism eh? Why would a capitalist not use their capital in whichever fashion would lead to gaining even more wealth? Whether that be monopoly, collusion, or political power?
Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. Some capitalists are known to use their capital for expensive philanthropic ventures or to support candidates who want to raise taxes.
Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post.
If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue.
> It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape.
Yes, regulations will interfere with the unfettered pursuit of profit, but that's by intent.
> Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post.
Because it didn't really seem to make much of a point. Yes government spending priorities could be different and I'm sure there's wastage that could be lessened - although I'd guess less than you think. Cronyism exists in any organisation of more than one person.
Not true. It is in our best and most rational self-interest to participate in philanthropy and in building a nice society that we can live in, enjoy, and make a profit in. Capitalism and philanthropy and a social safety net are not mutually exclusive, which is why (like I already said) there are capitalists who vote for candidates who want to increase taxes and increase spending on social goods and services.
In fact I'd argue that it's only capitalists who can properly invest and sustain a strong safety net. That's why countries like Switzerland and Denmark are capitalist countries.
> Yes, regulations will interfere with the unfettered pursuit of profit, but that's by intent.
The example of it being hard to enter the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generics is an example of government regulations prohibiting cost-reducing competition.
You can pursue profit while offering a good or a service that is less expensive and higher quality than the alternatives.
> Because it didn't really seem to make much of a point. Yes government spending priorities could be different and I'm sure there's wastage that could be lessened - although I'd guess less than you think. Cronyism exists in any organisation of more than one person.
But the point was that it isn't capitalism that is responsible for that cronyism. And that the wealthy wanting tax cuts does NOT mean that the wealthy need to dismantle the safety net in order to get their tax cuts. We can afford both tax cuts and a safety net if we eliminate cronyism in the government.
If by “capitalism” you mean the real-world economic system for which that name was coined by it's critical you are wrong.
If by “capitalism” you mean the abstract theory created to provide propaganda to justify that system after it already existed, you are, well, still wrong, because that propaganda tool serves to protect the actual source of the problem.
> And that the wealthy wanting tax cuts does NOT mean that the wealthy need to dismantle the safety net in order to get their tax cuts. We can afford both tax cuts and a safety net if we eliminate cronyism in the government.
The wealthy don't want tax cuts independent of cronyism and social safety net, they want cronyism in their favor, including particular forms of tax and social safety net cuts.
IE capitalism with some elements of socialism to preserve individual liberties and dignities when economies slow down. Which sounds reasonable to me as a capitalist but also as a human being.