Nice debate. Would love to hear you engage seriously with the notion that VHA healthcare is inferior (to what?) because of socialism (compared with what?). You like natural experiments: you can find several in VHA right now given recent efforts at privatization.
How do you expect these social services to be paid for? We are paying for them currently with debt. In the fifties the richest people were taxed a lot. As I recall it was 90% on income more than something that is really low like $200k. That was a lot of money back then. Those people lived exciting lives of travel and comfort, my husband’s grandfather was an executive in New York at a major network. He was comfortable. Still comfortable in his nighties, he was disgusted by what executives make these days. Meanwhile, we are unable to provide the basics to our population and are swimming in debt.
In addition, you have clearly never been a poor(er) person near real wealth or you wouldn’t ask.
Wolff truly is a Marxist. Like Marx, he thinks socialism can do better than capitalism. Like Marx, his ideas about how socialism would work are extremely vague. This is best revealed on the subject of housing. Wolff says that in the US, the private housing market has failed and acknowledges that public housing has failed. He offers no explanation of why public housing failed or what alternative should be tried.
Unlike Marx, Wolff has the knowledge of what happened when Marx's ideas were attempted to be implemented at large scale. He barely acknowledges the Soviet Union's "social problems." I wonder if Marx would be less delusional with Wolff's knowledge.
57:05 "Capitalism comes into the world in the French Revolution and the American." Wolff must be living in a different reality than I am. AFAIK, capitalism developed over several centuries in Europe, not as the result of any revolution. It's particularly strange that Wolff associates capitalism with the French Revolution, which led to several forms of socialism.
I laughed out loud when Wolff said that gains have been made in the USSR and China despite capitalism. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the USSR is a positive story. I wonder if Wolff agrees with Putin that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy.
I'm glad Glenn had Richard on again. As I commented the first time, Richard should be given as many opportunities to express himself as possible. The more I listen to him, the less I fear his ideas will catch on. He talks about how fragile the capitalist system is. I wonder which systems he thinks are more robust.
They breeze by it quickly, but the quick references to the gulag and the violence necessary to sustain a non-individualistic system in a world full of individuals seems salient today.
And I don't know what Mr. Wolff has to say about any of that, but a lot of the rhetoric in contemporary academia is that the U.S. is the bad guy here because of slavery, police violence, etc. etc., as if anything in this country's history even remotely compared to the Cambodian Genocide or the Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward. Mr Wolff probably has something to say on the subject, but these are things which undergrads are likely not aware of at all.
Defining socioeconomic hierarchical structures as “winners and losers”, historically leads to the dehumanization of the “losers” .....anyone who’s willing to align themselves with Marxism as an ideology, especially as an academic, with available research at their fingertips, and never bothering to challenged their misguided principles, doesn’t deserve a platform of legitimacy.
I remember Richard Wolf from my years as a student at the University of Massachusetts. Back in the 70’s, the syllabus outlined in his course description, never mentioned his Marxist held ideals, so, I found myself, practically speaking, still a child at the time, listening to his baseless reasoning in disgust snd shock, I was appalled he was even allowed to teach. But, as a shy, unsure young person , I said noting, I just never returned for more.
Noting much has changed; today, after one minute of this man’s idiotic rant, I decided to turn to instagram and tiktok for more quality programming. Too bad there were no such alternatives in the 70’s
I don’t know, or care, how Glenn responded. I was just shocked and a bit disappointed he, a leading academic, MIT, Paul Samuelson mentored economist, could even entertain the idea of having this charlatan as a guest for discussion.
So I just flipped to something less ridiculous and tick-tock’d myself to sleep in an instagram of a minute.
Rick uses Soviet Union as an example of the economic impressiveness of socialism / communism (which he pretty much uses interchangeably). Later in his closing statement -- in response to Glenn's request for any evidence that Socialism refutes the business cycle -- Rick responds with: ~"The old socialist societies weren't 'true' socialism, so they don't count". Rick even affirms at the very end that ~"The Soviet Union wasn't a classless society any more than the United States was".
Seems like a major contradiction to me. If the Soviet Union "doesn't count" then it can't be used as evidence of the economic superiority of communism.
My personal experience: I lived in India when it was a socialistic country until the 90s. (Vastly different situation today now that the markets have opened up). I remember having ration cards for rice, lentils, oil, you name it. The quality of goods at the government ration shops was so riddled with vermin that most people went there as a last resort. Everything was nationalized: cars, banks, there was no choice to speak of. Corruption and bribery were rife and present at every level of life. Phone lines had a waiting period of 2 years. There would be long lines for clean water. Throw in affirmative action on steroids, and you can see why Indians left the country in droves to settle overseas. They called it the "brain drain". Yet, all of this would have been worth it if only socialism had guaranteed that the poor and the needy were protected and provided basic needs. But this was not the case. The poor were REALLY poor, in a way you don't see these days, wearing rags and scrounging for food and water. Once India threw off the mantle of socialism and proceeded to open up its markets, there was a sea change. The grinding poverty I once saw has all but disappeared, and there is no "ppor class" any more, more of a lower-middle class.
I know what I saw and experienced, and no one can convince me socialism works.
Seems like the problem is human nature, specifically greed. In a socialist system to greed leads to corruption, but in a capitalist system, maybe the greed will lead to innovation.
Something to consider is that maybe there is a better way to introduce socialism into markets. For example, as I understand it German companies are required to have stakeholders on their boards, an employee representative and a local industry or environmental representative for example. Perhaps the goal should be to try new things to make things better, not feel constrained to choose between tried options that all have shortcomings.
Mr Wolfe strains credibility w his assertion that Marxism was not taught elite universities. I had a class w Bertram Ollman at NYU in a Masters class. Ollman was a Marxist of the first rank. I liked him as a professor, but He never persuaded me or most of the class to his side. Glenn had it right. Show us a place where the socialist command and control system has outperformed a free market system head to head. Two Koreas, Chinas, Germanys....
I had a friend from East Germany. She indicated the problems started there when the two Germanies reunited. Perhaps we don’t know as much as we think we know about these other countries.
Not necessarily. Strength of economy is a quantifiable number - how well the system meets the people’s needs is a little different. I’m not an economist, nor an East German. My point was more that what economy is better is maybe not so clear as we would believe. We often assume we know things we don’t. I have heard that the transition in east Germany to capitalism was very painful with lots of unemployment (particularly young people, and we know that is never a good thing), resentment, and social stresses. I haven’t heard about it lately, maybe it all got worked out. But even in the Former West, Germany is far more socialistic than we are.
There is a good indicator of which system met people's needs better. One system built walls and fences to keep people from leaving. The other welcomed those who escaped the former.
East and West Berlin was an easy example of the differences between the two Germanies. It shows how inequality causes conflict. But it also demonstrates that most people didn’t try to leave. Most on the east just wanted more political freedom. It’s a work of fiction, but at a tender age I watched the German movie “Der Mann Auf Der Mauer” about a Berliner who sneaks back and forth over the Berlin Wall torn by his connection to both sides. I just don’t know if it’s as cut and dry as you think. I could be wrong.
I thought Glenn was sandbagging by debating such an easy opponent (USSR as model of pro-growth success???) but from what I read Richard Wolff is a leading light of American socialist thought.
Glenn makes the obvious arguments but they need to be reiterated again and again...
Thank you Mrs. Loury and the debaters. It would be good to have more discussions on specific policies that derive from the two points of view given the many misconceptions particularly among young people about their implementation. Get some more into the weeds. There are many good examples of how policies like a $15 minimum wage harm workers rather than help them. Ditto socialized medicine (see the struggling British NHS) etc. etc.
Marxism is like a religion. It appeals to our emotions and therefore penetrates deeply into the psyche. I was a Marxist myself when I married an economist in 1977 who patiently persuaded me of my error.
I thought the most revealing statement by Mr. Wolfe was that Marxism has changed and is now merely the striving of human beings to “do better.” Remarkable, but keeping the endgame vague has worked for them.
With regard to Sweden which is often cited as an example of successful socialism, even though it isn’t, a right wing government was recently elected there. How this will play out is unknown.
For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect.
The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections.
In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services.
One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living.
So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
I think some of these thoughts have scientific answers. I have heard that the average person can know, care about, and maintain relationships with about 100 people. If we broke down into communities of that size, or near it, we could probably implement socialism pretty well (like in your family example).
Second, inequality is bad. It increases strife and conflict between groups and all that. I’m sure it would be nice if we could be happy with what we have and be happy for those that have more. We (humans) don’t seem to work like that. Consistently, people’s sense of wealth is relative to their peers and regardless of their actual wealth, it’s that they perceive their peers have less that makes them happy. Societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else. I mean haven’t you seen kids fight over who got the biggest slice of pizza or who’s cookie has the most chocolate chips?
You correctly point out that families work differently from larger groups and that socialism does work at small scale. I agree that great inequality among peers is a problem. However, not everyone in a society is a peer. I would care if my coworker were paid ten times as much as I am. I don't care that Musk and Bezos are many times wealthier than I am. In fact, I'm glad that they are richly rewarded for building companies which provide great value to me and many others.
Which types societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else? That might describe small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Historically, there have almost always been people at the top who own or control more than everyone else. For the vast majority of history, that position was determined by force and heredity. It's far better that the people on top get there by building successful businesses that provide value to customers.
Well, in places like Germany and Sweden where tax rates are higher there is a much smaller difference between a plumber and a doctor. It seems to be a more cohesive society. Also, significantly less materialistic. The trade-off is that it is more difficult to build intergenerational wealth through property and entrepreneurship. I don’t think it is about everyone being peers, it is about everyone being a productive member of society, and everyone living with dignity and pride in their place within their society.
I do think it is too easy in the USA to get left behind, and it can be very hard to get caught up. I’m glad you don’t mind multibillionaires, but many people do. Many of the richest people aren’t just company builders, there are many children (and further down the family tree) of company builders. So without taxation to fix it, we create our own modern day top defined by “force or heredity.” (Force probably applies outside the US, like the Saudis and Putin)
I'm having difficulty understanding the second paragraph above. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by "left behind." Are you referring to people in poverty? If so, what do they have to do with the very wealthy or their heirs? Do you think the fact that there are very wealthy people increases poverty?
Yes. Left behind refers to poverty, of finances and of life in general. I have one cousin from a small town who grew to be an executive at one of the biggest companies in the world and another cousin who was encouraged not to go to college (because of the liberal indoctrination blah blah) who after years of no direction and few prospects died of an accidental drug overdose. That cousin was left behind.
In a country with high taxes, the rich people pay more and the social services are greater - higher education is free, as are apprenticeship programs.
AFAICT, you're arguing for more social services, which may be justified. Again, I ask how the problems of the poor are made worse by the existence of very rich people.
It’s not really a position. It’s something research has found. It has also found that when there is less income disparity there is less conflict. I think both have been sufficiently researched to be accepted by science. They don’t really contradict each other. “ I feel rich when I have more”, doesn’t really contradict “everyone here basically has the same so we worry about other things,”
The point is really what a person believes individually is very different from the dynamics of a society. As much as I’d like change people to be the way I’d like, I have to take the society as it is. But if we’re talking about ideas, we can look at different places and see cause and effect of policies and cultures, etc and have opinions on what is better.
So, you think people's perception of their peers matters and that it is not about everyone being peers. There are no contradictions? BTW, you might consider the fact that Sweden and Germany have been losing cohesion as they have accepted more immigrants. The US is more resilient since we are a nation of immigrants.
Nice debate. Would love to hear you engage seriously with the notion that VHA healthcare is inferior (to what?) because of socialism (compared with what?). You like natural experiments: you can find several in VHA right now given recent efforts at privatization.
How do you expect these social services to be paid for? We are paying for them currently with debt. In the fifties the richest people were taxed a lot. As I recall it was 90% on income more than something that is really low like $200k. That was a lot of money back then. Those people lived exciting lives of travel and comfort, my husband’s grandfather was an executive in New York at a major network. He was comfortable. Still comfortable in his nighties, he was disgusted by what executives make these days. Meanwhile, we are unable to provide the basics to our population and are swimming in debt.
In addition, you have clearly never been a poor(er) person near real wealth or you wouldn’t ask.
Wolff truly is a Marxist. Like Marx, he thinks socialism can do better than capitalism. Like Marx, his ideas about how socialism would work are extremely vague. This is best revealed on the subject of housing. Wolff says that in the US, the private housing market has failed and acknowledges that public housing has failed. He offers no explanation of why public housing failed or what alternative should be tried.
Unlike Marx, Wolff has the knowledge of what happened when Marx's ideas were attempted to be implemented at large scale. He barely acknowledges the Soviet Union's "social problems." I wonder if Marx would be less delusional with Wolff's knowledge.
57:05 "Capitalism comes into the world in the French Revolution and the American." Wolff must be living in a different reality than I am. AFAIK, capitalism developed over several centuries in Europe, not as the result of any revolution. It's particularly strange that Wolff associates capitalism with the French Revolution, which led to several forms of socialism.
I laughed out loud when Wolff said that gains have been made in the USSR and China despite capitalism. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the USSR is a positive story. I wonder if Wolff agrees with Putin that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy.
It's funny that Wolff mentions Trump. AFAICT, he agrees with Trump that we got a raw deal trading with China.
I'm glad Glenn had Richard on again. As I commented the first time, Richard should be given as many opportunities to express himself as possible. The more I listen to him, the less I fear his ideas will catch on. He talks about how fragile the capitalist system is. I wonder which systems he thinks are more robust.
They breeze by it quickly, but the quick references to the gulag and the violence necessary to sustain a non-individualistic system in a world full of individuals seems salient today.
And I don't know what Mr. Wolff has to say about any of that, but a lot of the rhetoric in contemporary academia is that the U.S. is the bad guy here because of slavery, police violence, etc. etc., as if anything in this country's history even remotely compared to the Cambodian Genocide or the Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward. Mr Wolff probably has something to say on the subject, but these are things which undergrads are likely not aware of at all.
Defining socioeconomic hierarchical structures as “winners and losers”, historically leads to the dehumanization of the “losers” .....anyone who’s willing to align themselves with Marxism as an ideology, especially as an academic, with available research at their fingertips, and never bothering to challenged their misguided principles, doesn’t deserve a platform of legitimacy.
I remember Richard Wolf from my years as a student at the University of Massachusetts. Back in the 70’s, the syllabus outlined in his course description, never mentioned his Marxist held ideals, so, I found myself, practically speaking, still a child at the time, listening to his baseless reasoning in disgust snd shock, I was appalled he was even allowed to teach. But, as a shy, unsure young person , I said noting, I just never returned for more.
Noting much has changed; today, after one minute of this man’s idiotic rant, I decided to turn to instagram and tiktok for more quality programming. Too bad there were no such alternatives in the 70’s
I don’t know, or care, how Glenn responded. I was just shocked and a bit disappointed he, a leading academic, MIT, Paul Samuelson mentored economist, could even entertain the idea of having this charlatan as a guest for discussion.
So I just flipped to something less ridiculous and tick-tock’d myself to sleep in an instagram of a minute.
Rick uses Soviet Union as an example of the economic impressiveness of socialism / communism (which he pretty much uses interchangeably). Later in his closing statement -- in response to Glenn's request for any evidence that Socialism refutes the business cycle -- Rick responds with: ~"The old socialist societies weren't 'true' socialism, so they don't count". Rick even affirms at the very end that ~"The Soviet Union wasn't a classless society any more than the United States was".
Seems like a major contradiction to me. If the Soviet Union "doesn't count" then it can't be used as evidence of the economic superiority of communism.
Too much internal consistency = losing the debate
This interview is somewhat relevant and interesting to this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74rQmLRqtA
My personal experience: I lived in India when it was a socialistic country until the 90s. (Vastly different situation today now that the markets have opened up). I remember having ration cards for rice, lentils, oil, you name it. The quality of goods at the government ration shops was so riddled with vermin that most people went there as a last resort. Everything was nationalized: cars, banks, there was no choice to speak of. Corruption and bribery were rife and present at every level of life. Phone lines had a waiting period of 2 years. There would be long lines for clean water. Throw in affirmative action on steroids, and you can see why Indians left the country in droves to settle overseas. They called it the "brain drain". Yet, all of this would have been worth it if only socialism had guaranteed that the poor and the needy were protected and provided basic needs. But this was not the case. The poor were REALLY poor, in a way you don't see these days, wearing rags and scrounging for food and water. Once India threw off the mantle of socialism and proceeded to open up its markets, there was a sea change. The grinding poverty I once saw has all but disappeared, and there is no "ppor class" any more, more of a lower-middle class.
I know what I saw and experienced, and no one can convince me socialism works.
Seems like the problem is human nature, specifically greed. In a socialist system to greed leads to corruption, but in a capitalist system, maybe the greed will lead to innovation.
Something to consider is that maybe there is a better way to introduce socialism into markets. For example, as I understand it German companies are required to have stakeholders on their boards, an employee representative and a local industry or environmental representative for example. Perhaps the goal should be to try new things to make things better, not feel constrained to choose between tried options that all have shortcomings.
Mr Wolfe strains credibility w his assertion that Marxism was not taught elite universities. I had a class w Bertram Ollman at NYU in a Masters class. Ollman was a Marxist of the first rank. I liked him as a professor, but He never persuaded me or most of the class to his side. Glenn had it right. Show us a place where the socialist command and control system has outperformed a free market system head to head. Two Koreas, Chinas, Germanys....
I had a friend from East Germany. She indicated the problems started there when the two Germanies reunited. Perhaps we don’t know as much as we think we know about these other countries.
Are you suggesting that the East German economy was as strong as that of West Germany?
Not necessarily. Strength of economy is a quantifiable number - how well the system meets the people’s needs is a little different. I’m not an economist, nor an East German. My point was more that what economy is better is maybe not so clear as we would believe. We often assume we know things we don’t. I have heard that the transition in east Germany to capitalism was very painful with lots of unemployment (particularly young people, and we know that is never a good thing), resentment, and social stresses. I haven’t heard about it lately, maybe it all got worked out. But even in the Former West, Germany is far more socialistic than we are.
There is a good indicator of which system met people's needs better. One system built walls and fences to keep people from leaving. The other welcomed those who escaped the former.
East and West Berlin was an easy example of the differences between the two Germanies. It shows how inequality causes conflict. But it also demonstrates that most people didn’t try to leave. Most on the east just wanted more political freedom. It’s a work of fiction, but at a tender age I watched the German movie “Der Mann Auf Der Mauer” about a Berliner who sneaks back and forth over the Berlin Wall torn by his connection to both sides. I just don’t know if it’s as cut and dry as you think. I could be wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that walls meant to keep people inside East Germany were an example of the lack of political freedom?
I thought Glenn was sandbagging by debating such an easy opponent (USSR as model of pro-growth success???) but from what I read Richard Wolff is a leading light of American socialist thought.
Glenn makes the obvious arguments but they need to be reiterated again and again...
Thank you Mrs. Loury and the debaters. It would be good to have more discussions on specific policies that derive from the two points of view given the many misconceptions particularly among young people about their implementation. Get some more into the weeds. There are many good examples of how policies like a $15 minimum wage harm workers rather than help them. Ditto socialized medicine (see the struggling British NHS) etc. etc.
Marxism is like a religion. It appeals to our emotions and therefore penetrates deeply into the psyche. I was a Marxist myself when I married an economist in 1977 who patiently persuaded me of my error.
I thought the most revealing statement by Mr. Wolfe was that Marxism has changed and is now merely the striving of human beings to “do better.” Remarkable, but keeping the endgame vague has worked for them.
With regard to Sweden which is often cited as an example of successful socialism, even though it isn’t, a right wing government was recently elected there. How this will play out is unknown.
The Heritage Foundation ranks Sweden's economic freedom higher than most European countries and the US. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect.
The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections.
In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services.
One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living.
So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
I think some of these thoughts have scientific answers. I have heard that the average person can know, care about, and maintain relationships with about 100 people. If we broke down into communities of that size, or near it, we could probably implement socialism pretty well (like in your family example).
Second, inequality is bad. It increases strife and conflict between groups and all that. I’m sure it would be nice if we could be happy with what we have and be happy for those that have more. We (humans) don’t seem to work like that. Consistently, people’s sense of wealth is relative to their peers and regardless of their actual wealth, it’s that they perceive their peers have less that makes them happy. Societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else. I mean haven’t you seen kids fight over who got the biggest slice of pizza or who’s cookie has the most chocolate chips?
You correctly point out that families work differently from larger groups and that socialism does work at small scale. I agree that great inequality among peers is a problem. However, not everyone in a society is a peer. I would care if my coworker were paid ten times as much as I am. I don't care that Musk and Bezos are many times wealthier than I am. In fact, I'm glad that they are richly rewarded for building companies which provide great value to me and many others.
Which types societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else? That might describe small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Historically, there have almost always been people at the top who own or control more than everyone else. For the vast majority of history, that position was determined by force and heredity. It's far better that the people on top get there by building successful businesses that provide value to customers.
Well, in places like Germany and Sweden where tax rates are higher there is a much smaller difference between a plumber and a doctor. It seems to be a more cohesive society. Also, significantly less materialistic. The trade-off is that it is more difficult to build intergenerational wealth through property and entrepreneurship. I don’t think it is about everyone being peers, it is about everyone being a productive member of society, and everyone living with dignity and pride in their place within their society.
I do think it is too easy in the USA to get left behind, and it can be very hard to get caught up. I’m glad you don’t mind multibillionaires, but many people do. Many of the richest people aren’t just company builders, there are many children (and further down the family tree) of company builders. So without taxation to fix it, we create our own modern day top defined by “force or heredity.” (Force probably applies outside the US, like the Saudis and Putin)
I'm having difficulty understanding the second paragraph above. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by "left behind." Are you referring to people in poverty? If so, what do they have to do with the very wealthy or their heirs? Do you think the fact that there are very wealthy people increases poverty?
Yes. Left behind refers to poverty, of finances and of life in general. I have one cousin from a small town who grew to be an executive at one of the biggest companies in the world and another cousin who was encouraged not to go to college (because of the liberal indoctrination blah blah) who after years of no direction and few prospects died of an accidental drug overdose. That cousin was left behind.
In a country with high taxes, the rich people pay more and the social services are greater - higher education is free, as are apprenticeship programs.
AFAICT, you're arguing for more social services, which may be justified. Again, I ask how the problems of the poor are made worse by the existence of very rich people.
It seems you've changed your position. Do you no longer think that people's perception that their peers have less makes them happy?
It’s not really a position. It’s something research has found. It has also found that when there is less income disparity there is less conflict. I think both have been sufficiently researched to be accepted by science. They don’t really contradict each other. “ I feel rich when I have more”, doesn’t really contradict “everyone here basically has the same so we worry about other things,”
The point is really what a person believes individually is very different from the dynamics of a society. As much as I’d like change people to be the way I’d like, I have to take the society as it is. But if we’re talking about ideas, we can look at different places and see cause and effect of policies and cultures, etc and have opinions on what is better.
So, you think people's perception of their peers matters and that it is not about everyone being peers. There are no contradictions? BTW, you might consider the fact that Sweden and Germany have been losing cohesion as they have accepted more immigrants. The US is more resilient since we are a nation of immigrants.