The idea that increased taxation for the mega wealthy would be bad for the economy is something those liberals waiting for free market China actually say too, in a funny twist.
I was just using billionaire as a shorthand to the mega wealthy, meaning those who have ridiculously more wealth than the average person. It’s not actually strictly that number that I care about, it’s just easier to discuss.
The taxation rate (as in, allowing those mega wealthy to exist) is bad imo because there’s no sensible reason one in vidual needs to hoard that amount of wealth. And it’s through the exploitation of the workers. After a billion (or other ridiculously high amount, you can pick another) you could just distribute the extra wealth to the workers in higher wages. So what would be a good taxation rate after that set amount (whatever we decide on)? 100%.
So, to conclude, you do disagree with the socialist market economy of China, and instead would prefer a Gang of Four style economy based on equal poverty, and a rejection of Marxism in favor of dogmatic collectivization. You cannot have the socialist market economy without capitalists and therefore the creation of wealthy individuals, and without the socialist market economy China would be less developed and their working classes would be behind where they presently are. China already taxes, and already directs this towards social services and infrastructure.
I disagree with allowing billionaires to exist, since as we concluded, they’re not even necessary for the current Chinese strategy and imo that wealth belongs to the workers.
You disagree with capitalists, not billionaires. We already discussed how you feel that “billionaires” are arbitrary, and that your issue is with the “mega-wealthy,” ie capitalists. Capitalists are necessary for the socialist market economy, with privatization of small industries to accelerate socialization comes capitalists, and with capitalists come the comparatively wealthy. This is the tradeoff of the socialist market economy.
The Gang of Four preceded Deng Xiaoping and Reform & Opening Up. They tried to dogmatically collectivize as much as possible, regardless of the level of development, feeling that it was better to be poor in a more equal society than to accept some degree of inequality in favor of rapid development uplifting everyone.
I disagree wirh capitalists, especially ones that amass inordinate amount, including billionaires. I’m more fine with those having less wealth but a billion gets into ridiculous territory. You gotta set a cap somewhere.
There’s some inequality and there’s some being dirt poor while others have billions. That’s just too much for me tbh. Especially since it’s not necessary for the current strategy to allow that amount of wealth.
China already taxes their capitalists, you have picked an arbitrary level based on vibes as a goalpost. Either way, it’s nice to know you now at least have solidly taken the side of the Gang of Four, that actually gives us ground to talk on that isn’t entirely arbitrary and vibes-based. The path out of getting rid of capitalists is developing out of the conditions that give rise to them. Following the Gang of Four’s plan would result in slower development and harm the process of socializing production.
The fact of the matter is that the “dirt poor” do not exist anymore in China thanks to the social surplus generated by the socialist market economy. Under the Gang of Four everyone was dirt poor. They would have developed out of that later than the PRC has been able to. The mass existence of the dirt poor combined with underdeveloped productive forces is the historical, material basis of Reform & Opening Up.
I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.
It seems like you are stuck on the inequality aspect, and describe Chinese workers as “dirt poor.” This is actually not entirely true Just this year the CPC announced that extreme poverty has been eliminated in China. In the last 50 years, they have uplifted 800 million people it of poverty, and 100 million of those have happened in the last 8 years. This kind of exponential progress happened precisely because China has harnessed t he power of capitalism to increase development. On top of that, China’s purchasing power parity is now significantly higher than anywhere else, meaning their money buys more stuff (or inversely, their commodities are cheaper).
The material reality is that everyone in China has substantially benefited from their system, EVEN IF it has also given rise to billionaires.
So yes, billionaires are bad, but China’s billionaires are yoked to the cart that is carrying everyone to the promised land.
The material reality is that everyone in China has substantially benefited from their system, EVEN IF it has also given rise to billionaires.
Does the system require to allow people to amass billions as opposed to “only” allowing people to amass hundreds of millions? It’s for me to hard to see the extra benefit over a certain (ridiculously high) amount
I think maybe you are also misunderstanding what billionaires do with their billions. They don’t just have stacks of cash hoarded in a vault somewhere, it is all invested. This is why China allows them, because capitalism is very good at directly surplus value back into economic growth.
If everyone had the same amount of wealth, then you’d have to convince everyone to agree on where to spend it and how to grow the economy. Which would be fine if everyone’s material needs are already met and you don’t have to worry about capitalist superpowers invading. But that’s not where China is at. They are closer to it now than they were 30 years ago, and who knows, maybe in another 30 years they will be at the point where they decide that billionaires are no longer necessary.
I am pretty sceptical of the claims about billionaires being a necessary thing for the economy. Chinese or otherwise. Billionaires love to claim they are necessary and good and how it trickles down. I don’t buy it.
The idea that increased taxation for the mega wealthy would be bad for the economy is something those liberals waiting for free market China actually say too, in a funny twist.
I was just using billionaire as a shorthand to the mega wealthy, meaning those who have ridiculously more wealth than the average person. It’s not actually strictly that number that I care about, it’s just easier to discuss.
The taxation rate (as in, allowing those mega wealthy to exist) is bad imo because there’s no sensible reason one in vidual needs to hoard that amount of wealth. And it’s through the exploitation of the workers. After a billion (or other ridiculously high amount, you can pick another) you could just distribute the extra wealth to the workers in higher wages. So what would be a good taxation rate after that set amount (whatever we decide on)? 100%.
I hope that answers your questions
So, to conclude, you do disagree with the socialist market economy of China, and instead would prefer a Gang of Four style economy based on equal poverty, and a rejection of Marxism in favor of dogmatic collectivization. You cannot have the socialist market economy without capitalists and therefore the creation of wealthy individuals, and without the socialist market economy China would be less developed and their working classes would be behind where they presently are. China already taxes, and already directs this towards social services and infrastructure.
I disagree with allowing billionaires to exist, since as we concluded, they’re not even necessary for the current Chinese strategy and imo that wealth belongs to the workers.
I don’t know the Gang of Four thing is.
You disagree with capitalists, not billionaires. We already discussed how you feel that “billionaires” are arbitrary, and that your issue is with the “mega-wealthy,” ie capitalists. Capitalists are necessary for the socialist market economy, with privatization of small industries to accelerate socialization comes capitalists, and with capitalists come the comparatively wealthy. This is the tradeoff of the socialist market economy.
The Gang of Four preceded Deng Xiaoping and Reform & Opening Up. They tried to dogmatically collectivize as much as possible, regardless of the level of development, feeling that it was better to be poor in a more equal society than to accept some degree of inequality in favor of rapid development uplifting everyone.
I disagree wirh capitalists, especially ones that amass inordinate amount, including billionaires. I’m more fine with those having less wealth but a billion gets into ridiculous territory. You gotta set a cap somewhere.
There’s some inequality and there’s some being dirt poor while others have billions. That’s just too much for me tbh. Especially since it’s not necessary for the current strategy to allow that amount of wealth.
China already taxes their capitalists, you have picked an arbitrary level based on vibes as a goalpost. Either way, it’s nice to know you now at least have solidly taken the side of the Gang of Four, that actually gives us ground to talk on that isn’t entirely arbitrary and vibes-based. The path out of getting rid of capitalists is developing out of the conditions that give rise to them. Following the Gang of Four’s plan would result in slower development and harm the process of socializing production.
The fact of the matter is that the “dirt poor” do not exist anymore in China thanks to the social surplus generated by the socialist market economy. Under the Gang of Four everyone was dirt poor. They would have developed out of that later than the PRC has been able to. The mass existence of the dirt poor combined with underdeveloped productive forces is the historical, material basis of Reform & Opening Up.
I mean to me it’s a fine goalpost to say that a billion crosses the line from allowing capitalists to improve the economy etc. to unnecessary exploitation. If this Gang wanted a cap on a billion dollars or euros, I’m definitely down with Gang on this one.
Why wouldn’t everyone be?
For me, making massive socioeconomic decisions based entirely on vibes, feelings, and a sense of semi-religious purity is no way to run society. The Gang of Four, as I said, wanted to dogmatically collectivize everything, regardless of the level of development. They weren’t arguing for wealth caps. You keep focusing on arbitrary levels of taxation over the relations of production.
As for being against the Gang of Four, the reasons are fairly obvious if you’ve been following what I said. They were dogmatic and were perpetuating poverty in the name of purity. Reform & Opening Up is key to China’s success in eradicating poverty.
I don’t know if it’s some dogmatic purity since you’re still allowing wealth inequality and capitalists to hoard wealth, you’re just setting the limit somewhere.
I’d set it at wherever the necessary point is. If we believe that above billion isn’t necessary for the current strategy, I don’t understand why we can’t agree that maybe that could be one place for the cap tbh.
It seems like you are stuck on the inequality aspect, and describe Chinese workers as “dirt poor.” This is actually not entirely true Just this year the CPC announced that extreme poverty has been eliminated in China. In the last 50 years, they have uplifted 800 million people it of poverty, and 100 million of those have happened in the last 8 years. This kind of exponential progress happened precisely because China has harnessed t he power of capitalism to increase development. On top of that, China’s purchasing power parity is now significantly higher than anywhere else, meaning their money buys more stuff (or inversely, their commodities are cheaper).
The material reality is that everyone in China has substantially benefited from their system, EVEN IF it has also given rise to billionaires.
So yes, billionaires are bad, but China’s billionaires are yoked to the cart that is carrying everyone to the promised land.
I said some are dirt poor. Not in general.
Does the system require to allow people to amass billions as opposed to “only” allowing people to amass hundreds of millions? It’s for me to hard to see the extra benefit over a certain (ridiculously high) amount
I think maybe you are also misunderstanding what billionaires do with their billions. They don’t just have stacks of cash hoarded in a vault somewhere, it is all invested. This is why China allows them, because capitalism is very good at directly surplus value back into economic growth.
If everyone had the same amount of wealth, then you’d have to convince everyone to agree on where to spend it and how to grow the economy. Which would be fine if everyone’s material needs are already met and you don’t have to worry about capitalist superpowers invading. But that’s not where China is at. They are closer to it now than they were 30 years ago, and who knows, maybe in another 30 years they will be at the point where they decide that billionaires are no longer necessary.
I am pretty sceptical of the claims about billionaires being a necessary thing for the economy. Chinese or otherwise. Billionaires love to claim they are necessary and good and how it trickles down. I don’t buy it.