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’s dogmatism and purity politics because China already taxes capitalists. The level of taxation already reflects what the people of China deem to be necessary, without harming growth. Unlike capitalist economies, capitalists do not control the state, nor where capital can be allocated, and as such there is some degree of benefit to allowing capitalists to the extent that they facilitate development. Letting these arbitrary goalposts stand in the way of supporting China is nonsense.
You think there’s an economic benefit to allowing someone to hoard wealth above a billion? I mean in comparison if a bigger portion of the wealth from the company was distributed to the workers.
There’s clear economic benefit to allowing private property in secondary and highly competitive industries in the context of a socialist market economy. This accelerates and stabilizes growth, which speeds up development of the socialist economy in general. This comes with the tradeoff of having capitalists, which means coming with the tradeoff of the wealthy. You’re letting arbitrary minutia in how these capitalists are taxed pit you against the entire socialist system.
Why 1 billion and not 900 million? Why not 3 billion? I’m not against a wealth cap, I’m against arbitrary and vibes-based reasons for opposing China’s socialist market economy. I also support the DPRK’s economy.
Just because I’m not against a wealth cap doesn’t mean I am obsessed with the idea of implementing one. A wealth cap is just a form of taxation, it does little to nothing to address societal problems relating to relations of production and distribution. What is important to me is that China maintains the socialist road and continues to iteratively improve, not whether or not it picks a different tax structure.
If China decided to implement a wage or wealth cap down the line, I wouldn’t use that as a reason to object to their economic project. Plus, they have access to more economic data than we do and would be better able to identify the consequences of implementing one.
Just because I’m not against a wage cap doesn’t mean I am obsessed with the idea of implementing one. A wage cap is just a form of taxation, it does little to nothing to address societal problems relating to relations of production and distribution. What is important to me is that China maintains the socialist road and continues to iteratively improve, not whether or not it picks a different tax structure.
They’ve already explained that China has more economic data to determine that theoretical cap location, so you, not being Chinese yourself, are basing your cap entirely on vibes with no insight on to how it hurts or helps Chinese people. It’s just as arbitrary a number as the equivalent question one could ask you- Give me a hard number of people who should be dirt-poor in China today to prevent billionaires. Quick economic development (with the help of leashed capitalists) has lifted so many out of poverty and it seems you would happily undo this purely because rich people exist and it isn’t pure enough.
I already explained to you my position on the matter, that being that this is a terrible question because it’s completely arbitrary. I don’t take issue with levels of wealth, but relations of production and distribution that lead to inequality. The socialist market economy sacrificed some degree of inequality in favor of rapid and stable development, which worked, and is eroding the basis of this inequality over time.
I don’t see why it would be surprising that I take more issue with the system that gives rise to inequality than trying to put an arbitrary evaluation on how much inequality is “too much.” In the quest for a better world, you focus on the system, not on trying to decide how much is too much.
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’s dogmatism and purity politics because China already taxes capitalists. The level of taxation already reflects what the people of China deem to be necessary, without harming growth. Unlike capitalist economies, capitalists do not control the state, nor where capital can be allocated, and as such there is some degree of benefit to allowing capitalists to the extent that they facilitate development. Letting these arbitrary goalposts stand in the way of supporting China is nonsense.
You think there’s an economic benefit to allowing someone to hoard wealth above a billion? I mean in comparison if a bigger portion of the wealth from the company was distributed to the workers.
There’s clear economic benefit to allowing private property in secondary and highly competitive industries in the context of a socialist market economy. This accelerates and stabilizes growth, which speeds up development of the socialist economy in general. This comes with the tradeoff of having capitalists, which means coming with the tradeoff of the wealthy. You’re letting arbitrary minutia in how these capitalists are taxed pit you against the entire socialist system.
Clear economic benefit to allowing the capitalists to hoard above a billion?
Another thing I wonder if you’d be okay with some sort of wealth cap in some point
Why 1 billion and not 900 million? Why not 3 billion? I’m not against a wealth cap, I’m against arbitrary and vibes-based reasons for opposing China’s socialist market economy. I also support the DPRK’s economy.
Where would you put the wealth cap?
Just because I’m not against a wealth cap doesn’t mean I am obsessed with the idea of implementing one. A wealth cap is just a form of taxation, it does little to nothing to address societal problems relating to relations of production and distribution. What is important to me is that China maintains the socialist road and continues to iteratively improve, not whether or not it picks a different tax structure.
If China decided to implement a wage or wealth cap down the line, I wouldn’t use that as a reason to object to their economic project. Plus, they have access to more economic data than we do and would be better able to identify the consequences of implementing one.
Just because I’m not against a wage cap doesn’t mean I am obsessed with the idea of implementing one. A wage cap is just a form of taxation, it does little to nothing to address societal problems relating to relations of production and distribution. What is important to me is that China maintains the socialist road and continues to iteratively improve, not whether or not it picks a different tax structure.
They’ve already explained that China has more economic data to determine that theoretical cap location, so you, not being Chinese yourself, are basing your cap entirely on vibes with no insight on to how it hurts or helps Chinese people. It’s just as arbitrary a number as the equivalent question one could ask you- Give me a hard number of people who should be dirt-poor in China today to prevent billionaires. Quick economic development (with the help of leashed capitalists) has lifted so many out of poverty and it seems you would happily undo this purely because rich people exist and it isn’t pure enough.
I already explained to you my position on the matter, that being that this is a terrible question because it’s completely arbitrary. I don’t take issue with levels of wealth, but relations of production and distribution that lead to inequality. The socialist market economy sacrificed some degree of inequality in favor of rapid and stable development, which worked, and is eroding the basis of this inequality over time.
Stop JAQing off.
I don’t see why it would be surprising that I take more issue with the system that gives rise to inequality than trying to put an arbitrary evaluation on how much inequality is “too much.” In the quest for a better world, you focus on the system, not on trying to decide how much is too much.