The problem with America incarcerating a larger percentage of its population than any nation in the history of the world can be directly attributed to the privatization of prisons, and the capitalist incentives they impose.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...

The problem with inequality is that the 20th century middle class was specifically what made America great, by providing a consumer base to buy all the wonderful things people wanted to make. You can only sell so many jeans to the richest one percent.

"privatization of prisons, and the capitalist incentives they impose."

No, it isn't the "capitalist" incentives, it the the damn foolish politicians setting incentives that are not generating a proper outcome. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

You can bet if the private prisons were paid on capacity instead of occupancy and incentivized a bonus for non-returning prisoners after 5 years, you would get totally different results.

Crappy incentives will destroy any economic system by generating bad actors. Look at the actions of the prison guards union in California and see the same behavior from a public perspective.

What makes you think that "privatization of prisons" has anything to do with capitalism? Is it because it is "private" and private must = capitalism? It sounds like you don't know what capitalism is.

You don't think the war on drugs has anything to do with the higher incarceration rates?

And you can only sell so many yachts to the 99%. Does that mean the economy is doomed?

There are other things rich people buy besides jeans. Buying yachts requires much more fabric and seamstresses than jeans do. It also employs more people and a greater diversity of people than making jeans do; lumber workers, software engineers, nautical engineers, construction workers, seamstresses, welders, interior designers, architects, plumbers, and the list goes on.

Buying a $30mil yacht results in a much greater economic stimulus than buying a million jeans ever would. There are a greater diversity of jobs required for luxury goods. This means people can work on what they want rather than all doing low skilled labor.

Capitalism is more strongly correlated with freedom than inequality and prison. Think about what it was like before capitalism was around. Monarchs dictated everything. You did what you were assigned to do, which was pretty much what your parents and grandparents did. Capitalism allowed people to take risks and change their professions. The requirement to succeed was to provide something of value to others that they would buy from you. Those that provided more value were rewarded more. Sometimes capitalism can create incentives for a zero-sum game, but the vast majority of transactions are win/win with synergistic value creation.

(a) How is it possible to say "if we can even call that a problem" re inequality?

(b) How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism? Where else could it stem from.

I am not advocating the abolition of capitalism, I advocate a mixed economy.

(b) inequality is the natural course of matters, but it's hard to argue that free markets don't even out inequality by allowing people to trade down their comparative advantages for goods that others provide.

There is a disconnect between the colloquial form of capitalism which is conflated with 'free markets' and a generous reading of marx's concept of capitalism: as in "capital -ism", or the idea that accruing capital is a social good in and of itself. Note that capital-ism in the most general sense does include the concept of 'crony capitalism' whereas free-market-ism shuns 'crony capitalism'.

Crony capitalism aside, it is unclear if capitalism necessarily creates (more) inequality, although it does underpin a philosophical motive to drive individuals to extract the most from their competitive advantage, that doesn't mean they will be successful at it.

'Mixed economies', while they sound nice and centrist, I think, tend to be the worst. Ultimately, it creates a vehicle by which political comparative advantage, which is zero-sum, and coercive (if you don't follow the law you can be thrown in jail) to economic advantage, which more easily compounds.

(a) -

Person A is an upper class CEO living in the U.S. in the 1930s. He has a large mansion, a paid cook and other staff which care for the "menial stuff." It's likely his bank account will never drop below seven digits. Martian A is an explorer who travels the universe in the year 2430. When he's hungry he commands his computer to make him some food. Other of his needs are met with similar ease. Is Person A inequal from Martian A? Yes. Is one of their lifestyle's more desirable than the other? Perhaps, that's for the individual to say. Is it a problem? No.

(b) -

>Where else could it stem from

How about the fascist system of government which partners with businesses to provide them special perks? How about the Federal Reserve which creates new money which becomes first available to connected businesses and in turn they benefit the most? How about any number of regulations, including minimum wage which makes it unprofitable to hire low-skilled workers?

>How is it possible to say inequality does not stem from capitalism?

Prove that it does.

I really liked your point B. I think it is very well put and shines light in real problems, instead of just saying "Damn capitalism!".

I didn't liked your point A. Your comparison doesn't make any sense.

I gave an example of two individuals who were unequal--"Person A" and "Martian A". As best as I can tell, there is no problem with there being inequality between these two individuals.

Maybe inequality stems from the fact that people aren't equal in their strengths and weaknesses? If you could construct an ideal merit-based system you'd see quit a bit of inequality.

The problem with inequality in modern western "democracies" is not that people are not equal. The problem is that the inequalities are so stark and wide.

Campaigners against inequality (who are xampaigners for economic and social justice by and large) do not campaign to make every one "equal", but to make the spread smaller and the lives of those with the least less bleak.

I live in New Zealand which is a modern industrialised democracy and is quite wealthy. We have large sections of our population that are malnourished, inadequately housed, poorly educated and cut off from main stream society. The proportion of our population suffering so was much less in the years between the depression and the 1980s, during which a conscious effort was made by the state to maintain a high wage full employment economy.

The policies that worked then will not work now, but what we have is not working and is generating large costs and inefficiencies.

So it is irrelevant that "inequality stems from the fact that people aren't equal in their strengths and weaknesses". The conditions of the weakest and the degree to which the strongest can corral the resources is what counts

W

>The policies that worked then will not work now, but what we have is not working and is generating large costs and inefficiencies.

I see no evidence this is true.

For me economic inequality isn't a problem as long as people are equal under the law.

I certainly sympathize with the meat of your arguments, but I take issue with the use of the word "capitalism". That capitalism is being used at all to describe our current system, is a misnomer.

> That capitalism is being used at all to describe our current system, is a misnomer.

Well then I'm confused, since I was just going by what you seemed to refer to. And I assumed that you were talking about a contemporary (now, + recent history) capitalistic system. What kind of capitalism were you talking about? Something that existed before but doesn't anymore?