Capitalists, even those speculators that Piketty was talking about, have an intimate relationship with the state--more intimate than most of the population. As Uncle Karl observed many years ago, The state is a committee for organizing the affairs of the bourgeoisie--meaning capitalists.

The state sets up the terms of capitalist operations--registering corporate entities, managing competition, building or facilitating infrastructure (ports, canals, railroads, highways, airports, etc.), protecting the national and international interests, and controlling popular resistance to capitalist exploitation (through brutality or benefit programs).

The military budget was legitimately astronomical during WWII, when the entire economy was oriented toward war production. (Capital did not operate as non-profit patriots, by the way, while making bombs, planes, tanks, and bullets.) It took the US from 1945 to the mid-1960s to pay off the WWII debt. By the late 1950s, it had become apparent that the military and capital, who had enjoyed their wartime romance, planned on a long-term relationship. President (and former Allied Commander) Eisenhower understood this, and in a speech at the end of his presidency, warned the country about the burgeoning "Military-Industrial Complex"

He understood that the Military-Industrial Complex would want to continue the relationship of military buying and corporate production, whether it was needed or not. We have seen 70 years of post-WWII military spending that was largely useless. Take nuclear/thermonuclear bomb production: Over the course of its operation, the nuclear contractors received orders for, and built, something like 18,000 nuclear/thermonuclear bombs. This was a huge operation, of course, very profitable. But to what end? 18,000 nuclear bombs grossly exceeds any reasonable estimation of how many bombs it would take to wreck the Soviet Union and China both.

How many billions of dollars went into the research and development of advanced fighters that turned out to not work very well (too complicated, too unwieldy, big but not robust, etc.) How many billions were spent on the aborted Star Wars Initiative which was supposed to produce death rays, laser substitutes for missile interceptors, and satellite killers? (Estimated to be about a trillion dollars). How many billions were spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? Roughly a trillion dollars each?

You no doubt heard about military orders for ordinary items (toilet seats, screw drivers, etc.) where the unit cost was priced, like, $700? Were the military procurement officers stupid? Were the supply-side corporations hoodwinking the buyers? No. It was just a cozy relationship where grossly maximized profits at government expense was de rigueur.

By comparison, social security is an extremely efficient operation, with a very low overhead. (By the way, Social Security wouldn't be in financial difficulties if earlier administrations had not raided the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the Federal Budget.) Medicare and Medicaid of course interact with the medical industry, but both have well established price ceilings. Medicare has had fixed rates of reimbursement since the late 1970s (not the same rates, of course, but fixed, none the less). Practitioners who can afford it don't take Medicare or Medicaid patients, because of those fixed rates.

All government expenditures, whether for hydrogen bomb parts or for school buildings, end up back in the economy somewhere, but much of it ends up in the top 5% owing to their ownership and profit taking in government contracts. Social Security and welfare programs, by contrast, plow funds into the rank and file which purchase food, clothing and shelter -- benefitting far more individuals (and small businesses) than military-oriented plants do.

To be more clear, I am not pro rich as a social class, if you thought that, then that would be wrong. I am pro the possibility of getting rich. I think people who do outstanding work that impacts a lot of other people positively should get rich. — Agustino

Of course you are pro-rich. It would be absurd for you to want to become rich if you were not pro-rich.

Tell us, what is the outstanding work you do that benefits a lot of other people so positively that you should be entitled to riches? >:)

Good. We'll send you an invitation to their hanging. Should be quite a gala affair.

rump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. — Baden

You were being polite. More like down our throats.

Of course you are pro-rich. It would be absurd for you to want to become rich if you were not pro-rich. — Bitter Crank

I do want to be rich, I think I'd be a good administrator of the money to tell you the truth. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-rich as a social class. I'm pro-rich in the sense that people should have the opportunity to be rich and be economically powerful if they earn it fairly.

Tell us, what is the outstanding work you do that benefits a lot of other people so positively that you should be entitled to riches? — Bitter Crank

Well, currently my work is in web development / marketing services (for the web). I'm not a rich guy. I don't have the scale necessary to impact a lot of people positively, and it's quite competitive. I will probably switch to something different over time, that can hopefully scale up faster and reach more people. Probably still something online, but I wouldn't exclude going back to something civil engineery :P

As Uncle Karl observed many years ago, The state is a committee for organizing the affairs of the bourgeoisie--meaning capitalists. — Bitter Crank

It depends what you mean by capitalist. Does someone like me count as a capitalist? I think entrepreneurship is vital for the economy, perhaps the most important factor. I don't think you can have a healthy economy without entrepreneurs and inventors. I don't think these people are the bourgeoisie. Nor are they the proletariat for that matter. They're a different class altogether. The bourgeoisie is the middle-upper class - those who enjoy high social status. There's a lot of them. The proletariat are common working people - typically don't enjoy high social status. Entrepreneurs are typically inventors and people who want to do something and build something. They also generally have low social status, at least until they're successful, if they are.

The state is definitely not a committe for organizing MY affairs. Quite the contrary, the state is a great problem, I'm very little helped by it.

I agree with the rest of your post by and large. But the problem there isn't the military industrial complex - it's the state - without the state, there would be no military industrial complex and no corruption in the first place. You yourself recognize the extreme level of corruption of the state. Such as accepting $700 toilets. And so on so forth. The state is the problem BC, not the solution.

I look at Tolkien's Shire admiringly.

To me, it seems that you're the person who wants to destroy Sauron using the One Ring. You'll become just as bad as he was. I'd rather destroy centralised power itself. There's no need for a state. A big state is a problem.

But that's very impractical. So we should settle for Constitutional Monarchy. The monarch has no interest to affiliate himself with the military industrial complex. He doesn't need money, he already has and is guaranteed to have all the money in the world. His whole concern is to take care of his great wealth, which is the whole country. When you own the asset you don't just exploit it for the short term. Whereas if the asset is only temporarily given to you, you'll do everything to exploit it as much as possible so you would have maximised your gain by the time you have to give it back.

So, Trump casinos, pro or con? — praxis

Personally? Probably against, because I don't think gambling is a good thing. But we shouldn't legislate morality.

we shouldn't legislate morality. — Agustino

Curious, could you elaborate what you mean by that?

Curious, could you elaborate what you mean by that? — praxis

Meaning that just because an activity is immoral is not a sufficient condition to have a law against it. Other conditions need to be met as well.

And these other conditions are unrelated to morality?

And these other conditions are unrelated to morality? — praxis

Not totally unrelated to morality. But for example, gluttony is a vice/sin, and yet we don't outlaw gluttony. So the fact it is a vice/sin isn't sufficient to make something worthy of being outlawed. Why not? Because without freedom, there cannot be any virtue in the first place.

Vice/sin is by definition immoral. — praxis

Sure. So the fact it is a vice/sin (immoral) isn't a sufficient ground for us to outlaw it. So how do we choose what we outlaw and what we don't? We'll clearly outlaw some immoral stuff, but not all. What makes the difference?

The state is the problem BC, not the solution. — Agustino

Go Reds - Smash State.

Go Reds - Smash State. — Bitter Crank

LOL - I was being quite serious. You yourself mentioned how corrupt the state is - and that a lot of money is made in making business with the state.

Who said this?

When the French peasant paints the devil, he paints him in the guise of a tax collector

It's severity or social impact, I imagine. If gambling, for example, proved to be detrimental enough to society I'm sure there would be a push to increase regulation or ban it entirely.

It's severity or social impact, I imagine. If gambling, for example, proved to be detrimental enough to society I'm sure there would be a push to increase regulation or ban it entirely. — praxis

Good! Most excellent!

I don't think we're elucidating your comment that we shouldn't legislate morality.

Trying a different angle, how would one legislate morality?

Trying a different angle, how would one legislate morality? — praxis

By making every immoral act illegal.

The state is the problem BC, not the solution. — Agustino

The variety of socialism that I follow holds that the state is, indeed, a problem, along with the bourgeoisie (which for Marx meant large capitalists). Most entrepreneurs are "petite bourgeoisie" -- small fry in the business world -- making a try for their "original accumulation". Shop keepers, web developers, etc.

The revolution consists of liquidating the wealth of the bourgeoisie (not the persons who are bourgeoisie) and dismantling the state. In it's place? A decentralized system of coordinated production and distribution under the management of workers managing their production facility. Citizens, in their roles of consumers and producers would, together, establish markets.

This revolution would be preceded by a probably lengthy period of social and intellectual change among the 90% of the population which has no share in the wealth of the 10%. When the organization of the working class reaches a sufficient level, and they have gained sufficient leverage, then the plug can be pulled on the current system.

No one has worked out the details of how this would come about. It is neither feasible nor proper to prescribe the steps. (This American version of Marxism was developed in the late 19th, early 20th century by groups like the IWW, Socialist Labor Party, New Union Movement, et al.) Workers have to organize themselves and establish themselves how to conduct the transition.

I was being quite serious. — Agustino

So am I. Point is, Go Reds, Smash State, Crush the Bourgeois Class!

Who said this? When the French peasant paints the devil, he paints him in the guise of a tax collector

My guess is that you know this already, but it is Uncle Karl.

Who said they looked forward to the last monarch being strangled with the intestines of the last priest?

A decentralized system of coordinated production and distribution under the management of workers managing their production facility. Citizens, in their roles of consumers and producers would, together, establish markets. — Bitter Crank

Does this decentralized system involve any bureaucratic state apparatus which would dictate who produces what and in what quantities? I think that would be a big problem actually, not ideal. My economics is more distributist. Private property is extremely important, and not only it shouldn't be abolished, but the aim of our economy should make private property more accessible to everyone, and prevent the "state" or other entites from blocking people from having access to economic liberty - which is private property.

Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer,[37] etc. The "cooperative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.

Most entrepreneurs are "petite bourgeoisie" -- small fry in the business world -- making a try for their "original accumulation". Shop keepers, web developers, etc. — Bitter Crank

What makes you call most entrepreneurs "petite boureoisie"? And why do you identify the bourgeoisie with the super rich? I think middle-upper class lawyers for example are more bourgeois than Steve Jobs was for example.

Who said they looked forward to the last monarch being strangled with the intestines of the last priest? — Bitter Crank

Diderot!

Problem being, as you know, that people don't all agree on what's moral and immoral.

So your statement makes more sense to me with a slight revision...

Probably against [Trump casinos], because I don't think gambling is a good thing. But we shouldn't legislate my morality. — Agustino

Problem being, as you know, that people don't all agree on what's moral and immoral.

So your statement makes sense to me with a slight revision... — praxis

No, morality is objective.

I've gone far enough down the rabbit hole.

Does this decentralized system involve any bureaucratic state apparatus — Agustino

No. However, 'no state' presents a problem if a need for external defense or recovery from a cataclysmic event was necessary. Some kind of responsive structure would be needed for such purposes.

Private property is extremely important — Agustino

If you are defining "private property" as clothing, a dog, a house... that's called personal property. For most people, personal property is, indeed, important because it has to do directly with their existence. "Private property" meaning railroads, factories, warehouses, stores, etc. is anathema in a socialist economy because that kind of private property is the substance of the exploitative system of capitalism.

What makes you call most entrepreneurs "petite boureoisie"? And why do you identify the bourgeoisie with the super rich? I think middle-upper class lawyers for example are more bourgeois than Steve Jobs was for example. — Agustino

Because that is the way Marx referenced the class of people who are capitalists. Most people do not have a clue about how to use "class" properly.

Working class means "people who are dependent on a wage or a salary for their sustenance. Most people in any economy are "workers" -- wage earners.

Middle class properly refers to the "Petite bourgeoisie" - owners of a small factory, a store, land-owning operator farmers, professionals with private practices (lawyers, doctors, architects -- IF they are in fact private practices). Lawyers who work for Thompson Reuters Legal Reference Systems are just highly educated workers. College professors, tenured or not, are employees of universities and are not middle class.

"Bourgeoisie" refers to the wealthiest class. The bourgeoisie own large businesses (thousands of employees, millions of dollars in profit--not just revenue) or large shares in very large businesses like DuPont, Bayer, Hilton Hotels, Target, Walmart, 3M, Apple, Maersk, Exxon, etc. The Bourgeoisie are sometimes very large landowners, or in urban settings, rentiers (apartment buildings, office buildings). Bourgeoisie also hold large amounts of securities, cash, person property, etc.

In Marx's time there was still a significant class of royalty (emperors, kings, czars, princes, etc.) who were sometimes economically significant. Like the Hapsburgs or Romanovs. Except maybe for the Windsors, (QEII and some of her disreputable off spring), most of this class has been extinguished.

If you feel shabby because you fall into the class of either worker or petite bourgeoisie, please remember it's not personal. Marx wasn't thinking of you at the time.

What about "the middle class" that everybody wants to be part of? It's a highly nebulous term. It may mean that someone lives in a nice apartment, earns a good wage, has a bachelors degree, has a large TV, a good sound system, an up-market car. It may be someone who owns their own business, has 75 employees, and is retiring early. It may be someone who lives in a shabby room, reads a lot of literary books, aspires to high culture, but is basically a welfare dependent. Donald Trump could claim to be "middle class". Bill Gates could call himself middle class. It's a meaningless term. For the most part, "middle class" is a term of positive self appraisal, and doesn't have anything to do with class structure.

Just remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head.