I thought it was you that was intent upon setting the terms of the discussion.

I thought it was you that was intent upon setting the terms of the discussion. — Valentinus

My sarcasm was about the fact that he used the argument of authority to repudiate my evidence that his arguments were invalid.

Read the previous discussion, if you want to give some opinion.

I read the discussion closely. My opinion is based upon a considered response to the views offered. I included a post that explained my point of view. Argue against that, if it is of interest to you.
Or not. Whatever.

Could you just explain what exactly you mean when you say "When the means of exchange in a system are vastly different from each other, it involves using the inequality as a fulcrum of wealth."

Sure enough.
Profits are the result of getting more income than what is paid out. So if one can keep the cost very low, the profit increases very much.
On the other hand, the approach increases poverty to the extent it becomes a "social" issue. Entire systems of exchange will fail if some level of poverty is not supported to some degree.
The different ends of the spectrum are connected by means of who is employed or not.
Therefore, who can work or not in any system becomes the smallest explicable value.

Ok so you're saying something like "When there are wealth disparities, that must involve exploiting that wealth difference as a means of accruing wealth."

I don't really agree with that. I don't think the wealthy preying on the poor is an inevitability. I certainly don't see exploitation of the poor as an inherent part of wealth.

EDIT: Bad timing. This was my response to your previous post, not the one above.

The idea of exploitation presumes a theft has occurred. I am not interested in that argument.
What I am saying is that the inequality is necessary for certain business models to work.
And that is what many proponents for inequality are actually arguing for in their communities.
That is where the rubber meets the road. What is the ratio of return for all of the people involved in an enterprise?

What I am saying is that the inequality is necessary for certain business models to work. — Valentinus

Which ones?

That is a fair question and I will try to come up with a cogent response.

But what about you? Don't you live somewhere where the conditions I refer to apply? Are you one of those Libertarians that have no idea about where they are and why they receive whatever the universe offers to them?

But what about you? Don't you live somewhere where the conditions I refer to apply? Are you one of those Libertarians that have no idea about where they are and why they receive whatever the universe offers to them? — Valentinus

No I believe there is plenty of unfairness surrounding wealth inequality, but that the fault lies elsewhere. There are absolutely rules in the system that favor the rich and penalize the poor, but the fault doesn't lie with capitalism inherently.

the key here is being more clever in the use of taxes. — javi2541997

What taxes are spent on is important. Sure. The issue is that there are many many things that need to be done and there is not enough money to do it all.

Here's the pattern of the last four decades...

Give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest, most financially privileged citizens. Claim there's not enough money to continue with everything as it is. Cut social services. Cut public education. Begin the public narrative of running the government like a business. Pronounce how much more it costs for a government to provide services that private industry would cost. Get people believing that it's a good idea to have a small government. Make "big government" a derogatory slur and/or slight to attack another politician with. Begin attempts to privatize everything. Give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest and most privileged. Cut public education even more. Cur social services even more.

Rinse and repeat until there is no longer anything that can be called "commons"; no publicly owned anything, no public parks, no public education, etc.

Shit, to be frank... we - in the States, that is - have the very best government and justice system that private money can buy. It's called lobbying nowadays though, not bribery or corruption. Hell, sometimes legislation is passed that is not even written by an elected official.

I have gone to some effort to not make it a problem of capitalism as such. I am getting the impression that you wish I was somebody else.

I suspect that if I mention something, like fly fishing, you’ll go and talk about laws against over-fishing, nets, licensing and whatnot. No, I get it: government is everywhere. It is virtually inescapable.

Statists like to mention roads but never war, famine, slavery, censorship, gulags, genocide. You will pass off the softest of despotism as necessary (because without them we wouldn’t have roads), while the hard ones needn’t be mentioned at all.

You're right. Government be gone! Then we will all be on "those broad, happy uplands where everything is settled for the greatest good of the greatest number by the common sense of most after the consultation of all." if only you had told us earlier, so much better the world would have been!
\

Shit, to be frank... we - in the States, that is - have the very best government and justice system that private money can buy. — creativesoul

This happens in Europe too... The richest always win. I guess it is a principle inside the occidental world. Nevertheless, I think the US system does work you literally have the best universities of the world that provides a lot of well paid workers in the future.
Check out this sad fact: unemployment rate of young Spanish people is 44 % (oh God it is a lot) while we still paying taxes to maintain the public services. Which the unemployment rate in the US? I guess so low because you are the strongest capitalist economy in the world.
Then, I guess as you said, it is all about how cleverly the government uses the revenue to invest in people (university, education system, well paid work in public administration, etc...) rather than just make debts and asking for loans.

It is legal robbery, plain and simple. — NOS4A2

What a stupid thing to say. If it's legal, it's not robbery is it? That's the point. Robbery is taking something you don't legally have a right to take.

Proponents of slavery argued the economy would collapse with abolition. Slavery worked, sure, but it was evil. My point is, the idea that taxation works is not much of an argument when it is premised on the denial of someone’s liberty and the appropriation of the fruits of his labor. — NOS4A2

Well, you can vote for political parties that propose less common goods and less taxes to finance them but I guess you see democracy as a threat to your liberty too. I wonder what alternative would work for you.

Probably the deflation in January 1, 1900 occurred because civil war in the United United in the last years of XIXth century. (It is just my guess I am not a specialist in Economics). — javi2541997

Deflation is the natural order of things. Inflation is the anomaly. Here's why...

If the amount of money being created in the system, Y, is equal to the amount of goods and services produced , X, by the economy (X=Y), then (in theory) you have zero inflation. If the productivity of the society increases (that is, you are producing more value per hour worked because of increases say in technology, then you might have 2X) then you have created a situation where your money becomes more valuable as Y now equals 2X.

This is exactly what happened during the 19th century in the U.S. and why so many people from Europe wanted to emigrate. When you have this situation, the ENTIRE society receives the benefits of the increase in productivity simply through using money.

Inflation is the opposite case whereas there is more money created than good and services, so the value of your money decreases. The type of inflation you have depends on where the excess money is applied, e.g., now in the housing market, the stock market, Bitcoin, and other commodities.

The banking system desires inflation for several reasons. First, they can inflate away debt which is critical in times such as we are living in now. The second is that they get to use the new money introduced into the system before prices are inflated by that money so they buy low and just watch their investments grow "naturally."

The other reason is the most pernicious. Since money is debt in this system, the amount of interest that must be paid to keep the system going necessitates that more and more money be created simply to make this payment.

THIS is the primary reason for the trillions in stimulus. It has little to do with people and everything to do with keeping this Ponzi scheme going. Like Henry Ford said in 1932, "If the American people tonight learned how the banking system in their county worked, there would be revolution by morning," or something fairly close to that.

What a stupid thing to say. If it's legal, it's not robbery is it? That's the point. Robbery is taking something you don't legally have a right to take.

Robbery is taking someone’s property by force or by threat of force. You can employ whatever euphemism you choose, but your objection is silly.

Well, you can vote for political parties that propose less common goods and less taxes to finance them but I guess you see democracy as a threat to your liberty too. I wonder what alternative would work for you.

Why would I see democracy as a threat to liberty? I wager you just threw that in there without thinking about it much.

Why would I see democracy as a threat to liberty? — NOS4A2

Because that's how we vote on stuff like taxes, but you see taxation as a denial of your liberty.

Because that's how we vote on stuff like taxes, but you see taxation as a denial of your liberty.

Not even a strand of chewing gum exists between the premise and the conclusion.

So what's your alternative? Your vote overriding those who want taxes? Voluntary payment for goods that are given for free? Anything else is denial of your liberty?

Given for free? When it comes to government, no goods and services are free. I would settle for piecemeal reforms that trend in the direction of liberty. I think a voluntary system where you pay only for the services you need would suffice.

Given for free? When it comes to government, no goods and services are free. I would settle for piecemeal reforms that trend in the direction of liberty. I think a voluntary system where you pay only for the services you needs would suffice. — NOS4A2

The problem with common/public goods and services like street lights, police or army is that anyone can freely benefit from them. It is practically impossible to exclude anyone from their use. That's why they are paid for with taxes. You can't buy them voluntarily like you would buy a car.

Deflation is the natural order of things. Inflation is the anomaly. Here's why... — synthesis

Thanks for your explanation. Very appreciated. It cleared my mind.

Since money is debt in this system, the amount of interest that must be paid to keep the system going necessitates that more and more money be created simply to make this payment. — synthesis

Yes! But this point is the most interesting at all. I understand how you have explained how money/value works in economics. Also the fact what happens with debts and payment and also the how works the bank system.
But... Why some currency are better than others? I mean, if you start creating a lot of American dollar it is worthy because is a powerful currency. But this does not happen with pesos or rupiah.
So I guess it also depends, as you said, in the value of that country? (income, GDP, goods, profit, revenues, etc...)

The problem with common/public goods and services like street lights, police or army is that anyone can freely benefit from them. It is practically impossible to exclude anyone from their use. That's why they are paid for with taxes. You can't buy them voluntarily like you would buy a car.

That is a problem, and because it is immoral to plunder another’s money against his will, it needs fixing in my opinion.

That is a problem, and because it is immoral to plunder another’s money against his will, it needs fixing in my opinion. — NOS4A2

So far no one has found a better fix than taxes. And it's not completely against your will because taxation is influenced by your voting in elections. You may not like the result but that's what happens when your life is intertwined with the lives of others.

But... Why some currency are better than others? I mean, if you start creating a lot of American dollar it is worthy because is a powerful currency. But this does not happen with pesos or rupiah.
So I guess it also depends, as you said, in the value of that country? (income, GDP, goods, profit, revenues, etc...) — javi2541997

You should read up on how the international monetary system works. It is fascinating and absolutely essential to understand what's going on at the moment. Two places to check out are the American Monetary Institute and the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). The BIS is the central bank to central bank and they are quite candid at times vis a vis the pathetic state of the global economy.

Let me tell you a couple of things that might peak your interest. As I am sure you are aware, the American dollar (USD) is the global reserve currency. With that designation, those who create the USD (particularly the USG) can essentially print money at will (until they can't), and we are getting closer and closer to that time.

When WWII was over, the survivors got together and created a new monetary system (Brenton Woods Agreement). It made the USD the reserve currency which meant several things. Primarily, all other currencies would be valued against the USD as they were towards gold previously. That system worked fairly well until 1964 when US coinage was counterfeited with copper filling, and then the big move was going off the gold standard altogether in 1973. What is happening today is a direct result of that decision and something that many in the US (including me) have been screaming about ever since.

Going to a FIAT system of currency (no longer backed by anything other than the good faith of the USG) allowed the FED and the government to essentially destroy the country (exchange equity for debt on an international scale). The biggest effect was in the balance of payments with international trade whereas before 1973 countries had to balance their trade with other countries with gold bullion, now they could make payments in USD. Imagine that!

This allowed the US to export its manufacturing base to China and pay the trade balance in phony (printed) US dollars. It screwed over tens of millions of Americans whereas the wealthy got super rich.

What will probably turn out to be an even bigger problem is the inflation situation although people have been predicting a hyper-inflationary episode for decades now. I was always on the deflationary side of that argument and there are still tremendous deflationary forces at work, two being an incredible excess of labor globally, the other technological advancement in industry.

Chew on that for a while...