• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wealth Inequality

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Isn't utility the only criteria for value in an economic system?
If customers prefer to buy from Amazon than a rival online or offline shop is it not because they deliver better utility to the customer? Even if the increased utility is small, the choice of prefering the one which provides the highest utility seems entirely rational.
Right now customers prefer to buy from Amazon because of their anticompetitive behavior limiting customer choices which, if it were any business in the early industrial 1900's, would have been split up as a monopoly by now.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Conceptializing and developing new ideas or systems is a billion times more valuable than labour. Otherwise an artist painting a masterpiece would have the same worth as a painter creating a copy of that masterpiece.
Art speculation is rife with criminal behavior, with the largest transactions being money laundering or NFT transactions. The largest purchase not even being of an art piece but a functionally worthless link to an art piece. (Seriously, look up the Beeple NFT buy. This was the 'masterpiece.' Chill-For-A-Sec-With-This-Carefree-Baby-Goat.png
and they didn't buy the art, they bought a $69 million dollar link to the art on the block chain. The purchaser doesn't even actually own the art.)

Art speculation is a dumb game where already wealthy people move their money around. Artists as a trade price their art by materials and labor.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Art speculation is rife with criminal behavior, with the largest transactions being money laundering or NFT transactions. The largest purchase not even being of an art piece but a functionally worthless link to an art piece. (Seriously, look up the Beeple NFT buy. This was the 'masterpiece.' View attachment 53022
and they didn't buy the art, they bought a $69 million dollar link to the art on the block chain. The purchaser doesn't even actually own the art.)

Art speculation is a dumb game where already wealthy people move their money around. Artists as a trade price their art by materials and labor.
That does not seem relevant to my point. Do you believe that the original work should not be significantly more valuable than a copy? The point I was making is that originality/creativity/excellence is far more valuable than labour. Do you believe that this should not be the case?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That does not seem relevant to my point. Do you believe that the original work should not be significantly more valuable than a copy? The point I was making is that originality/creativity/excellence is far more valuable than labour. Do you believe that this should not be the case?
NFT art is neither original, creative or excellent. It's usually the poorest quality photo manips and amateur 3d art. It's also not original in the sense that they don't own the original artwork. They just own a marker pointing *to* the artwork. And yet it's the biggest and most high stakes art speculation with the largest purchases.

It's not about creativity/excellence/originality. Its, most charitably, about status. How much making the purchase increases your status. (Again that's if you're not money laundering.)

Which is why the true excellence, original creators, hardly ever see a dime.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
That does not seem relevant to my point. Do you believe that the original work should not be significantly more valuable than a copy? The point I was making is that originality/creativity/excellence is far more valuable than labour. Do you believe that this should not be the case?

Sometimes I wonder what makes 'original' all that valuable to begin with. I feel its sometimes sheer luck...

There are some famous pieces of art I wouldn't allow in my basement for free, let alone paying millions for it. Who decides this stuff?

Who makes one businessperson's creation popular, while another's falls through the cracks? Sometimes its the luck of a good marketer on the right day....
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
NFT art is neither original, creative or excellent. It's usually the poorest quality photo manips and amateur 3d art. It's also not original in the sense that they don't own the original artwork. They just own a marker pointing *to* the artwork. And yet it's the biggest and most high stakes art speculation with the largest purchases.

It's not about creativity/excellence/originality. Its, most charitably, about status. How much making the purchase increases your status. (Again that's if you're not money laundering.)

Which is why the true excellence, original creators, hardly ever see a dime.
Not sure why we are talking about NFT art, whatever that is. I was talking about Picasso or Rodin..and art in a more general sense...like compositions of Mozart etc.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not sure why we are talking about NFT art, whatever that is. I was talking about Picasso or Rodin..and art in a more general sense...like compositions of Mozart etc.
Because NFT art is the biggest sales of art in history, and does not concern itself with originality in the slightest. It is the epitome of why speculation art isn't about quality.

But even if we were to talk about classical art, most of them were not valued during the artist's time. The value appreciated arbitrarily after they died. Again it wasn't about originality or excellence, any more than baseball cards. It was about exclusivity and marks of status.

It was when we got away from classic speculation that art could be removed from the grubby fingers of private owners basements and appreciated publicly, studied for technique, and disseminated to art schools everywhere through, you guessed it, copies. Which ended up making more quality art in the world than private speculation ever did.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In addition to the discussions concerning workers, also consider Bezo's use of our common infrastructure. He has benefitted IMMENSELY from our roadways, our police and fire departments, our education system, our healthcare system (flawed as it is), our utility grid, and on and on.

And our tax system has allowed him to find ways to legally NOT PAY his fair share for the upkeep of all of these common societal assets. This is not sustainable for our society.
Those legal loopholes?

They are not there by mistake.

I'm quite positive it's completely intentional and will remain so indefinitely as long as the wealthy and power imbued remain to keep it there.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Isn't utility the only criteria for value in an economic system?
If customers prefer to buy from Amazon than a rival online or offline shop is it not because they deliver better utility to the customer? Even if the increased utility is small, the choice of prefering the one which provides the highest utility seems entirely rational.
Well it probably is, but unfortunately I think we have lost our way as to the rewards we give to some regarding their value. And for me, I just don't like the power that comes to individuals with such wealth when it needn't be so.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
That's one of the most spectacularly stupid argument there is. Why does Jeff Bezos keeps on working? He still works and he still works a lot, probably significantly more than the average man. All of the great fortune of the world and all of the millionaires of the world work even though they have enough money to retire and live a nice little life (or two or in the case of Bezos about a thousand). He has enough wealth to live about 5 lifetime with all of his needs fulfilled. Hell, I could work less and still be fine yet I don't. Hell I could have made more money working in another field in which I would have performed just as well yet I didn't. People work because they like to work and they like to make more than the bare minimum they like the little extra. Every single studies on UBI have found no sign that UBI result in lower work and lower work productivity, there is even studies that shows the opposite.


I am not talking about Bezos. Why do you think Russia communism failed? Why do you think China communism had to have capitalism? Communism kills productivity. Sure, people survive but there is no real standard of living.

I see lots of job openings around town. Businesses complain they can not find people who are willing to work. Why??

Sure lots of people like to work. On the other hand many do not. A lady at work has a 40 year old son living at home. He has had several jobs, however they do not last because he will not show up. He sits at home watching TV, playing video games and starting to get very fat eating all those groceries.

Will is 90% of it all. Send enough free printed money and you might be surprised how few willing workers you have.

Working people are funny too. I have had several tell me that if taxes get high enough that they too will quit and allow the government to support them.

You are right, working is good for people. I will always be working or doing something. On the other hand, I hear so very many complaining about work. Where is the will??

That's what I see. It's fairly clear!!
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Why do you think Russia communism failed?

Three devastating wars on its territory, three costly invasions and proxy wars, the Cold War, two particularly brutal dictators. Plus, why do you say it failed? The Soviet Union was the second greatest power in the world for about 40 years all of it after being formed around a weak and backwater power that was Tsarist Russia who lost its last war in a devastating manner. The idea that the USSR was a "failure" is a bit reductive. It didn't survive. The regime collapsed, but it accumulated enormous success and the current modern-day Russia owes its strength and power largely to its Soviet heritage. Was the system a failure, yeah it certainly failed on many points, but it certainly succeeded in many others.

Why do you think China communism had to have capitalism?

China isn't a properly capitalist country. It has opened to some capitalist reform, but strongly remains a socialist and authoritarian country where the State controls over the economy is very important. Nor are modern capitalist country operating outside of a mixed system with a lot of socialist element imbedded in it. You are holding on to a dichotomy in world's economy that is no longer pertinent and representative of reality since the late 70's. The socialism of the early post WWII era didn't exist in 80's neither did the capitalism of the 20's in the 60's.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I see lots of job openings around town. Businesses complain they can not find people who are willing to work. Why??
Because the offered pay isn't worth the work. Those businesses should take a lesson in economics. Supply and demand. You don't ***** about the price of potatoes when you are selling fries. You either pay or you close.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Working people are funny too. I have had several tell me that if taxes get high enough that they too will quit and allow the government to support them.

You are right, working is good for people. I will always be working or doing something. On the other hand, I hear so very many complaining about work. Where is the will??
Supply and demand. If my work isn't paid what it's worth, I stop doing it. Except that many don't have that freedom. They are forced to work for a living. UBI would set people really free. They would only have to do the work they really enjoy (or are willing to put up with because it's worth it). Everyone who really likes freedom should be a vehement supporter of UBI.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Three devastating wars on its territory, three costly invasions and proxy wars, the Cold War, two particularly brutal dictators. Plus, why do you say it failed? The Soviet Union was the second greatest power in the world for about 40 years all of it after being formed around a weak and backwater power that was Tsarist Russia who lost its last war in a devastating manner. The idea that the USSR was a "failure" is a bit reductive. It didn't survive. The regime collapsed, but it accumulated enormous success and the current modern-day Russia owes its strength and power largely to its Soviet heritage. Was the system a failure, yeah it certainly failed on many points, but it certainly succeeded in many others.



China isn't a properly capitalist country. It has opened to some capitalist reform, but strongly remains a socialist and authoritarian country where the State controls over the economy is very important. Nor are modern capitalist country operating outside of a mixed system with a lot of socialist element imbedded in it. You are holding on to a dichotomy in world's economy that is no longer pertinent and representative of reality since the late 70's. The socialism of the early post WWII era didn't exist in 80's neither did the capitalism of the 20's in the 60's.


Russia a success?? I thought we were talking about money not conquests. The standard of living in Russia has never been what it was in free countries. How are they doing now?

You are right. China isn't a free country. Their economy is not free. On the other hand, when you establish a stock market, you must allow a certain amount of freedom or that market will not work. If it does not work, they loose that wealth effect economic advantage that makes the economies in the best economies of the world.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person. The economies with the most freedoms will thrive better because more ideas will come out of the freedom. Diversity is a strength.

Is China discovering total control has it's downsides just like Russia. China had times of mass starvation in the total communist state. How are they doing now?

How is North Korea doing compared to South Korea? Which is the better system??

OK. if you got all the money and divided it equally, how long would it take to turn back into what we have today? Take all Mr. Bezos money away and he will just get it back because he knows how to do it.

Ruling and controlling others is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear. Everybody wants to rule the world. If you rule and control, the system is limited to only your ideas. If you allow freedom, you will find an almost infinite number of ideas generated which increases the benefits for all.

Want the controlled system? Move to North Korea. As much as you complain about Capitalism, I think you will complain more in North Korea. Hungry too, I bet.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Because the offered pay isn't worth the work. Those businesses should take a lesson in economics. Supply and demand. You don't ***** about the price of potatoes when you are selling fries. You either pay or you close.

If the pay wasn't worth the work, why were all those jobs filled before the free money was given? With free money, there is no need to work. The pay offered for many of those jobs have gone up in an attempt to actually get someone. Supply and demand is still in play.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Supply and demand. If my work isn't paid what it's worth, I stop doing it. Except that many don't have that freedom. They are forced to work for a living. UBI would set people really free. They would only have to do the work they really enjoy (or are willing to put up with because it's worth it). Everyone who really likes freedom should be a vehement supporter of UBI.


Aren't we all forced to work to make a living?

Patience. When they finally make a robot that can take a person's place. No one will have to work then. On the other hand, we are not there yet.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Aren't we all forced to work to make a living?

Patience. When they finally make a robot that can take a person's place. No one will have to work then. On the other hand, we are not there yet.
Don’t be too sure. (Bot generated reply) :cool:
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Aren't we all forced to work to make a living?
Jeff Bezos doesn't. We had that already.
Patience. When they finally make a robot that can take a person's place. No one will have to work then. On the other hand, we are not there yet.
There are a lot of robots that took persons workplaces. They made those in the 18th century. People found other jobs. But the next generation of robots will be able to take almost any job and then nobody will have any money to buy the things those robots produce.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Russia a success?? I thought we were talking about money not conquests. The standard of living in Russia has never been what it was in free countries. How are they doing now?

Depend of which free country you are talking about. The USSR standards of living were better than those of Mexico during the same era for example. Unless by "free country" you only mean Western European former superpowers, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We can compare oranges to apples all day long. The USSR system certainly worked in many regard and failed in many others. It's greatest failure was its over-centralization and its incredible amount of wasted resources on a completely bloated military instead of civilian product.

Want the controlled system? Move to North Korea. As much as you complain about Capitalism, I think you will complain more in North Korea. Hungry too, I bet.

Yet North Korean are less hungry than Eritreans or Central Africans yet those two country are capitalist countries. It's always a bit funny when someone compares an impoverished country to a wealthy one and thank their current economical system for those results as if the wealthiest and most developed country on Earth today aren't practically the same as those of the late 17th century, well before capitalism as we knew it appeared or socialism got its first attempts. Unfortunately for "Sunday morning" economists and historians, what makes a country prosper and gain in strength is extremely complex and will vary depending on circumstances and sometime to a fair amount of luck.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Depend of which free country you are talking about. The USSR standards of living were better than those of Mexico during the same era for example. Unless by "free country" you only mean Western European former superpowers, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We can compare oranges to apples all day long. The USSR system certainly worked in many regard and failed in many others. It's greatest failure was its over-centralization and its incredible amount of wasted resources on a completely bloated military instead of civilian product.



Yet North Korean are less hungry than Eritreans or Central Africans yet those two country are capitalist countries. It's always a bit funny when someone compares an impoverished country to a wealthy one and thank their current economical system for those results as if the wealthiest and most developed country on Earth today aren't practically the same as those of the late 17th century, well before capitalism as we knew it appeared or socialism got its first attempts. Unfortunately for "Sunday morning" economists and historians, what makes a country prosper and gain in strength is extremely complex and will vary depending on circumstances and sometime to a fair amount of luck.
Why do you think Eritrea is a Capitalist country? According to the CIA it is a command economy controlled by a single Party. Just like in North Korea.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/eritrea/#economy
 
Top