https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-chart-shows-us...
Much of Western Europe has similar GDP per-capita and much less inequality.
Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.
Sounds wonderful if you like communism.
To me, as someone who doesn’t, that sounds bad.
Therefore we should be trying to end the trade deficit ASAP.
Unlike almost all other countries in the world, where they have to work hard with their hands and brains to get something. USA printed more trillions only in the last year, that China - country that provides all the world, including US, with clothes, electronics and just about everything else - managed to save in the last 20 years.
This position is incredibly profitable for the USA, but it needs the largest military power to maintain status quo, because all the other countries understand they're being ripped off. And this military power immediately kills anyone who renounce use of dollar for trade (see Iraq, Libya).
If USA will end trade deficit somehow, it would mean that it would be on par with other countries, and population of USA would have to reduce its consumption of goods and resources by 15-20x. It will be the end of USA, most probably civil war and collapse.
And also no SpaceX.
EDIT: We used to make the computer in your pocket, but now that too is in the US and China.
IMO on the whole they're also not a great example of sustainable progress. (Unless I'm overestimating their carbon footprint.)
And were awarded public contracts early on:
Neither was the government space program.
Besides, NASA has consistently been completely unable at making launches cost-effective. NASA failed at making reusable rockets. NASA simply retreated.
Compare the arcs of NASA's space shuttle with what SpaceX is accomplishing.
The space shuttle was unsustainable, too. Partly because the winged craft design was the result of politics rather than economic sense.
SpaceX, however, looks to be very much sustainable, and profitable. SpaceX has rebooted the entire space industry in the US.
They were sustainable in the sense that they kickstarted something the private market wasn't interested in doing at the time, and then made that knowledge available in a way that the private market could leverage and commercialize.
Same as the Internet. Companies didn't build the Internet, it got kickstarted outside of the market by the government and by researchers/universities, and then it was (partially) handed over to the market so it could be optimized.
In general, we don't try to get the government to be hyper-efficient. We try to get the government to fill in gaps that the market is unwilling to address, and to occasionally step in and regulate/subsidize the market when it goes off the rails. One of the biggest purposes of Capitalism is to use the market as an optimizer when possible.
But you're kind of jumping all over the place in these threads. I don't understand what this current debate you're having over government efficiency has to do with either inequality or Adam Smith. The original article's argument was that Capitalism does not require maximizing inequality, and that seeking to minimize inequality is not fundamentally incompatible with a Capitalist system. The debate over Socialism vs Capitalism has very little to do with that argument, the article doesn't even mention Socialism.
Companies built numerous networks, like Bix, Compuserve, Timenet, MCIMail, Prodigy, the RBBS system, etc.
The early internet also ran over the existing phone lines. Dedicated lines came later. That's why we used modems and dialup.
Highly regulated phone lines, and a market that exploded in innovation when the government stepped in and forced Bell Systems to allow 3rd-party devices and license their patents royalty-free. And the fact that other networks existed doesn't change anything about the fact that the modern Internet we have was largely built by researchers and government projects.
But you're still missing the point.
Who CARES who built the Internet? What does that have to do with whether or not Capitalism requires extreme levels of wealth inequality to function well? You keep on arguing about government vs companies, and that has nothing to do with the original article. You're still debating about Socialism on an article about Capitalism.
You can't have capitalism without wealth inequality. Larger levels of such inequality allows larger endeavors to be undertaken. Everybody equal under socialism doesn't produce much of any wealth.
First, nobody is talking about getting rid of all wealth inequality, but Adam Smith is questioning whether extreme wealth inequality benefits innovation and indicates a healthy economy. He makes a number of points about inequality, one of them being that the more efficient a market gets, the less profit margin individual products should generate (since they'll be priced efficiently at or near cost), and the harder it will be in an efficient market for any Capital owner to generate profits on what they build.
In general, whether extreme consolidation increases or decreases startup potential is not an absurd question to ask. I understand you have a particular philosophy about Capitalism that states that extreme wealth concentration is enabling opportunities, but that philosophy is not universally shared by every Capitalist, and you don't get to just say that's how it works just because.
Obviously Capitalism requires some inequality, and obviously Capitalism requires some equality and social mobility. You see this mirrored in the market itself; it's good for some companies to be more successful than others (that's how we know that the market is working) but almost all Capitalists outside of very narrow anachro-Capitalist sects also believe that monopolies (even natural monopolies) are bad for the market.
Second, just saying "you can't have Capitalism without wealth inequality" doesn't add anything to the conversation. It's the equivalent of just commenting under an article, "No, you're wrong."
The article argues that Adam Smith advocated against extreme wealth consolidation, it's describing his economic theories. Do you think the article is mischaracterizing Adam Smith? Do you want to point to any of Adam Smith's quotes in Wealth of Nations and explain why they're flawed? Do you want to explain what Adam Smith didn't realize about Capitalism? Or do you just want to keep repeating that he's wrong?
> Everybody equal under socialism
Again, this is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about, and I do not care about Socialism.
The private sector also comes in flavors like ULA, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing. Given that NASA was prevented from continuing their successful approach in favor of building what Congress wanted to steer money to major private companies, any explanation which focuses on the sector alone is guaranteed to be wrong. What matters is how the incentives are structured: giving money to a contractor to keep people employed in certain areas won’t yield successful launch systems the way paying for successful launches will.
(And, no, it’s not as simple as saying the root cause is government: those companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to influence the government so the relationship again is not that simple.)
> their successful approach
NASA successfully landed on the moon, which was a great accomplishment. What they did not do successfully was do it in a sustainable, cost-effective manner. Which is why NASA's budget was cut. An economy simply cannot consist of operations that are all losing money.
Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom.
Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.
Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely.
> Haiti wasn't a tyranny
Owning other people is tyrannical.
Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.
How is that a relevant point at all to what the parent said?
The US produced it. The US produced NASA. Why shouldn't SpaceX benefit from NASA and vice versa.
SpaceX is doing taxpayers a tremendous service by having replaced the disaster that was the Space Shuttle and its $500m launch costs. To say nothing of SpaceX hopefully getting us back to the moon and then on to Mars. Left to NASA (and or the prior launch monopoly), how long would that have taken and how much would it have cost? See: SLS. They're better off working together, contributing what they're good at, resulting in a better overall outcome.
Western Europe's economic dynamism is overall shockingly bad. And their stagnation in terms of innovation and new wealth creation is similarly bad. In terms of old wealth vs new wealth it's the worst among major economic regions - they're still turning over the same old family fortunes decade after decade. The old dynastic wealth is strangling Western Europe.
There is a price to be paid for the approach that Western Europe follows. Across the long-term they're falling further and further behind the US and China in strength, both economic and military. Europe risks becoming a colony split between two superpowers. Both Merkel and Macron are fully aware of that, they see the power gulf. If the US were politically wise, it'd be subtle with how it handles Europe, keep them asleep at the wheel (Trump's belligerence nearly spooked them into action by reminding them of their weak positioning).
Here are the economic engines - the economic might - of Europe:
Germany GDP: 2021 $4.3t (2021 IMF estimates) | 2008 $3.7t ($4.8t inflation adjusted)
UK GDP: 2021 $3.1t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted)
France GDP: 2021 $2.9t | 2008 $2.9t ($3.7t adjusted)
Italy GDP: 2021 $2.1t | 2008 $2.4t ($3.1t adjusted)
Russia GDP: 2021 $1.7t | 2008 $1.7t ($2.2t adjusted)
Spain GDP: 2021 $1.4t | 2008 $1.6t ($2.1t adjusted)
Netherlands GDP: 2021 $1t | 2008 $950b ($1.2t adjusted)
Poland GDP: 2021 $650b | 2008 $533b ($689b adjusted)
Sweden GDP: 2021 $622b | 2008 $517b ($669b adjusted)
Belgium GDP: 2021 $580b | $515b ($666b adjusted)
US GDP: 2021 $22.6t | 2008 $14.7t ($19t adjusted)
China GDP: 2021 $16.6t | 2008 $4.6t ($5.9t adjusted)
Notice anything interesting?
Greece and Italy have seen zero net economic growth in roughly 30 years. Germany and France have seen zero net economic growth in 26 years.
Wait a minute, that is surely impossible? Germany is an economic juggernaut, everyone says so. Germany GDP 1995: $2.6t. That's $4.5t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $4.3t. France's GDP was $1.6t in 1995, which is $2.9t in today's dollar, their GDP estimate for 2021 is $2.9t.
For Germany, their economy has net contracted over 26 years. Germany and France are already so far deep into their economic malaise they've nearly lost a full generation to it.
The UK was at $3.1t in 2007. That's $4.1t in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $3.1t. They're down a trillion dollars. They've added nearly 10% to their population in that time. That's a lot less economy per person. What does that process do to social costs and services over time, as well as the burden per capita?
Spain's economy is 7% larger than it was in 1990, while their population has expanded by 20% in that time.
Sweden's GDP in 1990: $261b; $560b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $625b. That's three decades to grow 12% (their population increased by ~20% in that time). Finland was $141b in 1990; $302b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $300b, so zero economic growth in a generation.
Austria's GDP in 1995: $241b; $437b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $481b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population expanded by 10-11% in that time.
Belgium's GDP in 1995: $288b; $523b in today's dollar. Their 2021 estimate is $578b. Roughly 10% growth over 26 years. Their population has expanded by 14% in that time.
Since 2008 the US has added economy equal to: Germany + France + Netherlands. China's outcome speaks for itself. Europe is at risk of losing an entire generation to zero or negative economic growth, while social costs keep increasing. That's obviously an unsustainable, looming disaster. It's tilting Europe into a position of subservience (and that includes Russia in regards to China).
But growth isn't everything? Sure, if the cost of living stays comparable and social costs don't climb, which hasn't been the case over the last three decades as populations have continued to age in affluent nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
Norway does a bit better, but 20% of Norway's GDP is pumped out of the ground.
It's easy for a rich country to abandon the policies that made it rich, by adopting social democracy, and subsequently see stagnation in their per capita growth rate and a reduction in their GINI, while still remaining among the wealthiest countries in the world for a few decades before they are inevitably leapfrogged.