Is Laissez Faire Capitalism the new Feudalism??

[Scrapheap]

^^^ Shut the fuck up Binty!

The grown ups are talking.

[Blasted]

This is so wonderfully clever that I simply must repost it again 

well I think... 

[Peter]

Well, what do you think??

I'll have to get back to you later on this one. Trying to think of the parallels between a mode of economic functioning (laissez-faire capitalism) and a social system of governance (feudalism) is doing my head in.

Both systems are characterised by an unequal distribution of power and by rent-seeking behaviour. 

In feudalism, an unequal distribution of power is created and maintained through a rigid social hierarchy and laws which deny certain groups the right to leave a Lord's estate, own land, dwell in a town etc.  Rent-seeking in feudalism is literally the extraction of rent and taxes from people in lower levels of the social hierarchy.  The king taxes the nobles, the nobles tax the lesser aristocracy and so on, until it reaches those members of society who lack a legal entitlement to tax others, and who must satisfy their tax burden (or rent/tithe) by producing wealth (by shovelling shit, inventing a better mousetrap, providing services etc).

In laissez-faire capitalism, an unequal distribution of power occurs due to the tendency for wealthy individuals to become wealthier as a product of their wealth, and the equivalence of wealth and power under such a system.  Rent-seeking takes the form of interest paid on loans, rent paid on dwellings etc, which transfers wealth from the poor to the wealthy.  A metastable point exists where people with more than a certain amount of wealth will become exponentially wealthier in the absence of other factors and people with less than that amount will become exponentially poorer, with the rate of movement in either direction increasing with distance from the metastable point.  This point is occupied by a middle class; individuals with an intermediate amount of wealth who neither collect significant rent from less wealthy individuals or pay significant rent to more wealthy individuals (rent here meaning literal rent and also interest on loans, returns on investments etc).

Limits to the polarisation of wealth in both systems exist; one such limit is imposed by the subsistence level, which is the minimum level of resources required by individuals in order to remain economically productive, and below which they become less productive, negatively productive and eventually die, causing the overall economy to shrink.  Another limiting factor is people's tolerance for wealth disparities, which will result in social unrest, a decline in economic productivity and violence when exceeded.

[Scrapheap]

Both systems are characterised by an unequal distribution of power and by rent-seeking behaviour. 

In feudalism, an unequal distribution of power is created and maintained through a rigid social hierarchy and laws which deny certain groups the right to leave a Lord's estate, own land, dwell in a town etc.  Rent-seeking in feudalism is literally the extraction of rent and taxes from people in lower levels of the social hierarchy.  The king taxes the nobles, the nobles tax the lesser aristocracy and so on, until it reaches those members of society who lack a legal entitlement to tax others, and who must satisfy their tax burden (or rent/tithe) by producing wealth (by shovelling shit, inventing a better mousetrap, providing services etc).

In laissez-faire capitalism, an unequal distribution of power occurs due to the tendency for wealthy individuals to become wealthier as a product of their wealth, and the equivalence of wealth and power under such a system.  Rent-seeking takes the form of interest paid on loans, rent paid on dwellings etc, which transfers wealth from the poor to the wealthy.  A metastable point exists where people with more than a certain amount of wealth will become exponentially wealthier in the absence of other factors and people with less than that amount will become exponentially poorer, with the rate of movement in either direction increasing with distance from the metastable point.  This point is occupied by a middle class; individuals with an intermediate amount of wealth who neither collect significant rent from less wealthy individuals or pay significant rent to more wealthy individuals (rent here meaning literal rent and also interest on loans, returns on investments etc).

Limits to the polarisation of wealth in both systems exist; one such limit is imposed by the subsistence level, which is the minimum level of resources required by individuals in order to remain economically productive, and below which they become less productive, negatively productive and eventually die, causing the overall economy to shrink.  Another limiting factor is people's tolerance for wealth disparities, which will result in social unrest, a decline in economic productivity and violence when exceeded.

This is EXACTLY what I was getting at Peter! You said it better than I could! 

[Osensitive1]

Yes, a very good post.

[SleepyDragon]

[excellent summation of the question at hand]

Thanks.

[Dexter Morgan]

hierarchies will always exist since it is ingrained in our human nature

[Osensitive1]

Right, and that leaves the question of the lesser evil, which might be an interesting course for this thread to take.

[Blasted]

Scrapheap tried to start a "clever" thread in order to appear smart but is too dumb to write anything of value in it  :lol:

[Alex179]

Soph's message =  I'm bad arse shit.