Wealth distribution

[Sarmatian]

It seems that the phrase "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" has never been more true than today. A British institute, Oxfam, published a report (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-income-inequality-20140121,0,3481555.story#axzz2r1RbC0rL) that 85 (yes, eighty five) richest people in the world hold as much wealth as 3.5 billions poorest people. The number of people that can fit on a single bus holds as much wealth as half of mankind. Those 3.5 billions hold only 0.7% of the world's wealth. Almost half of the world's wealth is currently in the hands of the richest 1%.

We've known for a very long time that the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, and with money, comes power and influence. In almost all western countries, despite the rich having immense increase in profits, they managed to lower the amount of taxes they pay. This is especially true in USA. Since 1980, the amount of wealth held by 1% of richest Americans increased 150%. Practically all wealth increase since 2009, 95% of it, went to the richest, while the bottom 90% of Americans have become poorer.

Simply put, the difference in wealth is so huge that it dwarfs the difference in wealth in middle ages between aristocracy and peasants.

I'm pretty sure that concentration of so much money, and by extension power and influence, is a very serious threat to democracy. Sure, we get to pick our leaders, but we pick from a few offered to us who are funded by those 1% and who appear in the media owned by those 1%.

What do you guys think of this? Can the trend be stopped? Will it lead to instability and be a threat to democracy in the long run?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that's a big bus you got there.

In all seriousness. The problem is that Western society has implicitly accepted the idea that the supremacy of the individual must not be violated and that expenditures are simply a form of expression. Thus things we can choose to be (and used to declare) off limits are instead increasingly shoved onto the free market to be bought and sold by a select few who want to accumulate such wealth in order to buy these new "products".

The truth is that there will always be a select few that simply have lots of money in disproportionate amount, this is capitalism. But the wave of neo-conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s has convinced people to award the wealthy with status in recognition of their wealth when really the wealth and its accompanying standard of living should be its own reward. By catering to the idea that there should be another option if you have the money, you only encourage a society where the vultures are rewarded for their shenanigans.

If you don't get what I am talking about, I am talking about things like box seats at sports stadiums and privately owned toll roads/lanes, which allow the rich to seclude themselves from the rest of society and ignore/ be ignorant of the infrastructure issues that only they have the clout to deal with.

[Fragony]

I don't give a crap that some people are filthy rich, good for them. If they get a nasty disease they are just as dead. Of course they have influence but I don't expect that to be a threat.

[Andres]

I don't give a crap that some people are filthy rich, good for them. If they get a nasty disease they are just as dead. Of course they have influence but I don't expect that to be a threat.


If you don't consider it a threat, then you are incredibly naive.

You only become that rich at the expense of many other people.

It's simply disgusting.

[Fragony]

If you don't consider it a threat, then you are incredibly naive.

You only become that rich at the expense of many other people.

It's simply disgusting.

It hink the EU is a much bigger threat to democracy. I don't find it disgusting that they have so much more than I have. If human rights are respected I am all ok with that. That's what should be kept in check, when violated acted upon. But what does it matter that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I don't find it an unjustice.

[Fisherking]

It hink the EU is a much bigger threat to democracy. I don't find it disgusting that they have so much more than I have. If human rights are respected I am all ok with that. That's what should be kept in check, when violated acted upon. But what does it matter that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I don't find it an unjustice.


Wealth alone is not the issue. It is the power they weald. It does not make all equal before the law. Their influence means the laws end up suiting what they want and the rest be damned.

The have the best government money can buy. That is the point.

[HoreTore]

Simply put, the difference in wealth is so huge that it dwarfs the difference in wealth in middle ages between aristocracy and peasants.

No need to go that far back in time. The wage difference between CEO wage and employee wage has increased massively just from the 80's. Pointing out that there's no proper reason why a CEO of today should make so many times more than a CEO of the 80's(there's no reason to believe that we are working harder or smarter now than in the 80's) of course leads certain people to whine about communism and Stalin and mass-murder and all that rubbish.

One of the fundamental flaws of capitalism is the lack of a corrective mechanism to wealth accumulation. Having capital makes it easier to gain more capital, having more capital makes it even easier to gain much more capital and so on. The threat of going back to square one is minimal.

The end result is that the the level of wealth owned is increasingly becoming detached from the work put in. I will have roughly the same amount of wealth no matter what I do in life, and I will never sink to the level of wealth of Joe Indianslum. Joe Indianslum, on the other hand, can work as hard as he wants, but he will never be able to attain the level of wealth I have even if I choose to sit on my couch watching TV all my life.

The idea that we live in a meritocracy is false, we are living in a hereditary system. Our birth determines our lives just as much as the birth of a crown prince affects his chance of becoming king.

[Husar]

It hink the EU is a much bigger threat to democracy. I don't find it disgusting that they have so much more than I have. If human rights are respected I am all ok with that. That's what should be kept in check, when violated acted upon. But what does it matter that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I don't find it an unjustice.

Ever heard about the labor conditions of the poorest who work for the rich in Asia and Africa? Are their human rights respected in the quest for ever-increasing profits?

[Fragony]

Ever heard about the labor conditions of the poorest who work for the rich in Asia and Africa? Are their human rights respected in the quest for ever-increasing profits?

Who make the stuff you buy? That is wrong of course, but you still support it with your wallet.

[Andres]

No need to go that far back in time. The wage difference between CEO wage and employee wage has increased massively just from the 80's. Pointing out that there's no proper reason why a CEO of today should make so many times more than a CEO of the 80's(there's no reason to believe that we are working harder or smarter now than in the 80's) of course leads certain people to whine about communism and Stalin and mass-murder and all that rubbish.

One of the fundamental flaws of capitalism is the lack of a corrective mechanism to wealth accumulation. Having capital makes it easier to gain more capital, having more capital makes it even easier to gain much more capital and so on. The threat of going back to square one is minimal.

The end result is that the the level of wealth owned is increasingly becoming detached from the work put in. I will have roughly the same amount of wealth no matter what I do in life, and I will never sink to the level of wealth of Joe Indianslum. Joe Indianslum, on the other hand, can work as hard as he wants, but he will never be able to attain the level of wealth I have even if I choose to sit on my couch watching TV all my life.

The idea that we live in a meritocracy is false, we are living in a hereditary system. Our birth determines our lives just as much as the birth of a crown prince affects his chance of becoming king.


Giving us the idea that we live in a meritocracy must be one of the biggest scams in the Western world from the last few decades.

Sure, you'll have exceptions and everybody always refers to exceptions when you say we do not live in a meritocracy, forgetting that it are, well, exceptions and not the rule.

I don't think accumulating wealth in itself is bad. After all, we are humans and most of us need some selfish incentive to try our best to make ourselves useful for society. You are absolutely right that it's the limitless and uncontrolled accumulation of wealth that is problematic.

[Andres]

Who make the stuff you buy? That is wrong of course, but you still support it with your wallet.

Meh. As if we have much of a real choice?

[HoreTore]

I don't think accumulating wealth in itself is bad. After all, we are humans and most of us need some selfish incentive to try our best to make ourselves useful for society. You are absolutely right that it's the limitless and uncontrolled accumulation of wealth that is problematic.

I consider accumulation of wealth to be a glorious thing. The problem isn't a person accumulating wealth, but rather the accumulation of wealth by wealth itself reaching the point where nearly all the accumulation occuring is due to wealth and not the efforts of a person.

The basic premise of the carrot and stick-feature of capitalism is that a persons effort determines that persons piece of the pie. The problem is that the persons effort is largely irrelevant, and all that matters is the persons existing piece of the pie.

[Fragony]

Meh. As if we have much of a real choice?

Sure you do, not with everything, but you could buy more responsible. If you buy something fron H&M you should know why it's cheap. Most of my clothes come from Italy or Denmark. I buy fair-trade products when I can. I avoid products from Asia and India. Kinda hypocrite to claim because I am posting this with an ipad, but I avoid it as much as I can.

[Husar]

Who make the stuff you buy? That is wrong of course, but you still support it with your wallet.

How do you know?
I only buy fair food clothes.

[Fragony]

How do you know?
I only buy fair food clothes.

Mock it all you want, but the scumbags who let people work in poor conditions have a poor consumer in me. I am a humanist at heart, just a uncompromising one when it comes to other issues. Pay a little bit more, people should be payed properly for their labour. It's up to yourself what you buy, or don't buy. Pretty simple I'd say.

[CountArach]

I think that's a big bus you got there.
The rich can afford mega-buses. It is truly a different lifestyle.

[Ironside]

Sure you do, not with everything, but you could buy more responsible. If you buy something fron H&M you should know why it's cheap. Most of my clothes come from Italy or Denmark. I buy fair-trade products when I can. I avoid products from Asia and India. Kinda hypocrite to claim because I am posting this with an ipad, but I avoid it as much as I can.

Mafia supporter then? Italy got some significant issues with mafia (well technically Camorra) infiltration in the cloth industry. And the following mistreatment in the name of money.

[Fragony]

Mafia supporter then? Italy got some significant issues with mafia (well technically Camorra) infiltration in the cloth industry. And the following mistreatment in the name of money.

And here we have the penoza which is pretty much the same thing. What else can I do, I just avoid their stuff when I can. There is no meta-explanation to morality, I keep my own. Everybody is a hypocrite if they don't really give a shit about something, but are just having a cause. What's their cause really, being able to congratulate themselves on being oh so good. What else, they get a mental breakdown if they can't get their kids on a 99% white school (mandatory negroe) I am not going to jerk them off. I dispise them, all they want for themselves is what others should do. Company's make money. You don't have buy what they make. I don't buy it if I don't like what's behind it.

[drone]

If the world's wealth is being held by less people as time goes by, that just means fewer people to put up against the wall when the revolution comes. We are saving lives with our current economic system! :tongue2:

[Ironside]

And here we have the penoza which is pretty much the same thing. What else can I do, I just avoid their stuff when I can. There is no meta-explanation to morality, I keep my own. Everybody is a hypocrite if they don't really give a shit about something, but are just having a cause. What's their cause really, being able to congratulate themselves on being oh so good. What else, they get a mental breakdown if they can't get their kids on a 99% white school (mandatory negroe) I am not going to jerk them off. I dispise them, all they want for themselves is what others should do. Company's make money. You don't have buy what they make. I don't buy it if I don't like what's behind it.

I should've pointed it out in my original post. It had more to do with the problems of identifying that kind of crap when you're so isolated from the source, than any hypocracy accusation against you.

Voting with your vallet is very limited in many cases. And even doing your best contains traps.

[Fragony]

I should've pointed it out in my original post. It had more to do with the problems of identifying that kind of crap when you're so isolated from the source, than any hypocracy accusation against you.

Voting with your vallet is very limited in many cases. And even doing your best contains traps.

If there is any hypocracy flown against me that's ok, I allready know that I am a hypocrite. Do I really care, no I don't, it is not my power to change anything. I would if I could but I can't. So I am just flowing with the currents just like everybody else and I'll just have to see where I wash up. It could be at the riviera of Monaco or something less extraordinary. I am doing the best I can, what more is to be expected from me. I don't have all that much, even if I am pretty well off. You should be glad with what you have, what others have shouldn't matter.

[HoreTore]

Sure you do, not with everything, but you could buy more responsible. If you buy something fron H&M you should know why it's cheap. Most of my clothes come from Italy or Denmark. I buy fair-trade products when I can. I avoid products from Asia and India. Kinda hypocrite to claim because I am posting this with an ipad, but I avoid it as much as I can.

Denmark doesn't have a textile industry anymore. Danish clothes are designed in Denmark, but produced in Bangladesh.

Italian textiles are made by illegal immigrants(you know, those you want out) in sweatshops organized by the mob.

Have fun.

Oh, and:


I would if I could but I can't.

This is the exact statement you objected to 10 posts earlier. Try to read a little more carefully next time.

[Fragony]

I see no ambiguity, sorry. I am not responsible for the behaviour of other people, and in thus I don't need to defend anything. I wouldn't treat people as badly as some do but that some do that isn't my doing. I am just not buying their products, I wouldn't feel comfortable in these clothes so I don't buy them. Some of you must want me to be a bad person, trying to corner me in some immorality, but I got what I think is moral perfectly outlined for myself. Going to blame me for the existance of the gammora or the panoza, how exactly.

[HoreTore]

I see no ambiguity, sorry. I am not responsible for the behaviour of other people, and in thus I don't need to defend anything. I wouldn't treat people as badly as some do but that some do that isn't my doing. I am just not buying their products, I wouldn't feel comfortable in these clothes so I don't buy them. Some of you must want me to be a bad person, trying to corner me in some immorality, but I got what I think is moral perfectly outlined for myself. Going to blame me for the existance of the gammora or the panoza, how exactly.

I see no posts by others between your last post and this one, so I must assume it is directed at my post. So, my question to you, Frags, is simple:

.....how is your rant in any way relevant to what I wrote....?

[Fragony]

Mob mob mob

that's a whole lot of answer for a single point.

[HoreTore]

Mob mob mob

that's a whole lot of answer for a single point.

What's the mob got to do with you....? And what has my post to do with you personally...?

(except for the suggestion to read posts more carefully in the future, that is)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

Wealth need not be acquired "at the expense" of others. The problem with a large wealth gap is not that some are filthy rich, but that it tends to stultify the "have-nots" ability to become "haves." Absent a credible -- if difficult -- means for changing your status, you get the kind of class rigidification that yields bloody revolution -- during which the "have-nots" victimize their own more than the "haves."

[HoreTore]

Wealth need not be acquired "at the expense" of others.

That belief can be traced back to the early, trade-centered economic theories from the early free market thinkers(especially Ricardo).

This belief assumes that economic wealth is finite. Contrary to that, wealth is dynamic and expansive. One man accumulating wealth will enable others to accumulate wealth as well.

But the inverse is true as well. Raising the wealth of the poor is not done at the expense of the wealthy. On the contrary, raising the level of the poor also raises the rich. We re of course talking about absolute levels of wealth here, ie. your actual number of stuff, not relative levels, ie. how much stuff you have in comparison to that other guy.

Henry Ford knew this well. It's a sad thing he also believed jews hoarded gold to to finance world wars...

[Fragony]

What's the mob got to do with you....? And what has my post to do with you personally...?

(except for the suggestion to read posts more carefully in the future, that is)

Nothing. But a good look at the mirror should be a good place to position yourselve. If you buy the stuff you should be able to get a good look at it no? Scumbags aren't getting rich on my account, so there's your answer.

[HoreTore]

Nothing. But a good look at the mirror should be a good place to position yourselve. If you buy the stuff you should be able to get a good look at it no? Scumbags aren't getting rich on my account, so there's your answer.

I have no idea what the relevance or meaning of this is supposed to be.

[Husar]

If there is any hypocracy flown against me that's ok, I allready know that I am a hypocrite. Do I really care, no I don't, it is not my power to change anything. I would if I could but I can't. So I am just flowing with the currents just like everybody else and I'll just have to see where I wash up. It could be at the riviera of Monaco or something less extraordinary. I am doing the best I can, what more is to be expected from me. I don't have all that much, even if I am pretty well off. You should be glad with what you have, what others have shouldn't matter.

Rich people plot all day long about how they can get what others have to get more themselves because they want more for themselves. This is the essence of how you become rich and then even richer. They violate the very core of what you say there and yet you blame the little man for trying not to have to give everything he has to the rich man who is not happy with all the stuff he already has.

[Fragony]

I have no idea what the relevance or meaning of this is supposed to be.

Good, if I make any sense I am doing being mysterious all wrong.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think that material inequality is nearly as important an issue as the social consequences of the current economic system are.

Rampant drug abuse, mental illness, family breakdown, community breakdown, moral breakdown - all these are not consequences of poverty, but rather a specific set of social conditions that have been created by the industrial and post-industrial world. The reduction of a person to a drone if they are lucky, idleness if they are not. The instability of irregular work. The many issues caused by unnatural work and unnatural hours. The indignity of never realising self-sufficiency, of being reduced to a burden for family or the state. The divorcement of wealth from labour. The inability to live a basic, fulfilling life with a family and your own home. To lose your life to the machine, to invisible faces and abstract forces. This is what I am surrounded by every day, increasingly I am coming to realise that this will be my life. When I see people who have been ruined like this, it makes me angry at the world. Those that suffer the most are demonised, only a tiny portion of the problem are scapegoated (see for example the moral outrage of the upper middle classes at bankers). Honesty life these days doesn't even feel real, it's like a bad dream.

[PanzerJaeger]

Wealth distribution is just a symptom of modern productivity demands in industry that negate physical labor. The wealthy are getting wealthier now, but the constant growth demanded by the capital investment driving that wealth accumulation is unsustainable without growing real income levels and employment. Capitalism in its current form will have to be replaced, either by a much more enlightened or much more despotic economic model.

[Lemur]

Capitalism in its current form will have to be replaced, either by a much more enlightened or much more despotic economic model.
The key phrase being "in its current form."

Well-regulated markets are still the best vehicle for a whole host of goods and services. I imagine there will someday be a more efficient, more humane, less-prone-to-panics-and-bubbles system. No idea what it will be, but it will probably come from one of the bastard offspring of Google.

[PanzerJaeger]

The key phrase being "in its current form."

Well-regulated markets are still the best vehicle for a whole host of goods and services. I imagine there will someday be a more efficient, more humane, less-prone-to-panics-and-bubbles system. No idea what it will be, but it will probably come from one of the bastard offspring of Google.

I just don't know where the jobs will come from to keep the market viable. We can't all be software engineers and managers, not that those jobs are any more insulated from automation than any others. We are moving toward a future where most people will not work, at least in the way we think about work today. It's already well underway - corporate profits and thus stocks have skyrocketed since the depths of the recession while the labor force has steadily shrunk and a record 20% of households are on food stamps. The primary driver behind those profits has not been organic growth, but instead easy money and cost cutting - much of it the result of reduced payroll through automation. As stated earlier, this can be liberating or enslaving, depending on how we react and choose to structure our society going forward.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just don't know where the jobs will come from to keep the market viable. We can't all be software engineers and managers, not that those jobs are any more insulated from automation than any others. We are moving toward a future where most people will not work, at least in the way we think about work today. It's already well underway - corporate profits and thus stocks have skyrocketed since the depths of the recession while the labor force has steadily shrunk and a record 20% of households are on food stamps. The primary driver behind those profits has not been organic growth, but instead easy money and cost cutting - much of it the result of reduced payroll through automation. As stated earlier, this can be liberating or enslaving, depending on how we react and choose to structure our society going forward.

My concern with the idea that there are no more jobs out there is that it may just be too soon to tell if that is the case. The decline of manufacturing in the Western world has taken place within the span of 30-40 years. If you could predict where the jobs would be coming from PJ, lets be honest, you wouldn't be chilling here at the org, you would be making the big bucks and becoming the next Bill Gates.

I am particularly interested in the growth of new forms of entertainment, especially the increasing influence of "YouTube personalities" and channels as well as the growth of eSports such as League of Legends. I doubt the latter will become anything comparing to physical sports given how unprofessional the market is, but you never know how things will develop over 10 years.

[HoreTore]

Automation is only a treath to the number of jobs if the level of wealth in society remains constant.

Fortunately for us, our level of wealth increases along with automation, and increased automation results in more jobs, not fever.

[Montmorency]

So you're saying you believe in trickle-down economics? :mellow:

[HoreTore]

So you're saying you believe in trickle-down economics? :mellow:

Believe is something you do in church, and I consider trickle-down economics to be nonsense. Not sure how increased number of jobs due to automation has anything to do with trickle.down economics, however. Care to explain?

[Montmorency]

Well, someone has to automate all those jobs. :wacko:

[HoreTore]

Well, someone has to automate all those jobs. :wacko:

Yes, that's the glory of it all. I'll give a historical perspective even though I noticed your sarcasm-smileys ~;)

A few hundred years back, the majority of the population was employed in agriculture. Today, the number of farmers in industrial countries are extremely small, even though we are producing much more food now. The automation of agriculture removed a ton of farming jobs. This, however, didn't mean that nobody is employed today. The automation had two effects:

Firstly, jobs were created to make the machinery responsible for automating farming tasks.
Secondly, the abundance of available persons allowed the creation of new types of jobs.

It's the second one who is the most important one. A new reality creates new products and jobs.

[Ironside]

Yes, that's the glory of it all. I'll give a historical perspective even though I noticed your sarcasm-smileys ~;)

A few hundred years back, the majority of the population was employed in agriculture. Today, the number of farmers in industrial countries are extremely small, even though we are producing much more food now. The automation of agriculture removed a ton of farming jobs. This, however, didn't mean that nobody is employed today. The automation had two effects:

Firstly, jobs were created to make the machinery responsible for automating farming tasks.
Secondly, the abundance of available persons allowed the creation of new types of jobs.

It's the second one who is the most important one. A new reality creates new products and jobs.

The issue is that there's need to be something new this time, rather than an old section expanded. When service jobs are getting automated, what is next? I don't doubt that production and total wealth has gone up in the process, it's just that there's no default idea that the increased wealth by a job creates new jobs in a sufficient ratio to sustain full employment.

[HoreTore]

The issue is that there's need to be something new this time, rather than an old section expanded. When service jobs are getting automated, what is next? I don't doubt that production and total wealth has gone up in the process, it's just that there's no default idea that the increased wealth by a job creates new jobs in a sufficient ratio to sustain full employment.

Luckily, we're not employed as oracles, so there's no need for us to try to predict the future. Attempting to do so will fail anyway.

But since this is what has happened in every change of production in human history up until this point, I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen this time.

[Montmorency]

Well, the sun rises every day, so we can expect that to go on for eternity, right? :shrug:

[HoreTore]

Well, the sun rises every day, so we can expect that to go on for eternity, right? :shrug:

As far as we are concerned, yes....

[Montmorency]

On the other hand, human events move a few orders of magnitude more quickly than the sun...

[HoreTore]

On the other hand, human events move a few orders of magnitude more quickly than the sun...

Wanna the join the legions of people who have predicted the end of humanity? They're all dead, and we're still here.

Excuse me if I don't join the Doom&Gloom crowd.

[Montmorency]

Wanna the join the legions of people who have predicted the end of humanity?

Woah, hey, why the false dichotomy between doomsday and 'humanity shall prosper forever'?

There's plenty of evidence showing that things might just get rough in the future, and in fact the future may transform human societies into something scarcely imaginable to ourselves, but on the basis of the unique developments of the past few millennia you feel confident predicting that the existence of humanity itself is a panacea to humanity's problems.

Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid. You need more evidence than vague allusions to past problems overcome. Interestingly though, you don't note that the old problems are precisely what the new problems threaten to recapitulate. For all we know, there could be a cyclical fate awaiting us, or even something totally in the Z dimension...

[Kagemusha]

It is just the everlasting cycle of history. Natural capitalism happens, in other words all the assets end up to few. Once those assets are in too few hands, revolution happens. After revolution aggression from the winning party towards outside the society at hand and then war happens. After the war population focus is at rebuilding and investing in next generation, while the next generation follows those values, the generation after that questions the earlier values and turns towards more individual ones and again the path is set similar to last cycle. Nothing new under the stars.~D

[HoreTore]

Woah, hey, why the false dichotomy between doomsday and 'humanity shall prosper forever'?

There's plenty of evidence showing that things might just get rough in the future, and in fact the future may transform human societies into something scarcely imaginable to ourselves, but on the basis of the unique developments of the past few millennia you feel confident predicting that the existence of humanity itself is a panacea to humanity's problems.

Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid. You need more evidence than vague allusions to past problems overcome. Interestingly though, you don't note that the old problems are precisely what the new problems threaten to recapitulate. For all we know, there could be a cyclical fate awaiting us, or even something totally in the Z dimension...

So.....

Automation will make society as we know it collapse?

[Montmorency]

No, but any confluence of a spike in state authoritarianism and corporatism, climate disruption and rising sea levels and an associated scarcity of natural resources, national tensions, the rise of widespread nano-or-neuro-technology, the economic stagnation of key industries, and so on, could.

The point being, your blithe complacency is worrying.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So.....

Automation will make society as we know it collapse?

Evolve, not collapse.

[HoreTore]

No, but any confluence of a spike in state authoritarianism and corporatism, climate disruption and rising sea levels and an associated scarcity of natural resources, national tensions, the rise of widespread nano-or-neuro-technology, the economic stagnation of key industries, and so on, could.

The point being, your blithe complacency is worrying.

In 50 years, if we're still both here and civilization is still around, first round is one me.

[Ironside]

Luckily, we're not employed as oracles, so there's no need for us to try to predict the future. Attempting to do so will fail anyway.

But since this is what has happened in every change of production in human history up until this point, I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen this time.

Each change has also brought significant changes to society. The change going from industry to service is the smallest of them and the easiest one to predict as well.

That's the thing we're talking about. Will things solve themselves? Yes, eventually. But the lack of clear goals means that you'll need to do it through experience. Experience in these cases means a bucket load of conflicts.

To follow up on what PJ said. There's certainly nothing surprising if the current model of capitalism falls, it's from the 1930-ties (Fordism) if you stretch it a bit. But its fall will not be buissness as usual for those who experience it, even if those living in 2200 sees it that way through the historical lens.

[HoreTore]

Each change has also brought significant changes to society. The change going from industry to service is the smallest of them and the easiest one to predict as well.

That's the thing we're talking about. Will things solve themselves? Yes, eventually. But the lack of clear goals means that you'll need to do it through experience. Experience in these cases means a bucket load of conflicts.

To follow up on what PJ said. There's certainly nothing surprising if the current model of capitalism falls, it's from the 1930-ties (Fordism) if you stretch it a bit. But its fall will not be buissness as usual for those who experience it, even if those living in 2200 sees it that way through the historical lens.

Conflict is a natural part of human life. It is to be expected. It's also to be expected that we live through it and create a new system which will eventually break down into conflict and so on and so on.

[Husar]

Well, labor costs are high but energy costs will also rise in the long run, additionally the costs to acquire complicated machines rise and computers cannot fully simulate a human brain yet.
Once the latter is possible however, we can automate management positions and save a whole lot of money because robots do not need a wage and certainly not a golden parachute when they have failed horribly. The money this frees up can then be used to distribute to the homeless. Once the entire industry has been automated, we will need neither jobs or employment nor money because the machines will just keep everything going while we consume the fruits of their free labor. We'll have to find another way to discern important humans and unworthy ones though, maybe a return of noble families?

[Andres]

HoreTore predicts that new jobs will be invented, so we'll have to keep working.

Husar predicts that, eventually, we won't have to work anymore.

I declare Husar as our prophet and new world leader. HoreTore can be put in a cage in some museum of long forgotten curiosities under the label "a working human". When Monty and I visit him in his cage, over 50 years, we'll have a beer at his expenses.

[Ironside]

Conflict is a natural part of human life. It is to be expected. It's also to be expected that we live through it and create a new system which will eventually break down into conflict and so on and so on.

That's true. The thing with this one is what Husar is into a bit. It's quite possible that you reach a situation where only 20-30% (or less) of the population has jobs that needs to be done. The rest is obsolete.

Their relation with the rest of the population isn't gonna be solved with the current system.

[HoreTore]

The rest is obsolete.

Are we ever going to reach a point were we don't need more artists, writers, actors, academics, athletes, travel guides, or other weirdos?

You don't need to produce something valuable to call it work. You just need to produce something others appreciate. When machines do all our production, we can all become failed writers struggling to make it.

Now that's a dystopic future!

[Andres]

That's true. The thing with this one is what Husar is into a bit. It's quite possible that you reach a situation where only 20-30% (or less) of the population has jobs that needs to be done. The rest is obsolete.

Their relation with the rest of the population isn't gonna be solved with the current system.


Our current solution, namely labeling those 70 to 80 % as lazy scum who only have themselves to blame for their unemployed misery, is a wee bit evil.

Unless we don't object to eventually exterminating them all or if we enjoy to see the largest chunck of the population living in miserable conditions, muahahaha.

Alternative could be: If those 70 to 80 % others can be trained to also do the work those 20 to 30 % are doing, then everybody can work a few hours a week for a couple of years and spend the rest of their lives without working at all or only doing the "work" (hobby) they want to do.

If not, then I suggest we look if what those 20 to 30 % do is really neccessary and if not, we just get rid of their jobs and live without whatever they do.

I'm not sure if humanity is fit for utopia. Most likely we'll need a few more cycles of war - peace - build up - greedy bastards start taking too much for themselves - war - etc. as predicted by the prophet Kagemusha.

See, our only real option is worshipping Husar.

[Andres]

Are we ever going to reach a point were we don't need more artists, writers, actors, academics, athletes, travel guides, or other weirdos?

You don't need to produce something valuable to call it work. You just need to produce something others appreciate. When machines do all our production, we can all become failed writers struggling to make it.

Now that's a dystopic future!

If "professional couch potatoe" can be a respected and well-paid profession in HoreTore's utopia, then I'm in.

[HoreTore]

If "professional couch potatoe" can be a respected and well-paid profession in HoreTore's utopia, then I'm in.

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

As for your previous posts, I believe a good strategy for unions is to ask for reduced working hours instead of increased wages. It seems silly to me that after a century of explosive increase in productivity, we still work as long as we did 100 years(-ish) ago. We've got more stuff, but not enough time to actually use our stuff.

[Husar]

There's another way to get somewhere useful:

Set the maximum amount a person can invest into a company (even via proxy!) at the average cost of a machine. _That way companies have to find many small investors and the people who used to work will just own the robot that replaces them. Effectively you won't have companies that are mostly owned by multitrillionaire investors but all companies will be owned by many small investors. The stock market might just work for that as you will just have to get all companies there and then limit the maximum investments per person. Since this is complicated, you can just ban all the stock market shenanigans where people make money on things that do not really exist or derivatives of things that do not exist or the course changes of nonexisting derivatves of things that never existed. This will free up some capacities for the more complicated actual investments.

And if companies cannot find enough small investors, maybe they're not paying their employees enough to allow them to invest, guess that's the end of their growth, too bad.

Of course big investors can still own small shares in many companies that way but this still does not give them a huge influence in any of these companies and they will be against super corporations as those reduce the amounts of investments the big investors can make since every mega corporation replaces a whole lot of small companies.

Yeah, I get these crazy ideas while sitting around in the university...

[Andres]

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

As for your previous posts, I believe a good strategy for unions is to ask for reduced working hours instead of increased wages. It seems silly to me that after a century of explosive increase in productivity, we still work as long as we did 100 years(-ish) ago. We've got more stuff, but not enough time to actually use our stuff.

Perhaps a combination of both reduced working hours and paying people what they are truly worth instead of the lowest amount the employer can get away with...

There is definitely something to be said about how we value certain types of labour nowadays.

To give an idea. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8410489.stm)


The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.

It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.

[Fragony]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

[Husar]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

Lately reading your posts is a bit like watching your ability to use outside input slowly fade away since you may react to outside input but you usually do not consider the contents in any way at all. Like you live in your own little world where the only valid arguments are your own and all the other (counter-)arguments are wrong if you just repeat your own arguments ad infinitum.

[Ironside]

Are we ever going to reach a point were we don't need more artists, writers, actors, academics, athletes, travel guides, or other weirdos?

You don't need to produce something valuable to call it work. You just need to produce something others appreciate. When machines do all our production, we can all become failed writers struggling to make it.

Now that's a dystopic future!

It's going to be big stuff in a post scarcity society. And some will be satisfied by it. But I don't think it by itself is going to solve "who are the have and the have nots" and the "what's the meaning of my life" frustration that will appear.


The obvious answer is a world in which the average person's needs are met whether they are working or not. The workplace will be dominated by robots, social mobility will disappear, and the only silver lining is that perhaps, just maybe, the poor will be taken care of.


Taking care of the poor will happen or it'll become very authoritarian society. Bored but living poor people will create minor unrest (not enough people to care to create major unrest). Starving poors will go for revolution.

Social mobillity depends, but it'll probably slow down.

Robots should indeed become more common, although that'll take many decades. We'll experience it starting, but not dominating is my guess.

[drone]

You guys lack the proper imagination and cynicism necessary to see the true dystopian future. When the job market dries up, everyone is going to become a lawyer.

[HoreTore]

You guys lack the proper imagination and cynicism necessary to see the true dystopian future. When the job market dries up, everyone is going to become a lawyer.

If only guns were legal in Norway, I'd off myself right here and now.

[gaelic cowboy]

There's another way to get somewhere useful:

Set the maximum amount a person can invest into a company (even via proxy!) at the average cost of a machine. _That way companies have to find many small investors and the people who used to work will just own the robot that replaces them. Effectively you won't have companies that are mostly owned by multitrillionaire investors but all companies will be owned by many small investors. The stock market might just work for that as you will just have to get all companies there and then limit the maximum investments per person. Since this is complicated, you can just ban all the stock market shenanigans where people make money on things that do not really exist or derivatives of things that do not exist or the course changes of nonexisting derivatves of things that never existed. This will free up some capacities for the more complicated actual investments.

And if companies cannot find enough small investors, maybe they're not paying their employees enough to allow them to invest, guess that's the end of their growth, too bad.

Of course big investors can still own small shares in many companies that way but this still does not give them a huge influence in any of these companies and they will be against super corporations as those reduce the amounts of investments the big investors can make since every mega corporation replaces a whole lot of small companies.

Yeah, I get these crazy ideas while sitting around in the university...

If the investors could be the ordinary guy it increases the share of capital in the hands of the 99% whose wages have stagnated while there bosses capital has skyrocketed.

In the long run it would even the disparity in wealth and give workers a real reward for the automation of there own jobs.

[Andres]

You guys lack the proper imagination and cynicism necessary to see the true dystopian future. When the job market dries up, everyone is going to become a lawyer.

I always knew I'm ahead of my time.

Look at me! I'm the future!

[Xiahou]

If you're worried about income inequality, just make sure we go into a global recession and stay there. Recessions always shrink the gap between rich and poor. :yes:

Personally, I think a more pressing problem is the sad state of the average persons motivation and work ethic and their poor financial literacy. Instead of demonizing the rich, people should examine (http://www.investmentu.com/2013/September/are-the-rich-smarter.html) how the rich got rich and see if they can emulate that.

[Fragony]

Lately reading your posts is a bit like watching your ability to use outside input slowly fade away since you may react to outside input but you usually do not consider the contents in any way at all. Like you live in your own little world where the only valid arguments are your own and all the other (counter-)arguments are wrong if you just repeat your own arguments ad infinitum.

That's a fair accusation I guess. But it's just how I look at things. Deal with it if I think my arguments are better, or go against them if you think your's are. I am perfectly open to consider your's, don't mind me not agreeing with them.

[Montmorency]

Recessions always shrink the gap between rich and poor.

The rich get off much better in recessions than the middle and lower classes, so no.

Here's a nice aphorism: 'Some mistakes are severe, others minor, but even here there is a difference within the race of men: a pauper's mistake harms no one but the pauper; a king's mistake harm's everyone but the king.'


people should examine how the rich got rich and see if they can emulate that.

Some of us are of the opinion that fewer of us should in fact emulate the paths of the rich - not all the rich, certainly, but I think you know to what/whom I refer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well... Someone mentioned youtubers and e-sports earlier in this thread. If that doesn't fit the label "professional couch-potato", I don't know what does.

Then you don't know what does. You really have no idea how much work goes into making even a 5 minute video that:
A) Does not look like it was filmed in 2004
B) Has decent editing
C) Is interesting or entertaining.

According to your view, any white collar activity that involves sitting all day is a "professional couch potato" you just refuse to admit that because most white collar jobs are more accepted despite it being commonly ridiculed as an exercise in living the movie "Office Space".

[Montmorency]

any white collar activity that involves sitting all day is a "professional couch potato" you just refuse to admit that

Actually, I think Horetore would agree with something like that.

[Sarmatian]

If you're worried about income inequality, just make sure we go into a global recession and stay there. Recessions always shrink the gap between rich and poor. :yes:


It's the exact opposite. Recessions widen the gap considerably.

[Husar]

Personally, I think a more pressing problem is the sad state of the average persons motivation and work ethic and their poor financial literacy. Instead of demonizing the rich, people should examine (http://www.investmentu.com/2013/September/are-the-rich-smarter.html) how the rich got rich and see if they can emulate that.

Great article, so the secret to making everybody a millionaire is to get everybody a Phd and then tell them to save a million. I'm sure that will work just great, it's how every billionaire got there, by making 4.4 million in his lifetime and saving a couple billions during that time.

[HoreTore]

Instead of demonizing the rich

Where in this thread have you seen demonizing of the rich?

[Andres]

If you're worried about income inequality, just make sure we go into a global recession and stay there. Recessions always shrink the gap between rich and poor. :yes:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Personally, I think a more pressing problem is the sad state of the average persons motivation and work ethic and their poor financial literacy. Instead of demonizing the rich, people should examine (http://www.investmentu.com/2013/September/are-the-rich-smarter.html) how the rich got rich and see if they can emulate that.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I will now abandon my ideals of an anarcho-communist utopia and will instead study and examine the life of Paris Hilton who, through her hard work, dedication and personal efforts, managed to become the daughter of a billionaire.

The rich are so much better than us ordinary people. They don't need us to demonize them. As superior beings, they are so much better at doing that themselves. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-says-35-billion-people-in-poverty-is-fantastic-news-9077070.html)

[a completely inoffensive name]

As superior beings, they are so much better at doing that themselves. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-says-35-billion-people-in-poverty-is-fantastic-news-9077070.html)

Amazing troll. 10/10 would rage again.

[Andres]

Great article, so the secret to making everybody a millionaire is to get everybody a Phd and then tell them to save a million. I'm sure that will work just great, it's how every billionaire got there, by making 4.4 million in his lifetime and saving a couple billions during that time.

You forgot to mention that all billionaires worked themselves up from a ghetto or some slum, couldn't afford an education and grew up in a world dominated by crime and poverty.

If only those few billion other lazy slacker would work a bit harder, they'd all be billionaires!

Everybody can be a billionaire. You only need to really want it! The only reason why not everybody is living a live in luxury, is because most people prefer living in miserable circumstances!

[Montmorency]

And if those billions would just get off the backs of the rich and get to work for a change, then the rich would have even more well-deserved wealth in their asset-pool.

[Andres]

Possibly, but you can also just buy a cow and get a freezer to put the meat in it, 400 euro per cow max, more than enough for a year. Get some ground, I am going to, it's fun as well to watch things grow and care for it. I am still on the waiting list for ground but it will be mine. It isn't enough to feed me for a year but it remains a good proposition, just needs some shoveling. Back to basics. Or you can blame the rich for being rich of course, has a good word for jealousy-tax been invented allready. You won't need them if you show a little bit of initiative.

Yes. Of course. All those slum and ghetto inhabitants need to do is to take the money they don't have from the savings account they don't have to buy land they can't afford. It's amazing how poverty still exists while there are such visionary viewpoints and solutions available on random gaming fora.

I'd also like to know the line of thought that brings you from "person X cares about the living conditions of the poor and deems it injust and unfair that 85 people together have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people together" to "X is just jealous because he isn't rich".

Please explain to me why "caring about the poor and injustness" equals "being jealous". Enlighten me with a revolutionary essay.

[Fragony]

Why an essay, you just can't blame the rich for others being poor. The really really rich are mostly very old family's where the money goes from generation to generation. It's their money. Just because some have less doesn't mean they have a right on it. Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money? Because that is where it would be going to, taking their money, aka theft. Legalised, but still theft.

[Andres]

Why an essay, you just can't blame the rich for others being poor. The really really rich are mostly very old family's where the money goes from generation to generation. It's their money. Just because some have less doesn't mean they have a right on it. Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money? Because that is where it would be going to, taking their money, aka theft. Legalised, but still theft.

Jesus Christ used parables to explain his viewpoints.

I'll do the same:

On a sunny day, a rich businessman was sitting in his yacuzzi on his luxury yacht in the Medditerranean. Sipping champagne in the company of a famous model, he heard a voice yelling.

"Hey! Excuse me? How far before I reach Malta?"

"Shut up!" the rich man yelled at the African. "Just keep swimming. Or drown. As if I care. But shut up!"

The model giggles and takes off her bikini.


If you need to ask the question why the rich should help the poor, then there's no point for me trying to explain :bow:

[Husar]

On the topic of working hard, a contractor once told me that he is held by the parent company to work harder and increase profits.
However, when he increases his profits, the parent company will siphon off the additional profits so his own profits stay the same as they always were and in addition they will raise their expectations to the new, higher level and repirmand him if he does not meet the new expectations. It basically paid off for him to be just mediocre because then he has to work less and still gets the same profit that he would get if he tried to please his superiors. The parent company was a multi-national corporation that everybody here knows btw.

Another person told me a similar story. Basically he worked hard and his boss was fine with it and paid him every month until he found out that the person was not an apprentice but unskilled labor but was paid apprentice wages. Suddenly the boss raged about how the person had been paid too much all these months even though there never was a problem with the work that was done and the apprentice-level wage had never been questioned before...

So the real way to get rich is to create artificial barriers that keep the money on your side and away from others. To say that hard work pays off is complete lunacy unless your job offers a decent system of promotions where you actually have a chance to move up through hard work instead of slick talk or crawling into someone's behind.

[Husar]

Back at ya, what is your justification for wanting their money?

Back at ya, what is their justification for wanting my money? You are aware that the wealth gap is getting wider because money is actually "trickling up", right? If it weren't then the wealth gap wouldn't get wider...

[Fragony]

Back at ya, what is their justification for wanting my money? You are aware that the wealth gap is getting wider because money is actually "trickling up", right? If it weren't then the wealth gap wouldn't get wider...

Do I want your money, never noticed it.

[Montmorency]

Do I want your money

!

So Mr. Above-average, I heard you were single...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hym6kUzc_hA

[Husar]

Do I want your money, never noticed it.

Depends on which side of the wealth gap you're on.

[Fragony]

Depends on which side of the wealth gap you're on.

Well I am not on that side, far from it. I can manage.

[HoreTore]

It's not about "wanting anyones money", Frags.

It's about who gets what from the new money produced. Ie. making a model where you get a share reflecting the work you put in. We are not even close to that today. I don't get a share comparable to my effort, I get loads more than what I actually put in compared to effort and share of Joe Indiaman.

Why should I do less and earn more at the same time?

[Sarmatian]

Frags, you missed the point entirely. It's not about hating the rich for being rich.

The issue is that the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few people and they're using that to change the system. Gradual change to allow them to become even wealthier and wield even more influence.

That kind of system is unfair and is a threat to democracy in the long run.

[Fragony]

Frags, you missed the point entirely. It's not about hating the rich for being rich.

The issue is that the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few people and they're using that to change the system. Gradual change to allow them to become even wealthier and wield even more influence.

That kind of system is unfair and is a threat to democracy in the long run.

Perhaps. But there are some more pressing matters.

[Andres]

Perhaps. But there are some more pressing matters.

Like, for example...?

[Sarmatian]

Perhaps. But there are some more pressing matters.

New series of Kardashians? What, where, when???

[Andres]

New series of Kardashians? What, where, when???

Perhaps he's talking about Global Warming.

[HoreTore]

You two do realize that now the next 500 pages of this thread is going to be about Islam taking over the world, right?

[Husar]

Perhaps. But there are some more pressing matters.

Says the guy who is pretty well-off and doesn't have to worry about paying his rent every day...

[Fragony]

Like, for example...?

The EU is a much bigger threat to democracy than these few lucky few.

[Husar]

The EU is a much bigger threat to democracy than these few lucky few.

The lucky few are currently using the non-unity of countries in the world to evade taxes and to exploit the poorest but more unity in the world is obviously a far bigger problem than exploitation by the rich. Maybe the EU is only so problematic because it is only doing what those lucky few want because the rest of the people are bickering about leving the EU instead of using their political capital to improve it...

[Lemur]

Interesting take from The Economist: (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/inequality-0?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709)

The trouble with inequality isn’t primarily about consumables. As Elisabeth Anderson, a philosopher at the University of Michigan, pointed out (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/10/19/elizabeth-anderson/what-should-egalitarians-want) a few years ago, public goods must be considered as well. The more inequality, the less rich and poor citizens tend to see eye-to-eye on these common benefits:


As economic inequality increases, the better off perceive fewer and fewer shared interests with the less well-off. Because they buy many critical goods—health insurance, education, security services, transportation, recreation facilities—individually from the private sector, or pool the provision of these goods within private gated communities or municipalities governed by zoning regulations designed to exclude the less well-off, they tend to oppose public provision of these goods to the wider population.

This is why Mr Obama calling inequality the “defining issue of our time (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility)” has moral resonance. It has nothing to do with the rabble envying Sub-Zero refrigerators. It is not about the iPhone/cheapo-cell phone gap. Inequality is problematic not because it makes some people jealous of others but because it effectively locks millions of people out of opportunities to improve their lives. Ms Anderson put it well: “To live in a low-crime, orderly, unpolluted neighborhood, free of run-down and abandoned property, graffiti-marred buildings, open drug dealing, prostitution, and gangs; to have access to public parks where one’s children can safely play, to well-maintained sidewalks and roads, to schools that offer an education good enough to qualify one for more than menial, dead-end jobs: how many cell phones and athletic shoes is that worth?”

[HoreTore]

Exactly.

To expand on that, having poor people means they do not contribute as much as they are capable of, and our personal level of wealth(regardless of where you are on the scale) is affected by the distribution of wealth in the wider society.

You may be Bill Gates, but that counts for nothing if you cannot hire a decent programmer to work for you. A fair distribution of wealth ensures that the masses are able to reach their potential work contribution, and so Mr Bossman has less problems hiring skilled workers to increase his wealth.

In short, raising the poor makes us all wealthier. It's far from a zero-sum game. If the homeless gets a proper job, it will result in both you and the homeless guy getting more money.

Henry Ford knew this well. Was he "jealous of other peoples wealth and wanted to steal their money" as well?

[Xiahou]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



Yes, you are absolutely right. I will now abandon my ideals of an anarcho-communist utopia and will instead study and examine the life of Paris Hilton who, through her hard work, dedication and personal efforts, managed to become the daughter of a billionaire.

The rich are so much better than us ordinary people. They don't need us to demonize them. As superior beings, they are so much better at doing that themselves. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-says-35-billion-people-in-poverty-is-fantastic-news-9077070.html)
Because anecdote is the singular form of data right? :yes:

[Lemur]

Raising the poor makes us all wealthier. It's far from a zero-sum game. [...] Henry Ford knew this well.
So did Adam Smith. The men who actually created capitalism as we know it were far less doctrinaire and ideological than modern-day Libertarians.

[Fragony]

Income equality isn't a bad thing, it benefits the middle classes and is ultimatily better for the economy as more people have more to spend, but it doesn't justify asking the lucky few to pay for it. It's just symbolism not pragmatism. Cut out your own fat as we say here. The fat being the government who is always out of money because they spend too much. Lower the taxes.

[Sarmatian]

but it doesn't justify asking the lucky few to pay for it.

After 4 pages, you're still on square 1.

[Fragony]

After 4 pages, you're still on square 1.

All that means is that I haven't been convinced. I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing. If you keep asking the same questions you keep getting the same answers.

[Lemur]

I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing.
But don't you bear some responsibility? Isn't it at least slightly on you to respond to the various and very different points that have been made in-thread, rather than just re-stating the same position you've had all along?

A discussion, by definition, means back-and-forth. If you do not offer cogent responses, and just re-state the same point over and over ... well ... doesn't give your discussion companions much to work with.

[Fragony]

But don't you bear some responsibility? Isn't it at least slightly on you to respond to the various and very different points that have been made in-thread, rather than just re-stating the same position you've had all along?

A discussion, by definition, means back-and-forth. If you do not offer cogent responses, and just re-state the same point over and over ... well ... doesn't give your discussion companions much to work with.

My point is clear i'd say. Just neglecting other's opinion and not getting into it at all would be ruder. I don't agree. You will just have to suck it up that I look differently at things. My opinions aren't set in stone, I have changed my opinion on things many times.

[Husar]

All that means is that I haven't been convinced. I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing. If you keep asking the same questions you keep getting the same answers.

But my arguments are convincing. I have in fact convinced you, you just refuse to accept it.

edit: Maybe you'll like this argument: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/rich-muslims-more-likely-to-support-terrorism-than-poor-muslims/

[Myth]

I was pleasantly surprised by the OP and the responses on the first page. If everyone (well, most anyway) recognizes the problem, can we point a solution? Has there even been one in the past? The human desire to dominate and exert control over others is ever present, and the abuses of power and influence become more and more severe the more one gains.

If it's a capitalist western "democracy" faceless corporations will pollute, sue, extort, bribe, spread lies and propaganda and basically do anything for those few who own them. Those few then are above the law and regular folk. They can own politicians, media, patents, whatever. They are untouchable and further increasing their wealth is only a means to obtaining more power.

If it's some sort of totalitarian/autocratic government the same things happen but are done by the ruling party and the secret police.

The only difference is that in the first scenario the people are being given the illusion of freedom (you are free to buy a 2.6 million dollar house. No one is stopping you.) and in the second one you get some social benefits like health care, school and security, but at the cost of total control, indoctrination and the secret police labeling "enemies within".

Overall both systems suck hard. The flaw with today's society is that the whole currency system and the way we conceptualize economics is flawed. If all we ever had in the world were goods and services produced and exchanged between people, then each man would be worth as much as the value they provide to their community. But now we make money from money: loans, mortgages, forex, stock market and a thousand other tricks that make money out of nothing. We no longer see currency as a convenient means of exchanging goods or services, it is now its own demon that ran away with our lives.

And since the ones who manufacture money out of nothing also say how much it is worth and how much we get, it's easy to see how working hard and voting doesn't mean jack in today's world.

I am no expert on economics though. I'd still go back to gold standard, but hey, Qaddafi tried it and he got killed so... Actually, what is the official reason for removing the gold standard and allowing privately held central banks? Because the world bank said so?

[HoreTore]

So did Adam Smith. The men who actually created capitalism as we know it were far less doctrinaire and ideological than modern-day Libertarians.

Or is it that the men who created capitalism were doctrinaire and ideological, and it's simply the randroids who fail to understand what capitalism is about?

[Husar]

I was pleasantly surprised by the OP and the responses on the first page. If everyone (well, most anyway) recognizes the problem, can we point a solution?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?146707-Wealth-distribution&p=2053575453&viewfull=1#post2053575453

?

[Lemur]

The noted Commie pinkos from Google explain why stagnating and falling incomes for the middle-and-lower tier people are a bad thing all around (http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1).


The stagnation in middle-class wages is not just a middle-class problem. It's an economic problem. And it's one of the main reasons that global economic growth is so lousy.

Why do stagnant middle-class wages hurt the economy?

Because the middle-class folks whose wages are stagnant are the global economy's biggest spenders.

And when they don't have money to spend, their lack of spending hurts not just them but all the companies that depend on them for revenue.

Including, Schmidt pointed out, Google.

Put differently, one company's expenses (wages) are another company's revenues. So, collectively, when companies are cutting wages, they're also cutting their own future revenue growth.

Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible — that wages as a percent of the economy are now near an all-time low (see chart below). And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak.

Looked at from this perspective, ruthless cost-cutting with employees is just another variant of the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).


The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory [...] according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, act contrary to the group's long-term best interests by depleting the common resource.

Or to put it even more bluntly, when a Walmart executive complains that his customers have no money (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/27/news/companies/walmart_ceo_consumers_under_pressure/), he is whining about a mess he helped create.

[Fragony]

But my arguments are convincing. I have in fact convinced you, you just refuse to accept it.

edit: Maybe you'll like this argument: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/rich-muslims-more-likely-to-support-terrorism-than-poor-muslims/

I didn't bring islam into the equation, so why do you? Just because I don't like the islam that makes sense? How? Is there any double-standard I apparantly have, then please kindly oblige.

[HoreTore]

I'd still go back to gold standard

Going back to the gold standard makes no sense at all. Sure, you gain a thin layer of additional artificial stability, but at the expense of a severe lack of available money. The market is naturally flowing with ups and downs. Going back to the gold standard will do nothing to reduce the down periods, but it will do wonders at eliminating the periods of high growth we get. All around a very bad idea.


The noted Commie pinkos from Google explain why stagnating and falling incomes for the middle-and-lower tier people are a bad thing all around (http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1).


The stagnation in middle-class wages is not just a middle-class problem. It's an economic problem. And it's one of the main reasons that global economic growth is so lousy.

Why do stagnant middle-class wages hurt the economy?

Because the middle-class folks whose wages are stagnant are the global economy's biggest spenders.

And when they don't have money to spend, their lack of spending hurts not just them but all the companies that depend on them for revenue.

Including, Schmidt pointed out, Google.

Put differently, one company's expenses (wages) are another company's revenues. So, collectively, when companies are cutting wages, they're also cutting their own future revenue growth.

Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible — that wages as a percent of the economy are now near an all-time low (see chart below). And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak.

Looked at from this perspective, ruthless cost-cutting with employees is just another variant of the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).


The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory [...] according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, act contrary to the group's long-term best interests by depleting the common resource.

Or to put it even more bluntly, when a Walmart executive complains that his customers have no money (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/27/news/companies/walmart_ceo_consumers_under_pressure/), he is whining about a mess he helped create.

Again an excellent post, and I have to expand on it:

In addition to undercutting each others market, lower wages also means that technological progress is slowed.

When your wage costs are 10 million per year, you can easily buy a 500.000 dollar piece of machinery that will allow you to cut 10% of your wages through layoffs. You will end up making 500.000 from your 500.000 investment.

If your wages are half of that, you might not bother doing it, since you're not going to make anything on it, you are simply breaking even. With wage costs of 1 million, you are actually losing 400.000 if you try to increase your productivity through automation. This affects not only you, but also the technological progress, since that cannot occur without an end-user buying the stuff they invent(barring an active state).

This is part of the reason why African countries are piss-poor, yet cannot even compete on price.

And I love the mention of the tragedy of the commons: the mechanisms it describes is one of the main reasons I am a pinko-commie hippie. The free market simply has no mechanisms to counter the irrationality, so we have need of a strong and active state capable of regulating us from painting ourselves into a corner.

[Lemur]

The free market simply has no mechanisms to counter the irrationality, so we have need of a strong and active state capable of regulating us from painting ourselves into a corner.
Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) would agree with you. So would Edmund Burke (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-conservatism-means/).

It's equal parts amusing and sad that the fathers of modern capitalism and conservatism, respectively, would be dirty RINO traitors by today's warped standards.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The noted Commie pinkos from Google explain why stagnating and falling incomes for the middle-and-lower tier people are a bad thing all around (http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1).


The stagnation in middle-class wages is not just a middle-class problem. It's an economic problem. And it's one of the main reasons that global economic growth is so lousy.

Why do stagnant middle-class wages hurt the economy?

Because the middle-class folks whose wages are stagnant are the global economy's biggest spenders.

And when they don't have money to spend, their lack of spending hurts not just them but all the companies that depend on them for revenue.

Including, Schmidt pointed out, Google.

Put differently, one company's expenses (wages) are another company's revenues. So, collectively, when companies are cutting wages, they're also cutting their own future revenue growth.

Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible — that wages as a percent of the economy are now near an all-time low (see chart below). And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak.

Looked at from this perspective, ruthless cost-cutting with employees is just another variant of the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons).


The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory [...] according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, act contrary to the group's long-term best interests by depleting the common resource.

Or to put it even more bluntly, when a Walmart executive complains that his customers have no money (http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/27/news/companies/walmart_ceo_consumers_under_pressure/), he is whining about a mess he helped create.

Good points. The problem is that so many folks fixate on wealth distribution through taxation as THE answer to this, but it is a lousy choice -- too many ways to cheat existing tax systems exist and many such taxation schemes end up punishing innovation and success.

SO.....what are some concepts that MIGHT work?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A stronger tax system, obviously.

That's sorta like saying "World peace would be better for all humanity." The HOW of it needs just a tad more in the way of detail.

[Strike For The South]

By putting :daisy:ers in jail for tax evasion for starters. By raising taxes and refusing to bow to corporations that claim to be indispensable for seconds.

Its clear by now that a class war is going on, and the poor didn't start it. Raise taxes and crack heads until everyone can afford three decent meals a day and rent, and education is free and on par with the best European systems, and our infrastructure is repaired by Americans paid a living wage to repair it.

And if that scares some rich people away, fuck em. America is becoming a banana republic because of the people that oppose stronger tax enforcement and higher taxes.

This is the most hollow, sunshine pumping, populist pandering sentence I have ever heard.

Where do you propose we get this money?

[Husar]

But low corporate taxes are great, they draw all the industry and that's super beneficial for a country, ask Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–13_Irish_financial_crisis) or Luxembourg (http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/15-07-2013/125138-Luxembourg-0/) how great this works and how the taxpayers of other countries will gladly bail out your system of enabling higher corporate profits if it should fail horribly after you made a lot of their tax-paying companies migrate to your trollcountry. :2thumbsup:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The problem is that so many folks fixate on wealth distribution through taxation as THE answer to this, but it is a lousy choice -- too many ways to cheat existing tax systems exist and many such taxation schemes end up punishing innovation and success.

From my perspective, the tax system is the only viable mechanism of wealth redistribution, regardless of its (very real) problems.

If we acknowledge that wealth redistribution of some order is desirable, which I admit is far from given, then the alternatives, as I see them, are: (1) rely on the private initiatives of wealthy individuals and/or corporations; (2a) legislate in such a way as to compel private wealthy individuals and/or corporations to contribute, with little direction; (2b) use a third party (ie: the state) to manage the process.

If we were to go with (1) the likelihood of escaping the tragedy of the commons scenario is small. As in the current system, it is in the interest of individuals and companies to reduce costs/wages, even if they rely on increased wages in the long run.

If we acknowledge that private initiative would not supply a fit and efficient system of redistribution, because it would not be in the interests of private initiative to do so, then some kind of coercive force must be applied. In this case, the only possible coercive actor is the state: only the state has the means, resources and the interest to act in this role. If we agree with this point, then there are two options. (2a) Compel private individuals/corporations to divert some funds to supporting others directly. This would entail introducing a mandated, fair, minimum wage; supporting community programs; investing the local community infrastructure, etc. To a certain extent, this does happen, but sporadically, and not to the degree where it makes a noticeable difference in the grand scheme of things. The key problems here are twofold: a lack of central direction results in inequitable outcomes, and it relies on a degree of communal will. Under the present system, it is in the interests of large corporations to contribute to such schemes from concern regarding global image, but when the balance of opinion shifts, there is no guarantee that it will continue in the same vein.

(2b) Which leads us back to the state as the main driver and administrator of the redistributive process. A third, neutral, party taking funds from those companies/individuals who can afford it and giving it/investing it in the interests of those who require it (ie. taxation). The problem here arises when it is not in the interests of those who run the state to institute and administer a robust tax system. Once again, the tragedy of the commons argument would apply, if the legislative/executive body wished to prioritise austerity-type policies, or the legislators themselves were corrupt in some way. However, an elected official, in theory, representing a wider body of stakeholders, ought to be more likely than a CEO or group of directors of a private company to act in the public interest.

I think that Gelatinous Cube has the right idea: whether the political will is there, or whether it would work in practice, however, is an entirely different matter.

:2cents:

[Fisherking]

By raising taxes. Its as easy as telling Norquist where he can shove it. But I guess that would threaten the entrenched system of corporate welfare so we can't do it. :shrug:

It ain't populist, its what has to happen. The alternatives are all much worse.


No, raising taxes is just going to make more poor.

Your battle is not with the middle class or even the well off. It is the Ultra Rich and huge corporate interests.

You know, those guys the laws are written to favor. Just like the affordable care act. It will destroy some insurers but it will make the biggest of the big even wealthier in the end.

Taxing the corporations is only taxing the people that buy their goods or services. It will hurt the smaller businesses and benefit the Mega Corps. The little guy can’t compete.

The mom and pop businesses are gone. Chains are now swallowed by bigger chains. You are only concentrating all the wealth in the hands of few.

You need to find a way to make more people wealthy than more people poor. Taxes just make more people miserable.

[Husar]

Nationalize all corporations!

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, raising taxes is just going to make more poor.

Your battle is not with the middle class or even the well off. It is the Ultra Rich and huge corporate interests.

You know, those guys the laws are written to favor. Just like the affordable care act. It will destroy some insurers but it will make the biggest of the big even wealthier in the end.

Taxing the corporations is only taxing the people that buy their goods or services. It will hurt the smaller businesses and benefit the Mega Corps. The little guy can’t compete.

The mom and pop businesses are gone. Chains are now swallowed by bigger chains. You are only concentrating all the wealth in the hands of few.

You need to find a way to make more people wealthy than more people poor. Taxes just make more people miserable.

Raise minimum wage, accept that the new normal for employment is higher than 4% and make adjustments accordingly.

[HoreTore]

Good points. The problem is that so many folks fixate on wealth distribution through taxation as THE answer to this, but it is a lousy choice -- too many ways to cheat existing tax systems exist and many such taxation schemes end up punishing innovation and success.

SO.....what are some concepts that MIGHT work?

There is no answer that is THE answer.

Combating poverty is something requiring a wide range of answer. The most important is meaningful employment with a proper wage. I can list a few measures which will help deal with poverty:

- Government and commercial companies providing entry level jobs for those struggling(for various reasons) to enter the job market. The ideal solution is in the private sector, but state companies may be required if the private sector cannot provide what is needed.
- Education. Free.
- Free, early access healthcare intended to fix problems before they grow big, aiming at getting people back to work as quickly as possible.
- Lower housing prices. Government may be required to build housing to drive prices down.
- A functional drug/alcohol rehabilitation scheme, which doesn't involve sending addicts to jail.
- Switching focus in the justice system from revenge to rehabilitation.
- Fire/jail all academics who consider themselves post-modernists, or make positive references to Latoure or Bourdieu.
- Pump up child protective services.
- Increased wages.

Taxation won't do much to combat poverty, it's what you use those tax dollars for that matters.

[Husar]

Taxing the corporations is only taxing the people that buy their goods or services. It will hurt the smaller businesses and benefit the Mega Corps. The little guy can’t compete.

That's only true if you create a lot of tax loopholes for the big corporations because they pay for your election campaigns.
As for taxing the buyers, that is not necessarily true because the taxes can be paid from all the huge profits which only exist because they evade the taxes so well. Profits are good, the question is how high they have to be and where they go (e.g. huge management bonuses and payouts to super rich investors).


The mom and pop businesses are gone. Chains are now swallowed by bigger chains. You are only concentrating all the wealth in the hands of few.

You need to find a way to make more people wealthy than more people poor. Taxes just make more people miserable.

I already solved that seven pages ago, force corporations to find more investors instead of bigger ones. If they're clever they will pay their own employees more and then let them invest in the company, which is good for the employees and good for the company since it can then still use the money while the employees get an investment portfolio and a share of the profits. It's a win-win situation with zero drawbacks.


Raise minimum wage, accept that the new normal for employment is higher than 4% and make adjustments accordingly.

I think you already have more than 4% employment.

[The Lurker Below]

Nationalize all corporations!

With Ron Paul 2012!!! in your sig this would be fantastic if not sarcastic

[Husar]

With Ron Paul 2012!!! in your sig this would be fantastic if not sarcastic

I got the impression that it doesn't matter what I write and that explains both statements.
I'm glad I finally went far enough to make someone notice though.
Would be nicer to get replies to my more serious thoughts though, even if just to tell me why it won't work.

And maybe an explanation why this is suddenly a US-centric problem now, like wealth distribution is only a problem in the USA.... :dizzy2:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Good points. The problem is that so many folks fixate on wealth distribution through taxation as THE answer to this, but it is a lousy choice -- too many ways to cheat existing tax systems exist and many such taxation schemes end up punishing innovation and success.

The alternative is the Athenian system: force wealthy citizens to pay for the cost of procurement, outfitting and manning of your navy. Force them to pay for the cost and supply of feeding the poor (temples). If they don't, then forcibly exclude them from social and political life, possibly ostracise them or set up a kangaroo court or two to confiscate property.

Another alternative is the medieval system of executing the rich on some pretext and seizing their property if it's more convenient.

On the whole taxing is not perfect but it is a whole lot more civilised, less troublesome and preferable to the alternatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you already have more than 4% employment.

Well duh. So why are we still trying to reach that goal?

[Fisherking]

Nationalize all corporations!

Just the banks might work.


I got the impression that it doesn't matter what I write and that explains both statements.
I'm glad I finally went far enough to make someone notice though.
Would be nicer to get replies to my more serious thoughts though, even if just to tell me why it won't work.

And maybe an explanation why this is suddenly a US-centric problem now, like wealth distribution is only a problem in the USA.... :dizzy2:

US is just a good example. The EU is a US wantabe.

Individual countries may vary.
:clown:

[Husar]

Well duh. So why are we still trying to reach that goal?

It may look like some corporations try to reach that goal but I think governments generally tend towards a goal of 96% employment.


Just the banks might work.

Well, I would go for national banks perhaps since they're meant to be sort of...national.


US is just a good example. The EU is a US wantabe.

Individual countries may vary.
:clown:

The problem is that the problem is global and if the solution is done wrong then the corporations can either migrate, blackmail or just increase prices by a whole lot which will lead some of them to fail as they cannot get customers any more due to limited purchasing power. What you want is a solution that stops the wealth distribution from constantly going upwards and IMO this starts with a distribution of investments because those are IMO largely responsible for the upwards stream as poor people cannot invest and wealthy people only invest if it increases their wealth. The least that cut happen is that poor people get a cut of that investment-pie.

[Strike For The South]

By raising taxes. Its as easy as telling Norquist where he can shove it. But I guess that would threaten the entrenched system of corporate welfare so we can't do it. :shrug:

It ain't populist, its what has to happen. The alternatives are all much worse.

Raise taxes on whom, exactly? How would it threaten corporate welfare?

I mean, it's not this simple. You're just angry and spewing vitriol.

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol I just realized my typing mistake. whatever, you all got my point.

[Strike For The South]

Thats why we have a legislature. They should be working out whom exactly they want to tax in terms of income brackets. In the absence of that eminent body's sage judgement, you get vitriol. Norquist's anti tax pledge is going to lead congress (which is full of sorry ass millionaires anyway) right into some very real populist rage.

Christ almighty, despite what Jon Stewart tells you, Gorver Norquists tax pledge is not shackling anyone from doing anything.

[Strike For The South]

Then they should stop using it as an excuse. Jon Stewart's a sell out anyway.

Who is using it as an excuse

[Strike For The South]

First thing on google and a year old

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/275445-rip-grover-norquist-tax-pledge

Norquist is a sideshow to sideshows.

[Montmorency]

Where do you propose we get this money?

Nationalize the Fed.

[Strike For The South]

What he stood for is still alive and kicking. You say "Raise Taxes" and a chorus of very wealthy congressmen say "Not a chance in hell" (mostly Republicans, but the Dems are just happy the Republicans take the position for them so its not exactly one-sided). You know full well that the kinds of tax increases I'm talking about would make every single member of congress laugh all the way to the bank.

Americans have always hated taxes, it has nothing to do with Grover. "What he stood for" is not his idea, he simply co-opted it for a short time and got on television. Congress finds new ways to tax us all the time. Most of the time, if only to ensure their re-election/not rankle the constituency, they do it in a very roundabout way (see: Obamacare). Trust me congress would tax us a lot more if we REALLY wanted it, but people are not rational actors and we get what we want.


But like I said, its not just tax increases. The enforcement needs to be stronger, the tax code needs to be far simpler with less room for error, and there needs to be a real war on those who send all our money off-shore. And, indirectly related but still important, Citizens United v FEC needs to be overturned. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is what the Romneys of the world are most afraid of: a targeted campaign of revenue gathering against the wealthy, and a total purge of corrupt politicians from the political arena.

How much liquidity do you think these people have? In fact what kind of people are we talking about here? I personally attribute the "wage gap" in this country to increasing automation, which is something we can't and wouldn't try to stop. Now certainly this has, on some level, been exploited but taxing the "rich" is a drop in a bucket.


If that sounds scary, see what they're saying in ten or fifteen years when its clear that the government doesn't have the will or the power to do it the nice way.

:eyeroll: The most powerful economy in the world is in a rough patch, and the plan B is armed revolution

You are a charlatan

Also all this talk about the "rich" and yet nary a peep about the shit debt the "99"% has racked up "keeping up with Jones". Piss poor credit, houses too big, too many cars, and yet it's the "rich" peoples fault.

You're making sound like der fuhrer Panzer, that's very difficult

[Lemur]

As this thread demonstrates, the problems are obvious. The solutions ... less so.

America's Founding Fathers were very scared of concentrated power, so they divvied up the government into three mutually balanced branches. But at the time America was a rural, agricultural, relatively poor country. The Founders never foresaw our version of the Punic Curse (http://www.waysideinstitute.org/#!article/crai), nor does our system of government have any checks or balances against the power of great and concentrated wealth. Nor is there any structural limitation on the power of multi-national corporations, which may or may not have interests in alignment with the U.S.A.

And I'm sorry I keep bringing this back to the States—in fairness, most nations struggle with these issues.

[Husar]

Also all this talk about the "rich" and yet nary a peep about the shit debt the "99"% has racked up "keeping up with Jones". Piss poor credit, houses too big, too many cars, and yet it's the "rich" peoples fault.

Who is giving the poor people all these loans and why? Where is the money coming from that allows them to get so indebted? And who pays millions advertising favorable loan conditions for consumer goods to them?

[HopAlongBunny]

Violence if it does occur likely won't come from the bottom up. The probable source would be gov't coercion to keep the "rubes" in line with the policy of exporting labor jobs to beneficial jurisdictions.
The gov't can and will "crack heads" to maintain labor discipline.

[Montmorency]

Also all this talk about the "rich" and yet nary a peep about the shit debt the "99"% has racked up "keeping up with Jones". Piss poor credit, houses too big, too many cars, and yet it's the "rich" peoples fault.

Hasn't this narrative been discredited?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also all this talk about the "rich" and yet nary a peep about the shit debt the "99"% has racked up "keeping up with Jones". Piss poor credit, houses too big, too many cars, and yet it's the "rich" peoples fault

I subscribe to the notion that individuals are not perfectly rational actors and that when a bank tells an individual they qualify for a loan, the individual will take such an evaluation at face value because they will not go through the logic and uncover for themselves that the banks want them to miss payments so they can charge exorbitant fees and interest rates.

Likewise, I do feel as if we must also accept the consequences of this idea when it comes to the "elite", the bankers and CEOs and such who gave out/authorized these high risk loans. However, since it has been proven that their culpability does not end in ignorance but in willful fraud of the legal system, I think GC has a point that we may point the finger at them as being at the very least, subject to more moral and legal scrutiny than the average citizen.

Keeping up with the jones has fueled the american economy for decades, you cant blame people for doing what their parents and grandparents did because they took their non-finance background and did not look into the business model of handing out predatory loans.

[Husar]

There is also a psychological component because in a huge corporation decisions are often made not by a single person but by several people.
As with accidents, the more people have to make a decision, the more likely each one is to think that the others are as or even more responsible than they are. And if the others agree then it can't be so bad and what not. (with accidents it is so that people are less likely to help the more people are around because they think the others can help, not exactly the same but similar)

Counter to this one also has to remember that most really rich people have some kind of education that a lot of factory workers do not have. They can calculate financial deals or even get a good feeling for the numbers right away. They also know better about the consequences of what they are doing and so on. Blaming the poor guys for not having the same education is not fair if getting that education costs more per month than a poor guy earns in a year...

[Fisherking]

You guys are missing an important point.

Our money system is based on debt creation. Banks make their money from lending. The fractional reserve system allows the creation of money based on that debt.

It makes no difference if it is the government borrowing the money or the family buying a house or just taking a cash advance from their credit card.

Money is not based on any real assets. There is no gold or silver involved as in the past.

Banking interests loan you what they don’t have to pay for real things. Then when you default they are covered by insurance of the loan but also get to take the real assets and resell them, usually creating more debt.

Convincing some poor sod to go into debt just makes them wealthier. You put the focus on individuals. What about what our brilliant governments owe.

[Husar]

You guys are missing an important point.

Our money system is based on debt creation. Banks make their money from lending. The fractional reserve system allows the creation of money based on that debt.

It makes no difference if it is the government borrowing the money or the family buying a house or just taking a cash advance from their credit card.

Money is not based on any real assets. There is no gold or silver involved as in the past.

Banking interests loan you what they don’t have to pay for real things. Then when you default they are covered by insurance of the loan but also get to take the real assets and resell them, usually creating more debt.

Convincing some poor sod to go into debt just makes them wealthier. You put the focus on individuals. What about what our brilliant governments owe.

But that was my point all along. The education required to make good decisions in our system is not evenly distributed. And then rich people incite poor people to make bad decisions and afterwards they blame them for having made those bad decisions which accidentally caused the rich guys to make a profit.

[Fragony]

But that was my point all along. The education required to make good decisions in our system is not evenly distributed. And then rich people incite poor people to make bad decisions and afterwards they blame them for having made those bad decisions which accidentally caused the rich guys to make a profit.

If we keep it to America, look up the community reinforcement act of the Carter administration. You will immediatly understand why people bought houses they can't afford.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, my reply to GC seems to have sparked some VERY nice discussion.

I do not object to taxation. The Athenian approach, as noted above, is even more inane.

I do not particularly want higher taxes -- though fewer loopholes written for one company and such would be a nice improvement.

My objection is with the form of taxation. If the goal of a tax system is and should be wealth redistribution....then tax wealth. Taxing income only gets in the way of those trying to achieve; it does not touch the "this isn't income" plutocrats whom GC decries so much in the first place.

I have a bright chap in my comm class, b-student who owns his own tattoo parlor, who has been "paid" little or nothing since he bought a piece of the business, instead granting himself "stock" compensation in a closely held corp so that he can be taxed at 15% and not 35%.

Our current emphasis on income tax, at least as framed, fails to generate the revenues needed for sweeping improvements such as those suggested by Horetore and GC, AND manages to create stumbling blocks to wealth achievement. Trending towards the worst of both.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Unless tax levels were ever made truly crippling, they will not do much to affect income inequality - it would be a token measure at best.

Taxation is not the answer. Welfare is only a short-term answer. Education is no longer the answer, as my own life testifies.

As things stand, a big chunk of the population has neither the incentive nor the means to improve their lot in life. IMO the solution is to help the ordinary worker to produce their own wealth, which would require a whole host of very broad and varied measures. That would stop the inequality at the source, rather than merely curbing its excesses as taxation aims to do.

[HoreTore]

Money is not based on any real assets. There is no gold or silver involved as in the past.

Go read a book or two on economics. This sentence(along with a few others in your post) makes no sense whatsoever.

The price of gold is based on the exact same thing as today's money, which you refer to as "no real asset".

[HoreTore]

Well, my reply to GC seems to have sparked some VERY nice discussion.

I do not object to taxation. The Athenian approach, as noted above, is even more inane.

I do not particularly want higher taxes -- though fewer loopholes written for one company and such would be a nice improvement.

My objection is with the form of taxation. If the goal of a tax system is and should be wealth redistribution....then tax wealth. Taxing income only gets in the way of those trying to achieve; it does not touch the "this isn't income" plutocrats whom GC decries so much in the first place.

I have a bright chap in my comm class, b-student who owns his own tattoo parlor, who has been "paid" little or nothing since he bought a piece of the business, instead granting himself "stock" compensation in a closely held corp so that he can be taxed at 15% and not 35%.

Our current emphasis on income tax, at least as framed, fails to generate the revenues needed for sweeping improvements such as those suggested by Horetore and GC, AND manages to create stumbling blocks to wealth achievement. Trending towards the worst of both.

I favour taxing what is owned rather than what is earned, even though the end result probably isn't that big since the state has to rake in the same amount of money, and that for the most part means the same people paying.

I could go on and on about how wealth taxation is better than income taxation, as the last election in Norway had removal of wealth taxation as one of the hot issues, and I argued endlessly with friends on how we should instead increase the wealth tax and reduce the income tax. The biggest problem with the wealth tax is the human brain: we react strongly to something being "taken away"(why do I have to pay tax on this house I already paid for?!?!?), but we don't really react at all if we don't get the chance to buy that thing. But since we seem to be all in agreement here, I won't do the wall of text-thing now...

[Ironside]

I have a bright chap in my comm class, b-student who owns his own tattoo parlor, who has been "paid" little or nothing since he bought a piece of the business, instead granting himself "stock" compensation in a closely held corp so that he can be taxed at 15% and not 35%.

Our current emphasis on income tax, at least as framed, fails to generate the revenues needed for sweeping improvements such as those suggested by Horetore and GC, AND manages to create stumbling blocks to wealth achievement. Trending towards the worst of both.

Increasing the capital gain taxes to normal income taxes or even the highest levels are a great reform for the US. Honestly, anybody going for a grassroot campaign should start here. It's easy to explain, easy to implement, simple and the top politicians will never touch it by themselves. Because they use it. And pay less taxes than those employed in the White House because of it.

Who has a lot of capital gain? Wealthy people. CEO:s who's changed their salary into divends. It slows down wealth accumulation and works as an indirect wealth tax.

[Fisherking]

Go read a book or two on economics. This sentence(along with a few others in your post) makes no sense whatsoever.

The price of gold is based on the exact same thing as today's money, which you refer to as "no real asset".

If you fail to understand this, you need to be the one reading up on fiat money and fractional reserve lending.

[Montmorency]

All "money" is ultimately fiat money.

[HoreTore]

All "money" is ultimately fiat money.

Indeed.

Gold is only marginably more valuable than the cotton in our current bills. Arguing a return to the gold standard is missing the point completely. Especially if you then believe that the value of money will be based on something other than what it is currently based on.

Money has always been and will always remain based on the production value of work. That's the basis of it, gold and cotton is simply the way we represent that value, and we do so because it's a lot easier to carry around a few bills than it is to carry around 2-3 cows.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I favour taxing what is owned rather than what is earned, even though the end result probably isn't that big since the state has to rake in the same amount of money, and that for the most part means the same people paying.

I could go on and on about how wealth taxation is better than income taxation, as the last election in Norway had removal of wealth taxation as one of the hot issues, and I argued endlessly with friends on how we should instead increase the wealth tax and reduce the income tax. The biggest problem with the wealth tax is the human brain: we react strongly to something being "taken away"(why do I have to pay tax on this house I already paid for?!?!?), but we don't really react at all if we don't get the chance to buy that thing. But since we seem to be all in agreement here, I won't do the wall of text-thing now...

Clear thinking on your part. If your goal is wealth redistribution from rich to poor (I don't agree with that goal as you know, but that does seem to be the goal behind using taxation to re-balance society) then taxing anything aside from wealth is counterproductive. Taxing income means taxing the actively employed middle class...the backbone of all Western economies...but only taxes the "current accounts" of the rich.

It is one of the things I find idiotic in the USA right now. We have a progressive income tax that, in practice, hammers the upper middle class and drains the wealth accumulation potential of the working class, while shielding from taxation the very people the US political left blames for the imbalance. The solution? Higher taxes on corporations (which are passed to the working class in higher prices) and higher income taxes on wage earners over 150k (which includes lots of owner operator small businesses and other small business employers, thus discouraging job creation; and yes, it does take thousands of dollars more from the salaries of big corp CEOs....who make less than 20% of their compensation in salary and are taxed at 15% (lower then their staff's income tax rates) on the rest.

The system, as currently constituted, is inane.

Give me a modified consumption tax like the Fair Tax or a flat tax on all earnings (of any form or stripe, no exceptions).

[HoreTore]

If your goal is wealth redistribution from rich to poor

Taxation is only "a means to a means to an end", it is not the way to achieve the goal.

As I said previously, taxation is only important due to what you can do with that tax money. The actual answer to poverty is meaningful employment in private sector jobs with proper wages, for all. Taxation alone isn't going to do anything towards that goal.

Even though I agree with you on wealth v income tax, I wouldn't go so far as to abolish the income tax altogether. Tax diversification is also important, both to ensure a stable tax revenue(you can't plan long term without stability) as well as lessen the impact of loopholes.

But even more important, the process needs to be simple. If I need to do anything more than I currently do to pay my taxes(which is reading a letter from the government every january for half a minute before throwing it in the trash), I'll storm the bastille.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As an interesting aside, the price of gold is fairly arbitrary but it is not quite the same as fiat money. The reason is mostly the chemical properties of gold (which mean that you can store it and transport it in a practical fashion) and the fact that is not actually rare without being plentiful (unlike, say, Xenon, Helium or Iron). You need your money to be not too difficult to obtain or else very few people can use it. Its chemical properties also mean you are quite likely to find it in its metallic crystalline form, which means it's likely to be shiny which humans happen to find interesting and attractive. So it makes for a good gift or money as it is both expensive (so the recipient can appreciate the effort) and quite useless (so there is little incentive to demand too much of it, damaging real productivity).

The flipside means that in a modern, advanced economy gold is subject to speculation and other manipulations like any other common commodity. In these days you might as well pick 'oil' as your money.

[Pannonian]

Give me a modified consumption tax like the Fair Tax or a flat tax on all earnings (of any form or stripe, no exceptions).

How does a Fair Tax work better than Income Tax? As I understand it, it's a kind of Value Added Tax, which in the UK has been noted as working against the poor as the tax paid on necessities is a much bigger slice of their overall resources than that paid by the rich.

[Lemur]

[A FairTax] has been noted as working against the poor as the tax paid on necessities is a much bigger slice of their overall resources than that paid by the rich.
There are actually terms for this.

A tax that gets smaller as more wealth is involved is called a regressive tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax).

A tax whose marginal rate increases as more wealth is involved is called a progressive tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax).

[HoreTore]

Ideally and theoretically, I like the idea of a consumption tax as the main form of taxation.

However, I fear it will be eaten alive by the iron law of unintended consequences the minute it hits reality, and so I don't really consider more than a supplement to other taxation...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How does a Fair Tax work better than Income Tax? As I understand it, it's a kind of Value Added Tax, which in the UK has been noted as working against the poor as the tax paid on necessities is a much bigger slice of their overall resources than that paid by the rich.

Not sure if it would function as well as designed in practice. The Fair Tax is supposed to function as noted here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax) Yes, it is a wiki, but it is pretty religiously "policed" by Fair Tax advocates and is a fair summary of their approach. The basic idea is to be revenue neutral, but to tap into currently untaxed aspects of the economy (black and gray markets because the money is eventually used to buy something that is subject to the tax). Ostensibly, the Fair Tax would replace ALL other forms of federal taxation -- excises, income tax, Spanish war tax on telephones etc. Supposedly, the "prebate" lowers the effective tax burden on lower income families, down to an effective federal tax burden of 0% on necessities.

The Fair Tax has detractors as well, who argue that it is a waste of time because it won't work as planned or, more commonly, because it is politically undoable and hence a waste of time.

[Pannonian]

Not sure if it would function as well as designed in practice. The Fair Tax is supposed to function as noted here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax) Yes, it is a wiki, but it is pretty religiously "policed" by Fair Tax advocates and is a fair summary of their approach. The basic idea is to be revenue neutral, but to tap into currently untaxed aspects of the economy (black and gray markets because the money is eventually used to buy something that is subject to the tax). Ostensibly, the Fair Tax would replace ALL other forms of federal taxation -- excises, income tax, Spanish war tax on telephones etc. Supposedly, the "prebate" lowers the effective tax burden on lower income families, down to an effective federal tax burden of 0% on necessities.

The Fair Tax has detractors as well, who argue that it is a waste of time because it won't work as planned or, more commonly, because it is politically undoable and hence a waste of time.

What has been the experience with VAT in the UK is that poor and rich alike pay taxes at the point of purchase. But with the poor consuming necessities the same as the rich, the tax paid on these necessities is a much bigger proportion of their income/savings than the same thing paid by the rich. Perhaps it's a bigger chunk in absolute terms as well as the rich can afford to buy a large amount in one go, and sellers are willing to offer discounts if they get their money in one large chunk, whereas the poor need to stagger their purchases which thus precludes discounts. And as for the consumption tax replacing all taxes, the poor have a much lower base rate anyway, and it still hardly helps them cope with price rises.

Just about the best thing that's happened with VAT is the free rein to tax whatever the government likes on consumer drugs like tobacco, alcohol, etc. The most sensible thing they can do is legalise and add cannabis and other currently prohibited stuff to it. Politically impossible though alas.

[Fisherking]

All "money" is ultimately fiat money.

You are basically correct.


Indeed.

Gold is only marginably more valuable than the cotton in our current bills. Arguing a return to the gold standard is missing the point completely. Especially if you then believe that the value of money will be based on something other than what it is currently based on.

Money has always been and will always remain based on the production value of work. That's the basis of it, gold and cotton is simply the way we represent that value, and we do so because it's a lot easier to carry around a few bills than it is to carry around 2-3 cows.

You are totally incorrect.

This is how money used to act.

If you pay attention this may teach you something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_IgcmsqnVM


Reforms would also make wealth redistribution possible.

[Lemur]

Related, and interesting:

Why do the Super-Rich Feel so Persecuted? (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-brittle-grip-part-2)

The extremely wealthy are objectively far wealthier, far more politically powerful and find a far more indulgent political class than at any time in almost a century—at least. And yet at the same time they palpably feel more isolated, abused and powerless than at any time over the same period and sense some genuine peril to the whole mix of privileges, power and wealth they hold.

There is a disconnect there that is so massive and glaring that it demands some sociocultural explanation. [...]

I saw several years ago that many of the wealthiest people in the country, especially people in financial services, not only didn't support Obama (not terribly surprising) but had a real and palpable sense that he was out to get them. This was hard to reconcile with the fact that Obama, along with President Bush, had pushed through a series of very unpopular laws and programs and fixes that had not only stabilized global capitalism, saved Wall Street but saved the personal fortunes (and perhaps even the personal liberty) of the people who were turning so acidly against him. Indeed, through the critical years of 2009, 10 and 11 he was serving as what amounted to Wall Street's personal heat shield, absorbing as political damage the public revulsion at the bailout policies that had kept Wall Street whole.

Let's start by stipulating that no one expects the extremely wealthy to react happily to mounting discussion of wealth and income inequality or left-wing diatribes about "the 1%." But again, the reaction is extreme and excessive and frequently runs into less comical versions of Perkins' screed, with weird fears of persecution and threat from the folks who quite truly rule the roost.

Also: The Cognitive Dissonance Of The One Percent (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/27/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-the-one-percent/)

[M]any of these extremist plutocrats must surely know, somewhere in their psyches, that they collectively failed—and failed terribly—in self-regulating and thereby protecting the very capitalist system they depend on for so much.

These masters of the universe had to go cap in hand to the federal government to bail out their sorry, incompetent asses. They were revealed not as brilliant engineers of our collective wealth, but as enablers of the debt-mania, tech-hubris and bubble-creating that destroyed so much from 2007 onwards. They were exposed as something much worse than greedy; they were revealed as incompetents whose mistakes and over-reach created untold misery and hardship for countless millions. Their own self-image—again, somewhere deep down—must have shattered a little.

People respond to revelations of their own incompetence in different ways. But the proudest—and this group of people are not exactly renowned for humility—can sometimes respond by internalizing an ever more extreme version of their own previous mindset. They cannot compute the fact that they failed, and so they have to construct a version of reality that insists it was all someone else’s fault, and then build on that an ideology of their own unrelenting heroism, which is now, on their minds, unfairly impugned. And the only target of blame that can plausibly fill the gap is the federal government.

[Fisherking]

lol.


Yes, very funny. Norway uses the same system. Fractional Reserve Lending.

You money is created from debt just like everyone else’s.

[HoreTore]

Yes, very funny. Norway uses the same system. Fractional Reserve Lending.

You money is created from debt just like everyone else’s.

Youtube University strikes again!

Try offering someone with actual knowledge as opposed to a dimwit activist with no qualifications beyond high school next time.

This (http://www.paulgrignon.com/) is your source:


I soon caught the Mother Earth News bug, started doing yoga at 4 am with people in white turbans, chanting with Krishnaites and then suddenly got the urge to go West.

Now that's an authority on world economics if I ever saw one!!

[gaelic cowboy]

Why is everyone on the tinterweb mad about fractional reserve lending when its bloody central bank interest rates that cause more harm.

That blooming Zeitgeist crowd has a lot to answer for

[HoreTore]

Why is everyone on the tinterweb mad about fractional reserve lending when its bloody central bank interest rates that cause more harm.

That blooming Zeitgeist crowd has a lot to answer for

Fractional reserve lending has been the way banks have functioned since paper money was introduced back in the 18th century. And to top it off, the bank informs you of it every time they send your statement. Why on earth would banks give you interest on deposits if they didn't lend it out again? The reason why the tinfoil crowd throws a hissyfit over it, is because it:
a) is a suitably technical term
b) can be made to look suitably evil by playing around with motives and other nonsense
c) is not something the average tinfoiler knows about, since the tinfoilers knowledge of economics in particular and how the world functions in general, is close to zero

There are plenty of other completely mundane things conspiracy nutters twist into something horrible. Fluoride water immediately pops into mind, as well as GMO.

[Myth]

The quality of discussion has dropped dramatically.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The quality of discussion has dropped dramatically.

You realize that people have been saying that since Q.T.Cicero's time...and probably before.

[Fisherking]

HoreTore thinks just because it is the way it has always been done that it is the only way things should be done. Either that or he fears someone might find a conspiracy somewhere in the material.

But it is not the way it has always been done.

There are several alternatives to who controls the money supply.

The topic was Wealth Distribution and how to equalize it. It is hard to discuss that without addressing the mechanics of fractional reserve banking.

All money systems have pitfalls.

Rather than learn about the alternatives he would much rather attack the source without knowing what is in it.

Of course it is beneath his great wisdom…

Governments taking control of the money system is not the worst alternative.

In fact it is how most people believe money is created.

But rather than discuss inequities and alternatives, he would rather see people searching for conspiracy.

He seems to have intellectually crippled himself by trying to stay in what he believes is “The Main Stream”. How very conservative!

[Myth]

You realize that people have been saying that since Q.T.Cicero's time...and probably before.

And probably they are right :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

HoreTore thinks just because it is the way it has always been done that it is the only way things should be done. Either that or he fears someone might find a conspiracy somewhere in the material.

But it is not the way it has always been done.

There are several alternatives to who controls the money supply.

The topic was Wealth Distribution and how to equalize it. It is hard to discuss that without addressing the mechanics of fractional reserve banking.

All money systems have pitfalls.

Rather than learn about the alternatives he would much rather attack the source without knowing what is in it.

Of course it is beneath his great wisdom…

Governments taking control of the money system is not the worst alternative.

In fact it is how most people believe money is created.

But rather than discuss inequities and alternatives, he would rather see people searching for conspiracy.

He seems to have intellectually crippled himself by trying to stay in what he believes is “The Main Stream”. How very conservative!

I try to stay in the realm of sanity, away from theories pushed by new age hippies with neither education nor qualifications.

If you're going to take apart the monetary system, I do expect a certain level of actual knowledge. Failed art classes and TV-jobs doesn't quite cut it.

[Fisherking]

I try to stay in the realm of sanity, away from theories pushed by new age hippies with neither education nor qualifications.

If you're going to take apart the monetary system, I do expect a certain level of actual knowledge. Failed art classes and TV-jobs doesn't quite cut it.

But you really wouldn’t know, as you merely found it astatically displeasing and didn’t watch.

[HoreTore]

But you really wouldn’t know, as you merely found it astatically displeasing and didn’t watch.

No, I didn't watch it, as I hate youtube movies with a passion. I have, however, read the "theory" in written form in its many variations, and I highly doubt an old hippie will offer anything new.

The conclusion remains the same: it's nonsense from the clueless.

[Fisherking]

No, I didn't watch it, as I hate youtube movies with a passion. I have, however, read the "theory" in written form in its many variations, and I highly doubt an old hippie will offer anything new.

The conclusion remains the same: it's nonsense from the clueless.

I am sure there are those who would say the same of your teaching methods.

But they likely think they already know everything and there is no need to go over the material.

Very enlightened attitude, huh?

[HoreTore]

I am sure there are those who would say the same of your teaching methods.

But they likely think they already know everything and there is no need to go over the material.

Very enlightened attitude, huh?

If you want me to go over it, present your ideas in the proper format, ie. in writing.

As for my teaching methods, I happily accept criticism. I already know they're far from polished since I only have a couple of years of experience. One of the main reason why I work where I do is because I am constantly challenged on the scientific validity of my methods.

[Pannonian]

You realize that people have been saying that since Q.T.Cicero's time...and probably before.

Was that when he complained about brother Marcus's love of hearing his own voice?

[Fisherking]

If you want me to go over it, present your ideas in the proper format, ie. in writing.

As for my teaching methods, I happily accept criticism. I already know they're far from polished since I only have a couple of years of experience. One of the main reason why I work where I do is because I am constantly challenged on the scientific validity of my methods.

I don’t want to argue with you about what you think you know.

I would much rather argue, or even agree with you on a topic we are both informed upon.

I don’t want to discredit your teaching methods. That was only an example.

The crux is that we need a debt free money system.

Your statement as to what money is was wrong, however, it is what money should be. The creation of money as debt only ensures that it is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands over time.

The video’s conclusion is digital coin, but I don’t particularly favor that method.

Money is for the fair exchange of goods and services. Money created from debt automatically places us in a position where that has to be repaid to those who made it. In the current paradigm this is private banks.

Government too is shackled to the debt. Government bailouts of the financial system only incurred more taxpayer debt to the entities that created the problem to begin with. It did not fix the problem and it will reoccur.

It can only lead to eventual financial collapse unless it is fundamentally changed.

Governments can do this with expenditures and taxes but there would be a tendency to overspending or over taxing, which would cause unrest or create disparities in currency values.

I am more interested in alternatives and developing a stable currency system.

Without some different system, than the debt based money supply we are never going to truly be able to fairly redistribute wealth.

[HoreTore]

The crux is that we need a debt free money system.

Your statement as to what money is was wrong, however, it is what money should be. The creation of money as debt only ensures that it is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands over time.

Your problem is that this statement doesn't make any sense. I would suggest reading up on economics, preferably starting with Smith and Schumpeter.

Fractional reserve lending is a completely mundane practice, and has existed from the beginning of banking. Yes, that includes 200 years of the gold standard. It doesn't translate into a meaningless statement as "money is debt".

Maybe the guys at rationalwiki can explain it to you (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking).

[Fisherking]

Play semantics if you will but you are only playing silly games.

Currently money is only created by debt. Governments may print money but it does not belong to them. It belongs to the Central Banks.

Governments took on the debt when they bailed out the banks, did they not?

It is not a conspiracy. It is a fundamental flaw.

Money is credit or money is debt, in the end they are both the same.

The bank gives you credit for which you incur debt.

I think you understand far less than you believe you do.

[HoreTore]

Play semantics if you will but you are only playing silly games.

Currently money is only created by debt. Governments may print money but it does not belong to them. It belongs to the Central Banks.

This isn't relevant at all. It's a textbook example of being not even wrong. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)

But I acknowledge it makes for a great conspiracy theory.

Go back to watching some more youtube movies made by clueless old hippies who failed their art class. I'll stick with reading nobel prize winners.

[Fisherking]

Well then, rather than just playing troll, why don’t you impart some real wisdom and insight to the problem?

Why don’t you actually contribute something rather than wasting everyone’s time.

You know, be relevant.

[HoreTore]

Well then, rather than just playing troll, why don’t you impart some real wisdom and insight to the problem?

Why don’t you actually contribute something rather than wasting everyone’s time.

You know, be relevant.

The only two things you have offered, is a claim that fractional reserve banking is a big, scary monster treathening our monetary system and that we would be better off on the gold standard.

I believe I have explained how fractional reserve banking is a fundamental part of how banks work(how else would they get money to loan out?), and how they have always worked, and that gold is just as arbitrary a currency as our current cotton is.

What more do you want to know?

[Myth]

I believe I have explained how fractional reserve banking is a fundamental part of how banks work(how else would they get money to loan out?), and how they have always worked, and that gold is just as arbitrary a currency as our current cotton is.

No one argues that this has always been the case. We are arguing that the ever growing debt will implode the system sooner or later. That it has always worked like that (banks are relatively new compared to our total years of history) doesn't make it right or good for us. If you think that the USA debt and the IMF/World Bank are good things then there is no point arguing. Sometimes I wonder if you are being incentivized to always state and bold/underline the mainstream position on every single topic in existence and ridicule any way of alternative thinking.

[Fisherking]

The only two things you have offered, is a claim that fractional reserve banking is a big, scary monster treathening our monetary system and that we would be better off on the gold standard.

I believe I have explained how fractional reserve banking is a fundamental part of how banks work(how else would they get money to loan out?), and how they have always worked, and that gold is just as arbitrary a currency as our current cotton is.

What more do you want to know?

No you haven’t. No new information there. Unless you care to go back and edit some in.

Just drivel because you think you might be able to convince someone that you think you smell a conspiracy. So you couldn’t possibly watch a video so were on the same topic.

You seem to be either a crypto conservative or a raving paranoid on the topic.

But seeing as how you already know it all, please share you knowledge.

If you know how it works then you also know the pitfalls. Care to tell us any of those?

Why must the money supply be ever growing? What is the result when it stops?

Tell us about business cycles and what they do.

Show us why it can just go on for ever and ever.

[HoreTore]

No one argues that this has always been the case. We are arguing that the ever growing debt will implode the system sooner or later. That it has always worked like that (banks are relatively new compared to our total years of history) doesn't make it right or good for us. If you think that the USA debt and the IMF/World Bank are good things then there is no point arguing. Sometimes I wonder if you are being incentivized to always state and bold/underline the mainstream position on every single topic in existence and ridicule any way of alternative thinking.

I have not made the claim that there is sufficient liquidity in the system at present. In fact, I am of the opinion that there's not enough liquidity, and that banks are allowed to operate at risk levels higher than what we need to have a stable market. I am also of the opinion that the various tools designed to hide/distort risk are incredibly dangerous, and undermines what stability there is in the market, and we saw the results of that in 2008.

My criticism towards you and Fisherking is your use of fractional reserve banking as explanation of the cause of it. That's what's nonsense and where you go wrong.

Also, reread my post. When it comes to fractional reserve banking, it operates now just like it has always done. The situation today is no different than in 1960, 1860 or 1760.

[Ironside]

Why must the money supply be ever growing? What is the result when it stops?


If you have an increase in total wealth, then you'll need more money to facilitate it. Inflation is prefered since spending is prefered. One meassurement of how much money exists are how fast the money changes hands. The more hands, the more people has actually done something with the money.

A stopped growth would be problematic yeah. But that isn't exactly helped by the gold standard. The big flaw with gold standard are that it's a limited resource. That means two things. First, without finding more gold, the amount of money can't increase. That means that for me to get more money, someone else has to lose money. A 0 sum game instead of growth. The second is that gold may have a fixed price in that standard, but that doesn't mean that gold has a fixed price in reality.

Say that Indian gold jewellry is going up (again). Then you can get the funny situation that none wants to sell gold to the US for money, because Indian jewellry gives twice as much. Or the Swedish goverment sells the gold reserve to India for jewellry and gets payed twice as much. Then they'll ask the US to trade that money for gold. Repeat until the gold market breaks or people shuts down the market because you're breaking the system.

To put it simple. It's very easy to break the gold standard nowadays. Spain broke their own silver market historically. By finding too much silver in the new world.

[HoreTore]

If you have an increase in total wealth, then you'll need more money to facilitate it. Inflation is prefered since spending is prefered. One meassurement of how much money exists are how fast the money changes hands. The more hands, the more people has actually done something with the money.

A stopped growth would be problematic yeah. But that isn't exactly helped by the gold standard. The big flaw with gold standard are that it's a limited resource. That means two things. First, without finding more gold, the amount of money can't increase. That means that for me to get more money, someone else has to lose money. A 0 sum game instead of growth. The second is that gold may have a fixed price in that standard, but that doesn't mean that gold has a fixed price in reality.

Say that Indian gold jewellry is going up (again). Then you can get the funny situation that none wants to sell gold to the US for money, because Indian jewellry gives twice as much. Or the Swedish goverment sells the gold reserve to India for jewellry and gets payed twice as much. Then they'll ask the US to trade that money for gold. Repeat until the gold market breaks or people shuts down the market because you're breaking the system.

To put it simple. It's very easy to break the gold standard nowadays. Spain broke their own silver market historically. By finding too much silver in the new world.

To add to that: George Soros sure taught you Swedes how much fun it is with fixed values on currency....

[Sarmatian]

My criticism towards you and Fisherking is your use of fractional reserve banking as explanation of the cause of it. That's what's nonsense and where you go wrong.


He is correct somewhat in a sense that if banks had higher reserves, we wouldn't feel the depression so much as banks would have been able to cover bigger part of their losses from the reserves, but that is definitely not the reason we had depression.

The problem with higher bank reserves is that it makes the amount of money in circulation smaller, thus making investments more expensive. So, if we, for simplicity sake, say that because of the depression the 100$ we had became 90$ and if banks had higher reserves we would have lost less. That's true, but the economy wouldn't have developed as much so we would have had only 90$ in the first place and lost 2$, bringing our current wealth to 88$ - a net loss. A lot of it is psychology, a subjective feeling of loss

Bigger problem with the banks, especially in the US, is the risk factor, which is what really needs to be addressed.

On to the topic at hand - we've seen that the current model isn't the best. It needs to be tweaked. Taxation needs to be more fair, but naturally, it's much more complicated than it sounds.

I'd prefer if the state took a more active role in promoting social mobility, and adjust taxes (specifically for the wealthy) accordingly to that effect.

[Myth]

Having worked for a US company in the past, and currently employed in a subsidiary of a pretty big corporation now ($2 billion annual turnover) I see this time and again - growth, growth, growth! Always growth. Growth is to be expected. 10% growth year-over-year. No growth? Manager's heads start rolling.

But you see, growth can't come faster than what the limits are of our physical planet and the finite resources we are exploiting. Sooner or later we will hit a wall, and some corporate douches will insist on more growth. It's going to be sad and funny at the same time.

[rvg]

But you see, growth can't come faster than what the limits are of our physical planet and the finite resources we are exploiting. Sooner or later we will hit a wall, and some corporate douches will insist on more growth. It's going to be sad and funny at the same time.

Even if the economy is stagnating doesn't mean that an individual company cannot keep growing. You can always take the business away from the competition and grow that way.

[Myth]

Doesn't change the fact that at some point we won't be able to grow because there won't be more resources to transform in actual goods/services. The artificial growth because of fake money can never be matched by actual goods produced. Even if you oust every other competitor and just have Megacorp PLC as the supplier of EVERYTHING they will still want growth.

[rvg]

Doesn't change the fact that at some point we won't be able to grow because there won't be more resources to transform in actual goods/services. The artificial growth because of fake money can never be matched by actual goods produced. Even if you oust every other competitor and just have Megacorp PLC as the supplier of EVERYTHING they will still want growth.

I doubt we need to worry about this scenario. While theoretically possible it is practically unattainable.

[HoreTore]

He is correct somewhat in a sense that if banks had higher reserves, we wouldn't feel the depression so much as banks would have been able to cover bigger part of their losses from the reserves, but that is definitely not the reason we had depression.

Indeed, and that's what "not enough liquidity" means. The problem isn't fractional reserve itself(that would be absurd), but rather where the balance between access to credit and stability lies.

I would argue that 2008 showed us it's too far on the access to credit-side, and that we need to reign it back a little to the stability-side.


That's here the actual, sane discussion is. Screaming about "fake money", "return to the gold standard" and "money is debt" is nonsensical and does nothing else than to make a hard topic even harder.

[Fisherking]

LOL and the liquidity disappears where?

What part of the lending process negates the 0 sum game?

The gold standard was only a means of international money transfer. It was fixed by governments to a fixed amount in gold. But in order to increase money supply, reserves had to be increased.

Fait money is not the problem, as long as people have confidence in the value of the currency.

The system is not the same as it always was. The Banking systems of the past were not in control of currency. Governments were.

The problem is when banks create the money (or credit/debt). Repaying the loans result in no loss to the economy. Interest =Bank profits spent on operating costs and dividends put some of the interest payments back into circulation.

Bank investment, however, acquires real property (wealth) and concentrates it into fewer hands. In the past investment banks and lending banks were separate. That has also changed.

Simple taxation can not reasonably make up the difference. Governments too are borrowers. Their taxation merely goes to service their debt. Governments don’t control their currencies today, Central Banks do.

At some point the whole thing has to tumble down. Be it governments defaulting or banks defaulting or both.

It produces inequities but it has worked to some degree for over 300 years.

Sure it has.

There have been collapses too in the past. Something left out of HT’s “it’s just the way its always been“.
These were just extremes in the cycle.
Too in the past everything was more localized. A particular bank might default depriving a community. Then it was whole nations. Today we have a globally interconnected system. What happens when it reached the breaking point. Do we need to test it?

We just need to find a better way of doing things.

Can’t we find a means to enrich those who produce wealth rather than those who simply make money available? Otherwise, we all become slaves to debt, if not on a personal level, at least on a governmental one.

Because if we don’t, we will surely end up with a barter system again.

[HoreTore]

LOL and the liquidity disappears where?

Once again. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)

[Husar]

A 0 sum game instead of growth.

It's still a zero sum game even with growth because if you gain money, the other person's money is now worth less even if you didn't take any of it away nominally. It's called inflation. That's why, when a bank gets your money and gives you 1% interest p.a. and there is an inflation of 2% p.a., the bank isn't really giving you money, it only compensates 50% of your loss.

[Beskar]

Please keep posts to an intelligible level above quoting an entire post and simply reply with "lol" or baseless answers or attacks. Thank you.

[Ironside]

It's still a zero sum game even with growth because if you gain money, the other person's money is now worth less even if you didn't take any of it away nominally. It's called inflation. That's why, when a bank gets your money and gives you 1% interest p.a. and there is an inflation of 2% p.a., the bank isn't really giving you money, it only compensates 50% of your loss.

There's quite a difference between growth and inflation. Since wiki gave me the numbers to calculate with. USA got about 30% more money between 2005-2009, while the combined inflation was about 10%.

The situation you describe can happen when the banking Prime rate is low and you have high inflation.

[Husar]

There's quite a difference between growth and inflation. Since wiki gave me the numbers to calculate with. USA got about 30% more money between 2005-2009, while the combined inflation was about 10%.

The situation you describe can happen when the banking Prime rate is low and you have high inflation.

I actually mistook growth in general with just growth of the available money. If the money is invested and the investment provides a proper value, then the inflation won't be as high as the percentage of new money. I was still aiming at the fact though, that humans usually do not compare themselves with others in absolutes but see how they do relative to others and in that sense the growing wealth gap means that while some are getting richer, others become poorer, relatively speaking. It may not be great but as Fragony likes to say, it is how it is.

[Andres]

I'm not an economist, but what little I do know about money is, that it is created when needed. When there's a high demand, money will be created. Banks will lend out more than they have. The difference between the interests they charge and the interests they give, is also creation of money. Fractional reserve banking is as old as banking itself, nothing evil or conspiracy about it. It's just one of the key elements of banking.

Concerning weatlh distribution, some random thoughts or ideas:

1) in our current system, shareholders own the company. However, shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Wouldn't it be more fair to make the workers in the company co-owners and let them have a say in the decision making process? Wouldn't it be more fair to let all workers combined be co-owner of the business they work in? Or even further: once the investor has earned his money back, with a certain compensation (profits): shouldn't it then be so that the labourers get ownership of the entire company?

2) when we talk about countries, we all say that democracy is the way to go. Quid with multinationals who are, in reality, mightier than countries and who are able to influence governments? Shouldn't we install a certain system of democracy when a certain treshold is reached? Should this be government control or more a combination of 1) together with a say in how it's run by either a democratically elected body or a union of consumers?

3) Alternative for 2): when companies get too much power, shouldn't they be forced to shrink (split)? Shouldn't we make it forbidden for companies to grow beyond a certain treshold, since that would give them too much power; power that has no democratic legitmacy at all and which democratically elected bodies cannot control? Do such powerful multinationals belong in a democracy? If our governments become a joke compared to their power, are we then still living in democracies? Shouldn't we let go of our self-righteous attitude and our superiority complex vs. those parts of the world that are not, on paper, democracies "like us" (but we aren't!), and admit that we have a problem?

4) continuing on the line of thought of 3): is it ok for somebody to have so much wealth that he can exercise, de facto, power over thousands of people; power he didn't get from the people, but he simply has because he is wealthy? Shouldn't there be a treshold, a certain cap on how much wealth (=power, but not given by the people) one individual can obtain?

5) Meritocracy: does the possibility to inherit wealth belong in a meritocracy? Shouldn't we get rid of inheritance laws? Whatever you leave after your death, gets redistributed instead of handed over to the lucky bastard who came out of the right vagina? Kings and Queens get this critique, but doesn't that go up for sons and daughters of billionaires?

6) On top of 5): free education for everybody and banning of private schools. No more quality labels and "best schools"; all education public and of the same quality. Wouldn't that be more in the line of equal chances for everybody?

7) a basic income for everybody. We live in times of overproduction and technological innovation which leads to the disappearence of jobs. Is it still morally justifiable to let people rot, whatever their attitude in life (as if being poor is an attitude problem :rolleyes:)? If we have the means to guarantee every human shelter, food, water, heating and education, then shouldn't we consider reaching that goal a priority above all?

[Montmorency]

1) in our current system, shareholders own the company. However, shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Wouldn't it be more fair to make the workers in the company co-owners and let them have a say in the decision making process? Wouldn't it be more fair to let all workers combined be co-owner of the business they work in? Or even further: once the investor has earned his money back, with a certain compensation (profits): shouldn't it then be so that the labourers get ownership of the entire company?

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.


4) continuing on the line of thought of 3): is it ok for somebody to have so much wealth that he can exercise, de facto, power over thousands of people; power he didn't get from the people, but he simply has because he is wealthy? Shouldn't there be a treshold, a certain cap on how much wealth (=power, but not given by the people) one individual can obtain?

How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?


5) Meritocracy: does the possibility to inherit wealth belong in a meritocracy? Shouldn't we get rid of inheritance laws? Whatever you leave after your death, gets redistributed instead of handed over to the lucky bastard who came out of the right vagina? Kings and Queens get this critique, but doesn't that go up for sons and daughters of billionaires?

What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.


all education public and of the same quality.

Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?


If we have the means to guarantee every human shelter, food, water, heating and education, then shouldn't we consider reaching that goal a priority above all?

A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

[Andres]

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.

Why are you so opposed to changing the system? The problems you name exist now too, yet no opposition.

Anyway, if the investor works himself, then obvioulsy, he can keep a vote in his company. As a labourer. Like the rest of the people working.

Are we looking for an ideal system for maximum and thus ipso fact ice cold efficiency or do we aim for fairness?

Will the decison making process become harder? Perhaps. So what? Can't labourers elect their own CEO? Why not? Can't I at least elect the (wo)man who I work for? When it comes to countries, everybody cheers when wars are waged against countries that don't know our type of "democracy" (we don't have it either, but who cares)? But for labourers electing their own boss, oh no, that's dirty communism talking here, the idiot needs to be burned him at the stake or put in a mental facility.

What are the chances people will get fired just like that for maximimsing profit for the benefit of people who are not working at all in the company, but just own a piece of paper, sit on their butt and want to squeeze the maximum out of it, when the workers themselves own the company?

You also ignore my point 3). When the company gets too big, democratic processes become different and more difficult. And less democratic. Then just don't let companies become too big.

You need to change your aim. The aim is not maximum growth, maximum profits at the cost of all. The aim is not "the economy". The aim is letting people who work have a say in the matters. We call ourselves a democracy, yet we have this system of wage labour in which you do what you are told or you get the sack; which means you'll have no means to live if you don't accept somebody playing boss over you.

That's not a democracy, that's a hypocrisy.



How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?


Excellent. You put wealthy people with way too much non-democratically legitimated power on the same line as professional criminals. That's a very correct comparison and a correct analysis. What do we do with scum? We put them in jail. Instead of putting the poor in prison, we have to put the white collar criminals in jail. Not giving them a free pass like we do now.


What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.


Do you want a true meritocracy or not?

One million to pass on is not so much? Tell that to the son of a drug addict and a prostitue living in a ghetto.

What difference does it make for the son or daughter of a billionaire if his father or mother acquired it by work or inheritance. The son or daughter didn't; his or her only merit is to be born in the right family. Bravo, what an accomplishment.

No inheritances anymore. Period.

Everybody needs to start with the same weapons: education wise and wealth wise. And welfare state wise.



Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?


I basically said: no more distinctions. That's not so hard to understand. Screw your "elite" schools. They are nothing more but a tool to institutionalise inequality.


A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

You make it sound as if there's a choice to make. A much better ambition would be an "and" "and" story. Whoever gives you the idea that that isn't possible, lies.

[Montmorency]

Why are you so opposed to changing the system?

Huh?


Are we looking for an ideal system for maximum and thus ipso fact ice cold efficiency or do we aim for fairness?

An efficient system would obviously move the world toward your ideals of fairness more than an inefficient one...


When the company gets too big, democratic processes become different and more difficult. And less democratic. Then just don't let companies become too big.

Sometimes, size - IOW centralization of production - is preferable. How about simply giving the state more stake in a company as it grows past some threshold?


Will the decison making process become harder? Perhaps. So what? Can't labourers elect their own CEO? Why not?

How many positions would be elected? Just executive ones? Is your solution to the hiring issue to have one person start a company and then hire another into the company and then democratically "elect" applicants or existing workers into every conceivable position? That's untenable. The point is, you can't undermine efficiency so much without literally collapsing the system. I understand that you'd be fine with a de-globalized society, but the cost of a transition to a 'simpler' standard of living would involve the deaths of hundreds of millions or even billions...

In big companies, if all workers are co-owners or stakeholders then it makes sense for them to all have a say in electing executives, but in a small company with no genuine executives to speak of it isn't quite right for an investor to start a small business and then immediately have his workers kick him out on a whim and appropriate his entire investment, whether to continue the business by their own standard or to just sell off all the assets and split the profits. That would clearly be another sort of vulture capitalism, or even just plain chaos.

You didn't really address my modified proposal, so how about this - hiring and firing remain much the same as they are, though perhaps more modularly: in a small business of 20 employees, everyone gets some say on an applicant chosen by the chief, and in a big company the workers in one department or project, for example, get some say on applicants into their area; firing would be similar - the boss can't fire someone without the majority of people in the small business, department, or project, etc. agreeing to the decision, but the boss does have a special veto that, for example, prevents co-workers from just firing that one guy nobody likes but is actually a good worker.


You need to change your aim.

My aim is sustainability, clearly.


Excellent. You put wealthy people with way too much non-democratically legitimated power on the same line as professional criminals. That's a very correct comparison and a correct analysis. What do we do with scum? We put them in jail. Instead of putting the poor in prison, we have to put the white collar criminals in jail. Not giving them a free pass like we do now.

Since prison should be geared more towards rehabilitation than "revenge", how exactly should white-collar criminals be treated? Anyway, the white-collar 'underground' persists precisely because they are powerful. So, in a place like Italy say, how do you prevent the Mafias from getting even more actual control over state and economic affairs, once your reforms would be implemented?


Do you want a true meritocracy or not?

Meritocracy is a convenient buzzword, but it does not work like the ideal some have. Anyway, I said that education should be improved everywhere, which you plainly agree with - so I don't see what your problem is.


One million to pass on is not so much? Tell that to the son of a drug addict and a prostitue living in a ghetto.

Obviously that would be taxed. What would happen in the example of the single mother that I gave? No assets directly passed on to the grandparents, just a rise in the minimum of support to them?

For the "no inheritances" thing to work, you would definitely first have to build the capacity to maintain a minimum standard for everyone or almost everyone, and just as importantly a public trust in that capacity. Referring back to an earlier point, this would entail that your reforms be introduced progressively over decades, and not all at once. "One step at a time".


Screw your "elite" schools. They are nothing more but a tool to institutionalise inequality.

These are public schools we are talking about. So, close down public schools just because they outperform other public schools (and private ones)? That's incredibly backwards.


A much better ambition would be an "and" "and" story. Whoever gives you the idea that that isn't possible, lies.

'Do everything at once' isn't a question of possibility, it's a question of pragmatism. Sure, we could try that - we'd fail. It's almost always - in any situation - to take things one step at a time.

[Tuuvi]

I work in a retail store for $8.35 an hour, I understand wanting to have a stake in the company I work for and having more of a say on how it is run. But at the end of the day making corporations "democratic" does not make a lot of sense to me. My employment is a contract between myself and my employer. I'm selling my time and labor to them for monetary compensation.

A company doesn't exist to provide services to its employees like a government provides services to its citizens. It exists to provide services to its clients/customers in the hopes of making a profit. The workers are the ones who are providing services to the company.

CEO's wield a lot of power and authority, but technically they are employees like everyone else. The business is the one paying for the CEO's services, so it has every right to pick the person it believes will do the best job, not the workers. CEO's can and do get fired for poor performance just like regular employees. A couple of years ago the company I work for, JCPenney, hired Ron Johnson from Apple to be CEO. Ron Johnson was the executive responsible for making Apple's retail stores a huge success and he was supposed to help JCPenney make a turnaround. His ideas sucked and JCPenney's revenue tanked. Eventually the Board of Directors lost faith in Ron Johnson and they gave him the sack. His term as CEO only lasted about a year and a half, if I remember correctly.

Of course companies have a lot of power over their employees, and that's one of the main topics of this thread, so my post needs to address this point. But it's getting late so that will have to wait.

[HopAlongBunny]

We put scum in jail; but not those scum.
The recent recession, bail-outs, slaps on the wrist demonstrate all to clearly that "justice" comes in differing forms for different classes.
The system certainly does not use "One law to rule them all"; so a better starting point might be to clarify the role of the justice system, and perhaps make explicit the exceptions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We put scum in jail; but not those scum.
The recent recession, bail-outs, slaps on the wrist demonstrate all to clearly that "justice" comes in differing forms for different classes.
The system certainly does not use "One law to rule them all"; so a better starting point might be to clarify the role of the justice system, and perhaps make explicit the exceptions.

Step One: Celebrities who have not physically or sexually harmed another person pay a fine and damages and go home. Tired of the hoopla over low level bull excrement.

[Myth]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html