8 richest own as much as half of the World's population. Oxfam

[oldbadger]

In some states, B Corporations can be sued for failure to, say, take into account the public interest in their business decisions, although there has as of yet been no instance of a B Corporation being sued for that. They also must file annual reports explaining what they've been doing to fulfill their mission.

I had never heard of a B Corporation before your posts.
I wonder if we have such corporations in the UK...?

 

[oldbadger]

Since jobs as well as customer service and care are being wiped out by digital systems, how can this be controlled?

Surely this situation is not helping?

 

[Sunstone]

I had never heard of a B Corporation before your posts.
I wonder if we have such corporations in the UK...?

Not that I know of. I think Italy has such corporations, and possibly Australia. They are pretty new, as things go, and haven't spread everywhere yet.

 

[Sunstone]

Since jobs as well as customer service and care are being wiped out by digital systems, how can this be controlled?

Surely this situation is not helping?

Eventually, I think societies will need to go to guaranteed personal incomes in order to counter the huge unemployment that will eventually result from robotics and computers replacing jobs. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept about a third of the population turning to crime to survive, or starving. I expect America to be one of the last societies on earth to adopt some form of guaranteed personal income.

 

[buddhist]

Since jobs as well as customer service and care are being wiped out by digital systems, how can this be controlled?

Surely this situation is not helping?

I think it begins with the individual; to overcome the baser instincts that leans towards greed and accumulation. What do you think?

 

[icehorse]

How would B corporations be a solution to wealth inequality?

Well a partial solution at best. That said, well intentioned CEOs of non-B corporations are often constrained from doing the right thing. For example, raising employee wages could potentially be viewed by stockholders as being counter to the best interest of the corporation.

 

[Shad]

Conflict between the rich and the rest of society is as old as civilization and forms the core of most politics. Perhaps 80% of all politics is ultimately concerned with: How the wealth of nations is distributed, who gets it, and in what way do they get it.

As a general rule, whenever there is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest members of a society, an oligarchy or a dictatorship sooner or later arises, the freedoms and liberties of the common people are oppressed, and the middle class shrinks or is destroyed.

Thomas Piketty has analyzed the history of wealth concentration and distribution in developed countries over the past 250 years and notes that there are economic reasons wealth inequality has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future unless policy measures are implemented to prevent it.

The actual means whereby the wealth of a society is distributed, and the cold, hard realities that often result from its distribution, are routinely masked by misinformation, propaganda, and lies. This makes it difficult to generate the political will necessary to prevent a society from devolving into an oligarchy or a dictatorship, or to bring reforms to an existing oligarchy or dictatorship.

So your solution is socialism You seem to only see the dangers on one side but are blinded by the other side. You also seem to be unaware that most economist disagree with his fairy tale

 

[Sunstone]

Well a partial solution at best.

I like the idea of B corporations, and agree with you that we should have more of them, but I don't see them as much of a solution to wealth inequality.

That said, well intentioned CEOs of non-B corporations are often constrained from doing the right thing. For example, raising employee wages could potentially be viewed by stockholders as being counter to the best interest of the corporation.

Yeah, the Costco CEO gets a lot of flak from Wall Street over his policy of paying Costco employees well.

 

[Sunstone]

So you solution is socialism

That "my solution is socialism" is sloppy thinking on your part. In actuality, I'm for a mixed economy based on a combination of state-enterprises for large industries, worker and consumer cooperatives, private enterprises for small-scale operations, and individually owned enterprises.

You seem to only see the dangers on one side but are blinded by the other side.

I don't disagree that there can be dangers on both sides. I do, however, question your objectivity in assuming that I don't see dangers on both sides.

 

[Shad]

That "my solution is socialism" is sloppy thinking on your part.

[

Correcting wealth distribution is a socialist policy.

In actuality, I'm for a mixed economy based on a combination of state-enterprises for large industries, worker and consumer cooperatives, private enterprises for small-scale operations, and individually owned enterprises.

Which is more socialism by using large government run businesses, which work on the behave of government. rather than a free market.

I don't disagree that there can be dangers on both sides. I do, however, question your objectivity in assuming that I don't see dangers on both sides.

Considering you seem obvious to Piketty's errors such a false number, false dates, confusing legislation passed by Bush with Obama. Yet hold to his model suggests to me that you have little understanding of the issues at hand. You only focused on how one side can developed into a horrible system, or one of many horrible systems yet are oblivious to the very idea of a global wealth tax. Keep word is global

 

[Sunstone]

[

Correcting wealth distribution is a socialist policy.



Which is more socialism by using large government run businesses, which work on the behave of government. rather than a free market.





Considering you seem obvious to Piketty's errors such a false number, false dates, confusing legislation passed by Bush with Obama. Yet hold to his model suggests to me that you have little understanding of the issues at hand. You only focused on how one side can developed into a horrible system, or one of many horrible systems yet are oblivious to the very idea of a global wealth tax. Keep word is global

I'm not going to attempt to refute anything you say, although most of what you say seems nonsense to me, since I regard debating these issues with ideologues as a waste of time. Congratulations. You win.

 

[Shad]

I'm not going to attempt to refute anything you say, although most of what you say seems nonsense to me, since I regard debating these issues with ideologues as a waste of time. Congratulations. You win.

So you want to ignore Piketty's false numbers, false dates, false data, false conclusion, treating wealth as capital, assuming that the old system retention still exists for the majority of the rich, ignores that the figures within the top earner has changed drastically since the 80s with only 1 still in such a position. Typical response for someone that is all bluster but no substance. Instead you make a charge that you can not support and call it a day.... You ignore opposition, nothing more.


Impressive.

 

[Sunstone]

Conflict between the rich and the rest of society is as old as civilization and forms the core of most politics. Perhaps 80% of all politics is ultimately concerned with: How the wealth of nations is distributed, who gets it, and in what way do they get it.

As a general rule, whenever there is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest members of a society, an oligarchy or a dictatorship sooner or later arises, the freedoms and liberties of the common people are oppressed, and the middle class shrinks or is destroyed.

Thomas Piketty has analyzed the history of wealth concentration and distribution in developed countries over the past 250 years and notes that there are economic reasons wealth inequality has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future unless policy measures are implemented to prevent it.

The actual means whereby the wealth of a society is distributed, and the cold, hard realities that often result from its distribution, are routinely masked by misinformation, propaganda, and lies. This makes it difficult to generate the political will necessary to prevent a society from devolving into an oligarchy or a dictatorship, or to bring reforms to an existing oligarchy or dictatorship.

For anyone curious about whether wealth inequality is on the rise, here's a short, easy to understand summary of Wealth Inequality in the United States and a somewhat less graphic, but short, article on the Distribution of Wealth (Worldwide). For more depth, here's a list of recent books on the subject.

 

[icehorse]

So you want to ignore Piketty's false numbers, false dates, false data, false conclusion, treating wealth as capital, assuming that the old system retention still exists for the majority of the rich, ignores that the figures within the top earner has changed drastically since the 80s with only 1 still in such a position. Typical response for someone that is all bluster but no substance. Instead you make a charge that you can not support and call it a day.... You ignore opposition, nothing more.

Impressive.

1 - Is "socialism" a bad idea in your opinion? Does that include common infrastructure, or common services (e.g. fire departments)? Where do YOU draw the line?

2 - Let me know which claims in this short, 5-6 minute video, you think are incorrect:

 

[Sunstone]

For anyone interested in criticisms of Thomas Piketty's ideas that are not thinly disguised partisan misinformation, here is a fairly objective summary of some of them. Criticizing Piketty, however, is a bit of a red herring since the central fact that there is huge wealth inequality in the world remains despite any criticisms of Piketty. That's to say, Piketty is a side issue.

 

[icehorse]

For anyone interested in criticisms of Thomas Piketty's ideas that are not thinly disguised partisan misinformation, here is a fairly objective summary of some of them. Criticizing Piketty, however, is a bit of a red herring since the central fact that there is huge wealth inequality in the world remains despite any criticisms of Piketty. That's to say, Piketty is a side issue.

And, as predicted in a recent thread, the use of red herring arguments is quite common.

 

[Thanda]

Correcting wealth distribution is a socialist policy.

What policies do you believe will lead to a better world?

 

[oldbadger]

I think it begins with the individual; to overcome the baser instincts that leans towards greed and accumulation. What do you think?

...... but, generally speaking, I think that greed and accumulation seem to be common base instincts of human beings.

Even when surrounded and submerged in wealth, humans seem to become even more penny-pinching and clawing for more.

We seem to need laws to protect us from ourselves.
Now, together, in quorums, we can produce the most beautiful and humane conditions, procedures and legislation. Ergo, I see our salvation in our togetherness, because alone too many of us are just too naughty!

 

[Shad]

1 - Is "socialism" a bad idea in your opinion?

In some forms it is simply theft when it comes to taxes and social program. Such as Sanders wanting to tax the rich at 90% to cover the costs of his not so freebies. On other issues it is a failure in nation that have used it such as those in Central and South America. The extreme forms that push communism are demonstrated to be failures as per the last few decades of history. The USSR collapse due to it's economic system being unable to compete with a capitalist one. China has already adopted capitalist measure, and has since the 70s, in its treat with Western nations.

When I hear about taxing the rich merely based on a generalization which creates an image that by being rich you must have abused people or the system I know this is straight from Karl Marx. When someone fudges the numbers and terminology this shifting my opinion more toward this idea is merely slogan based using data in any way to help the slogan.

Does that include common infrastructure, or common services (e.g. fire departments)? Where do YOU draw the line?

Those are services are essential to society in order to safeguard lives, property and maintain a semblance of civilization. No one needs to go back far into history to see the dangers of uncontrolled fires in an urban sprawl are dangerous. More so these systems apply to every citizen not merely what tax bracket they belong to.

2 - Let me know which claims in this short, 5-6 minute video, you think are incorrect:

I will watch this later and get back to you. I had a few things pop up while I was typing a response. So I am going to cut it short due to other priorities.

 

[buddhist]

...... but, generally speaking, I think that greed and accumulation seem to be common base instincts of human beings.

Even when surrounded and submerged in wealth, humans seem to become even more penny-pinching and clawing for more.

We seem to need laws to protect us from ourselves.
Now, together, in quorums, we can produce the most beautiful and humane conditions, procedures and legislation. Ergo, I see our salvation in our togetherness, because alone too many of us are just too naughty!

Instead of external laws, I see the need for education and personal experience to encourage self-restraint (internal laws).