Let's Debate Inequality

[Kfox]

The private army, yes, the boss ...

What does that mean?

 

[Koldo]

It does happen, though in an imperfect manner. Companies regularly loose MarketShare when they do not make products that are relevant to the customer.
Fortune 500 company in 1990
FORTUNE 500: 1990 Archive Full List 1-100
Fortune 500 company in 2024
Fortune 500 Full List (2024)
You will see that the list has changed drastically. This is a signal of strong competition at the company level.

The problem is that, when a company goes down (as they inevitably do), the workers suffer. That is why there is need for a strong basic income and other types of social protections and a strong re-skilling and training program to allow transitions to happen. For example, companies may be mandated to give 1 year extra salary to all laid-off workers who are being let go during a downsizing, and have a fund pool for that purpose...etc.

Regarding what may be done to keep capitalist capture of government, we need to do something similar to what was done for separation of church and state. A legislative and constitutional provision that separates government from capitalist influences.

What are you calling merit?
You are looking at a certain outcome and declaring it is a consequence of merit, but I have no idea why.

 

[Koldo]

But that’s what happens when you tie your pay to company profit. Isn’t that what you were talking about? Attaching employee pay according to the profit (or not) the company makes?

It is not what happens when the employees also have an active role at directing the future of the company.

99% of the time it is. How many people do you think do research into what the board, and CEO wants for a company before applying for a job?

Source? How does not knowing what a CEO wants entails not knowing how to run a company?

They can have a financial incentive yet still have horrible ideas on how the company should be run.

Same goes for CEO.

But some decisions are complex. That is where the problems lie.

But many are not.

 

[Kfox]

I don’t vote

that doesn't take away from my point though; because you could if you wanted to.

It requires a paradigm shift in thinking to realize and equate the government to nothing more than the most powerful gang there is.

I think it is a bit foolish to attempt to equate the US Government with a gang, because if the gang leader wants you dead, you are dead and there is no recourse. If a Politician wants you dead, he can't get the police to kill you because government officials are subject to the same laws as everyone else; under gang rule, the gang leader is not.

 

[an anarchist]

I think it is a bit foolish to attempt to equate the US Government with a gang, because if the gang leader wants you dead, you are dead and there is no recourse.

Qasem Soleimani comes to mind.

 

[an anarchist]

I think it is a bit foolish to attempt to equate the US Government with a gang, because if the gang leader wants you dead, you are dead and there is no recourse

Everyone who has been suicided comes to mind, but that gets into “conspiracy” territory and I think I have strayed from the OP far enough.

I think inequality can be combated by getting rid of government entirely.

 

[PureX]

Change is not good, unless it's for the better.

You need to understand the drive to accomplish something to hand down to your kids.

And you need to understand that most people are not out to get all they can. Most are ok with having enough of what they need and letting the rest go to those who need it. You may not be one of the them, but the are the norm. We don't want or like fighting and struggling against each other for our survival. Yet that is the capitalist mindset. And they force it on everyone else.

Most of the people I know start business originally did it not for themselves, but because they wanted something that they could hand down to their kids and allow them to have a hand up. Your ideas would take away the incentive for these people to start something

Maybe they should consider letting their kids make their own way. Like everyone else. And WITH everyone else.

How is more competition wasteful?

Two (or more) companies trying to serve the same need instead of one. It wastes twice the energy and resources while pitting innovators against each other instead of enabling them to cooperate to achieve the goal. And that's just for starters. Then let's throw in the fact that they make their own omployees compete so they can keep wages down. And since maximum profits are the ultimate goal, quality, necessity, and the effect on the community and environment are all tossed aside. The capitalists would sell us rat poison and children's cereal if they could get a big enough profit for it and avoid prison.

It's not only wasteful, it socially toxic.

 

[PureX]

Why is excessive wealth accumulation a bad thing?

Because wealth is not limitless. The more one has, the less someone else has. And therefor the more power the one has over the well being of the other.

And please don't spew the capitalist lie, now, about how the wealthy are "creating their wealth" instead of capturing it from everyone else.

 

[PureX]

Taxing the rich even more is not the answer. Spending wisely is.

If you're going to ignore reality we have nothing to discuss.

But at the end of the day, you’re an anti-capitalism socialist and I’m a capitalist who also recognizes the benefits of certain social programs done right.

Half measures are just half measures. They don't address the real problem of rewarding greed and corruption. Capitalism rewards greed and corruption, and so enables and encourages it.

I will say, capitalism has done more than any other modern day economic system to lift people out of poverty and make the world a better place. I’m sure you disagree.

That wasn't capitalism. That was technological advancement.

 

[PureX]

If you can accumulate excessive wealth, why would you stop?

Because you don't deserve nor do you have the wisdom to wield that kind of power over the lives of others (by depriving them of the means of maintaining their own well being). Do you really not understand the poison of greed?

 

[PureX]

How much wealth is too much and how much should we tax the rich?

That can easily be determined by a reasonably honest and intelligent society. Is it really so hard for you to recognize the damage done to society by excessive wealth accumulation?

 

[Nakosis]

Because you don't deserve nor do you have the wisdom to wield that kind of power over the lives of others (by depriving them of the means of maintaining their own well being). Do you really not understand the poison of greed?

Well, firstly, these days you don't have to deprive anyone. Once you have that kind of wealth you can simply put your money to work.

Having that kind of wealth doesn't mean you are greedy. It simply means you've learned how to make money. Up to you what you choose to do with it afterwards. Certainly you could find better uses for your money than to give it to the government to support their wars.

 

[Koldo]

Having that kind of wealth doesn't mean you are greedy.

Yes, it does. Because otherwise you would have given it away somehow. You know that are people in need all around the globe and you have much more money than what will be necessary for you to live a good life (financially speaking), why would you keep this money to yourself if not out of greed?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no fixed number. It all depends on how costly it is to bribe government officials. Nobody should be able to buy a decision that only benefits the briber (and their friends) and hurts others. That should take into account the risk involved in bribing. In the US, make bribery illegal again, and that "too wealthy" number goes up again. But when you can buy a Supreme Court Justice for a few million dollars without repercussion for you or the Justice, you shouldn't have the few millions in the first place.

So someone should not have a certain amount of money because they might do something bad with it? That is beyond authoritarian. What if I could bribe a city official with $500? Should I not be allowed to have $500?

 

[an anarchist]

Yes, it does. Because otherwise you would have given it away somehow. You know that are people in need all around the globe and you have much more money than what will be necessary for you to live a good life (financially speaking), why would you keep this money to yourself if not out of greed?

Is greed inherently bad? As a proponent of filthy capitalism myself, I say greed is good. It is what motivates people to create wealth.

Is wealth a fixed resource? I don’t think so.

 

[PureX]

Well, firstly, these days you don't have to deprive anyone. Once you have that kind of wealth you can simply put your money to work.

So, you think the goal of greedy is to then be generous and altruistic? That's just silly. And even if it were true, they still don't have the right nor the wisdom necessary to wield that kind of control over the lives of others.

Having that kind of wealth doesn't mean you are greedy.

Of course it does, unless it all just fell in your lap, and you immediately gave most of it away.

It simply means you've learned how to make money.

No one "makes" money.

Up to you what you choose to do with it afterwards. Certainly you could find better uses for your money than to give it to the government to support their wars.

Freedom is selfishness, right? Another big lie the capitalusts love to tell.

 

[Heyo]

Tribalism?

What tribes are these? It’s just lots of people of all political persuasions think it’s an awful idea.

Tribalism in the literal sense of the word, concerned with the own tribe (family).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How much money does anybody need? Whatever the number, more than that is greed.

That is the question for you to answer. My answer is it is none of your business. People in a free society have the right to accumulate as much wealth as they want. When they do something illegal with it then you prosecute them. This is not that hard. In a capitalist system just because someone has more does not mean someone else has to have less.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That can easily be determined by a reasonably honest and intelligent society.

So what is that number? And what happens when someone gets to that number?

Is it really so hard for you to recognize the damage done to society by excessive wealth accumulation?

What is the damage?

 

[an anarchist]

That is the question for you to answer. My answer is it is none of your business. People in a free society have the right to accumulate as much wealth as they want. When they do something illegal with it then you prosecute them. This is not that hard. In a capitalist system just because someone has more does not mean someone else has to have less.

Anti-capitalists have the underlying assumption that wealth is a fixed resource.

This is false.

Wealth is created.