Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Audie]

I think if the people of those nations which are nominally Christian, were to live according to Christian principles of love and service, the world would end up a much better place. But I accept that is probably not going to happen. This, it seems, is Caesars world: Hence Jesus told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world

You dont get to pick just
a nice version of a couple of
bible- suggestions that you like.

But i was actually asking about reconciling bible
with reality, on any topic, any level, with reality.

And especially, trying to impose such.

Again...what do you think would happen
if you tried to implement all the principles
in the bible?

Of course thecworld would be nicer if everyone
were nice.
"Caesar "has zip to do with how its human nature
thats not nice nice nice,

 

[Debater Slayer]

Often gnawing at the back of my mind, especially when seeing the taxes avoided by the wealthy, what are your thoughts on this issue?

‘No one should have more than €10m’: the author of Limitarianism on why the super-rich need to level down radically

Prof Ingrid Robeyns has spent a decade studying wealth and ethics and says that limits are essential if we want to eradicate poverty and protect social cohesion and the planet

www.theguardian.com

This is a philosophy that appeals to me more than most, and which mostly has done all my life, given that apart from the iniquities of vast wealth differences, unearned power often comes with such wealth as well as the greater chance to escape justice or wield such power for dubious purposes, and of course the notion that some should be rewarded exponentially more than others - because they own or control a business - is just ludicrous, and why I would like to see more public ownership - certainly of essential services. But no doubt many will disagree.



Got my vote.



I think I have this book - Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty - but as usual, economics books are about as much top of my reading list as religious and political ones are.

Any interested in economics/politics and/or philosophy want to chime in?

Wealth caps may sound effective on paper, but in light of how flawed human nature is, I see multiple potential issues with implementing them in the real world:

• Who gets to decide what the wealth cap should be, and why? In my own life, I enjoy some luxuries and amenities that some might view as superfluous. By the same logic that would impose caps on wealth, should I be denied my luxuries? I don't believe so. Humans tend to like incentive, not mere survival.

• Greater wealth also entails greater contribution to taxes, at least in any reasonable system. If someone earns $5m annually and pays a 60% income tax, they're contributing far more money to public property than someone with less money and also a lower tax bracket. I think this has to be taken into account in discussions about wealth caps.

• Who gets to decide how the expropriated money or property is used? Seizing such large amounts of wealth would inevitably require a strong government. How long would it be before those in charge became corrupt and stole much of the money they expropriated in the name of fairness?
  
  I wouldn't trust a government with that much power, and there are many historical examples where officials horrendously abused such levels of power and became the very "elite" they railed against.

• What would the cascading effects of wealth caps be? For example, with a wealth cap of $10m in place, how would investors maintain large businesses or carry out the multibillion-dollar transactions required to keep them in operation?

All of these seem to me important points to consider when weighing the potential pros and cons of imposing wealth caps. On the whole, though, I lean more toward the view that they would be unfeasible, prone to abuse, and theoretically appealing but practically flawed to the point of being inapplicable on any realistic scale.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How is it wasteful? His wealth is being used! If he were to convert his wealth into currency, and sit on top of a pile of money; yeah that would be wasteful, but reality doesn’t work that way. A billionaire (for example) will likely have his wealth tied up in various corporations throughout the world, and those corporations will use his wealth for research and development, to make payroll, and countless other necessities of running a business; IOW such a person has 99.9% of his wealth controlled by other people, and if that wealth was taken away from him and pulled out of those corporations, it would cause those corporations financial hardship. So why is having so much of your wealth controlled this way bad?

Well, can you not see some other ways that industry might function without a handful of individuals (relatively speaking) necessarily becoming so wealthy, and often having power through such wealth, and which hasn't come from any voting as to such? And people with such wealth will usually find ways to get at the wealth they have so as to buy whatever they want or influence much the same. Musk and his Twitter episode being a typical example. Why do you think that what comes from history necessarily has to stay? Another being monarchy, for example, where so many now just see the uselessness of this too - an inherited authoritarianism, even if only nominal in many cases?

 

[Kfox]

It's an absolutely wonderful thing.
I am happy if people are billionaires and create wealth.

So you’re happy about 99% of the Billionaires out there?

What some billionaires don't understand is that from big power come big responsibilities. So they should help the State make ownership something that all can afford. So that everyone gains according to their own merits.

People can already do that by investing in the stock market.

Socialism is about meritocracy.

I disagree; socialism is about somebody else deciding what you are worth. Capitalism is about meritocracy because if you are able to produce value, capitalism will allow you to exploit your value to the fullest extent.

Capitalism destroys meritocracy because it gives power to meritless people who often inherit their wealth.

Are you aware under capitalism, very few rich people actually inherit their wealth? That the vast majority are first generation rich?

 

[Kfox]

Through legalized usury, for example?

What is Legalized usury, and can you give examples of people doing this?

 

[Kfox]

You think today’s economy is somehow detached from the past

For the most part; YES!

And that yesterday’s wealth distribution has no impact on today’s?

Not very much of an impact

Wealth always comes at a cost. The idea that anyone can acquire “unlimited wealth” without this impacting on everyone and everything around him is an absurdity.

I never said it doesn't impact, I'm saying it does not harm as a matter of fact for the most part, it improves the lives of everyone around him.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The "politics of envy" doesn't mean that every
adherent envies the wealthy. Only most.
It's natural to want the plenty that others have.
How to get it?
Instead of working for wealth, have government
just take & re-distribute it. Easy peasy!
But there'll be consequences that the would-be
beneficiaries never address. Nor do they offer
evidence that it'll work, eg, real world examples.

I'm reminded of a tenant I once had. He was poor.
He didn't work. (He found it onerous.) He carped
that he had no money because "the rich people
took it all". That attitude led to eviction.

Well some Scandinavian countries seem to do better, by having much higher taxes in general, and where their health systems then benefit from this. There will always be envy but it is the sheer scale of differences, and as to which this has gotten much worse over the last several decades that is the issue. Technology no doubt can account for much of this but is there any great reason why companies couldn't be split up more? I can't see why such steep hierarchies could be good for any society - given that any democracy will likely be derailed by the power of those who have such economic power and influence but who are not voted into such positions.

 

[Kfox]

How so? I keep asking you to explain yourself but you never do. Why do you keep saying wealth doesn't equal power?

Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world. What kind of power does he have over you?

"Plenty" is an exaggeration, but yes, I have already said there are other ways to attain power a long time ago.

You claim having too much money is bad because it gives you power, and too much power is bad. but when we look at other means of attaining power often more effective than money (like social media) you have no problem with it. This sounds inconsistent to me, or perhaps your problem with the rich is not that they have power, but something else

 

[Estro Felino]

What is Legalized usury, and can you give examples of people doing this?

Banking seigniorage is legalized usury, for example.


Or any kind of loan that entails dishonest tax of interests: for example if a company lends you 40,000 dollars and expects you to return 50,000 dollars, well, that's something honest. Within the limits of honesty.

If they expect you to return 80,000 or even 100,000 dollars, yes, they are legalized usurers. Whatever they are called.

 

[Estro Felino]

I disagree; socialism is about somebody else deciding what you are worth. Capitalism is about meritocracy because if you are able to produce value, capitalism will allow you to exploit your value to the fullest extent.

Socialism invests in merit. Because the Socialist State pays for the tuition fees of the deserving students who cannot pay them.

Are you aware under capitalism, very few rich people actually inherit their wealth? That the vast majority are first generation rich?

Most of them inherit their wealth.

 

[Koldo]

Just yankin' your chain.

I have money becauee i inherited it.
Even peezier than your formula!

What I called easy peasy was not any formula. I also didn't present any formula.

Said formula being quite doable, in such
as England in Dickens' time but not so
much now.
Its a dark ideological stereotype that has
little connection to the doing of business and
building wealth in todays world.

It's an ideological stereotype to say that people will pay minimum wage even when they could afford more, and that this means more money will go into their wallets?

And ignores as if it does not exist the enormous benefits that go to those who work for successful
capitalist enterprises.

Erm... Highly depends. For some, there are enormous benefits. For many, not really.

 

[Koldo]

How would you go about determining
whether I am greedy, and how much to
take away to affect my cure? Is there cheaper
psychotherapy? Is that a concern of govt or
anyone else?

There is nothing to cure. It is the effect it has on the material world that can be kept in check.

But never mind. The definitions and percents would be
arbitrary. The motives behind it would have zero to do
with the motives of financially successful people.

Looks to me that the reason to make it
all abpout " greed" is to justify theft of property is
exactly as it was in China when it was the
greedy landlords who were vilified by Maos group,
and the farmers were promised great
prosperity when they stole everything
from those vampires.

What they got was chaos, murder, and starvation.

Thats your plan put into effect in the real world.

I never intended to make it all about greed. I just joined a conversation where it is the central piece.

I also don't think greed is a central piece to justify expropriation in communist regimes.

 

[Koldo]

Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world. What kind of power does he have over you?

If he promised a million dollars for my head, I would be dead before the next sunrise. That's how much power he has over my life.

You claim having too much money is bad because it gives you power, and too much power is bad. but when we look at other means of attaining power often more effective than money (like social media) you have no problem with it. This sounds inconsistent to me, or perhaps your problem with the rich is not that they have power, but something else

First of all, I don't agree that people on social media have more power than rich people. Second, I have never said I have no problem with other forms of attaining power.

 

[Kfox]

Well, can you not see some other ways that industry might function without a handful of individuals (relatively speaking) necessarily becoming so wealthy, and often having power through such wealth

Of course there are ways industry can function this way, but when you restrict people from adding to industry, it becomes less functional

, and which hasn't come from any voting as to such?

Actually there is voting, the shareholders vote, it's just that the more shares you own, the more votes you get. So how is this wasteful?

 

[Kfox]

Banking seigniorage is legalized usury, for example.


Or any kind of loan that entails dishonest tax of interests: for example if a company lends you 40,000 dollars and expects you to return 50,000 dollars, well, that's something honest. Within the limits of honesty.

If they expect you to return 80,000 or even 100,000 dollars, yes, they are legalized usurers. Whatever they are called.

Is your beef against corporations? Or individual rich people? Because in the real world I don't see a lot of the super rich lending people money this way; do you?

 

[Estro Felino]

Is your beef against corporations? Or individual rich people? Because in the real world I don't see a lot of the super rich lending people money this way; do you?

I do.
Enlighten me, then: what is the fair interest rate a loan should have?

 

[MikeF]

Centuries of capitalist lies and propaganda have convinced a whole culture that greed is "ambition". And that ambition moves the world forward. But greed is just greed. It is not ambition. And capitalism is a system based on promoting and serving greed, not ambition.

Keep in mind that the goal of human enterprise should be to serve all those it effects. And NOT just the greedy most ambitious few.

You seem conflicted here. You start out by making a distinction between whatever you deem constitutes "greed" and that "greed" is not ambition. Then you refer to "the greedy most ambitious few" which makes it sound like greed and ambition go hand in hand. Which is it?

Keep in mind that the goal of human enterprise should be to serve all those it effects.

At its most fundamental level, the goal of human enterprise is the same as that for all life, to survive and reproduce.
That goal can be achieved in a wide variety of ways, not all of which would include "serving all those it effects[sic]."

For example, in your version, does those affected include other species? Even the whole notion of what constitutes "serving" would be quite subjective.

Capitalism flies in the face of that goal by giving total control over human enterprise to the owner/investor (the moneyed elite), which then inevitably use it to exploit everything and everyone else for a maximum profitable return of their investment ... and that's greed. It's economic parasitism. It's exploitation and abuse. These are the inevitable results of capitalism. So yes, greed gets things done. But they are not things anyone but the greedy among us want to see done.

Historically, market economies can be said to have been best at serving the needs of society members in the subjective opinion of many. Can you point to a non-market economy that can rival the innovation and improvements in quality of life that are found in robust market economies? Of course, having the goal of innovation and improved quality of life would be a subjective choice as well, but I think it is one that can be said to be widely held.

Human nature is human nature and whatever system you envision, it all comes down to how well the system can manage human nature, which does not change or improve from generation to generation. We human being are what we are and all we can do is harness and direct the expression of our nature as best as we can. To date, I see market economies as having been effective in this task.

I would also say many a small business owner would scoff at being characterized as being members of the "moneyed elite". Small business owners represent approximately 43% of the US economy and employ nearly half the US workforce. I think speaking in such hyperbolic and bombastic terms only serves to have folks tune you out and not take seriously any legitimate criticism of the current system that you might express.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course there are ways industry can function this way, but when you restrict people from adding to industry, it becomes less functional

Actually there is voting, the shareholders vote, it's just that the more shares you own, the more votes you get. So how is this wasteful?

But why should any democratic system have the likelihood of being affected by how wealthy one is - as to number of votes perhaps or influence available due to such wealth? This to many of us is one main issue - that wealth so often can affect politics, often is corrupting, and is often undeserved - given it is the workers who actually produce whatever they get rich off.

 

[Kfox]

Socialism invests in merit. Because the Socialist State pays for the tuition fees of the deserving students who cannot pay them.

Most capitalist countries have socialist programs that do this as well. Nobody is 100% capitalist, there are always gonna be programs for those who slip through the cracks

Most of them inherit their wealth.

You couldn't be more wrong; 80% of millionaires are first generation richj

https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent

 

[Audie]

You seem conflicted here. You start out by making a distinction between whatever you deem constitutes "greed" and that "greed" is not ambition. Then you refer to "the greedy most ambitious few" which makes it sound like greed and ambition go hand in hand. Which is it?



At its most fundamental level, the goal of human enterprise is the same as that for all life, to survive and reproduce.
That goal can be achieved in a wide variety of ways, not all of which would include "serving all those it effects[sic]."

For example, in your version, does those affected include other species? Even the whole notion of what constitutes "serving" would be quite subjective.



Historically, market economies can be said to have been best at serving the needs of society members in the subjective opinion of many. Can you point to a non-market economy that can rival the innovation and improvements in quality of life that are found in robust market economies? Of course, having the goal of innovation and improved quality of life would be a subjective choice as well, but I think it is one that can be said to be widely held.

Human nature is human nature and whatever system you envision, it all comes down to how well the system can manage human nature, which does not change or improve from generation to generation. We human being are what we are and all we can do is harness and direct the expression of our nature as best as we can. To date, I see market economies as having been effective in this task.

I would also say many a small business owner would scoff at being characterized as being members of the "moneyed elite". Small business owners represent approximately 43% of the US economy and employ nearly half the US workforce. I think speaking in such hyperbolic and bombastic terms only serves to have folks tune you out and not take seriously any legitimate criticism of the current system that you might express.

An acquaintance worked for the fraud dept
of a bank.
She dealt daily with people who were scammed
out of often huge amounts of money.

One of the interesting thi ngs to me, anyway, was
hearing how reluctant people are to,admot they got
scammed even after the money is gone and nobody
will answer the phone.

People who are scammed into religion or
political posture often have kind of a tell,
what ye Bard called "protesth too much".