Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[siti]

Is this the No True Altruist Fallacy?

What are you talking about? I meant that forcing others to do anything does not fall within the definition of the word "altruist"...I couldn't give a monkeys what "no true (self-declared) altruist" might or might not do...anybody can call themselves anything, but they don't get to change the English language just to suit their own preference (or argument for that matter).

 

[siti]

I must admit, I am struggling somewhat in trying to imagine an economic system that is based on "wellbeing" or "happiness" instead of income. If we go for the overhaul, what would that look like, exactly?

Exactly??? I have no idea...I only know what makes me happy...and I'm not even sure about that sometimes! But...

...how do we measure "income" or "wealth"? Money of course. But what is money? Its a token that symbolizes our "income" or "wealth"...its not real. Its actually useless unless we exchange it for something of the value that it represents. I don't think it should be too difficult to imagine some way of symbolizing or tokenizing human "happiness" or "wellbeing"...it would certainly have to be more complex than tokenizing financial wealth...it would, I guess, have to take into account things like health, education, satisfying work, etc. etc. And it could still be (probably would have to be) linked to financial wealth...in fact we could, I imagine, if we were collectively so-inclined, devise a system whereby those who made the most meaningful positive impacts on human well-being (whatever we collectively decide that means) would receive the biggest financial rewards...and we'd all (on average at least) just keep getting happier and happier instead of wealthier and wealthier...

...er...um...ahem...good morning, I must have drifted off there...I was having the strangest dream...was I talking in my sleep? Oh well!

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

They're capitalist too.
They differ by doing a better
job of serving the populace.

 

[siti]

Not on greed per se, but on what it can achieve, to render it purposeless past a certain point.

Sorry, still not buying it. A limit on what (financial) "greed" can "achieve" would be indistinguishable from a limit on what financial success can achieve...that would equate effectively to a limit on economic "progress" and remove the "carrot" that drives the economic "donkey" forward. I don't see that working at all...

If you want to change the balance of the economic system, you've got to do it where the real power is...

The poor are a bit more than half of the human population but have little to no financial power...

The very rich are very few in number...

The people in the middle (in low-middle-high income families) represent a little less than half of the global population...but between them they have almost all the spending power...if 3.5 billion of us refuse to buy something from a "greedy" corporation because we object to their corporate "greed", they will have to change the way they do things.

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you talking about? I meant that forcing others to do anything does not fall within the definition of the word "altruist".....

It is indeed true that it's not in the definition.
But I've observed that people who advocate
altruism are prone to belief that others should
practice it too. And they advocate government
forcing this upon them.

...I couldn't give a monkeys what "no true (self-declared) altruist" might or might not do...anybody can call themselves anything, but they don't get to change the English language just to suit their own preference (or argument for that matter).

It's also true that nothing in the definition of
"Christian" includes intolerance & dishonesty.
Yet those traits are endemic in the faithful.

 

[Yerda]

Its society that needs the wealthy.

In what way?

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, still not buying it. A limit on what (financial) "greed" can "achieve" would be indistinguishable from a limit on what financial success can achieve...that would equate effectively to a limit on economic "progress" and remove the "carrot" that drives the economic "donkey" forward. I don't see that working at all...

If and only if the economic progress depended on a select few individuals being greedy. I don't agree with that.

If you want to change the balance of the economic system, you've got to do it where the real power is...

The poor are a bit more than half of the human population but have little to no financial power...

The very rich are very few in number...

The people in the middle (low-middle-high income) represent a little less than half of the global population...but between them they have almost all the spending power...if 3.5 billion of us refuse to buy something from a "greedy" corporation because we object to their corporate "greed", they will have to change the way they do things.

That's utopic. It relies on massive social cooperation to make a significant change.

 

[Kfox]

I do.

Can you name a rich person who does this?

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

If you are so untrustworthy when it comes to money that nobody else will loan to you, any interest rate is fair; and if you don't like it, you can walk away

 

[Revoltingest]

If and only if the economic progress depended on a select few individuals being greedy. I don't agree with that.

Not dependent upon a greedy few.
But history shows that prime movers
are the few, & without them progress
would've been slower.

 

[Kfox]

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.

I wasn't talking about democratic systems, I was talking about share holders meetings where the share holders elect those who run the corporation. In democratic elections, the rich man gets one vote just like the poor man

 

[siti]

If and only if the economic progress depended on a select few individuals being greedy. I don't agree with that.

Then how, exactly, would any proposed "limit" distinguish between what was achieved by financial success and what was gained through "greed"?

 

[Koldo]

Not dependent upon a greedy few.
But history shows that prime movers
are the few, & without them progress
would've been slower.

Sure. But how is that related exactly?

 

[siti]

That's utopic. It relies on massive social cooperation to make a significant change.

Its as realistic as a "limit on greed" methinks! If you can't get "massive social cooperation" to make the change you want to see, have you considered that might not be because the idea is "utopic" necessarily...it might just be that most people either don't agree or couldn't care less! And if that's the case, you ain't gonna get the change through democratic government processes either. So what other options are left?

 

[Koldo]

Then how, exactly, would any proposed "limit" distinguish between what was achieved by financial success and what was gained through "greed"?

Why would this distinction be necessary in the first place?

 

[Koldo]

Its as realistic as a "limit on greed" methinks! If you can't get "massive social cooperation" to make the change you want to see, have you considered that might not be because the idea is "utopic" necessarily...it might just be that most people either don't agree or couldn't care less! And if that's the case, you ain't gonna get the change through democratic government processes either. So what other options are left?

Why are you under the impression that it is as hard to enact change through elected representatives as it is to get it done through massive social cooperation?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But how is that related exactly?

Progress is often made by the initiative, ability,
& drive of a few people. For example, Apple
wouldn't have existed without a couple founders.

 

[siti]

Why would this distinction be necessary in the first place?

Because, he repeated patiently, a limit on what financial success can achieve would effectively be a limit on economic progress (by definition)...if you want to impose a limit on what "greed" can achieve, you surely would have to make a distinction between what was achieved by (legitimate) financial success and what was the product of "greed". Or is there a specific number of dollars that universally represents some kind of "greed" barrier?

 

[Koldo]

Progress is often made by the initiative, ability,
& drive of a few people. For example, Apple
wouldn't have existed without a couple founders.

And therefore...?

 

[siti]

Why are you under the impression that it is as hard to enact change through elected representatives as it is to get it done through massive social cooperation?

I'm not...I am imagining it might be as hard to get people to vote for a "limit on greed" as it would be to get them all (or at least enough of them) to care enough about it to spend their money conscientiously...

...and I am now imagining that it might be as hard to define a "limit on greed" as it is to get someone proposing such a thing to answer a straightforward question about how it might be done!

 

[Revoltingest]

And therefore...?

That's it.