Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Koldo]

Because, he repeated patiently, a limit on what financial success can achieve would effectively be a limit on economic progress (by definition)...

I disagree with you when you say that a limit on financial success would effectively be a limit on economic progress. There would still be nothing preventing a business from further expanding. The owner simply wouldn't be able to gain more money.

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?

No need to make any distinction. It would all be equally taxed.

 

[siti]

I disagree with you when you say that a limit on financial success would effectively be a limit on economic progress. There would still be nothing preventing a business from further expanding. The owner simply wouldn't be able to gain more money.

So they would all happily accept this and continue to operate increasingly successful businesses without any financial reward to themselves?

No need to make any distinction. It would all be equally taxed.

Isn't that what already happens?

 

[Koldo]

So they would all happily accept this and continue to operate increasingly successful businesses without any financial reward to themselves?

Or not, which means others would pick up their slack. But once again: do you believe economic progress depends on a select few individuals being greedy?

Isn't that what already happens?

Limitarianism pushes it further.

 

[Audie]

In what way?

I mentioned moon- capable rockets cheaper and
better than nasa can do.

I can go on to far more but why dont you
think of some fine projects funded by wealthy people.

Post 206 said it better

 

[siti]

But once again: do you believe economic progress depends on a select few individuals being greedy?

I have no idea...you still haven't defined "greedy" yet...

...but I do believe that in the economic system we currently have, economic progress depends to some extent on there being some incentive to pursue financial success. If that incentive is "limited"...well, come on...you can join the dots

 

[Koldo]

I have no idea...you still haven't defined "greedy" yet...

An individual motivated majorly by their own selfish desire (regardless of whatever they already have) for financial gain is greedy.

...but I do believe that in the economic system we currently have, economic progress depends to some extent on there being some incentive to pursue financial success. If that incentive is "limited"...well, come on...you can join the dots

We don't live in the same place, therefore I find it highly unlikely we live in the same economic system. At best they are similar. Just like an economic system that puts a limit on individual financial gain won't be equal to either of ours, but may be fairly similar.

 

[siti]

An individual motivated majorly by their own selfish desire (regardless of whatever they already have) for financial gain is greedy.

I see! So it doesn't really matter how much or how little you already have. So your proposed (but still undefined) limit would be an arbitrary limit on how much money a person is allowed to have...right? Nothing to with "greed" at all really - can't be if "greed" is "regardless of whatever they already have".

We don't live in the same place, therefore I find it highly unlikely we live in the same economic system. At best they are similar. Just like an economic system that puts a limit on individual financial gain won't be equal to either of ours, but may be fairly similar.

I don't mean necessarily a specific dollar value...but would it be a figure that represents some multiple or percentage of some number that could be generated...such as, say a multiple of per capita GDP for example? So for the author of the book the OP linked article was referring to, that would be a limit of Euro 10 million which is very approximately 200 times the per capita GDP of the Netherlands (which is, very approximately again Euro 50K)...

...so I suppose something like that might work incentive-wise to some degree because the incentive for someone running a business would be to help to push up GDP so that their individual "wealth cap" could increase accordingly and they would get to keep a bit more of their hard-earned cash...

...but, in Brazil (as a random example), 200 times per capita GDP would give an individual wealth cap at just about US$ 2 million; where I am in Fiji, just over US$1 million and in Kiribati (not a million miles from where I am) you would not be allowed to keep more than about US$ 350,000...and I haven't even scrolled down the GDP list far enough to see what it might be in African countries...

...to put that in perspective, in the Fiji system, I would only be able to amass sufficient wealth to provide me with an annual pension of about US$ 70K (not exactly excessive) and some people would have to forfeit their house as its value would exceed the limit; in Kiribati, nobody, even after a lifetime of successful economic activity (if such a thing were even possible in Kiribati) would get to keep more than an amount equivalent to the annual salary of a surgeon in the US...

...except, of course, that the uber-rich would all up sticks and park their funds off-shore in the countries that had the highest limits - or better yet, the limitarian non-aligned countries that refuse to impose any such limits...effectively making the wealthiest countries even wealthier...etc...

We're not exactly pushing back the boundaries of economic inequality with this are we?

 

[Estro Felino]

Can you name a rich person who does this?

Banks.

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

And the name is legalized usurer. That's the name. Do you prefer legalized loan sharks to understand the concept?
That is why I think banks should be public. There can be private banks, but most banks shall be public.

 

[Kfox]

Banks.

Banks are institutions owned by various people. The disdain was about individual people making too much money; not a bunch of people investing in a credit union or something.

And the name is legalized usurer. That's the name. Do you prefer legalized loan sharks to understand the concept?

Loan sharks generally use violence against those who don't pay on time

That is why I think banks should be public.

There are private banks, and there are public banks. In what way do you think they are different?

 

[Kfox]

An individual motivated majorly by their own selfish desire (regardless of whatever they already have) for financial gain is greedy.

So a person who has any type of job for pay is greedy?

 

[Kfox]

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.

I think the reason most people choose to buy from corporations; greedy or not is because what corporations produce usually improve our lives.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So a person who has any type of job for pay is greedy?

Or needy.

 

[siti]

I think the reason most people choose to buy from corporations; greedy or not is because what corporations produce usually improve our lives.

Well...perhaps we imagine or hope...or even trust...that what we buy will improve our lives...

...and perhaps we imagine, hope or trust that we are paying a price that pretty well reflects the true value...

...and yet people still buy harmful products like tobacco or buy on credit at a price that is way more than the genuine market value...

...so perhaps we are not as financially shrewd or discerning as we would like to think...

...and perhaps that's why giving us all an even bigger share of the nation's wealth might not be such a brilliant idea after all. We (ordinary folks in the working middle class) already have the bulk of the spending power...the super rich and the massive corporations are really our creation...for better or worse...and the key to their survival or demise is in our own pockets.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

The problem is social more than economic. People constantly want to improve and display that improvement. If you could get people to except the status quo then it would be possible but then you lose a large motivator for growth. Without this in our DNA we would still be in the caves.

 

[PureX]

The problem is social more than economic. People constantly want to improve and display that improvement. If you could get people to except the status quo then it would be possible but then you lose a large motivator for growth. Without this in our DNA we would still be in the caves.

All we need to do is think of improving things overall, and for all, instead of selfishly. In the end, the solution to all our problems is to put selfish desires behind collective well being in terms of priority. But this concept is very difficult for people that have been brainwashed by two centuries of capitalist greed hammering that greed and selfishness = freedom and survival into their heads. Some of the people reading this post literally cannot comprehend how to think of our collective well-being first, and their personal desires second. It's so alien that it's incomprehensible to them.

 

[siti]

All we need to do is think of improving things overall, and for all, instead of selfishly. In the end, the solution to all our problems is to put selfish desires behind collective well being in terms of priority. But this concept is very difficult for people that have been brainwashed by two centuries of capitalist greed hammering that greed and selfishness = freedom and survival into their heads. Some of the people reading this post literally cannot comprehend how to think of our collective well-being first, and their personal desires second. It's so alien that it's incomprehensible to them.

But is it really about thinking...I reckon most people think that "collective well-being" is a higher priority than "personal desires"...but almost none of us set out to do the weekly shopping with "collective well-being" as our guiding principle...do we?

 

[Koldo]

I see! So it doesn't really matter how much or how little you already have. So your proposed (but still undefined) limit would be an arbitrary limit on how much money a person is allowed to have...right? Nothing to with "greed" at all really - can't be if "greed" is "regardless of whatever they already have".

It is tricky to imagine someone that is not greedy being bothered by a limit on how much they can have.

I don't mean necessarily a specific dollar value...but would it be a figure that represents some multiple or percentage of some number that could be generated...such as, say a multiple of per capita GDP for example? So for the author of the book the OP linked article was referring to, that would be a limit of Euro 10 million which is very approximately 200 times the per capita GDP of the Netherlands (which is, very approximately again Euro 50K)...

...so I suppose something like that might work incentive-wise to some degree because the incentive for someone running a business would be to help to push up GDP so that their individual "wealth cap" could increase accordingly and they would get to keep a bit more of their hard-earned cash...

...but, in Brazil (as a random example), 200 times per capita GDP would give an individual wealth cap at just about US$ 2 million; where I am in Fiji, just over US$1 million and in Kiribati (not a million miles from where I am) you would not be allowed to keep more than about US$ 350,000...and I haven't even scrolled down the GDP list far enough to see what it might be in African countries...

...to put that in perspective, in the Fiji system, I would only be able to amass sufficient wealth to provide me with an annual pension of about US$ 70K (not exactly excessive) and some people would have to forfeit their house as its value would exceed the limit; in Kiribati, nobody, even after a lifetime of successful economic activity (if such a thing were even possible in Kiribati) would get to keep more than an amount equivalent to the annual salary of a surgeon in the US...

...except, of course, that the uber-rich would all up sticks and park their funds off-shore in the countries that had the highest limits - or better yet, the limitarian non-aligned countries that refuse to impose any such limits...effectively making the wealthiest countries even wealthier...etc...

We're not exactly pushing back the boundaries of economic inequality with this are we?

Au contraire. As I see it, economic limitarianism only works if and only if the rich countries sign to it first. Else, the capital will indeed be moved to the already rich countries. Those countries are the only ones capable of curbing offshoring as a mean of bypassing the limit.

 

[Koldo]

So a person who has any type of job for pay is greedy?

No. I wonder how you got that from what I have said.

 

[PureX]

But is it really about thinking...I reckon most people think that "collective well-being" is a higher priority than "personal desires"...but almost none of us set out to do the weekly shopping with "collective well-being" as our guiding principle...do we?

Why would we? We are being hammered incessantly with the message that we should have whatever we want, whenever and however we want it. That personal desires are the absolute most important issue to be resolved at all times and regarding all aspects of life. To the point that we have turned even each other into commodities to be accepted or rejected based on our personal desires. We don't even know how to consider putting the well being of others ahead of our own personal desires. It's alien thinking at this point.

There are a few rare exceptions among us, but the culture and the system both will thwart them at every possible turn. Label them as flakes and commies and weirdos. Greed, selfishness, and indifference to others are the capitalist way. Conspicuous consumption is our reason det. We know nothing else.

 

[siti]

It is tricky to imagine someone that is not greedy being bothered by a limit on how much they can have.



Au contraire. As I see it, economic limitarianism only works if and only if the rich countries sign to it first. Else, the capital will indeed be moved to the already rich countries. Those countries are the only ones capable of curbing offshoring as a mean of bypassing the limit.

Oh I see...well the rich countries don't have a tremendously encouraging record of being the first to sign up to limits on their economic activities...best of luck advocating that.

And then there's still nothing as far I can see to address the economic disparity between nations...how does limitarianism reduce the wealth gap between, say, the US and Brazil?