Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Mock Turtle]

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

Not really, since the wealth often enables the rich man to influence far more than those without - as to who to vote for.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Like Musk? Who believes in free speech, when it favours him, and where he can call someone 'that pedo guy' and rely on his wealth to evade justice - although that might just be silly USA laws, given he would have been successfully prosecuted in many other countries. His version of free speech is what suits him apparently - and rather tied to his wealth.

 

[Koldo]

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.

It has nothing to do with placing limits to economic activity. Nevertheless, since I don't live in a rich country you generally won't see me talking much about limitarianism.

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?

It doesn't.

 

[siti]

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.

But there seem to be a fair few of these "rare exceptions" who are dissatisfied to the point of anger with "capitalist greed"...how can they hope to change the economic system of the entire world if they can't even moderate their own spending habits to align more closely with their socioeconomic principles?

 

[PureX]

It has nothing to do with placing limits to economic activity. Nevertheless, since I don't live in a rich country you generally won't see me talking much about limitarianism.

It doesn't.

But it's a cultural change, really, and when it works better for everyone, other cultures will see it and want to adopt it. It begins with the idea that the wealth of the nation belongs to the nation's people. Not just to the wealthy investors that manage to capture and pile up huge amounts of it. That's a fundamental ideological cultural shift. And when it makes everyone's life better within that culture, others will follow.

 

[Kenny]

Greed can be manifested in many manors.

The greed of the wealthy is manifested when they have no concern for people.
The greed of those who do not have wealth is when they start coveting the money that rich people have.

Correct capitalism is like Hobby Lobby who will be giving a minimum wage of 18.50 for their employees long before anyone else is considering it.

 

[siti]

... you generally won't see me talking much about limitarianism.

Honestly, and no offense intended, but what I've seen is talking much...saying little...I tried my best to figure out how it might work...mostly on my own because there didn't seem to be any straight answers, either from the articles linked to the OP or from posters purporting to support the idea....but it's really not much more than an idealized latter day Robin Hood tale as far as I can see.

 

[PureX]

Honestly, and no offense intended, but what I've seen is talking much...saying little...I tried my best to figure out how it might work...mostly on my own because there didn't seem to be any straight answers, either from the articles linked to the OP or from posters purporting to support the idea....but it's really not much more than an idealized latter day Robin Hood tale as far as I can see.

That's because we have allowed the wealth to pile up in the hands of people that are using it to corrupt government to their own advantage. Once we put a stop to that, the government can begin taking back those huge piles of wealth and distributing it back to the people that created it via life saving and life improving programs. When people see and feel these benefits, they will be more open to more progressive socialist ideas and practices.

It all comes down to control. We need to take control away from the wealthy elites that are abusing it, and give it back to the people so that we can start making decisions that benefit them, again.

 

[Audie]

Like Musk? Who believes in free speech, when it favours him, and where he can call someone 'that pedo guy' and rely on his wealth to evade justice - although that might just be silly USA laws, given he would have been successfully prosecuted in many other countries. His version of free speech is what suits him apparently - and rather tied to his wealth.

And id be convicted / killed in any moslem
country*, which is by way of saying
complaint about musk is s bit thin.

*ive spent time in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Discreetly.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Sorry to say but selfish desires are an evolutionary trait. You need to put yourself first to some extent just to survive. All creatures do this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And id be convicted / killed in any moslem
country*, which is by way of saying
complaint about musk is s bit thin.

*ive spent time in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Discreetly.

Not that thin, given that hate speech, as this is, should be prosecuted for what it is - given the repercussions of such language being used (people do get killed, and often being innocent, after such), but where some can rely on wealth to evade justice. And Musk's so-called free speech is mostly what he wants to see on his platform - like the Trumpish rants. As to what religions do, do you think I approve?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sorry to say but selfish desires are an evolutionary trait. You need to put yourself first to some extent just to survive. All creatures do this.

As pointed out I think, it tends to be a balance between our individual needs and that of the communities within which we live that is the issue. Having so many individuals draining the communal wealth for their own benefit hardly seems rational - not unless one wants to create envy and corresponding levels of crime. We seemingly did live better in smaller communities, so as for individuals not to be dominant over all others, and it seems that we just can't find a way to expand this (responsibility) into our vastly larger populations.

 

[PureX]

Sorry to say but selfish desires are an evolutionary trait.

So is collective sharing and cooperation. Tribal "Communism" served humanity very well for many thousands of years.

You need to put yourself first to some extent just to survive.

Only because that's what everyone else is doing. We did not always live this way. And we do not have to live this way, now.

All creatures do this.

Actually, there are many species of collective, cooperative life forms.

 

[MikeF]

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!

<chuckles> Well, it seems you gave it the old college try.

I was struggling to imagine an economic/social system based on wellbeing instead of wealth and it seems you were struggling to describe it. I assume that this whole notion was suggested off-the-cuff to begin with, but I felt it was important to press you on it. There are no easy or straightforward solutions that could be adopted and brought to fruition in a lifetime, in my view.

I’m an optimistic, glass half full kind of guy. I see social systems as continually changing and evolving in response to the dynamic and ever changing conditions and forces at play. As I see it, in a statistical and broad view, wellbeing and security have continued to increase for human beings over time and I personally see that trend continuing.

 

[Yerda]

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

To keep it short, I don't think cheaper moon rockets are sufficient to offset the economic, social and political damage caused by concentrated wealth but I'm just some guy on the internet.

 

[Audie]

Not that thin, given that hate speech, as this is, should be prosecuted for what it is - given the repercussions of such language being used (people do get killed, and often being innocent, after such), but where some can rely on wealth to evade justice. And Musk's so-called free speech is mostly what he wants to see on his platform - like the Trumpish rants. As to what religions do, do you think I approve?

Well, Id have to study on musk to
have much opinion.
The little mentioned didnt seem to
me much basis for the broad and deep
indictment of his character, the nature
of the us justice system, or talk of
" trumpist rants" whatever those are.

 

[PureX]

<chuckles> Well, it seems you gave it the old college try.

I was struggling to imagine an economic/social system based on wellbeing instead of wealth and it seems you were struggling to describe it. I assume that this whole notion was suggested off-the-cuff to begin with, but I felt it was important to press you on it. There are no easy or straightforward solutions that could be adopted and brought to fruition in a lifetime, in my view.

I agree, but the trajectory we're on is clearly headed for a great and disastrous reckoning. Something we should all want to avoid. Especially if we're younger, or have offspring. We need to change course, and we need to do it soon.

I’m an optimistic, glass half full kind of guy. I see social systems as continually changing and evolving in response to the dynamic and ever changing conditions and forces at play. As I see it, in a statistical and broad view, wellbeing and security have continued to increase for human beings over time and I personally see that trend continuing.

The important thing for us to get into our heads is that it's not about the money, per se, it's about control. THAT is what needs to be shared, and because money is control in a capitalist system, the money needs to be spread around, and not allowed to pile up under and individual or groups control.

Step #1 is to take government out from under the control of the wealthy elite, and return it to the people. No progress will ever be made until we do that. And things will continue to get worse.

 

[Audie]

To keep it short, I don't think cheaper moon rockets are sufficient to offset the economic, social and political damage caused by concentrated wealth but I'm just some guy on the internet.

Nor did i say that.
For cincentrated wealth, look to the
US govt, and regard where in govt the
$ are.
" Defense" is a ravenous beast eating the
homeland and pouring death and destruction
across the earth.

I'm mega rich, live in unimaginable splendour
by 3rd world standards. Here in Hong Kong.

But i am fortunate to control $ of some significance.

My inheritance goes into building apartments, businesses,,
empoyment- building Hong Kong from the lille fishung
village to what it is now.
Reg ard, if you will, our skyline. Thats the work of
capitalism. Not govt, not workers somehow coalescing to
set up corporations. They dont, they cant
Thats the work of the rich people you so deplore.

Now, there are corporate abuses, of course.
( note miiitary - industrial...) , theres corruption,
any social ills such as you allude to.

But i think the balance / emphasis of
positive and negative is very skewed.

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

 

[Yerda]

Nor did i say that.
For cincentrated wealth, look to the
US govt, and regard where in govt the
$ are.
" Defense" is a ravenous beast eating the
homeland and pouring death and destruction
across the earth.

I'm mega rich, live in unimaginable splendour
by 3rd world standards. Here in Hong Kong.

But i am fortunate to control $ of some significance.

My inheritance goes into building apartments, businesses,,
empoyment- building Hong Kong from the lille fishung
village to what it is now.
Reg ard, if you will, our skyline. Thats the work of
capitalism. Not govt, not workers somehow coalescing to
set up corporations. They dont, they cant
Thats the work of the rich people you so deplore.

Now, there are corporate abuses, of course.
( note miiitary - industrial...) , theres corruption,
any social ills such as you allude to.

But i think the balance / emphasis of
positive and negative is very skewed.

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

Hong Kong looks lovely.

I understand your point. And I don't disagree entirely.

Leaving aside the fact that the skyline itself is the fruit of labour - from municipal planners, architechts, engineers, all the way down to brick layers and site labourers - wealth only creates the conditions that allows these people to cooperate, the actual creation is done in the minds and hands of workers. Does it require the existence of billionaires? Would a thousand millionaires not be capable of doing the same work? Or 100,000 people with £10k to invest?

Let's put aside any question of the rightness or wrongness of capitalism. It is here and while it is here we must work within it. Can lots of small investors not create the same value as 1 very large one?

It is not the wealthy, but the wealth that matters. More wealth distributed in greater numbers of bank accounts means greater numbers of economic decisions being made by greater numbers of people - this is typically the justification used by capitalists for decentralising economic plannning. Let us decentralise it further.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

That's why banks are legalized loan sharks.
An usurer is by definition a person who demands an unnatural interest rate.
The State legalized them.
But that doesn't make them less usurers.

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

In the interest rate.
You pleaded the fifth about the interest rate.
Tell me what interest rate is acceptable.