Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Kfox]

Or needy.

No; he didn't say needy, he said if your are motivated for financial gain, that's greed.

 

[Kfox]

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

It’s not about hoping, imagining, or even trusting, it’s about knowing. I know my life is better using a car for transportation than using horses. I know my life is better being able to buy food, clothing, and housing from corporations rather than having to produce those things myself. Most people aren’t stupid, they know what improves their lives and what does not. If most had a desire to live like the Amish, they would and we corporations wouldn’t exist; but in the real world people prefer modern living over primitive living.

 

[Kfox]

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

You defined greed as motivated by financial gain regardless of what you already have. People are motivated to work jobs for financial gain; regardless of what they already have.

 

[Kfox]

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

Wealth can influence, but then there are lots of things that influence. As I pointed out before, I see social media as having more influence than wealth; look at the amount of influence Black Lives Matter had on society, people were able to destroy cities without consequence, many cities defunded the police departments resulting in skyrocketing crime, I know of no wealthy person who were able to influence to that degree in modern day society; do you?

 

[Koldo]

You defined greed as motivated by financial gain regardless of what you already have. People are motivated to work jobs for financial gain; regardless of what they already have.

That's not quite how I defined it... Humans often have multiple motivations for their actions. Generally speaking, humans work to be able to survive. That's the primary motivation for most people. The mere act of working per se doesn't entail being majorly motivated by a selfish desire for financial gain.

 

[siti]

The solution is not one policy or another. It's a cultural change in our economic ethos away from selfishness and toward our collective well-being.

Well that's pretty much what I've been saying isn't it? The OP was about "limitarianism" - which is certainly nothing more than "one policy", and as far as I can tell considerably less than that...not much more than yet another proposed "tweak" like anti-trust laws, inheritance taxes...etc. etc. As I said, we need a system overhaul not another ineffectual tweak.

I'm not even going to dignify that absurd nonsense with a response. You seem to be obsessed with victim-blaming. A very common affliction among capitalism apologists.

There is no doubt that we have allowed this to mess to happen, and that many of us still approve of it. That changes nothing. That excuses nothing. We can do better. We should do better. We must do better or the consequences will be very, very bad.

Well make your mind up...not going to respond but here's the response...its not our fault but it is our fault...

.....but your conclusion right, and again you are saying the same thing I said - "we" can and must do better...because the consequences of not doing so are already very, very bad and getting worse by the day for the half of us who genuinely don't have the power to change anything.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Sounds like a Usurer an insulting term for someone who loans money to the needy, in a way that does not meet your approval.

In the interest rate.

What rate do private banks charge vs public?

You pleaded the fifth about the interest rate.

No I didn't.

Tell me what interest rate is acceptable.

I don't know all of what's involved; but I'm not the one complaining about interest rates, that would be YOU so how 'bout if you tell me what's acceptable.

 

[siti]

Since you want to get down to specifics, how would that work exactly?

Suppose, for example, I want to buy butter. By what process would I determine from whom I would buy it?

Well first think carefully about whether you really need it and whether it is really "good for you". Then buy domestically produced rather than imported, preferably local if possible...with the choices narrowed down a bit, try and find out what you can about how it is produced and how the producer treats/pays their workers, the environment, public safety etc...you will not get it all at once or be able to do it for every product in your shopping basket in one shot...but basically its just a process of becoming a more informed and responsible consumer.

 

[siti]

Most people aren’t stupid, they know what improves their lives and what does not.

Do you have any evidence to back this statement of faith?

 

[Kfox]

That's not quite how I defined it... Humans often have multiple motivations for their actions. Generally speaking, humans work to be able to survive.

I disagree! In today's society, you don't have to work in order to survive; homeless shelters are full of people doing this. Care to try again?

That's the primary motivation for most people. The mere act of working per se doesn't entail being majorly motivated by a selfish desire for financial gain.

So who decides if my motivation for financial gain is selfish or not? You?

 

[Kfox]

Do you have any evidence to back this statement of faith?

It's not a faith statement, it's my personal opinion.

 

[siti]

It's not a faith statement, it's my personal opinion.

You have no faith in your opinion? I think we've finally found common ground.

 

[Koldo]

Well first think carefully about whether you really need it

What are you calling a 'need' on this case?
As in whether I need it to survive? Or is it something other than that?

and whether it is really "good for you".

What does it mean for something to be really "good for you"?

Then buy domestically produced rather than imported, preferably local if possible...

Why?

with the choices narrowed down a bit, try and find out what you can about how it is produced and how the producer treats/pays their workers, the environment, public safety etc...you will not get it all at once or be able to do it for every product in your shopping basket in one shot...but basically its just a process of becoming a more informed and responsible consumer.

How do I get access to all of this information if it is not readily available? How do I weight each aspect? What are all the aspects I ought to take into consideration? And then I need thousands of people (or millions depending on what company we are talking about) getting, somehow, on board with my conclusion to properly boycott a company, because I alone will achieve absolutely nothing by myself. Thus the reason as to why you don't see this kind of thing happening. Boycott generally happens as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific event.

 

[Kfox]

You have no faith in your opinion? I think we've finally found common ground.

Faith is to believe where there is no empirical evidence. My opinions contain empirical evidence.

 

[siti]

What are you calling a 'need' on this case?

Well there's your problem...you are waiting for someone else to tell you what you need!

What does it mean for something to be really "good for you"?

Well there's your problem...you are waiting for someone else to tell you what is "good for you".

Why?

Because if you buy local its more likely to benefit local producers who, by and large, unless you happen to live very close to the local Coca Cola factory (as I once did), are not the greedy corporate entities and their uber-rich CEOs that you so resent handing over your money to.

How do I get access to all of this information if it is not readily available? How do I weight each aspect? What are all the aspects I ought to take into consideration? And then I need thousands of people (or millions depending on what company we are talking about) getting, somehow, on board with my conclusion to properly boycott a company, because I alone will achieve absolutely nothing by myself. Thus the reason as to why you don't see this kind of thing happening. Boycott generally happens as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific event.

Well I never said anything about boycott, and I never imagined it was foolproof...your comments have demonstrated that it isn't...which is kind of my point (again!)

 

[siti]

Faith is to believe where there is no empirical evidence. My opinions contain empirical evidence.

OK...let's track back a bit...

What empirical evidence do you have that informs your opinion that

"...life is better using a car for transportation rather than a horse"? How exactly do you define "better" - apart from not having to wade knee-deep through horse manure to get from your steed to the where you need to be? (A bit of a metaphor for this discussion there I think).

What empirical evidence is there that "life is better" because we buy food, clothing etc. from corporations? And you opposed this to having to produce it yourself...well that's a million miles from I was suggesting which is to buy local from actual producers - especially food, but also, is your life really better because you buy mass-produced clothing, manufactured in the sweat shops of some impoverished country far removed from where you are geographically, socially and conscientiously rather than spending a bit (well OK a lot) more money to buy a bespoke outfit made by a local tailor from materials grown and processed ethically by local farmers and manufacturers where you live?

But that's hard of course...we have to spend a bit more, have a bit less, consume a bit less, and take a bit more time considering how we spend our hard-earned wherewithal...and the bitterest of all pills for many to swallow, we have to think about how we spend our cash instead of just impulsively buying what is thrust under our noses by the "greedy corporations" we so despise.

Seems like both sides in this discussion want all that to carry on just as it is...except one lot thinks we should give the corporations our money and then steal it back again and the other thinks they should get to keep it.

I think there's a hell of a lot more wrong with our economic systems than that. And "we" - consumers - are the biggest cog in the machine...if we don't change, the system will just chug on more or less as it is until it either runs into the buffers or all the wheels fall off catastrophically.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree! In today's society, you don't have to work in order to survive; homeless shelters are full of people doing this. Care to try again?

I take it you are from the US? Do you know the concept of food (in)security?

So who decides if my motivation for financial gain is selfish or not? You?

When it comes down to how I use the word 'greed'? Yes. Not sure why it matters to you though.

 

[Koldo]

Well there's your problem...you are waiting for someone else to tell you what you need!

No, I want you to explain what you meant by that word.

Well there's your problem...you are waiting for someone else to tell you what is "good for you".

No, I want you to explain what you meant by that word.²

If you are telling me I can freely interpret those terms,... ok then, but this further complicates matters by making it even harder to reach the social cohesion necessary to enact change.

Because if you buy local its more likely to benefit local producers who, by and large, unless you happen to live very close to the local Coca Cola factory (as I once did), are not the greedy corporate entities and their uber-rich CEOs that you so resent handing over your money to.

What makes you think they are not even more greedy than the corporate entities though?
I joined a conversation that was framed on regards to greed, but I don't even think that should be the central part of this conversation though. Suppose for all purposes and intents all of the CEOs were actually robots (and nothing else changed), incapable of feeling anything close to greed. The problem would persist. Greed simply explains why the problem exists. The aim being suggested is to create a society where a certain form of power can't be so easily accumulated at the hands of a few, and where all stakeholders have more of a voice.

Well I never said anything about boycott, and I never imagined it was foolproof...your comments have demonstrated that it isn't...which is kind of my point (again!)

If there is no boycott then nothing changes. Your suggestion leads to the exact world we have today then.

 

[siti]

No, I want you to explain what you meant by that word.²

I have no idea² - how would I know what you need or what is good for you?

If you are telling me I can freely interpret those terms,... ok then, but this further complicates matters by making it even harder to reach the social cohesion necessary to enact change.

Your suggestion leads to the exact world we have today then.

Exactly² So where is the problem?

 

[Kfox]

OK...let's track back a bit...

What empirical evidence do you have that informs your opinion that

"...life is better using a car for transportation rather than a horse"? How exactly do you define "better"

Because cars allow people to travel further, cheaper, and more comfortable compared to horses. I define better in this case as having more choices and better opportunity

What empirical evidence is there that "life is better" because we buy food, clothing etc. from corporations?

Because today we have more food, less hunger, more clothes and shelter and less squalor and homelessness than we did when we were forced to do it ourselves.
Now I’m not claiming this is evidence to your satisfaction, (I’ve got a feeling nothing could meet your satisfaction) just mine.