Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Koldo]

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



Exactly² So where is the problem?

I am left quite bemused. We have been all this time talking about the viability of a solution.... And now, after 15 pages on this topic you ask me what is the problem? What's up with that?

 

[Kfox]

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

Are you suggesting people in homeless shelters don't get enough to eat? If so, what do you base this on?

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

What constitutes greed is completely subjective; agree?

 

[Koldo]

Are you suggesting people in homeless shelters don't get enough to eat? If so, what do you base this on?

Do you know or do you not know the concept of food (in)security?
I am going to explain my perspective, but I need to know whether I am going to need to explain a new term to you.

What constitutes greed is completely subjective; agree?

It is not completely subjective, but it involves a degree of subjectivity.

 

[siti]

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

Cars are cheaper than horses? Well you got one thing right - that evidence doesn't meet my satisfaction.

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.

Like I said, I was not opposing buying food etc. from corporations to doing it ourselves...but anyway, I'll let you have your strawman and eat it. You're right that mass production (rather than corporatism I think) has enabled us to have more food and generally "better" living conditions than we would have had in a pre-industrial society. But at what cost? And is it not appropriate to re-examine it now and again and think of even better ways of achieving those goals for a larger proportion of the human family without compromising the ability of future generations to sustain themselves?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

If there's a minimum wage then it makes sense there should be a maximum cap , and I do agree that it would be a positive goal to help eradicate poverty wealth inequality and such because as of now it's getting worse and worse every decade that goes by.

Unfortunately, I think it's already too late and nothing will ever be done about it as we head towards dystopia the next phase of human misery.

 

[siti]

I am left quite bemused. We have been all this time talking about the viability of a solution.... And now, after 15 pages on this topic you ask me what is the problem? What's up with that?

Have you come across the phrase "rhetorical question"? And it was "where" not "what". But if you really are bemused about either the "what" or the "where" of the problem...then we have at least, after 15 pages on the topic, discovered why you can neither explain the proposed solution nor indicate how it might be viable.

 

[Koldo]

Have you come across the phrase "rhetorical question"? And it was "where" not "what".

Just to make sure: I inititally (and still do) interpreted your question as meaning you see no problem at all in the way things currently are concerning the subject we have been talking about on this topic. Is that actually the case? Because I certainly don't understand how you can be saying such after you have proposed a solution yourself...

But if you really are bemused about either the "what" or the "where" of the problem...then we have at least, after 15 pages on the topic, discovered why you can neither explain the proposed solution nor indicate how it might be viable.

Once gain, the proposed solution in the OP is trivially simple. There is nothing else to explain. A limit is legally placed on how much wealth an individual can accumulate and everything else is taxed 100%. All other details are to be worked out according to the circumstances pertinent to the countries that decide to apply it. It is viable, in the sense that it only requires a legal change.

 

[PureX]

You've lost track of what I was responding to. You have claimed a dramatic increase in poverty and then claimed that numbers lie when then did not seem to support your first claim. The visibility of the homeless was not what was at question.

GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF!

As to gutted towns, the economy and industry change over time. Are we to lament all the ghost towns scattered throughout the West because the mining industry changed?

We are to lament the fact that the capitalists that had total control of those all those manufacturing industries decided they could make bigger profits exploiting workers in other countries and had no concern whatever for the workes here at home.

We have the ruins of 19th/20th century millworks in my region. Were they to be perpetually kept in operation despite changes in the industry?

They could have been updated. But that costs miney that would cut into their profits. So they decided it was more profitable for them to build a new factory somewhere else where they could exploit the workers and ignore safety regulations. Again, greed makes all the decisions, because the capital investors have complete control over commercial enterprise. And all they want is to maximize the profit returned on their investment. They couldn't have cared less about all their fellow citizens losing their jobs and their livelihoods. And neither did the politicians they paid off to let them move our industrial heartland out of country. Stop trying to call it "progress". It was nothing but ignorant, stupid greed.

 

[Kfox]

Do you know or do you not know the concept of food (in)security?
I am going to explain my perspective, but I need to know whether I am going to need to explain a new term to you.

I know the term. What does this have to do with what I said?

It is not completely subjective, but it involves a degree of subjectivity.

So how are you defining greed? Please be specific.

 

[PureX]

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.

One way or another we have to take back control of commercial enterprise. We can do that by taking back the piles of money that the wealthy elites are using to buy and hold on to their control. or we can break our government free from the corruption being caused by that money and use the government to spread the decision-making out among those who are being effected by it. Or we can do both. But however it happens, the issue is control. Whenever a small number of people gain control over a great number of others, they inevitably abuse that control, and exploit all those others. And the only solution is to take that control away from them and spread it out among the greater number of people. So that they can use it to protect themselves.

.....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.

Then why are you trying to hard to argue?

 

[Kfox]

Cars are cheaper than horses? Well you got one thing right - that evidence doesn't meet my satisfaction.

Yes. Getting 200,000 miles out of a car vs a horse, I think the car is cheaper.

Like I said, I was not opposing buying food etc. from corporations to doing it ourselves...but anyway, I'll let you have your strawman and eat it. You're right that mass production (rather than corporatism I think) has enabled us to have more food and generally "better" living conditions than we would have had in a pre-industrial society.

So you agree with me people choose to buy from Corporations is because Corporations produce products that improve their lives?

 

[Koldo]

I know the term. What does this have to do with what I said?

Ok.There is a massive number of people worldwide that experience food insecurity. If they saw homeless shelters as a reliable trustworthy alternative to feed them, why would they feel insecure... at all?

So how are you defining greed? Please be specific.

Why do you care? Show me why it is relevant to be very specific and I shall do it.

 

[siti]

Just to make sure: I inititally (and still do) interpreted your question as meaning you see no problem at all in the way things currently are concerning the subject we have been talking about on this topic. Is that actually the case? Because I certainly don't understand how you can be saying such after you have proposed a solution yourself...

No...I suggested we have to determine for ourselves what we need, what is good for us, and therefore what we are prepared to spend our money on...you indicated that this was unrealistic because we would not be have the information to make these choices and that we would not be able to achieve the "social cohesion" required to decide collectively and voluntarily to so moderate our spending habits that we have a positive impact on national (if not global) wealth distribution...

I stated "well there's your problem" twice (you may recall) and then rhetorically "where's the problem"...the problem is with us - we (the almost half of the population who have some money but are not among the very few who are very rich) have the spending power...we decide (wittingly or not) who we give an "unfair" proportion of wealth to.

 

[siti]

Yes. Getting 200,000 miles out of a car vs a horse, I think the car is cheaper.

You haven't seen my car then - or my horse!

So you agree with me people choose to buy from Corporations is because Corporations produce products that improve their lives?

They think. But yes...pretty much...but that doesn't entail that corporatism is the best way to achieve the goal of improving more people's lives. OTOH, neither is anti-corporatism...the root of the problem, as I may have mentioned previously, lies elsewhere.

 

[Kfox]

Ok.There is a massive number of people worldwide that experience food insecurity. If they saw homeless shelters as a reliable trustworthy alternative to feed them, why would they feel insecure... at all?

I'm talking about in the United States.

Why do you care? Show me why it is relevant to be very specific and I shall do it.

You made the claim that to be motivated for financial gain is greed.
I said everybody with jobs are motivated by financial gain, is everyone with a job greedy?
You said humans need jobs to survive,
I said you can survive in a homeless shelter and not work
I was just looking for you to provide a definition of greed that does not include people like me and you.

 

[siti]

Then why are you trying to hard to argue?

Its not hard - it comes naturally...

...but I was never arguing that there isn't a problem (a disproportionate and growing wealth gap between the uber-rich and everyone else)...I was arguing...

(a) that the suggestion of the OP, namely "limitarianism", which seems to amount to nothing more than a 100% tax on wealth above a certain arbitrary (but as yet unspecified*) limit is not the solution and...

(b) that implementing a 100% tax on wealth above a certain limit, would act as a brake on economic growth (e.g. see footnote)...where, in an otherwise unchanged capitalist system, is the incentive for continued economic endeavour if there is no further financial reward? I can't for the life of me see how that would make anyone else wealthier or move us towards eradicating poverty and...

(c) that responsible informed consumerism would be something that we have the power to begin implementing right here, right now - if you feel it is wrong to give your financial resources over to "greedy" corporations who manipulate government to their own ends, then stop giving it to them.

*except for some vague suggestions of figures around the $10million mark which would mean that nobody would be allowed to keep sufficient capital to build a new car factory for example.

 

[Bthoth]

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?

I did not read the book. So i cannot address the perspective.

But business, capitalism. is an animal "invisible hand' all by itself.

it's about like having a 3rd party to take the fall.

 

[MikeF]

They could have been updated. But that costs miney that would cut into their profits. So they decided it was more profitable for them to build a new factory somewhere else where they could exploit the workers and ignore safety regulations. Again, greed makes all the decisions, because the capital investors have complete control over commercial enterprise. And all they want is to maximize the profit returned on their investment. They couldn't have cared less about all their fellow citizens losing their jobs and their livelihoods. And neither did the politicians they paid off to let them move our industrial heartland out of country. Stop trying to call it "progress". It was nothing but ignorant, stupid greed.

You crack me up. Whether it is owner/investor run business or employee owned and run business, it is human beings making decisions in both cases and both will behave with similar self-interest and lack of concern for their fellow citizens. Do we imagine a collective run mine being more inclined to not pursue open pit mining or mountaintop removal if it meant high profits and more jobs for the collective? Do we think the collective would be more concerned about metals leaching out of mine tailings and polluting the water table if it meant a dramatic loss of profit or jobs to mitigate the pollution risk? No, I don't think so.

Do we imagine the worker collective being more innovative and creative? How about flexibility in changing economic conditions? Will they lay off workers to weather a down-turn? Will the collective invest in R&D or will the workers vote to keep more take-home pay in their pockets? Your People's Collective is going to be statistically just as "greedy" as a capitalist corporation, only not as savvy and with less business acumen.

 

[Bthoth]

You crack me up. Whether it is owner/investor run business or employee owned and run business, it is human beings making decisions in both cases and both will behave with similar self-interest and lack of concern for their fellow citizens. Do we imagine a collective run mine being more inclined to not pursue open pit mining or mountaintop removal if it meant high profits and more jobs for the collective? Do we think the collective would be more concerned about metals leaching out of mine tailings and polluting the water table if it meant a dramatic loss of profit or jobs to mitigate the pollution risk? No, I don't think so.

Sure, business has no use of virtues.

Do we imagine the worker collective being more innovative and creative?

Yep but the business owns most of the achievements. Which ruins progress.

How about flexibility in changing economic conditions?

That's what good business does. For example: big oil should use it's might to evolve.

Will they lay off workers to weather a down-turn? Will the collective invest in R&D or will the workers vote to keep more take-home pay in their pockets? Your People's Collective is going to be statistically just as "greedy" as a capitalist corporation, only not as savvy and with less business acumen.

Until the deficit exceeds the income. Can't borrow forever and then BK the debt. (trump0nomics)

 

[Koldo]

No...I suggested we have to determine for ourselves what we need, what is good for us, and therefore what we are prepared to spend our money on...you indicated that this was unrealistic because

Ok. We already do that. Everyone is actively doing that already. There is nothing unrealistic about it.

we would not be have the information to make these choices and that we would not be able to achieve the "social cohesion" required to decide collectively and voluntarily to so moderate our spending habits that we have a positive impact on national (if not global) wealth distribution...

What's unrealistic is expecting any significant change coming from individual small behaviors. You might be able to succeed at the herculean task of cleaning a river all by yourself, but you won't be able to keep it clean all by yourself.

I stated "well there's your problem" twice (you may recall) and then rhetorically "where's the problem"...the problem is with us - we (the almost half of the population who have some money but are not among the very few who are very rich) have the spending power...we decide (wittingly or not) who we give an "unfair" proportion of wealth to.

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. We are a consequence of our environment and thinking on individualistic terms has been the norm in a capitalist framework. It should come as no surprise that a problem caused by individualism can't be solved by individualism.