Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Koldo]

I'm talking about in the United States.

It might come as surprise that there is much more in the world than the US. The OP is not even about the US specifically.

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.

Once again, how is any of this even relevant? Presume I don't provide a definition that satisfies you, how does it concern the topic at hand? And if I do provide a definition that satisfies you, how does it concern the topic at hand?

It makes no difference one way or another.

 

[siti]

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

Actually I'm changing my answer on this...

200,000 miles is about 15 years on the road at average annual mileage (very approx.) for a car and about 40 years on the road based on a horse doing about 100 miles per week (not at all unreasonable if you rode it daily except weekends)...

That means you'd take 40 years to cover 200,000 miles which means you'd have to change your horse twice (i.e. three horses going for 13 or 14 years each - again not unreasonable)

A car costs $40K and a horse probably less than $5K, so $15K for three of 'em over 40 years. Of course I couldn't fit the whole family on a horse, but then again you can't get your car to run on grass.

Where I live its even better, my car cost $22.5K and my horse $300...so I could have 75 horses for the price of a car...

...but I guess we could just call it evens!

 

[siti]

It should come as no surprise that a problem caused by individualism can't be solved by individualism.

Except that the problem isn't caused by individualism, it is caused by (everyone's got one) herd mentality masquerading as (that's just right for me) individualism...but please don't ask me to explain that any further...(I am getting genuinely tired of my own 'voice' on this topic) please just think about it next time you go shopping or watch the ads on TV - or not, if thinking about such things is not your thing.

 

[siti]

For anyone who is sufficiently interested (or bored) to sit through it, here's a video of the author of "Limitarianism" clearly demonstrating how little substance the idea carries in a colloquium - WARNING - its almost an hour and a half long and answers none of the obvious questions about it...but...it might just save you a few $$$ by not rushing out to buy the book.

 

[PureX]

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.

(A) It is a solution, not the solution.
(b) It will not stop economic growth because the investor class will still invest, and anyway, right now the growth isn’t helping anyone but them. So for everyone else, a slow down in growth would go unnoticed. Greed wants growth. The rest of us just want to live.
(c) Stop blaming the victims, please. Humans are human. They do stupid human stuff. They buy crap at Walmart to save a few pennies while Walmart destroys their local economy. The solution is not to blame people for being people. The solution is to stop the Walmarts from destroying our towns so a few greedy Walton dependents can be billionaires.

 

[PureX]

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.

I understand that you hate people. But at least when it’s the people being effected by a commercial decision that’s making the decision, and the effect of their decision is bad for them, they can correct it. When the elite investor, living somewhere else, and protected by his pile of money makes that same bad decision, he doesn’t suffer the consequences. So he doesn’t care. His only concern is does it increase his profit margins. The reason we need to take back control of commerce is to protect ourselves from it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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?

Yes, but when someone is so rich as to own the media then those more sympathetic to the owner's view will more likely have a voice too - as Musk seems to have done, although his 'complete freedom of speech' argument seems a little thin. And as to media, it simply is often down to what is covered in the news and as to how it is covered.

 

[siti]

(A) It is a solution, not the solution.
(b) It will not stop economic growth because the investor class will still invest, and anyway, right now the growth isn’t helping anyone but them. So for everyone else, a slow down in growth would go unnoticed. Greed want growth. The rest of us just want to live.
(c) Stop blaming the victims, please. Humans are human. They do stupid human stuff. They buy crap at Walmart to save a few pennies while Walmart destroys their local economy. The solution is not to blame people for being people. The solution is to stop the Walmarts from destroying our towns so a few greedy Walton dependents can be billionaires.

(a) not even that, not even close
(b) invest what if most of their capital has been confiscated...slow down in growth would go unnoticed...is that what happened where you are during the COVID slow down? Some people here are still unemployed as a result of that slow down.
(c)

 

[PureX]

(a) not even that, not even close
(b) invest what if most of their capital has been confiscated...slow down in growth would go unnoticed...is that what happened where you are during the COVID slow down? Some people here are still unemployed as a result of that slow down.
(c)

When your only defense is to profer extremes, you have no defense.

Lots of people have investment capital without being milti-millionaires or billionaires. And they will want to invest it because sitting on it gains them nothing. And covid was not a slowing down of economic growth.

 

[Koldo]

Except that the problem isn't caused by individualism, it is caused by (everyone's got one) herd mentality masquerading as (that's just right for me) individualism...but please don't ask me to explain that any further...(I am getting genuinely tired of my own 'voice' on this topic) please just think about it next time you go shopping or watch the ads on TV - or not, if thinking about such things is not your thing.

If I spend my money without a care about the consequences of what my money is financing, I am able to maximize my purchasing power. Why wouldn't I seek to maximize my own power when it so clearly benefits me, myself and I? Given how little power I possess, it is not my own purchases that will make a difference, but rather it is the aggregate of everyone's purchases that will affect me. What's the point in me alone losing more money to buy a product if nothing changes? There is zilch incentive to consider anything other than the price and the quality of the product when making a purchase. All agents (be it the producer that is destroying the environment or the buyer that is financing their activity) are acting independently and trying to achieve what is better for themselves, individualism in a nutshell.

It is only when we move away from individualism and seek to do coordinated actions that we achieve change quickly. Either that, or a top down pressure through, for example, legislative change.

 

[MikeF]

I understand that you hate people.

I see. So acknowledging that human beings are flawed and fallible no matter where they fall on the economic spectrum equates to declaring a hatred for humanity?

But at least when it’s the people being effected by a commercial decision that’s making the decision, and the effect of their decision is bad for them, they can correct it. When the elite investor, living somewhere else, and protected by his pile of money makes that same bad decision, he doesn’t suffer the consequences. So he doesn’t care. His only concern is does it increase his profit margins. The reason we need to take back control of commerce is to protect ourselves from it.

Good gracious. The people already have that power as voters in a representative democracy.

 

[PureX]

I see. So acknowledging that human beings are flawed and fallible no matter where they fall on the economic spectrum equates to declaring a hatred for humanity?

No. It was the presumption that humans being flawed and fallable is somehow unacceptable. Or that because of it, we need our wealthy overlords to decide our fates for us.

Good gracious. The people already have that power as voters in a representative democracy.

What planet are you living on? A study was done over 20 years ago that showed no correlation whatever to the decisions made by government in this country and the needs or desires of the people electing them. We have no say at all in what they decide to do. Because they are completely beholding to their corporate sponsors. And they make sure we sell stay at each other's throats while we're being robbed blind. We are and have been living in an oligarchy for decades. One that is intent on exploiting everyone it can for it's own gain. And those oligarchs control the government, the media, and every aspect of commerce. They even start wars for profit. Other people's lives mean nothing to them. The entire nation, and even the planet, is just one big money pump for the rich.

 

[Kfox]

It might come as surprise that there is much more in the world than the US. The OP is not even about the US specifically.

Yet you felt comfortable painting everybody with the same broad brush regardless of country, culture, financial situation, or circumstance when labeling "X" behavior as greed; huh?

Once again, how is any of this even relevant? Presume I don't provide a definition that satisfies you, how does it concern the topic at hand? And if I do provide a definition that satisfies you, how does it concern the topic at hand?

None of these questions directed at you were about the topic at hand, my questions were about the comment you made.

 

[Kfox]

Actually I'm changing my answer on this...

200,000 miles is about 15 years on the road at average annual mileage (very approx.) for a car and about 40 years on the road based on a horse doing about 100 miles per week (not at all unreasonable if you rode it daily except weekends)...

That means you'd take 40 years to cover 200,000 miles which means you'd have to change your horse twice (i.e. three horses going for 13 or 14 years each - again not unreasonable)

A car costs $40K and a horse probably less than $5K, so $15K for three of 'em over 40 years. Of course I couldn't fit the whole family on a horse, but then again you can't get your car to run on grass.

Where I live its even better, my car cost $22.5K and my horse $300...so I could have 75 horses for the price of a car...

...but I guess we could just call it evens!

Would you agree having the option of buying a car is an improvement to your life?

 

[MikeF]

No. It was the presumption that humans being flawed and fallable is somehow unacceptable. Or that because of it, we need our wealthy overlords to decide our fates for us.

It is not about being acceptable or unacceptable. It is simply a hard reality. It is a hard reality that exists in our current, actual world, and it will be a hard reality in any system you imagine to be a utopian alternative.

I will also say, for the record, that I am decidedly against having a few wealthy overlords deciding the fate of everyone.

What planet are you living on? A study was done over 20 years ago that showed no correlation whatever to the decisions made by government in this country and the needs or desires of the people electing them. We have no say at all in what they decide to do. Because they are completely beholding to their corporate sponsors. You are and have been living in an oligarchy for decades.

Yet throughout that time the people still had the power to not re-elect those representatives that made decisions that were contrary to the needs and desires of those electing them.

I'm just not seeing how people in your utopian People's Collective are going to be any less vulnerable to being manipulated or making bad decisions. If we aren't solving that problem by switching to a People's Collective, what benefits and advantages might be lost by making such a switch? What problems might be exacerbated (counterintuitively perhaps, if we can't easily foresee them)?

Whatever system you care to imagine, human nature will be an unchanging constant. Given the historical track record, I see a well-regulated market economy within a representative democracy as the better fit with human nature at our current level of biological and social evolution. The good news is that this evolutionary process is continual, and while things may not be perfect now or in the past, I do see them as having continually improved since our earliest beginnings. I am optimistic that this trend will continue.

 

[PureX]

It is not about being acceptable or unacceptable. It is simply a hard reality. It is a hard reality that exists in our current, actual world, and it will be a hard reality in any system you imagine to be a utopian alternative.

I have no utopian illusion. Nor did I pose any. Nor is there a "hard" or a "soft" reality. It's just reality, so why did you even bring it up? People are what they are, regardless. Let's stop blaming them for it.

I will also say, for the record, that I am decidedly against having a few wealthy overlords deciding the fate of everyone.

Well, that is what we have, now. And it's getting worse as they pile up more and more money, leaving less and less for everyone else. Because money = control under capitalism. Probably under any system, which is why it's very dangerous to allow any individual or group to amass so much of it.

Yet throughout that time the people still had the power to not re-elect those representatives that made decisions that were contrary to the needs and desires of those electing them.

The only options we're being given are the bought and paid for ones. Our domocracy is just theater at this point. We can vote for this toady, or that toady, and either way we get another toady for the wealthy elites.

I'm just not seeing how people in your utopian People's Collective are going to be any less vulnerable to being manipulated or making bad decisions.

The fact that you aren't seeing it really doesn't mean anything. Almost no one in this culture can even imagine an alternative to capitalusm. That's how brainwashed we are by it. And if anyone dares to even suggest that there could possibly be an alternative all kinds of doomsday scenarios are immediately being shouted from the rooftops about tyrannical death camps and horrific murderous communist dictators and the like.

If we aren't solving that problem by switching to a People's Collective, what benefits and advantages might be lost by making such a switch? What problems might be exacerbated (counterintuitively perhaps, if we can't easily foresee them)?

Why are you focusing on that? Why are you so intent on defending a greed based system that is destroying lives by the thousands every single day we continue to engage in it?

Whatever system you care to imagine, human nature will be an unchanging constant. Given the historical track record, I see a well-regulated market economy within a representative democracy as the better fit with human nature at our current level of biological and social evolution.

That doesn't exist, because big piles of money warp culture, law, commerce, ethics, and destroy lives. It's like kriptonite to humanity, or some highly addictive crazy drug that once you take it, you can never get enough.

The good news is that this evolutionary process is continual, and while things may not be perfect now or in the past, I do see them as having continually improved since our earliest beginnings. I am optimistic that this trend will continue.

The current evidence indicates a massive extinction is more likely.

 

[MikeF]

The current evidence indicates a massive extinction is more likely.

I simply don't share your extreme pessimism.

 

[siti]

If I spend my money without a care about the consequences of what my money is financing, I am able to maximize my purchasing power. Why wouldn't I seek to maximize my own power when it so clearly benefits me, myself and I? Given how little power I possess, it is not my own purchases that will make a difference, but rather it is the aggregate of everyone's purchases that will affect me. What's the point in me alone losing more money to buy a product if nothing changes? There is zilch incentive to consider anything other than the price and the quality of the product when making a purchase. All agents (be it the producer that is destroying the environment or the buyer that is financing their activity) are acting independently and trying to achieve what is better for themselves, individualism in a nutshell.

It is only when we move away from individualism and seek to do coordinated actions that we achieve change quickly. Either that, or a top down pressure through, for example, legislative change.

What you describe is not individualism in a nutshell so much as individualism in a nutcase!

Individualism is the 'freedom' to act according to one's own conscience...unless the majority of people lack the ability to discern conscientiously that what is bad for the collective is not in their own best interests overall (i.e. are myopically stupid) there's no reason why encouraging people to exercise conscientious, informed, responsible consumerism cannot work over time...unless most people really are stupid and/or greedy...in which case, why would we want them to have the power either financially or politically to determine the future prosperity of our societies?

 

[siti]

Would you agree having the option of buying a car is an improvement to your life?

Debatable, but OK - having the option - and as I alluded to earlier, the internal combustion engine did - very quickly - remove megatons of horse manure from the city streets of the early 20th century...which previously had to be removed manually...its not easy for us to imagine modern society without cars...but I think we have to look at the bigger picture and try very hard to imagine that for the sake of future generations.

And I will say, having the option of buying a car (which I have of course) is (at least presently) better than not having that option...but in my life, by far the biggest improvement came when having a horse (which I also have) became an option on account of us acquiring the lease of a small farm. And my plan for the future (post-retirement) is not to need a car - I am much happier and healthier plodding around our farm on foot planting and harvesting and weeding, fixing fences and taking care of our animals - but I might still have one though if I can still afford it. Beep-beep, beep-beep, yeah!

 

[siti]

When your only defense is to profer extremes, you have no defense.

I thought the whole discussion was about extremes...extreme wealth, extreme poverty, 100% tax...what's not extreme?

Lots of people have investment capital without being milti-millionaires or billionaires. And they will want to invest it because sitting on it gains them nothing.

And when their investments have netted them sufficient gains to push them closer to the 100% tax threshold?