Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Audie]

I had a moment of insanity.

Hmm.
More likely i had a moment of imperceptibility
and didnt detect the snarkasm.

 

[MikeF]

It’s all about control. And money equals control, especially under capitalism. When we allow one person to amass huge amounts of money, they will then have control over a lot of other people’s well being. And this is not ever a good thing. Capitalism is all about money = control. And the more control one gains by it, the more they will use that control to gain yet more control. And more, and more, because they can never get enough.

It’s a recipe for abuse that feeds itself. And the only solution is equality. We have to stop individuals from gaining so much control over the lives and well being of so many others. We need to spread the wealth and the control that it affords around. Money now provides everything that matters: health, education, opportunity, respect, security, justice and so on. When one person piles up so much more than they need or deserve, they are depriving so many others from getting what they need and deserve. And this should not be allowed in a intelligent, civil, society. Greed is very destructive, and this is greed.

But doesn't greed get things done?

 

[Koldo]

But doesn't greed get things done?

Some things yes, but at what cost?

 

[Kfox]

Are you under the impression that the only power that exists is the power to influence people through social media? If not, why are you obsessed with social media?

No; I’m under the impression that having lots of wealth is not the only way to power and influence

Why do you ask? Is partaking in social media sufficient to amass lots of power?

Just like wealth, it can be.

 

[Kfox]

It’s all about control. And money equals control,

No it doesn’t. There are lots of people with lots of money who do not have lots of control. Also, just because a person has a lot of wealth doesn't mean they have a lot of money.

especially under capitalism. When we allow one person to amass huge amounts of money, they will then have control over a lot of other people’s well being.

I disagree. Take Jeff Bezos for example; he started Amazon, and when he went public, he kept 15% of Amazon stock, so when Amazon became a trillion dollar company, his 15% made him the richest person on Earth. Now unless you choose to make the company he started a part of your life, it seems to me he has zero effect on your life. If you disagree, explain what kind of control does Jeff Bezos have over your life? And it’s not just Jeff Bezos, he only owns 15% of it, the other 85% is owned by other people! So what type of control does Bezos have over your life?

 

[MikeF]

Some things yes, but at what cost?

That depends, doesn't it. There are also costs to those things not getting done because there was no incentive for someone to get them done.

Yes, we are talking in vague generalities. My point would be that "greed" or self-interest is not uniformly wrong, bad, or evil. Societies are made up of individuals that are each unique in a wide variety of ways, from abilities to their subjective wants and desires. It is all about finding the appropriate balance.

 

[Koldo]

No; I’m under the impression that having lots of wealth is not the only way to power and influence

Are you satisfied with beating up a strawman of your making by now? Are you ready to move on from your talk about social media and explain how you have arrived at your conclusion that wealth doesn't equal power in today's economy?

 

[Koldo]

That depends, doesn't it. There are also costs to those things not getting done because there was no incentive for someone to get them done.

Yes, we are talking in vague generalities. My point would be that "greed" or self-interest is not uniformly wrong, bad, or evil. Societies are made up of individuals that are each unique in a wide variety of ways, from abilities to their subjective wants and desires. It is all about finding the appropriate balance.

Sure, but when greed is, in practice, seen as a virtue we start having massive problems, because there is no reason to put limits on a virtue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm.
More likely i had a moment of imperceptibility
and didnt detect the snarkasm.

I'm often accused of subtlety.

 

[siti]

when greed is, in practice, seen as a virtue we start having massive problems, because there is no reason to put limits on a virtue.

How on earth can you put limits on greed?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but when greed is, in practice, seen as a virtue we start having massive problems, because there is no reason to put limits on a virtue.

Altruism is much like greed.
Each can be useful if one doesn't infringe on
the rights of other. But each can lead to
de-valuing the other, eg, altruists who
would force others to work gratis, or to
give up property.

 

[MikeF]

How on earth can you put limits on greed?

Might anti-trust laws be considered putting limits on greed?

 

[siti]

altruists who
would force others to work gratis, or to
give up property.

Presumably an altruist who forced others to work gratis...aka slavery...or give up property would not be an altruist.

 

[siti]

Might anti-trust laws be considered putting limits on greed?

I think they impose some kind of limits on the ability of organizations to acquire the apparatus of wealth generation/accumulation, but "greed" is surely an attitude, I don't see how you can impose limits on attitudes.

Overall, I think that as long as GDP is pretty well the sole measure by which the economic success of a nation is gauged, we are pretty much condemned to sacrifice "fairness" of distribution in the interests of having the "brightest and best" handle the bulk of the wealth of a nation in order to protect and grow that wealth...that's just how our economic system works and unless we're going for a complete overhaul and measuring "wellbeing" or "happiness" or whatever, rather then wealth, I don't think there can be any major adjustment of that...we can tweak a bit here and there by spending a bit more or less on health, education, social welfare etc. and adjusting taxation up or down a bit here and there, but in the end, by and large, the very wealthy are where they are because they made the best economic decisions...hamstringing them doesn't seem to be a particularly astute approach to enhancing the economic prospects of a nation. If we want real change then we have to completely change the system, not just steal their money.

...if you give me a bit more of it, I'll probably just spend it...and probably on unnecessary things...certainly not things that would genuinely "grow" the economy to any useful degree. Mind you, if I am honest, even though I get paid enough for a reasonably comfortable life I wouldn't turn my nose up at a pay rise... is that "greed"? And that's the point - where do you draw the line? Who gets to say what is enough or how much is excessive?

 

[Audie]

But doesn't greed get things done?

Why use the word. " greed" at all, with all its
highly negative vibes.

Letting someone else control the dialog is
giving in to their greed. Negative association
intended.

Theres nothing inherently wrong with being
aquisitive, though some of our less sophisticated
think everything is zero sum, more for them is less for me.

As if they have an inherent right to own anything!
Which, they dont. Earn it, or get lucky.

Now me. I like to acquire things, property that
is far beyond the capacity of our socialist friends
to ever have.
But my " life style" is quite simple, not remotely
ostentacious.

The crazy thing is i do virtually no work.
"Takes money to make money" as they say.
If you have some, and the right kind of family
the deals to pick and choose among are
always available.

Im just having fun.
And things definitely do get done.
In the process i make more charitable
donations than all socialist friends here put together.
Not to mention providing employment.

 

[Kfox]

Are you satisfied with beating up a strawman of your making by now? Are you ready to move on from your talk about social media and explain how you have arrived at your conclusion that wealth doesn't equal power in today's economy?

Unless the person want's power, all of the wealth in the world ain't gonna give it to him. Are you willing to admit there are plenty of other ways one can attain power? Like social media?

 

[MikeF]

Why use the word. " greed" at all, with all its
highly negative vibes.

Because I knew that saying greed gets things done would irk those folks who like to use the word 'greed'.

 

[MikeF]

I think they impose some kind of limits on the ability of organizations to acquire the apparatus of wealth generation/accumulation, but "greed" is surely an attitude, I don't see how you can impose limits on attitudes.

Does the one being called greedy necessarily see themselves as such? Some may, perhaps. I personally find the word highly subjective, kind of silly, and not very useful.

Overall, I think that as long as GDP is pretty well the sole measure by which the economic success of a nation is gauged, we are pretty much condemned to sacrifice "fairness" of distribution in the interests of having the "brightest and best" handle the bulk of the wealth of a nation in order to protect and grow that wealth...that's just how our economic system works and unless we're going for a complete overhaul and measuring "wellbeing" or "happiness" or whatever, rather then wealth, I don't think there can be any major adjustment of that...we can tweak a bit here and there by spending a bit more or less on health, education, social welfare etc. and adjusting taxation up or down a bit here and there, but in the end, by and large, the very wealthy are where they are because they made the best economic decisions...hamstringing them doesn't seem to be a particularly astute approach to enhancing the economic prospects of a nation. If we want real change then we have to completely change the system, not just steal their money.

I must admit, I am struggling somewhat in trying to imagine an economic system that is based on "wellbeing" or "happiness" instead of income. If we go for the overhaul, what would that look like, exactly?

...if you give me a bit more of it, I'll probably just spend it...and probably on unnecessary things...certainly not things that would genuinely "grow" the economy to any useful degree. Mind you, if I am honest, even though I get paid enough for a reasonably comfortable life I wouldn't turn my nose up at a pay rise... is that "greed"? And that's the point - where do you draw the line? Who gets to say what is enough or how much is excessive?

Indeed.

 

[Kfox]

I must admit, I am struggling somewhat in trying to imagine an economic system that is based on "wellbeing" or "happiness" instead of income. If we go for the overhaul, what would that look like, exactly?

Income is usually a necessary part of happiness and wellbeing. Personally I find Capitalism to be one of the more moral systems because it usually requires I improve someone else's life before I can improve my own. Can it be used for evil? Of course; there isn't a system created that can't be used for evil.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm talking about in TODAY's economy. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to attain unlimited wealth?

Ok, let's say few banking dynasties (6-7) manage to own the 100% of the lands in the United States.
How can someone own something in the US, if all the lands are already taken?