Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Revoltingest]

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

Where has this worked?

 

[siti]

Where has this worked?

Probably the same place where people actually read posts before responding to them...neverland. My point was that it couldn't possibly work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably the same place where people actually read posts before responding to them...neverland. My point was that it couldn't possibly work.

OK.

 

[Koldo]

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...

I would also like to mention that individualism places the interest of the individual above the interest of the collective.

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...

I have no idea why you think that what is bad for the collective is not in their own best interests overall. A given action might be very bad for the collective and yet be in someone's best interest.

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?

It's like having a relationship. There is little reason to go out of your way and sacrifice/burden yourself when the other person is not doing the same. This indivualistic behavior coming from the other person turns into an incentive to focus only on yourself. Trying to set an example all by yourself is commendable, but don't count on it being sufficient by itself to make a significant change happen.

 

[Kfox]

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!

Does this mean you can understand why people would believe what many of the corporations produce, improves their lives?

 

[PureX]

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

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

To stop the extremism, we cap the acquisition of personal wealth, and we raise the assistance at the bottom to eliminate extreme poverty. It’s not rocket science. Cutting one billionaire’s pile down to even a quarter billion would raise thousands of people up from the bottom. And it would not harm the economy in the least. In fact, it would put a lot more money back in general circulation, and stop it from being predatory. Investment capital is predatory capital, after all. It’s purpose is to capture more, and more, and more.

 

[bobhikes]

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

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.

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

Even in tribal communism there is a hierarchy and battles to reach the top and then it's our tribe against the others same with collective species they will seek out and destroy other such species in their territory. There is not one living creature that does not have the us against them survival aspect even bacterium which may or may not be alive seek to promote their own growth at the expense of other living things.

 

[PureX]

Even in tribal communism there is a hierarchy and battles to reach the top and then it's our tribe against the others same with collective species they will seek out and destroy other such species in their territory. There is not one living creature that does not have the us against them survival aspect even bacterium which may or may not be alive seek to promote their own growth at the expense of other living things.

But as humans we have the cognitive ability to transcend our dumb animal nature. All it requires is the courage and wisdom to do so. And we have an automatic collective, cooperative basis from which to start.

And I think it high time we did start. Because there are just too many of us on this planet now to continue fighting and competing to serve our own selfishness. It's insanely wasteful and it causes enormous unnecessary suffering.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would also like to mention that individualism places the interest of the individual above the interest of the collective.

That's better than placing the collective above
individual rights. For individuals to legally
pursue their own interests benefits the
collective anyway. My business serves me,
my workers, my customers, & the country.
(I pay a whole lotta taxes.)

When the collective sees benefit by limiting
speech, work, business, travel, self defense,
trials, etc, then we give up civil rights.

 

[PureX]

There will be no explaining this to the selfishness police but what benefits the collective logically benefits the individuals within the collective. Also, individuality does not equal selfishness, and selfishness does not equal individuality. So one can pursue their individuality without doing it at the cost of the collective well being, and the collective can be served as needed without costing us the pursuit of our individuality. And in fact, these are nearly always in alignment with each other (an individual wanting to be a doctor, or a teacher, for example).

And the only rights that would be curtailed by a collective cultural mentality would be the right to harm the collective. And the collective can decide what that means, as it would be bearing the harm.

Selfishness is not freedom.
Selfishness is not a right.
Selfishness is not the same as self-interest.
And self-interest is not antithetical to collective well being except in very rare instances.

 

[Revoltingest]

There will be no explaining this to the selfishness police....

Does this mean that you're one of the "Collectivism Police"?

 

[bobhikes]

But as humans we have the cognitive ability to transcend our dumb animal nature. All it requires is the courage and wisdom to do so. And we have an automatic collective, cooperative basis from which to start.

And I think it high time we did start. Because there are just too many of us on this planet now to continue fighting and competing to serve our own selfishness. It's insanely wasteful and it causes enormous unnecessary suffering.

Utopian communities have been started multiple times by Humans over the years, all shared beliefs like yours, all of them have failed. I will agree there are too many people on this planet right now, but peace is not going to fix that problem nature will and it will be fair but with much suffering.

 

[wellwisher]

I think Jesus more or less had it right:

Jesus’ attitude to money and wealth - The role and nature of Christian discipleship - CCEA - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - CCEA - BBC Bitesize

Revision notes on CCEA GCSE Religious Studies - the role and nature of Christian discipleship according to Matthew.

www.bbc.co.uk

What Jesus meant by that was money and wealth can indeed be used to create an illusion of competence and character. This is due to the collective prestige effect of money; subjective overlay effect. A rich person can tell you he just built a new mansion. In reality, he did not build anything, but rather he used the money to hire a spectrum of real experts who did it for him. But they say they built it; illusion that will stand due to money. You can be a less than a stellar human being; a-hole, but if you have money you can pretentiously play any role, and many people will applaud and assume you have the right stuff, due to the money. Money is collective way to fool almost everyone and yourself.

Jesus said this path of money and pretense, although craved by most, does not build inner worth. It is more for a superficial show than for inner growth, which is why the rich man cannot enter the kingdom. The poor man cannot use this path; magic of money, but has to default to inner growth, since they can control that, and cannot easily get the mob to applaud and/or crave, for their ego reinforcement.

That being said, there are many poor people who are jealous that they do not have the money needed to play the game. They resent anyone who has money and who can pretend character and expertise with that money. This is not the correct attitude, based on what Jesus said. Under different circumstances these same poor people, with money, would play the same game. They are not concerned for the soul of the rich man, but rather their own lack of money, for pretense; poor man's imaginary greed.

Poor people buy a lot of lottery tickets hoping to hit it big, so they can become a player, not based on the meritocracy of their own actions; hard work, but luck or windfall. They worship the goddess of dice, cards and money who can create a type of Cinderella affect. However, when the clock strikes twelve; money is gone, their lack of inner development causes a reversion backward; rags, to riches to rags. The windfall caused by tax the rich, buys a new pair of designer basketball shoes, to shine among their peers, until the shoes wear; the magic of material prestige is temporary snd needs a constant reboot.

There are others, who accept their fate and work within their means, with family, friends and God. They are satisfied, since they have inner treasures, that do not age like old shoes, but age like good wine. This is what Jesus preferred.

 

[PureX]

Utopian communities have been started multiple times by Humans over the years, all shared beliefs like yours, all of them have failed. I will agree there are too many people on this planet right now, but peace is not going to fix that problem nature will and it will be fair but with much suffering.

No one is suggesting a utopia. All that being suggested is that we place our collective society before our individual desires. This does not mean we must forgo our individual desires. It simply means that our collective well being is the more important priority. It's not utopia, and it's not impossible. In fact it's very reasonable and logical. It's just very difficult for folks raised in a culture or greed and selfishness to comprehend.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one is suggesting a utopia.

Looking at the definitions of "utopia",
that is exactly what collectivists want.

utopian — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Excerpted...

• adjective Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary.
• adjective Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.
• noun A zealous but impractical reformer of human society.

Utopia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...
A utopia (/juːˈtoʊpiə/ yoo-TOH-pee-ə) typically describes an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or near-perfect qualities for its members.

 

[MikeF]

No one is suggesting a utopia. All that being suggested is that we place our collective society before our individual desires. This does not mean we must forgo our individual desires. It simply means that our collective well being is the more important priority. It's not utopia, and it's not impossible. In fact it's very reasonable and logical. It's just very difficult for folks raised in a culture or greed and selfishness to comprehend.

Would you be happy with a market economy that has institutional mechanisms to ensure everyone has a basic and reasonable standard of living?

 

[Kfox]

To stop the extremism, we cap the acquisition of personal wealth, and we raise the assistance at the bottom to eliminate extreme poverty. It’s not rocket science. Cutting one billionaire’s pile down to even a quarter billion would raise thousands of people up from the bottom. And it would not harm the economy in the least.

What you are suggesting is that we take money away from corporations that are using it to make payroll, research and development, expanding, etc. etc. whatever corporations use money for, and use that money for people at the bottom. How can you say this would not harm the economy in the least?

 

[Koldo]

That's better than placing the collective above
individual rights.

Depends. Sometimes it is better to place the collective above the individual.

For individuals to legally
pursue their own interests benefits the
collective anyway.

Hmmm... What if it was illegal to accumulate a lot of wealth?

My business serves me,
my workers, my customers, & the country.
(I pay a whole lotta taxes.)

At varying degrees.

When the collective sees benefit by limiting
speech, work, business, travel, self defense,
trials, etc, then we give up civil rights.

Or end up with another set of rights.

 

[PureX]

Would you be happy with a market economy that has institutional mechanisms to ensure everyone has a basic and reasonable standard of living?

All economies are "market economies". Perhaps you meant 'free market economy', but that doesn't really exist, and thank the gods. Because in a free market economy we can sell rat poison as breakfast cereal.

All human interaction has to be controlled. The questions are how is that control being decided and imposed, and what is the end goal? I suspect that when it all shakes out there would be two economic models operating concurrently. One that ensures everyone is being sufficiently cared for regarding the essentials, and the other to enable individual preferences. An 'essential' market, and a 'luxury' market. With the essential market being given the priority.

 

[PureX]

What you are suggesting is that we take money away from corporations that are using it to make payroll, research and development, expanding, etc. etc. whatever corporations use money for, and use that money for people at the bottom. How can you say this would not harm the economy in the least?

What I am suggesting is that we take the giant piles of money that some individuals and corporations have amassed and are using to exploit, corrupt, and abuse our whole society, away from them, and spend it back into the hands of the people they took it from. The people that actually generated all that wealth. And in the process, we need to break these giant corporations up so as to encourage many smaller more people friendly businesses to form in their place.

Bigger is not better for anyone but the honchos at the top.