Go back
Liberated citizens should share oil wealth?

Liberated citizens should share oil wealth?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yeah, basically.

Where do you think our brains will drain to? We're the place that obtains everyone else's brain drain.
The brains will drain to other pursuits due to lack of motivation, perhaps. Or, at least, a portion of the brainpower that could have developed something great will be wasted as uninspired by lack of incentive to use it to its utmost.

Vote Up
Vote Down

There is an assumption of rationality running through several arguments in this thread that is highly questionable.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
If the corporate salaries were more spread out, maybe the top talent would go elsewhere.
You talked about directors and share holders, now you are talking about top talent - not the same thing at all.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
You talked about directors and share holders, now you are talking about top talent - not the same thing at all.
The directors are often the top talent. Certainly the highest officers are often the top talent. Their incentive to innovate further is decreased by caps on their earnings potential.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
The brains will drain to other pursuits due to lack of motivation, perhaps. Or, at least, a portion of the brainpower that could have developed something great will be wasted as uninspired by lack of incentive to use it to its utmost.
Umm...most of our brains are already drained to other pursuits (like organized crime) because of lack of motivation due to our economic policies. In any case, they're not going somewhere else. They'll still be here.

You still sem to assume that money naturally goes with productivity. That's not true in reality!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Umm...most of our brains are already drained to other pursuits (like organized crime) because of lack of motivation due to our economic policies. In any case, they're not going somewhere else. They'll still be here.

You still sem to assume that money naturally goes with productivity. That's not true in reality!
The primary incentive to produce is money. That's the way life is. Do you disagree?

Would you do your job if you weren't getting paid?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
The primary incentive to produce is money. That's the way life is. Do you disagree?

Would you do your job if you weren't getting paid?
Money is a primary constraint on production but by no means always the primary motivation. I'm sure you can think of examples to illustrate this.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
The primary incentive to produce is money. That's the way life is. Do you disagree?

Would you do your job if you weren't getting paid?
The primary incentive to produce in a capitalist society is money. Your greatest fault by far, the one which will doom you to a lifetime of abject mediocrity, is your inability to see that the way that society happens to be arranged is wholly contingent. It is not at all a necessary arrangement.

The question is not "would you do your job if you weren't getting paid?", but, rather, "would you do your job if you didn't need to get paid?" The answer for a vast majority of humanity, I strongly suspect, is 'NO.' We've built a society where the bulk of humanity is forced into jobs that no sane human would want in order to produce things we don't really need.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
The primary incentive to produce in a capitalist society is money. Your greatest fault by far, the one which will doom you to a lifetime of abject mediocrity, is your inability to see that the way that society happens to be arranged is wholly contingent. It is not at all a necessary arrangement.
In other words, I'm a realist.

Thanks. 🙂

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
In other words, I'm a realist.

Thanks. 🙂
No, you're a capitalist realist.

Here's a book you can read to find out what you're like:
http://www.o-books.com/obookssite/book/detail/358

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
In other words, I'm a realist.

Thanks. 🙂
I can think of no fouler epithet than 'realist.' At best, it is someone who has lost his soul. At worst, it is someone who never had one.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
I can think of no fouler epithet than 'realist.' At best, it is someone who has lost his soul. At worst, it is someone who never had one.
What's a soul?

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
In other words, I'm a realist.

Thanks. 🙂
I use the term figuratively, not literally.*

*in response to 'what is a soul.'

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
The primary incentive to produce is money. That's the way life is. Do you disagree?

Would you do your job if you weren't getting paid?
Whether or not that is true, it does not follow that therefore the most productive get the most money.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
I use the term figuratively, not literally.*

*in response to 'what is a soul.'
I know. I'm just messin' with you.

Hey, us peons mired in abject mediocrity have to entertain ourselves somehow.

😉