Originally posted by spruce112358If we took only the 2 billion people who are getting by on $2 per day and distributed Gates' ill gotten horde amongst them, that would come to $28 per person. 14 days wages per person. Not too shabby, and that's just one robber baron. There are plenty more on the Forbes 500 list.
I forgive you.
If we take Bill Gates fortune and distribute it worldwide, everybody gets -- what $9 and change? This is going to change the world and make it a better place?
But the message -- your stuff is NOT actually your stuff. The government can take your stuff and redistribute it because it's BETTER that way. Mugabe tried that in Zim with wh ...[text shortened]... munist, or anarchist. The bad apples will always be there are always try to take advantage.
Do you really think I hold a crook like Mugabe up as a shining example of socialism? First of all, he isn't a socialist. Despite all the mismanaged land redistribution, Zimbabwe is a capitalist country. And Mugabe is a ruthless despot. What's gone on in Zimbabwe has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
As for me legislating a "system that makes humans more moral creatures," it isn't up to me to legislate anything. I'm not angling to be acclaimed absolute autocrat of my own little authoritarian anarchopolis. In an anarchist system, no individual has more power than anyone else. There will always be bad apples, yes, but if they have no avenue for exercising power then their influence will be strictly limited. As long as the people remain vigilant and keep power localized, then I see no reason why you couldn't have a more equitable system. No system will ever be perfect, but we can certainly do better than we currently are. Unless you think this is the best of all possible worlds and that no improvement is possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87hahaha, the head of China's FDA, recently sentenced to the death penalty, could get more cash in ONE bribe than G.W.Bush gets paid for his annual salary.
All I know is a Chinese friend put it like this. Their leader is a CEO of a large company that also just happens to be a country. The best part about it is that the usual inefficiency that goes with democracies where endless debates can produce a paralysis of the analysis and a lot of money is spent by the taxpayer to fund the lifestyles of politicians who ne inese wouldnt like to lose if they were to adopt a more democratic consensus style government.
look at Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, recently accused of receiving $2B or so of bribes from BAE. he has a $135M home in Aspen! Bill Gate's home was only worth $50M when he built it, the piker.
Originally posted by spruce112358A little something extra to address the point. From Wikipedia:
I forgive you.
If we take Bill Gates fortune and distribute it worldwide, everybody gets -- what $9 and change? This is going to change the world and make it a better place?
But the message -- your stuff is NOT actually your stuff. The government can take your stuff and redistribute it because it's BETTER that way. Mugabe tried that in Zim with wh ...[text shortened]... munist, or anarchist. The bad apples will always be there are always try to take advantage.
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. Extensive statistics, many indicating the growing world disparity, are included in the available report.
The bottom 50% of the people own a mere 1% of the global wealth, and the disparity is growing. Those are the fruits of global capitalism in the 21st century.
Originally posted by rwingettAs long as the people remain vigilant and keep power localized
If we took only the 2 billion people who are getting by on $2 per day and distributed Gates' ill gotten horde amongst them, that would come to $28 per person. 14 days wages per person. Not too shabby, and that's just one robber baron. There are plenty more on the Forbes 500 list.
Do you really think I hold a crook like Mugabe up as a shining example of ...[text shortened]... you think this is the best of all possible worlds and that no improvement is possible.
And how are you going to make sure the people do this? How would you and your neighbors deal with an organized group that comes from some distance away with an army?
Originally posted by rwingett"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day." The effects won't last! And when the last corporate executive has been fleeced, what will you do? Move on to the relatively well-off? Then the middle class? Then the lower middle class.
If we took only the 2 billion people who are getting by on $2 per day and distributed Gates' ill gotten horde amongst them, that would come to $28 per person. 14 days wages per person. Not too shabby, and that's just one robber baron. There are plenty more on the Forbes 500 list.
Do you really think I hold a crook like Mugabe up as a shining example of ...[text shortened]... you think this is the best of all possible worlds and that no improvement is possible.
Long before then, your economic balloon will have deflated, rampant inflation will have destroyed confidence in any form of currency, and the resulting social upheaval will be catastrophic for all -- poor as well as rich.
Mugabe just tried on a small scale the sort of redistribution of wealth that you seem to be advocating.
The improvements I see in our system would be:
- a more long-term view towards management of natural resources (the market does not do this very well at the moment since natural resources are viewed as "free"; they should be owned by various governments and leased sensibly -- not for a song as happens now. That would give governments an important source of revenue beyond taxation. For instance, the United Nations could fund itself by leasing the oceans for fishing rights. That would go a long way towards restoring the world's fisheries.)
- government focusing less on regulation and redistribution of wealth and more on enforcing laws and contracts
- more and more democratically run corporations
- judicial reform; it's WAY too slow and expensive. Reasonable justice should be cheap and quick.
I could go on. There are LOTS of things to work on.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettDon't need a study for that -- it's the Pareto principle and it's been known since the turn of the century -- 80% of income goes to 20% of people; 80% of sales come from 20% of clients, etc.
A little something extra to address the point. From Wikipedia:
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adul th, and the disparity is growing. Those are the fruits of global capitalism in the 21st century.
Focusing on wealth is the mistake. Wealth is not the same as goods.
Do 20% of the people eat 80% of the pizza?
Do 20% of the people own 80% of the homes or cars?
There are societies where that HAS been the case -- and I agree, that would be bad! (OK, maybe not WRT pizza -- but you get the drift.)
Capitalism seems to bring about a pretty nice distribution of goods -- even while "wealth" continues to obey the 80-20 rule. Yes, the super-rich pay way to much for things that are way too silly. Who cares? Let them have their fun with their paper and bank accounts.
I live a richer life today, under capitalism, than 99% of all human beings who have ever existed had the chance to do.
Originally posted by rwingettBut you are providing proof that Capitalism is doing a fine job. Its the other systems that are failing !
The end result is that we have a world where Bill Gates can amass a $56 billion fortune while 2 billion people around the world live on $2 a day or less. And what absolutely boggles the mind is that people like you will look at that and say that capitalism is doing a fine job,.
Originally posted by spruce112358I think this is the crux of the problem with communist/socialists. They cant bear to see another system doing well and the people prospering. They want everyone in the world to live in poverty.
I live a richer life today, under capitalism, than 99% of all human beings who have ever existed had the chance to do.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDoing a fine job of producing. Can to think of another system that generates such a high standard of living ? Please spare me list of the few undesirable side effects like , excessive advertising, prod for the rich only etc etc. No system is perfect and capitalism has succceeded beyond wildest expectations of the early proponents.
Doing a fine job--of what? Perpetuating itself?
And actually perpuating itself is in fact a point of success, and it can do that becaue the other systems are small and weak .. thankfully so !
Originally posted by rwingettYes.
I have gone over your points about aggregate preferences and aggregate choices, but I'm not sure I can decipher what your point is here. Are you claiming that anarchism and voting are a contradiction?
In an anarchist society, all people would have an equal vote in how to run their industries. In a capitalist system, the majority of people have absolutel ...[text shortened]... to the former, but not the latter. I say democracy must be applied in equal measures to both.
Your opinion is that people would simply accept the vote without any need for enforcement (or else it wouldn't be anarchism). This is a blatantly false claim for any sufficiently large number of individuals, particularly because any voting process is justified by the absence of consensus.
The logical conclusion is that for any meaningful voting process there must be institutions that ensure the respect for the collective decision. The corollary of this conclusion is that anarchism is not compatible with democracy.
Remember, in a society where all members behave as you describe (a prerequisite for anarchism) democracy would yield the same basic results. The presence of institutions that ensure enforcement would certainly be superfluous but they would still be there to react if they are ever necessary. Anarchism can never be a better choice because at best you gain by saving on the cost of those institutions, at anything less than the best it is not sustainable.
I'm not divorcing politics from economics, I'm saying that the choice for an economic system is a political one. This means any concept of "democracy" that is bound to a unique economic system is not really "democratic". To argue against this, is necessarily arguing for not providing voters a choice on their preferred economic system.
PS: And to put all of this into context, I'm not pro-capitalist, I'm for a mixed system. I believe property rights are an essential part of freedom. I believe a man is not free if he is not entitled to dispose of the fruit of his work. But from here, I do not make the leap of faith that libertarians need as I recognize many of the shortcomings of the market (some of which you've presented already).
Originally posted by Rajk999A fine job of producing...what? Great technology, junk, pollution...?
Doing a fine job of producing. Can to think of another system that generates such a high standard of living ? Please spare me list of the few undesirable side effects like , excessive advertising, prod for the rich only etc etc. No system is perfect and capitalism has succceeded beyond wildest expectations of the early proponents.!
Standard of living--for whom? How do you measure it?
I don't see how you can discuss something without taking positive and negative into consideration.
Who were "the early proponents"?
Originally posted by rwingettI worked for a corporate for a while. They were willing to spend double the amount on something just to get it moved from the Operations budget to the Capital expenditure budget because it looked better on the books that way. Also one third of the people working there were contractors because they needed the number of staff on the books to be below a certain number - it didn't really bother them that the contractors cost them as much as 50% more than staff. It was also a corporate that is in a monopoly situation so they are rolling in money.
But when you get up to the level of multi-national corporations, operating on a global scale, then none of those rules apply any longer.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAll 3 and some others, like R&D, higher quality consumer goods.
A fine job of producing...what? Great technology, junk, pollution...?
Standard of living--for whom? How do you measure it?
I don't see how you can discuss something without taking positive and negative into consideration.
Who were "the early proponents"?
For anyone prepared to work hard and smart. DIfficult to accurately measure but GNP/capita or Literacy Rate, Death Rate, etc are all good measures
I did not say I am not taking negatives into consideration. I am just tired of people using minor disadvantages to denounce capitalistism.
Adam Smith and others.
Originally posted by rwingettI love to hear you covetous jack@..es whine about getting the so called 'ill gotton' gains of capitalists, as that is all youall are capable of doing.... In your dreams ... moron.
If we took only the 2 billion people who are getting by on $2 per day and distributed Gates' ill gotten horde amongst them, that would come to $28 per person. .
The solution to world poverty is not destroying the goose that is laying the golden egg. The solution is to find a way to educate those poor people and stop them from multiplying like rabbits.
And what those people will do after they have eaten the $28 ... EH ?