Originally posted by rwingettI'd give full support for the implementation of such system in the US, but I can't say its something I'd want in my own backyard. Its an admirable goal nevertheless.
Wealth should be fixed to a relative scale. The richest person cannot make more than, say, 100 times that of the poorest. If the minimum wage was set at $30,000 then the maximum compensation would be $3,000,000. If more total wealth was generated then that figure could scale upward proportionally. There is still plenty of incentive for hard work and nobody ...[text shortened]... $30,000 minimum or rises to the $3,000,000 maximum would depend totally upon their own efforts.
Its really a shame that its not something voters are likely to endorse.
Originally posted by dryhumpIf you want to have an anarchist system then capitalism would be done away with entirely. That would be the optimal approach. But if you want to retain capitalism in some form (as the post you're referring to assumes) then I advocate a government dedicated to equalizing the gross inequalities a capitalist system automatically generates. A higher minimum wage and a salary cap on the wealthy were two possible ideas I tossed out.
It's funny that in one post on this thread you advocate anarchy and in this post you advocate a central government strong enough to enforce your idea of equality.
Originally posted by techsouthYou forgot to mention, though, that corporations are essentially totalitarian dictatorships. That's why they're so good at "getting things done," and that's why China's government is so good at "getting things done" compared with the U.S. government. And people do die as a result of corporate misdeeds all the time.
This also shows the great difference between corporations and governments. Corporations start good, offer a product better or cheaper than competition, and if they do it well they'll grow. Eventually that corporation becomes corrupt and as a result is less able to offer new innovations or contain costs. As long as there's law and order, the corporation ...[text shortened]... liticians to help them. It is always the corrupt actions of the politicians that is the key.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOkay, let's play a long for a moment.
If you want to have an anarchist system then capitalism would be done away with entirely. That would be the optimal approach. But if you want to retain capitalism in some form (as the post you're referring to assumes) then I advocate a government dedicated to equalizing the gross inequalities a capitalist system automatically generates. A higher minimum wage and a salary cap on the wealthy were two possible ideas I tossed out.
The richest person can't make more than $3m in your system. Is that in salary or capital gains or does that also include stuff you sell on your own?
If the Yankees can't spend more than $3m on Alex Rodriguez, where do all the extra gate receipts go? They can't go to Hal Steinbrenner because then he's making too much.
What if I want to sell my 1922 Honus Wagner baseball card for $3.5m when I bought it for 75 cents at a garage sale? I'm not allowed to sell it?
How does Apple lure a top Google exec when he's already making $3m at Google? Better perks? Do those count as salary? Who decides which perks are salary and which are not?
What if I win the power ball lottery? Do I have to give it all back but $3m? What's the point of entering a $100m lottery if I can only keep $3m?
Originally posted by dryhumpNoam Chomsky takes the same approach, and there's a good reason why. There's the Ideal to forever strive for, and the Reality that must be accommodated day-by-day by bending ideals a little lest people die.
It's funny that in one post on this thread you advocate anarchy and in this post you advocate a central government strong enough to enforce your idea of equality.
Originally posted by rwingettWhy would you have to do away with capitalism to have anarchy? Capitalism is just the exchange of goods for other goods. I don't understand how you can have anarchy without it. How are inequalities generated? Let's say we managed to create your ideal society, how do you keep people from generating inequalities?
If you want to have an anarchist system then capitalism would be done away with entirely. That would be the optimal approach. But if you want to retain capitalism in some form (as the post you're referring to assumes) then I advocate a government dedicated to equalizing the gross inequalities a capitalist system automatically generates. A higher minimum wage and a salary cap on the wealthy were two possible ideas I tossed out.
Originally posted by sh76How in the world should I know? It would obviously require a complete reworking of the basic mechanics of a capitalist system, the exact nature of which would be impossible for me to either predict or to dictate. Let me ask you this, though; do you think it is impossible for humans to devise an alternate system to the one we have now, or do we really live in the best of all possible worlds? If a better system can be devised, then is there any particular reason why it could not include a cap on wealth, or is it merely the case that your imagination is too sterile to allow for any thought which transcends currently imposed limitations?
Okay, let's play a long for a moment.
The richest person can't make more than $3m in your system. Is that in salary or capital gains or does that also include stuff you sell on your own?
If the Yankees can't spend more than $3m on Alex Rodriguez, where do all the extra gate receipts go? They can't go to Hal Steinbrenner because then he's making too much. ...[text shortened]... t all back but $3m? What's the point of entering a $100m lottery if I can only keep $3m?
It is the job of people to devise economic systems which suit their particular needs, not their duty to conform to pre-existing ones.
Originally posted by dryhumpIf the productive resources of society are commonly owned then no inequality is generated. Inequality only arises from the private ownership of society's productive resources.
Why would you have to do away with capitalism to have anarchy? Capitalism is just the exchange of goods for other goods. I don't understand how you can have anarchy without it. How are inequalities generated? Let's say we managed to create your ideal society, how do you keep people from generating inequalities?
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpThe question is rather clear, please answer it.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you also implying the absence of Wal-marts and corporate farming?
Corporations can't exist without governmental recognition of the corporate form so Wal-Mart and corporate farming would obviously be out.
Originally posted by rwingettInequality arises because of people, not resources. Are you going to repress things like jealousy, love, ingenuity, creativity?
If the productive resources of society are commonly owned then no inequality is generated. Inequality only arises from the private ownership of society's productive resources.
Originally posted by dryhumpdryhump: Capitalism is just the exchange of goods for other goods
Why would you have to do away with capitalism to have anarchy? Capitalism is just the exchange of goods for other goods. I don't understand how you can have anarchy without it. How are inequalities generated? Let's say we managed to create your ideal society, how do you keep people from generating inequalities?
Really posters who want to expound on such issues should have at least a minimal knowledge of the terms they use. DH's definition is grossly incorrect.
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no idea how much personal wealth could be created. There is no doubt that some people would be richer than others, just like some people would be happier than others. You seem to think that inequality only applies to wealth.
The question is rather clear, please answer it.
Corporations can't exist without governmental recognition of the corporate form so Wal-Mart and corporate farming would obviously be out.
Originally posted by no1marauderForgive me please, master of wisdom, allow us to hear your definition of capitalism so the ignorant among us may be enlightened.
dryhump: Capitalism is just the exchange of goods for other goods
Really posters who want to expound on such issues should have at least a minimal knowledge of the terms they use. DH's definition is grossly incorrect.