Originally posted by dryhumpDon't be a retard. I'm only interested in economic inequality. And I do not presume that a perfect economic equality will ever be feasible (or even desirable). I would be content to confine it to certain limits. I thought the 100 to 1 spread I allowed for in my earlier post was rather on the generous side, but some people, apparently, are never satisfied.
Inequality arises because of people, not resources. Are you going to repress things like jealousy, love, ingenuity, creativity?
Originally posted by dryhumpRwingett was only discussing inequality of wealth so you are now attempting to move the goalposts. There have existed and still exist numerous societies where there were minimal differences in wealth; in fact an egalitarian economic society is part of Man's Natural state.
I 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.
Originally posted by no1marauderWealth doesn't exist in a bubble. It is a part of the world. Are you saying that conflict wouldn't exist if everyone made the same amount of money?
Rwingett was only discussing inequality of wealth so you are now attempting to move the goalposts. There have existed and still exist numerous societies where there were minimal differences in wealth; in fact an egalitarian economic society is part of Man's Natural state.
Originally posted by SoothfastYes, corporations are essentially totalitarian dictatorships.
You 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.
Except that I can walk away from my current job this instant, and other than stopping my salary, there is nothing they can do to me. They can't stop me from getting a job at another corporation or working for myself. Also, I can stop buying products from corporations on a whim, without even having a good reason, and they can't do anything to me. I dropped cable TV a long time ago, and no one has come by forcing me to take their product. I didn't even have to go to court to prove I had a good reason to drop cable TV. My boss at my employer corporation cannot dictate my religious affiliation (e.g no Falun Gong), cannot make unwelcome sexual advances, cannot dictate what food I eat or don't eat, cannot stop me from traveling to certain countries, etc. But other than these exceptions and many others, corporations are almost indistinguishable from totalitarian dictatorships.
Of course people die from corporate misdeeds. People die from the misdeeds of corporations, private citizens, and government agents. People die from cancer, communicable diseases, accidents, natural disasters, drug overdoses, etc. The fact that people die from corporate misdeeds is hardly profound. If doctors practiced medicine as a sole proprietor rather than as part of a medical corporation, it would not make the practice of medicine one bit safer. If pharmaceuticals were invented, tested, and marketed by private citizens rather than corporations, I don't see how they'd be safer. If no corporations would be involved, most drugs that are saving lives would not exist.
Thousands are dead in Zimbabwe due to Mugabe's reign of terror. North Korea has probably seen millions die prematurely as a result of a government that won't let go of its proven flawed ideals. Millions died as Pol Pot overthrew the previous government of Cambodia. 10s of thousands were killed as Somalia crumbled. I could cite more examples.
When Enron collapsed, many lost jobs and many lost money. Other than suicide, I have not heard of a single death (and I haven't specifically heard of a suicide, just thought that I couldn't rule that out). My previous company went bankrupt, and believe me the moral was low for many years beforehand. I haven't heard of a single death that resulted from it's collapse. That is the big difference in corporations and governments I'm talking about.
Originally posted by dryhumpCapitalism means the government guarantees and protects the right to private property. What you said is simply "trade". Capitalism is beneficial because it tends to result in a large productivity because of the specialization it facilitates. However, in its "pure", minimally regulated form, it also results in extremely large income differences which will eventually undermine capitalism itself, therefore a well-functioning capitalist system has a government which ensures income differences remain acceptable. One of the laureates of the first Nobel Prize in economics, Jan Tinbergen, posited that a company's productivity is hampered if the income differences between the lowest-paid and highest-paid employees is more than about 5 times. Sadly the "Tinbergen norm" and related economic concepts were never really implemented as the Chicago school of thought demolished the US and UK economies.
Forgive me please, master of wisdom, allow us to hear your definition of capitalism so the ignorant among us may be enlightened.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThanks for the definition. Would the Tinbergen Norm also apply to profits, or only salaries? For instance, a small business owner might manage his company and employ minimum wage employees? Also, I am wondering if anyone can recommend a good entry level read about economics?
Capitalism means the government guarantees and protects the right to private property. What you said is simply "trade". Capitalism is beneficial because it tends to result in a large productivity because of the specialization it facilitates. However, in its "pure", minimally regulated form, it also results in extremely large income differences which wil ...[text shortened]... r really implemented as the Chicago school of thought demolished the US and UK economies.
Originally posted by dryhumpI'm not an expert on the Tinbergen norm or economics in general, but I think it applies to salaries. Most small business owners will invest a large fraction of their profits in their business, so the number of small business owners making much more than 5 times minimum wage is fairly limited. One could make the case, however, that CEO's and upper management of stock-listed corportations making millions in wages are detrimental to those corporations' productivity.
Thanks for the definition. Would the Tinbergen Norm also apply to profits, or only salaries? For instance, a small business owner might manage his company and employ minimum wage employees? Also, I am wondering if anyone can recommend a good entry level read about economics?
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpSelf governing communes, yes. Not necessarily a-la Walden 2, though. Twin Oaks Community, in Virginia, for example, was originally inspired by Walden 2, but has since distanced itself from any connection with it.
So what would your pefect society look like? Lots of sef governing communes a-la Walden 2?
There could be a few hybrid arrangements between a fully private and a fully communal setting. Between working arrangements and living arrangements you could have four sets:
1. Private work and private living (as with most societies now).
2. Communal work and private living (as with most worker owned businesses, especially Spain's Mondragon Cooperatives).
3. Private work and communal living (Housing co-ops or ecovillages like Dancing Rabbit, for example).
4. Communal work and communal living (Twin Oaks Community, VA, or East Wind Community, MO, for example).
Ideally each choice would be equally available throughout society. Individuals could easily choose which level suits their taste. The private sector would have to compete with the communal sector for members, and vice versa. As it stands now (for all intents and purposes), the only choice readily available for everyone is a purely private sector.
Originally posted by dryhumpA successful small business owner should recognize that his workers contribute mightily to whatever profits he achieves and compensate them accordingly.
Thanks for the definition. Would the Tinbergen Norm also apply to profits, or only salaries? For instance, a small business owner might manage his company and employ minimum wage employees? Also, I am wondering if anyone can recommend a good entry level read about economics?
1 edit
-Removed-You don't reform the system directly. You reform the individual units, which, in turn, will have an overall reformative effect upon the system itself. Build worker owned businesses. The more common they become, the more of a transformative effect they will have on how business is done.
Edit: Progressives have wasted all their time and money engaging in the political system in a top-down effort to build a more equitable economic system. It is a fool's errand. Political systems are specifically designed to protect the interests of the status quo. Every political system. Even ones that are ostensibly democratic and theoretically open to change. Had they been smart, they would have channeled all their efforts into directly building progressive, worker owned businesses one at a time. They could have built a more equitable economic system from the bottom-up. They certainly would have had more to show for their money than they've gotten through the political system.
Originally posted by rwingettBut people are already free to create cooperative businesses.
You don't reform the system directly. You reform the individual units, which, in turn, will have an overall reformative effect upon the system itself. Build worker owned businesses. The more common they become, the more of a transformative effect they will have on how business is done.
Edit: Progressives have wasted all their time and money engaging in t ...[text shortened]... would have had more to show for their money than they've gotten through the political system.