Exactly my point. It is a fine balancing act, and not a choice between Corporatocracy and Communism. I’m of the opinion that the former doesn’t work well in its extremes (which we are at, and it is getting worse), and the latter we’ve never truly seen on a large scale in its pure and idealistic form (and in fact, may be impossible to achieve because of our human foibles). What I am saying is that to my knowledge we don’t have a working model of a modern system with a non-logarithmic distribution of wealth that we can draw conclusions of off.
As an aside, @milliefink should be ashamed for calling somebody a dumbass. There is no excuse for being disrespectful here.
No. Ask a pair of twins that question, and get ready to dodge their fists.
Personally, I see no way around the idea that there’s no such thing as a continuous and concrete self over time. I’m certainly not the same exact person I was ten years ago, but I still own the experiences and actions I did back then. It’s not me as I am now, but it’s still somewhere in my CVS tree.
Reining in human self interest would indeed be a technological feat.
Nope. Don’t ask me, ask all those scientists doing twin studies.
Well… We are very social animals, true. But, can we be fairly compared with, say, bees? This is a niggling point, and deserves some philosophical discussion that I am actually not up for. ha ha
Addiction? I mean, we can get people into behavioral patterns that will kill them, and they know it, that are very difficult to get out of, as long as we offer an incentive that’s tempting enough in the short term.
When it said “colony organism”, I believe it meant that each of our cells is part of a colony making up the whole. But I’ll let @popobawa4u speak for itself.
I argue that it’s not a fine balancing act in the US at the moment, the government is completely controlled by wealthy interest groups, and there are obvious major reforms required to address it. You can go at it with a very blunt instrument.
No excuse for being disrespectful here? I am doubting the accuracy of your user name…
Pfft. I called his cliches dumbass, not him. Besides, I know he’s a tough guy, probably has a gun in one hand (a .44, no doubt) while typing with the other.
I’ll do my best to follow your boojie, middle-class or whatever conversational mores from here on out, instead of those I and mine are accustomed to. Wait, nah, I probably won’t.
[quote=“anon75430791, post:36, topic:68567, full:true”]
To your point, success breeds more success. My right wing friends have chided me about the idea that being born to rich parents means that you have a head start for earning a huge salary some day, but it is scientifically documented.
Just that ambition and self interest are a part of the human DNA, as is taking care of your tribe. Good luck taking the big financial winners from society and getting them to pass on their wealth to the poor instead of their offspring.[/quote]
Sure - success breeds success. It isn’t just the rich - it is everyone. It is why the average person in America is going to have more chances to make it than say someone in Somalia. As you point out, part of that is our human DNA - taking care of your tribe.
It isn’t like rich people are any different than anyone else. I imagine most people would be “wealth hoarders” if they were given similar wealth and power. Though there are many rich people who give much of their wealth to charity or set up philanthropic foundations.
But anyway - the broader point:
It isn’t defending the status quo, it is more how do you justify taking the wealth of wealth hoarders. Wait - what is a wealth hoarder? Someone who has money in the bank? Because unless they have a literal pile of money somewhere, it is in banks or invests and stocks etc which is being used in other ways (including making them more money.)
Again, I think corporate and the tax of the wealthy should be higher. But even with higher taxes you will still have the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Cubans, etc out there with lots and lots of money (well… not Steve Jobs, but you get the point). To turn millie’s comment around, “How much more of the rich person’s pie do the poor want?” All of it? Most of it? How do justify a “just” percentage? What tax rate would you be happy with? When do you become as greedy as those that you hate?
Again I am not some nut job who thinks taxation is theft etc. But there is a point where it goes past “giving your share of the tax burden”.
I’ll start considering whether it’s fair or not when the tax burden on the top 1% becomes so great they start having to choose between the things they want. The way most of us have to.
ETA:
Talking about the fairness of increasing taxation on the wealthy pretty much always sends me back to this:
I’m sure they’ll get by just fine with just a paltry $10 million and a freaking castle. Instead of $50 million and three castles.
To be perfectly pedantic, Gates is and more or less always has been richer than Jobs. Pay no attention to stock price.
I could be wrong, but I am fairly sure that the tax rate is a small corner of what they are talking about. Tax reform would not remove the oligarchy’s ability to dictate policy.
Why are you even asking these questions in our time, when taxes on the rich are the lowest they’ve been in a long, long, LONG time? When such a huge percentage of all the recent economic gains have flowed upward, instead of outward? When the wealthy are getting better and better at making the rest of us get by on less and less so they can have more and more and more? Why do you care so little about THEIR greed?
Why are you, once again, diverting attention from the actual problem to talk about something else?
Yeah, progressively upping the rate at which you pay into federal, state, and social programs is a good thing. A 90% rate is probably to high, but a 20% rate is probably too low.
It has always just seemed to me as a no brainer. Plus dollars paid into taxes or social programs stay with our society. Debt payments? That is to us.
The USA is in a very special place, history wise. Why don’t we use it to lift ourselves up not at the cost of others.
(Millie, I am not arguing, simply saying a few other things that may be relevant. And I need some pie.)
Minimum income, capital (not capital gains) taxed (and a fairly low rate would do it).
Stopping people from being filthily stinking rich (or inheriting a fortune) and then just getting richer and richer at a faster rate and paying a lower percentage of tax than those who get their income from labour does not stop people from enjoying their success. Money piling up in offshore bank accounts does nobody any good. The economy works when there’s liquidity. People spending money keeps the system going as it circulates. When people get worried about their financial security and stop spending, that’s when people start losing financial security. Vicious circle. Get money into the hands of people that’ll spend it, and provide a social security net to keep everyone okay, if not in luxury.
I don’t think justice comes into the acquisition of wealth in a liberal capitalist system. There are many ways one can acquire unusual wealth, including office politics, inheritance, working, appearing to work, finding it in the street, gambling, deceiving the simple-minded, and so on. As long as you follow the rules, no one cares where your money came from.
There is a problem, however. The problem is that capitalism is a positive-feedback system – the more you have, the more you are likely to get. Some will rise and some will fall. The losers will eventually have nothing, and their choices will be to die, to revolt, or to turn to crime. Any of these options will disturb their fellow citizens.
One solution to this problem is communism. Another is the Bismarckian Welfare state, where the losers are given a small stake and allowed to stay in the game. The Bismarckian Welfare state was invented to get the minds of the workers off socialism and communism, and it succeeded pretty much in doing so.
The problem with the Welfare version of the capitalist state is that the capitalist state is still controlled by Capital (the people who have lots of it). When Capital feels threatened, the Welfare state is allowed to exist and even to grow. But when the threat passes, the ruling class starts to cut back on the Welfare, and to let capitalism do its thing. The result is what we observe now.
Personally, I think the only just distribution is a communist distribution, but most people aren’t ready for that, so someone will have to come up with something else, or else things will get worse until they break. Those who study cybernetics know that all undamped positive-feedback loops blow up.
