Communism lite then…all the economic idiocy with less than half the killings and torture!! Its certainly less filling…but it tastes great!!
-XT
Oh, pooh - of course I’ve read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and We the Living (which was the best of the three, IMHO). That’s not what I’m saying.
What you’re not getting is that by making money so important, such a benchmark, we bring about a sort of intellectual communism. Because, hey, the most efficient way to make dough is to appeal to the most people. Not do your best work, your most individual work, your personal statement. Do the work they’ll buy in the largest numbers. Bring yourself to the average and don’t dare rise above.
I see. Because this system is more effective than other systems, we are not allowed to think about obvious inequities in it, or how they might be dealt with. An interesting but totally unconvincing notion. I have NO ide what that “no choice” biz is about …
Obviously wrong. Parents and governmental agencies commonly combine to provide a college education to worthy, and often to unworthy students. Parents often provide offspring with substantive help getting started … cars, down payments on homes, apartments, etc. Most people who get this aid are neither lottery winners or inheritors of wealth … just average middle-class kids.
I feel capable of making such decisions and I suspect you do, too, you’re just making them in favor of the status quo by default, then challenging me and fessie for not sharing your opinion.
Tell me how well the employees should live (with a dollar amount) in this hypothetical situation:
I go to MIT and graduate at the top of my class. I spend years designing machines that will produce a more effective widget. I put up alot of capital, risking buying my own factory and starting my own business making widgets in a time when widgets may be obsolete by the time the factory goes into production. I have six employees that dump molten plastic into the wigdet machine and when hardened, break the molds and box the widgets. It takes about 2 days to train my employees for this. Three years later I am netting 1,000,000 a year for myself after all expenses. How much should I be paying my employees?
If you read them you kind of missed some of the key points. Its the point of freedom. If making money is not important to YOU, then thats fine…more power too you. If it is important to ME, then that should be MY choice…my choice to try, and my choice to dispose of my wealth as I see fit. If I want to keep it all (well whatever I have after the government takes its cut) in a mattress or bury it in the ground…or spend it all on fast cars and loose women…its MY choice. What you are trying to do with this OP is to dictate what others SHOULD do with their wealth…what YOU think they should do with THEIR wealth. As I said, you missed some key points in your readings.
And you are wrong about whats the best way to make money if you really feel its not by doing your best work, your most individual work, your personal statement…which is probably why you aren’t ‘Super Rich’. 
-XT
OK, so you’re basically conceding the beneficial effects of social controls on free market economics. Good for you. You’re on the path of getting it right. Now ask yourself, if it is good to dicker with the free market to keep the poor from rioting due to lack of food, clothing and shelter, are there other changes in free market economics that would provide other great benefits to society, without necessarily destroying or even harming free market economics? C’mon, you can do it!
Would you please get off the communism thing? At LEAST wait until someone advocates a communal ownership of social resources. As things stand, your use of the term without anyone actually advocating communism or anything close to it is starting to vaguely resemble Godwinizing – you way ‘communism’ and win by default, is that it?
Okay Evil Captor, you’re not advocating communism or anything close to it. What are you advocating? Instead of telling us that capitalism sucks, tell us what your system would be like.
The notion that you can defend capitalism on the grounds that it makes some people so ridiculously, hugely, grossly wealthy that they can spend staggering amounts of their wealth or good causes and still have obscenely huge amounts of money for themselves is, well … interesting. But not convincing in any sense of the word.
Your post keeps making emotional points: I’m “worrying about other people” “Why should I begrudge anyone else’s happiness?” “Does the wealth of other people bother me?”
You’re on the wrong track here. It’s not an emotional thing with me. It’s obvious there’s a great deal of economic inequality built into free market capitalism, inequality that hurts many people. I think we ought to be thinking about how to improve the system so that we can do better. That doesn’t mean I hate rich people. I just think the rewards of hard work ought to be higher, and the rewards of being able to poop on the toilet and walk upright (in some instances) out to be a little lower. I don’t think that’s necessarily the product of rank envy. More like common sense.
I was just taking issue with the word “worth”. Using a term like that in such a context is, well, unworthy of you - or of anyone else with self-respect.
But that aside: do you consider being able to leave money to your children a proper reward? Or must all the money you earn be for yourself?
And how does the inequality hurt anyone? Do you think the fact that other people have money makes it harder for you to make money?
You call the stuff I’ve posted here RANTING? I’ve been the sweet voice of reason to date. If you are so sensitive on this topic that even the mildest observances on unequal distribution of wealth strike you as a FUCKING RANT you’d better hope I don’t do any DAMN RANTING around here, because if I DO, you’ll wind up curled in a FETAL POSITION making little NUMMY sounds from the sheer SAVAGERY of my posts!!!
Fortunately for you, I’m not at all disposed to rant on this subject.
I think capitalism is unfair because over time, it disproportionately rewards the wealthy and deprives the middle and lower class of wealth and opportunity, left to itself. I’ll explain in more detail in a later post on this thread, for efficiency’s sake.
Let’s also point out that from a macro standpoint, having the resources of society flow to those who have demonstrated the best ability to utilize it in providing things other people want is very efficient.
Humanity falls into a bell curve of talent, industriousness, and intelligence. If you divided up all the money in the U.S. tomorrow so that everyone had an equal amount, do you know what would happen? In 20 years, the same people who have the wealth now would have it again. And not because they are keeping anyone down or oppressing the masses, but because they are simply better stewards of their money, or better at determining what other people want to trade for their money and providing it to them.
So if people naturally gravitate into these categories, the only way to prevent this is through force. Wait for someone to do better than his neighbor, then put a gun to his head and make him give the excess back.
Do this long enough, and no one will take risks any more. No one will excel. No one will work harder than they have to.
But more importantly, by continually moving resources and power from the smartest and hardest working to the masses, you will cripple the economy. Soon, everyone may be equal - equally poor.
Gee, you better get right over to the folks at The Economist, they’re complete unaware of those stats, in fact, they seem to be dealing with a completely DIFFERENT stats than you do, since THEIR stats seem to be indicating there is little mobility between social classes and the amount of mobility is steadily decreasing, rather than increasing.
Where are your stats from, bye the bye?
It doesn’t matter how many Horatio Alger stories you tell or how you tell them. They don’t impress me. For every Dick the little Match Boy who Struck it Rich, there are dozens who died in poverty. I’d like to get more out of the poverty belt via good social engineering. Dick the Rich Matchboy will ALWAYS succeed in ANY system, because he’d driven and ruthless.
Found this kinda hard to believe when I read it, and it took me a minute to figure out the angle. As I read it, these stats apply to anyone over the $1 M threshhold (If I’m wrong, I hope Grits and Hard Toast will correct me). Point being, $1 M isn’t (in my thinking, at least) “super wealthy”, and I don’t think it’s necessarily what the OP had in mind; I doubt that most people in the $1 M range own multiple mansions, for example (I can guarantee they don’t in the parts of suburban Chicago I’m familiar with, since those things frequently run close to $1 M apiece). In much of today’s US, I’d argue that $1 M is more like “pretty comfortable”. This is an important distinction.
When I think ostentatiously “super wealthy”, I’m thinking two orders of magnitude higher, say the $100 M + range. So, I’m curious - do you have comparable stats for this bracket? I doubt very seriously that they’re the same. Outside of Tiger Woods, Michael Vick, Shaquille O’Neal and Co, I refuse to believe that the majority of these are self-made people (though I’m sure there are a few exceptions).
Point is this - As I read your post, you mean to demonstrate that anyone can be rich, which feeds into the notion that, if you’re not, there’s something wrong with you (or, at the very least, that you have “chosen” not to be). Your statistics, because of the definition of “rich” they use, conveniently back that up, and paint the picture that there’s still the potential for unlimited upward mobility in our society. Clearly, this illusion is important; a lot of people might refuse to play the game at all if they didn’t buy into it. It’s also working - a recent poll asked people if they thought they would be in the top 1% wealth-wise at some point in their lives. Not if they had a shot, but would they. Wanna take a shot at what percentage thought they would be in the top 1%?
41%
A few things. Yes he is an effective former CEO. But I can be an “effective” con man and still be in essence…a con man. Just because his business is flourishing and rakes in tons of dough does not validify the practices to get there. I have no doubt he has nothing “personal” against smaller companies, however the fact remains his business is a ruthless one.
Perhaps he does have a balanced life now, though it is easy to do when one has lots of money. I have no idea what his monthly paycheck is now, and would be curious to learn. How much are his royalties and dividends? It must take alot to maintain his living accomodations.
One point that both Fessie and Evil Captor have both brought up is that it is the employers should be sharing more of their profits with their employees. What the other side is asking is how would you accomplish this? If you want to change the system, what would the new guidelines be? Who would decide what the proper amounts for each group would be? What formula would you use to “equal” things out?
I think Fessie is suggesting that we change the way we perceive wealth in America should so that people would be more encouraged to be more generous with their wealth. I have no problem with that at all, as long as it is still the owner of the wealths choice. I think it is very admirable to donate time and money and resources to help the less fortunate. I wish the people who do this on a regular basis got more recognition for it, that might encourage others to do the same.
But Evil Captor is talking about forcing the owners of the wealth to do something they may or may not choose to do on their own. This I have a real problem with. Again, who is going to decide how much to take from the owners and who will get to receive it? If you take away individuals incentive to work hard create new products or services, and take to the risks, do you really think the US will be better off?
So this is not a rhetorical question. What would be the new formula for deciding the incomes and wealth accumulation allowed in your system?
It has been a few years since I read 'ol Ayn, seeing as how I was in college a couple of decades ago. The good thing about the intervening years is I’ve had a lot of exposure to the real world of earnings. I’ll give you a for instance.
I was at a business lunch with some clients in the fast-industry. It was their meeting and they picked the restaurant and paid – and I’ll tell you right now, it wasn’t one of their restaurants. No, it was quite hoity. The other women at this lunch were dumb but well-groomed. And quite hoity themselves. We talked about nothing. And we ran a tab in excess of $250 (they all drank). All I could think of was how some poor schlub was sweating over pickles and french fries for $6.75/hr so that these dumb broads could give themselves airs.
Or go to one of the museums based on a personal fortune - say, the Carnegie. Sure, it’s great that he bought all this wonderful stuff & set up a museum. Okay fine. Dedicate the thing to the hardworking men upon whose backs his fortune was built.
Yes, it’s appropriately YOUR CHOICE how to spend your money. And it’s everyone’s choice how they value money and themselves. I’m not proposing legislation, just a shifting of priorities and values. Why should we all buy into the myth that self-aggrandizement is the point of living? We could easily choose some other goal.
RATS!!!
That should’ve come from me, fessie, not my Hubby!
I sincerely doubt this would happen. Too many of the rich and super rich are way past their peak earning potential and would have few marketable skills in the world that would exist after income redistribution. Do you think the Paris Hiltons and Ally Hilfigers of the world would become rich on their own merit? While they are extreme examples, I see few heirs that are as talented as the person who originally made the money.
Even some of the most talented super rich would never be able to re-accumulate what they have under most circumstances. There is no way Bill Gates or Warren Buffet would be able to accumulate billions of dollars if they had to start form scratch. You are ignoring the fact that most of these guys were riduculously lucky. Thats not to say that they don’t deserve what they have, just that the conditions which fostered that wealth no longer exist. Sure, the average joe might lose much of his money, but that doesn’t mean that the world would revert back to how it was. I would venture to say that a great deal of the people who are currently rich would not be able to reaccumulate what they have.
That is a really good question and I do not know the answer.
Someone posted recently about how Wal-Mart employees in some town (in Wisconsin?) were pretty much all on public assistance b/c none of them earned enough, even while fully employed. Sure, somebody’s always going to be on the bottom of the stack – but does it have to be such a long way down?
I think the real issue is what Tom Wolfe was talking about in Bonfire of the Vanities - insulation. People want to insulate themselves from the “undesirables” and they use money to accomplish this (since segregation fell out of favor and all). The more stratified a society is, the more suffering you find. It’s an “us” and “them” mentality. That has to be the justification for some of the out-and-out greed, “I got mine, I’m so much better than those fools”. (not that the poor are inherently noble, certainly many of them are simply lazy, as a pp noted)
It may be a non sequitor, but here’s an example. I think that’s why rents skyrocketed right after they outlawed the “no children allowed” restriction. Landlords decided if they couldn’t restrict the welfare moms away, they’d price 'em out. It’s one of many factors that’s put pressure on the working classes. And, as someone else pointed out, when people are struggling economically you see more of their worst qualities. Maslowe’s hierarchy and all; when basic needs aren’t being met, you don’t see a lot of nobility.
So, I don’t know. It’s not like there’s a magic monetary value where everything’s “fair” (which is, of course, never going to happen anyway). Personally I suspect the answer is for us to be less afraid of one another, and less worshipful of celebrities (with all of their wealth). The media encourages (demands?) both.
(sorry if this is a bit cryptic, got one eye on the monitor & the other on my twins & I’m typing fast - I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s posts, given me a lot to think about!)