You could re-distribute all the wealth evenly, remove all controls, and inevitably it would all concentrate back in many of the hands that have much of the wealth now simply b/c wealth gravitates to those who utilize it to grow projects, investments, new companies, etc., irregardless of how society perceives their moral character. even those who are wealthy quickly lose dollars if they don't constantly take dollars from projects that are working now and use it to feed projects that will grow tomorrow. imho economy cares less about transferring money through many people's hands than through many investment's hands.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Then please don't call me close-minded if I refuse to read Klein.
That's your opinion. Naomi Klein has been as substantively rebuked by historians, if not more so, than Freidman.
I still disagree with the association. The implementation of Freidman's theories, correctly or incorrectly, has not brought upon the death of millions. The ills that Freidman's brand of capitalism has wrought are offset by the massive benefits that free-markets provide. The same cannot be said of Marx's policy.
If you wish to pair Freidman with Marx as counterparts, then I ask: What nations which have been inspired by Marxist ideals have improved at all, let alone outperformed nations inspired by Freidman's ideals?
I tend to shy from that as well, except that leftists seem to have little hesitation in pointing out Nobel laureates who happen to lean left. But even that is not a poor argument. I believe recognition to be a merit unto itself, at least one which affords the individual our respect, and hesitation to demonize.
I don't believe they were so different. The New Deal was a reaction to a disaster, and we learned alot from the depression. What do you mean by this?
We might not disagree as much as you realize, although I don't agree about the military being socialist, and don't understand how it can be socialist. I never thought about the military in economic terms, except perhaps that it is directed largely by dictatorial means (which any student of military history would contend, is wholly necessary for an effective military force). I agree that it works in degrees. I absolutely believe that it is disastrous when implemented in too great a degree, and that for this reason, we should never take any steps towards it without the utmost caution. We should strive for as little socialism as can be possibly allowed, except in the few cases it does more benefit than harm. To me, it's the quintessential slippery slope.
No disagreement.
I believe this to be a side-effect of capitalism, in that it rewards people commensurate to their ability (which includes their ability to manipulate the system). The problem, then, is that it lays bare some very uncomfortable facts about humanity, notably that some people are far smarter and craftier than others, which flies in the face of the notion of equality.
I believe this is also a misnomer. I find that when democrats talk about the concentration of wealth, they really mean the concentration of extreme wealth. And that's a critical difference. There are the super rich. But there are also the middle class, the people who by 3rd world standards are wealthy. The wealth of this nation is reasonably concentrated by any objective measure. Most of us drive cars, live reasonably comfortably, and pursue our interests. 3rd world citizens have only one interest: survival.
I personally put more faith in businessmen to meet the demands of their constituency than our politicians. Money is a more powerful motivator than political responsibility.
I believe that a state-run monopoly is no different from a market-created monopoly. They do as much damage as any other monopoly through their incompetence. If anything they're worse. A market-created monopoly, however difficult it may be to break it, does not have the full power of the government to insure its hegemony.
For this reason, we should avoid them whenever possible.
Then please don't call me close-minded if I refuse to read Klein.
That's your opinion. Naomi Klein has been as substantively rebuked by historians, if not more so, than Freidman.
I still disagree with the association. The implementation of Freidman's theories, correctly or incorrectly, has not brought upon the death of millions. The ills that Freidman's brand of capitalism has wrought are offset by the massive benefits that free-markets provide. The same cannot be said of Marx's policy.
If you wish to pair Freidman with Marx as counterparts, then I ask: What nations which have been inspired by Marxist ideals have improved at all, let alone outperformed nations inspired by Freidman's ideals?
I tend to shy from that as well, except that leftists seem to have little hesitation in pointing out Nobel laureates who happen to lean left. But even that is not a poor argument. I believe recognition to be a merit unto itself, at least one which affords the individual our respect, and hesitation to demonize.
I don't believe they were so different. The New Deal was a reaction to a disaster, and we learned alot from the depression. What do you mean by this?
We might not disagree as much as you realize, although I don't agree about the military being socialist, and don't understand how it can be socialist. I never thought about the military in economic terms, except perhaps that it is directed largely by dictatorial means (which any student of military history would contend, is wholly necessary for an effective military force). I agree that it works in degrees. I absolutely believe that it is disastrous when implemented in too great a degree, and that for this reason, we should never take any steps towards it without the utmost caution. We should strive for as little socialism as can be possibly allowed, except in the few cases it does more benefit than harm. To me, it's the quintessential slippery slope.
No disagreement.
I believe this to be a side-effect of capitalism, in that it rewards people commensurate to their ability (which includes their ability to manipulate the system). The problem, then, is that it lays bare some very uncomfortable facts about humanity, notably that some people are far smarter and craftier than others, which flies in the face of the notion of equality.
I believe this is also a misnomer. I find that when democrats talk about the concentration of wealth, they really mean the concentration of extreme wealth. And that's a critical difference. There are the super rich. But there are also the middle class, the people who by 3rd world standards are wealthy. The wealth of this nation is reasonably concentrated by any objective measure. Most of us drive cars, live reasonably comfortably, and pursue our interests. 3rd world citizens have only one interest: survival.
I personally put more faith in businessmen to meet the demands of their constituency than our politicians. Money is a more powerful motivator than political responsibility.
I believe that a state-run monopoly is no different from a market-created monopoly. They do as much damage as any other monopoly through their incompetence. If anything they're worse. A market-created monopoly, however difficult it may be to break it, does not have the full power of the government to insure its hegemony.
For this reason, we should avoid them whenever possible.
Everyone likes to talk about Friedman, but I sometimes get the impression that the man is like an evolutionary biologist trying to explain the idea to a room full of creationists. The scope of the ideas inherent in libertarianism is rooted in scale that most people don't grasp, something very similar to evolution. We don't understand the time frame, and our brains like to have absolute answers where lines are drawn in the sand. For most people, I believe, this is the government; they say when it goes, when it doesn't and everything in between. Free market principles lie in the evolutionary scale, corrective over time by natural forces rather than at an absolute interval defined by some power like creationism.
Sometimes, it's just easier to think of a god. And so it is with economics.
Sometimes, it's just easier to think of a god. And so it is with economics.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Something tells me you saw the latest South Park episode.
? No. I merely read the latest religion thread in ATOT that sparked a correlation. I find the biases in our minds and the ideas that exploit them to be of particular interest. I think we all keep arguing the same things and get stuck in analysis paralysis by trying to juggle all these very abstract ideas. Couple that with people trying to be faithful to their beliefs and almost no progress is made.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Honestly, I wouldn't mind a really heavy tax bracket at the extreme upper end. I could not give you an absolutely figure at which that bracket would start, but it would seem that a society that is extremely polarized by income tends to lead to a lot of bad things.
Perhaps instead of the tax bracket some basic reform, more intelligent executive-level pay packages should be put together. That would probably solve a lot of the problem.
Greed is not a dirty word
Perhaps instead of the tax bracket some basic reform, more intelligent executive-level pay packages should be put together. That would probably solve a lot of the problem.
Greed is not a dirty word
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Something tells me you saw the latest South Park episode.
? No. I merely read the latest religion thread in ATOT that sparked a correlation. I find the biases in our minds and the ideas that exploit them to be of particular interest. I think we all keep arguing the same things and get stuck in analysis paralysis by trying to juggle all these very abstract ideas. Couple that with people trying to be faithful to their beliefs and almost no progress is made.
What do you mean by analysis paralysis?
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Something tells me you saw the latest South Park episode.
? No. I merely read the latest religion thread in ATOT that sparked a correlation. I find the biases in our minds and the ideas that exploit them to be of particular interest. I think we all keep arguing the same things and get stuck in analysis paralysis by trying to juggle all these very abstract ideas. Couple that with people trying to be faithful to their beliefs and almost no progress is made.
What do you mean by analysis paralysis?
That's a long topic. In short, the inability to operate decisively due to the continued analysis of competing information. People will drum on endlessly about the pros/cons of things without having the capacity to decide, so to cut the reasoning short people will simply resort to their faithful emotive responses, and this is where dogma comes into play. This is why we see people that just side with basic beliefs and refuse to listen to competing information.
And I'm not just making things up because I can. This 'analysis paralysis' has a neurological footing, and some people with tumors or on particular dopamine-enhancing medications (Parkinson's), as two examples, are often induced into this analysis paralysis stage because the "feeling" of their brain is disrupted by paralysis in the prefrontal cortex. Books like How We Decide are recent examples of interest.
That's the long answer.
I don't think so - but I do believe in taxing the rich a little more to benefit the poor. By today's standards, I'd put the rich bracket to somewhere above..one million dollars.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Yes, for better OR for worse.
The sad fact is we live in a world where you can't get elected to dog catcher if you aren't promising somebody something.
I don't think money is the root of all evil, but the love of money, i.e. greed/jealousy/selfishness is.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,853
- 6,390
- 126
In a sense, Yes, but only in a sense. This is sommething that gets brought up a lot and I think for good reason, but the problems with it are how do you determine a standard? How do you implement/enforce it? How do you make it so that it is not too stifling?
I think we can agree that many are being way overpaid based upon their Performance, especially given recent events. That said, we shouldn't let these events cause us to jump into too many rash decisions regarding this issue.
As for how to control the Top end(completely skipping over whether it should occur or not), I think Taxation is the best way to do it. Just keep raising Taxes on Incomes >$X(whatever is decided) until Salaries >$X make no sense.
I think we can agree that many are being way overpaid based upon their Performance, especially given recent events. That said, we shouldn't let these events cause us to jump into too many rash decisions regarding this issue.
As for how to control the Top end(completely skipping over whether it should occur or not
), I think Taxation is the best way to do it. Just keep raising Taxes on Incomes >$X(whatever is decided) until Salaries >$X make no sense.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Something tells me you saw the latest South Park episode.
? No. I merely read the latest religion thread in ATOT that sparked a correlation. I find the biases in our minds and the ideas that exploit them to be of particular interest. I think we all keep arguing the same things and get stuck in analysis paralysis by trying to juggle all these very abstract ideas. Couple that with people trying to be faithful to their beliefs and almost no progress is made.
What do you mean by analysis paralysis?
That's a long topic. In short, the inability to operate decisively due to the continued analysis of competing information. People will drum on endlessly about the pros/cons of things without having the capacity to decide, so to cut the reasoning short people will simply resort to their faithful emotive responses, and this is where dogma comes into play. This is why we see people that just side with basic beliefs and refuse to listen to competing information.
And I'm not just making things up because I can. This 'analysis paralysis' has a neurological footing, and some people with tumors or on particular dopamine-enhancing medications (Parkinson's), as two examples, are often induced into this analysis paralysis stage because the "feeling" of their brain is disrupted by paralysis in the prefrontal cortex. Books like How We Decide are recent examples of interest.
That's the long answer.
That's a good answer.
I often wrestle with the same contradiction. Your opponent can call you close-minded for making a decision, and indecisive for considering the opposition. You could even make the case that being decisive requires ignoring contradictory evidence. This is a maddening dilemma.
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Originally posted by: Shortass
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: datalink7
So you'd rather the first poster who gives an answer to "contaminate" people's answers?
Eh, it's just basic survey rules. You don't hint in your question what you think the "right" answer is.
I think people should be able to earn whatever they can, through a combination of skill, education, effort and luck. Very few wind up making bank that way, but kudos to them if they do. Other people may not have a combination of those traits such that they ever make much in life, or may choose to invest their time and efforts in other ways; I see nothing wrong with either of those.
There are so many people outraged at the execs making tons of cash; I was just wondering how many of those same people truly think that all work really deserves about the same compensation, with limited variation.
To be clear, my own answer to my OP is: No, what a dumbass question.
I'm tired and prone to sweet bait so here goes; I answer no, but only after we've met specific conditions.
Skills are learned and education is grotesquely unequal across the nation and even from community to community - many people have no opportunity, considering the demographics of poverty, to gain adequate skills or education. For these people there needs to be a floor that they can land on that allows them to live an adequate life - decent housing and food, access to adequate health care and transportation services. Extreme levels of poverty because someone grew up in a bad neighborhood is hardly conscionable for the 'greatest country in the world'. I'm not saying welfare, but programs like the earned income tax credit that lift them up to survivable levels. If/once they gain proper skills they wouldn't need the program - set limits to the duration to disallow lifetime welfare cases.
Effort should absolutely be rewarded, as should thriftiness and the ability to utilize talent. The market allows for such traits already for those competing in it... sweet, man.
Luck, as with my first point, is distributed unfairly and inequally. There should be systems in place (workers comp, disability pay, sick/maternal and other types of time off work) that allow those who fall on hard times, physically or otherwise, to get adequate time to recover.
We are not cogs for a capitalistic system. Just because labor is qualified and quantified by productivity doesn't mean compensation has to follow the same rules to the T. There needs to be a basic level of dignity to the quality of life for all Americans, and once established an efficient, regulated market system would be well supported from the bottom of the pyramid and we can stop hating on the rich bro's on top.
So pretty much everyone should be assured, for life, of housing, food, medical care and transportation, at no cost whatsoever. Heck, I think that's what many people work their tail off to achieve. If we provided that, as a country, in a reliable and easy fashion, I can think of about five people off the top of my head who would opt not to work at all. And I wouldn't blame them. If you weren't raised to have higher aspirations, and you're ok going without new cars, fast computers and dining out (as most of my friends were) then the government's got you covered. Why work?
These are people that would otherwise be filling the middle/lower-middle class bracket. They're capable, they just are ok with living baseline lives and using their time in other ways.
Along with sounding like some hippie pie-in-the-sky, buy everyone in the world a puppy, wide-eyed college kid BS, it is actually quite ignorant.
If you understand how "money" is just a representation of resources, (although we have a fiat currency, unfortunately), there is no way that a government can control how much money we acquire.
The only way this is plausible, is if the government controls all non-currency resources. (Fossil fuels, food, water, metals, minerals, basically everything).
Thankfully, we are not a Red country, so this would never fly. Although I do concede taking over banks with taxpayer money, and retaining a controlling interest in said banks, is very Leftist. Hopefully we will not push it any further.
The only other way would be for the government to tax anything over your magic little number that you feel is too much for any one person to make. The only problem with that is that people will just stop working once they make the $200K that year. This also shows you have no idea what kind of affect it would have on our GDP.
If you understand how "money" is just a representation of resources, (although we have a fiat currency, unfortunately), there is no way that a government can control how much money we acquire.
The only way this is plausible, is if the government controls all non-currency resources. (Fossil fuels, food, water, metals, minerals, basically everything).
Thankfully, we are not a Red country, so this would never fly. Although I do concede taking over banks with taxpayer money, and retaining a controlling interest in said banks, is very Leftist. Hopefully we will not push it any further.
The only other way would be for the government to tax anything over your magic little number that you feel is too much for any one person to make. The only problem with that is that people will just stop working once they make the $200K that year. This also shows you have no idea what kind of affect it would have on our GDP.
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Nope, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. I didn't state my side in the OP, just asked a question.
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
By "you" and "your" I assume you're referring to other posters who have said they do believe endorse normalizing incomes. If you read the thread, you'd find that I don't. I just asked the question.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
I'm interested in this. My google-fu failed me, but all I searched for was "Naomi Klein substantively rebuked"
got link?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter