Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Crispy]

So I take you believe that how hard you work should determine how much money you earn? I just want to clarify this before I go any further.

How much you're payed should be determined by what kind of work you do and how much it benefits society. A manager of sales at a soda company probably works as hard as manager of structural engineering in an aviation company. I think we both know who's work is much more important.

Why should a poor person not get given an equal chance at the same opportunities of someone who is the son/daughter of a rich person?

I don't recall ever saying that, but if I did I do apologize. They should get the same opportunities. This is possible by trying to help education in poor areas and lower tuition rates, but that doesn't help if the student doesn't try. The tools to living a comfortable middle class life should be provided, those that don't take it lose their chance. It would help if people stopped reaching to become a 1%, that just will not happen.

Eventually is very important here. Why were those laws passed and why did it take so long?
It took so long because we don't live in a representative democracy which can be blamed on the hierarchical capitalist system which gives people with a lot more money a lot more power and influence than most people.

It took so long because the entire system was fairly new at that point.

Because the profits will go into reinvestment, not the pockets or shareholders. There will be rules in place to stop this from happening.

Who makes the rules, the workers? I assume so because you argue about the removal of state.

Also, you'd have to gather the consensus of the workers in the business to make sure that they wanted exploit people for profit.

First of all the workers of a company that over the corporate heads are like a mini group. They have all the power in the business and effectively make themselves the corporate heads. They're human just like the people at the top, so what stops them from following and just hiring more workers to do their work?

Why would the lives of people at the top be worse under socialism? In a socialist society there are no 'haves or have nots' because there is no such thing as private property.

I would like to use this analogy.
There is an airliner. They have a First Class, and Economy Class. First class is expensive and served to the very wealthy, because they can prop it up. It has many luxurious items. Economy class is cramped and small with uncomfortable seats and okay drinks. The Economy class complains, why do they get first class and we don't? Everyone should be first class! So the airliner say, "okay, let us make everyone equal." The expensive double wide seats are set to uncomfortable, un-reclinable triple wide. All the luxurious items are removed because they cost to much to give to everyone but those who pay, and that would not be equal. Everyone is now first class.

Socialism and Communism are equality for all. Equality in misery.

Socialist ideas applied to a capitalist society do yield good result for sure, I won't disagree with that but the problem is that progress is far too slow and these good things can just as easily be taken away.

Then please explain why things like child labor laws, slavery, and minimum wage haven't been taken away? In fact some of these laws have increased in strength. If they can work, then so can other socialized ideas.

 

[Joel]

How much you're payed should be determined by what kind of work you do and how much it benefits society.

How much you're paid should depend on what someone is willing to pay you. How do you quantify who is more beneficial to society?

A manager of sales at a soda company probably works as hard as manager of structural engineering in an aviation company. I think we both know who's work is much more important.

More important to who?

 

[BHRxRacer]

The McLaren F1 was released 20 years ago. It cost a million dollars.

So... yes?

I don't get the issue. A handful of people who were gifted enough to have the ideas, strong enough to keep hold of them, smart enough to exploit the ideas and fortunate enough to continue to do so are more highly valued by the societies that consume their ideas than half of all people.

If we didn't have the 85 richest, there wouldn't be 3.5 billion people on the planet.

So was that their motivation? To be highly valued, or was it just plain money?

 

[Famine]

So was that their motivation? To be highly valued, or was it just plain money?

I don't think you can assume a Gestalt entity of "rich people" and place a single motivation upon them. Some may well have done so through pure altruism, some through pure greed and some through a mixture of both.

But in a society where there is no value placed on the gifted, strong, smart and fortunate people who have and enact the ideas there will be fewer motivated by pure greed, fewer motivated by a mixture of greed and altruism and fewer opportunities for even those motivated by altruism alone to create ideas.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I don't think you can assume a Gestalt entity of "rich people" and place a single motivation upon them. Some may well have done so through pure altruism, some through pure greed and some through a mixture of both.

But in a society where there is no value placed on the gifted, strong, smart and fortunate people who have and enact the ideas there will be fewer motivated by pure greed, fewer motivated by a mixture of greed and altruism and fewer opportunities for even those motivated by altruism alone to create ideas.

I wasn't assuming they're all the same. I find it pleasing when someone like Bill Gates says he's willing to pay more taxes.

So anyway, why not just try to create a society that places value exclusively on being gifted, strong or smart? Let the greed-motivated people die, while everyone else lives in equal standards with their motivation being self actualization.

 

[Famine]

I wasn't assuming they're all the same. I find it pleasing when someone like Bill Gates says he's willing to pay more taxes

The thing with taxation is that if you're willing to pay more... you just do it. Saying you're willing but not actually doing it... soundbites - though Gates has spent a lot of his fortune on charitable things and that doesn't sound like him. Sure you're not thinking of Warren Buffet, who is known for this sort of thing?

So anyway, why not just try to create a society that places value exclusively on being gifted, strong or smart? Let the greed-motivated people die, while everyone else lives in equal standards with their motivation being self actualization.

Sure thing - a meritocracy.

Only three problems:
How do you get the ideas out into society without employees - workers - to create them?
How do you enforce "everyone else" living in "equal standards"?
How do you get the second generation of gifted, strong or smart people if they are enforced to be equal with every other child, whether gifted, average or stupid?

 

[BHRxRacer]

The thing with taxation is that if you're willing to pay more... you just do it. Saying you're willing but not actually doing it... soundbites - though Gates has spent a lot of his fortune on charitable things and that doesn't sound like him. Sure you're not thinking of Warren Buffet, who is known for this sort of thing?Sure thing - a meritocracy.

Only three problems:
How do you get the ideas out into society without employees - workers - to create them?
How do you enforce "everyone else" living in "equal standards"?
How do you get the second generation of gifted, strong or smart people if they are enforced to be equal with every other child, whether gifted, average or stupid?

Regarding gates, I could be wrong but I remember Bill Clinton saying that in an interview.

1. Initially? Pamphlets?
2. By everyone else, I meant everyone. You'd be given equal houses, health care, etc. I don't understand your question.
3. Get them? Through education. Pretty much what happens now, with the best students given suitable jobs and the not so great students given "normal" jobs. Do you mean how to motivate them? Same way I was motivated when I young, be the best.

edit-

If succeeded at "being the best" in your field, you'd be rewarded. Much like how distinctions work in the military.

 

[Joel]

Ranks in the military corresponde with a pay raise so I'm not sure that works for your ideal society here.

 

[Famine]

1. Initially? Pamphlets?

I think you've misunderstood the concept of "ideas". I meant inventions, creations, products...

You need not only the guys who have the ideas but people to make them. If there's no-one to make them, how do they get made? And if equal living standards are enforced, who will buy them?

2. By everyone else, I meant everyone. You'd be given equal houses, health care, etc. I don't understand your question.

Who builds the houses? Who provides the health care?

What if someone makes their house better? Will it be taken away from them and restored to equal standards?

3. Get them? Through education. Pretty much what happens now, with the best students given suitable jobs and the not so great students given "normal" jobs.

But education must be given equally in your equal standards society - the gifted students must not have any advantage over the less gifted...

Do you mean how to motivate them? Same way I was motivated when I young, be the best.

Why do you want to be the best? What advantages would being the best offer you if you only had the same living standards as everyone else, got no special recognition and your children get lumped into the same race-to-the-bottom education as the dullard children of idiots.

If succeeded at "being the best" in your field, you'd be rewarded. Much like how distinctions work in the military.

What kind of rewards? Better houses? Better cars? Access to better health care? Better schools for your kids?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Ranks in the military corresponde with a pay raise so I'm not sure that works for your ideal society here.

I wasn't talking about ranks, but for the sake of argument let's say ranks/distinctions don't entail you to extra "money" or tangible privileges.

I think you've misunderstood the concept of "ideas". I meant inventions, creations, products...

You need not only the guys who have the ideas but people to make them. If there's no-one to make them, how do they get made? And if equal living standards are enforced, who will buy them?Who builds the houses? Who provides the health care?

What if someone makes their house better? Will it be taken away from them and restored to equal standards?But education must be given equally in your equal standards society - the gifted students must not have any advantage over the less gifted...Why do you want to be the best? What advantages would being the best offer you if you only had the same living standards as everyone else, got no special recognition and your children get lumped into the same race-to-the-bottom education as the dullard children of idiots.What kind of rewards? Better houses? Better cars? Access to better health care? Better schools for your kids?

It'd be like an Amish society, self serving. People are assigned different jobs based on their skill. Any inventions or products, if the raw material to manufacture them is available, can be manufactured and distributed equally to everyone. If other countries don't have the same system, they can trade.

Regarding students, I don't understand the problem. They're given equal education, equal opportunity to study, etc. After they're done, they can be evaluated for suitable jobs and assigned to them. The gifted students, will obviously be assigned to a job in which they can use their gift.

Advantages/rewards: Intangible things. Streets named after them? Institutes? TV exposure? Ceremonies? Would those not be enough?

 

[Exorcet]

Advantages/rewards: Intangible things. Streets named after them? Institutes? TV exposure? Ceremonies? Would those not be enough?

I certainly wouldn't trade any of my pay for any of that. My money allows me to get things that actually matter.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I certainly wouldn't trade any of my pay for any of that. My money allows me to get things that actually matter.

Such as what?

 

[Danoff]

Such as what?

A higher standard of living... which can be all sorts of things. Better healthcare, better food, better entertainment... anything you value.

I don't know why you're arguing against the very sorts of ideas that have picked the world up out of the mud over the past 200 years. But given your position in the gay thread, I tend to think you're just arguing because you want to rile people up.

 

[BHRxRacer]

A higher standard of living... which can be all sorts of things. Better healthcare, better food, better entertainment... anything you value.

Healthcare would be at the highest possible level. All kinds of food and entertainment would be available "for free".

Unless you want more material. More material than others, to show off or feel superior. If that's the case, then I have to tell you that I don't particularly like this kind of mentality.

 

[FoolKiller]

So anyway, why not just try to create a society that places value exclusively on being gifted, strong or smart? Let the greed-motivated people die,

If succeeded at "being the best" in your field, you'd be rewarded.

What if the most gifted, strongest, and smartest become that way by being the best because they are motivated by greed? Would you kick your best human assets to the curb and let them die? What if they could cure cancer? What if they could develop a 100% sustainable energy source?

It'd be like an Amish society, self serving. People are assigned different jobs based on their skill. Any inventions or products, if the raw material to manufacture them is available, can be manufactured and distributed equally to everyone. If other countries don't have the same system, they can trade.

Regarding students, I don't understand the problem. They're given equal education, equal opportunity to study, etc. After they're done, they can be evaluated for suitable jobs and assigned to them. The gifted students, will obviously be assigned to a job in which they can use their gift.

Have you ever read the novel Anthem? Short of saying we should ban words like "I" and "me" this feels like you pulled your idea straight from its pages.

 

[BHRxRacer]

What if the most gifted, strongest, and smartest become that way by being the best because they are motivated by greed?

You mean like Darth Vader? Yeah I'd totally kick him out and wait for someone else to develop a cure for cancer. Unless you're implying that greed is proportionate to being gifted, etc. Are you?

Have you ever read the novel Anthem? Short of saying we should ban words like "I" and "me" this feels like you pulled your idea straight from its pages.

Never heard of it. My idea is far from ever happening, I'm aware of that. If that's what you're trying to say.

 

[FoolKiller]

You mean like Darth Vader? Yeah I'd totally kick him out and wait for someone else to develop a cure for cancer. Unless you're implying that greed is proportionate to being gifted, etc. Are you?

Darth Vader? I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse or truly having trouble comprehending what I am asking you.

Never heard of it. My idea is far from ever happening, I'm aware of that. If that's what you're trying to say.

Not what I am saying. I was just asking. But to the bigger point, your idea has been used in various forms in many dystopian stories. Anthem just happens to be the one where your idea is the exact same way the fictional, future society is run. You should pick it up some time. It's by Ayn Rand and only 128 pages. A novella really. It shouldn't take too much time to read at all.

 

[Exorcet]

Such as what?

Healthcare would be at the highest possible level. All kinds of food and entertainment would be available "for free".

Unless you want more material. More material than others, to show off or feel superior. If that's the case, then I have to tell you that I don't particularly like this kind of mentality.

As Danoff put it, anything you value. And yes that would include more material. The reasons for wanting it don't matter, nor does your disapproval. There's no way to justify preventing me from going after what I want.

Incidentally, this free healthcare, food, and entertainment would probably all be subpar. You've already said you'd kick out people who would cure cancer just because you don't like them. So we'd lose a bunch of doctors, chefs, and performers for no reason who would all be entitled to everything I want without having to do anything for it. If I want anything that's a finite resource, there's a problem.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Darth Vader? I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse or truly having trouble comprehending what I am asking you.


Not what I am saying. I was just asking. But to the bigger point, your idea has been used in various forms in many dystopian stories. Anthem just happens to be the one where your idea is the exact same way the fictional, future society is run. You should pick it up some time. It's by Ayn Rand and only 128 pages. A novella really. It shouldn't take too much time to read at all.

Darth vader was a joke, but I answered your question. Let me rephrase. If the best medical scientist's motivation happens to be greed, and his condition for providing a cure for cancer is material, then I'd kick him out.


I'll pick up the book when I can and tell you what I think.

As Danoff put it, anything you value. And yes that would include more material. The reasons for wanting it don't matter, nor does your disapproval. There's no way to justify preventing me from going after what I want.

If what you want is superiority over others, that's enough justification to cast you out. That's just my opinion though.

Incidentally, this free healthcare, food, and entertainment would probably all be subpar.

You're basing this off of what? Free health care in some countries that exist today is superb. You're not under the impression that everything free/cheap is bad, are you?

You've already said you'd kick out people who would cure cancer just because you don't like them.

Quote me.

So we'd lose a bunch of doctors, chefs, and performers for no reason who would all be entitled to everything I want without having to do anything for it. If I want anything that's a finite resource, there's a problem.

You wouldn't get anything that's finite, nobody would. Efforts will be made to make it infinite.

 

[FoolKiller]

Darth vader was a joke, but I answered your question. Let me rephrase. If the best medical scientist's motivation happens to be greed, and his condition for providing a cure for cancer is material, then I'd kick him out.

So you don't think he deserves anything more than a fancy attaboy? You think saving infinite lives is worth nothing more?

While you are picking up books read Atlas Shrugged.

And maybe give my signature a read.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So you don't think he deserves anything more than a fancy attaboy? You think saving infinite lives is worth nothing more?

Well, you could rename the country after him. Does his reward have to be material that nobody else has?

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, you could rename the country after him. Does his reward have to be material that nobody else has?

Here's a hint about human behavior: Whatever you apply value to will become material. The guy saved a baker's kid. The baker hands him more than his ration of bread. A bartender finds out he is the guy who has a whatever named after him. He gets an extra beer.

Whether Dictator You wants to recognize him materially or not your citizens would break your rules to do it as their only way to honor him.

And there is your ultimate problem. The baker is an alcoholic. He gives extra bread to the bar owner or brewer to get more alcohol. That bar owner trades the extra bread to the butcher so he can have extra steak. Before it's all said and done your system becomes a black market of bartering. But that's complex and easy to catch. Soon they use small wooden chips or stones to denote a certain value to ease the trade of goods. Before you know it, the baker who makes the best bread has more of these value markers because his loaf of bread is worth two stones while every other baker only gets one.

See where this heads? The only way to make equal is to stifle innovation. Equal means lowest common denominator, and that means only the goods and services that requires the minimum skill level.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Here's a hint about human behavior: Whatever you apply value to will become material. The guy saved a baker's kid. The baker hands him more than his ration of bread. A bartender finds out he is the guy who has a whatever named after him. He gets an extra beer.

Whether Dictator You wants to recognize him materially or not your citizens would break your rules to do it as their only way to honor him.

And there is your ultimate problem. The baker is an alcoholic. He gives extra bread to the bar owner or brewer to get more alcohol. That bar owner trades the extra bread to the butcher so he can have extra steak. Before it's all said and done your system becomes a black market of bartering. But that's complex and easy to catch. Soon they use small wooden chips or stones to denote a certain value to ease the trade of goods. Before you know it, the baker who makes the best bread has more of these value markers because his loaf of bread is worth two stones while every other baker only gets one.

See where this heads? The only way to make equal is to stifle innovation. Equal means lowest common denominator, and that means only the goods and services that requires the minimum skill level.

Wait, not sure if you got the wrong idea or what. You won't have to trade anything, beer for bread etc. You get as much of those as you want.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wait, not sure if you got the wrong idea or what. You won't have to trade anything, beer for bread etc. You get as much of those as you want.

So, if one guy goes in and asks for every loaf in the store?

 

[Exorcet]

If what you want is superiority over others, that's enough justification to cast you out. That's just my opinion though

It sounds like a fairly petty reason to me.

You're basing this off of what?

Explained partially in the bit following the quote.

Free health care in some countries that exist today is superb. You're not under the impression that everything free/cheap is bad, are you?

Free healthcare in many cases exists through taxes. In other words, it's not free. Also in those cases you have employees working for better pay, promotions, etc, to go after what they want. You take that away in your system and in doing so rob the driving force behind many of those people.

Quote me.

There's an example in the first quote in this very post.

You wouldn't get anything that's finite, nobody would. Efforts will be made to make it infinite.

Your system just failed.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So, if one guy goes in and asks for every loaf in the store?

Are we talking about specifics? There'd be dozens of regulations. I'm not going to list them all, I haven't even thought of them all. I can answer that specific question though, but I won't if it means I'll have to list the whole thing.

It sounds like a fairly petty reason to me.

This discussion has just failed.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are we talking about specifics? There'd be dozens of regulations. I'm not going to list them all, I haven't even thought of them all. I can answer that specific question though, but I won't if it means I'll have to list the whole thing.

So, you don't get as much as you want?

I'm just seeing a supply and demand problem.

 

[Exorcet]

This discussion has just failed.

Indeed. I'd like to know how oil would become infinite in supply just by rationing it out inefficiently.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So, you don't get as much as you want?

I'm just seeing a supply and demand problem.

Ok, let me rephrase. You get as much as you can have. How much you can have is defined. If you want too much of something, you won't get it. Supply and demand problems would be taken care of, let's agree on principles first.

Indeed. I'd like to know how oil would become infinite in supply just by rationing it out inefficiently.

You know, I've never met or heard of a scientist that truly wanted to make a difference, whose motivation was material. Most would give up material in hopes of accomplishing what they want.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok, let me rephrase. You get as much as you can have. How much you can have is defined. If you want too much of something, you won't get it. Supply and demand problems would be taken care of, let's agree on principles first.

We know what the principle is, but without the logistics they never become more.