Edson, I know for a fact just about anyone can be a teacher. I used to be a teacher and it never ceased to amaze me that we have some very unqualified teachers out there. But what I get from what riotgrl is saying is that a good teacher contributes more to society that a good stock broker. First of all, without an education, a person cannot become a stock broker. Secondly, a good teacher does more than impart information or prepare people for careers. A good teacher helps students learn to think critically, to think for themselves and be true to themselves.
I read somewhere that in Japan, teachers are paid and respected the same as high ranking professionals-- doctors, lawyers and such. Here in the US we pay and acknowledge teachers as though they are baby sitters and so that's often what we get. This leaves the good teachers-- and I have no doubt riotgrl fits this description-- underpaid and under-appreciated. In my opinion, that's just wrong.
We don't know if that is a true statement though. While we like to believe it, a stock broker is what makes it possible for a lot of people to make a living, makes it possible for people to retire, makes it possible for people to go to college to become teachers...I know they are evil capitalist pigs, but they do their part. I don't want to go into a whole who does more discussion, but everyone plays their part.
undervalue / overvalue is something that drives me crazy to discuss. Your services, no matter what they are, are worth what someone is willing to pay you for them money wise. To say teachers are undervalued perpetuates the philosophy our worth comes from monetary reimbursement for our services.
It is true, mikepegg, that many of us work at the job of our choice. I just think if we pay teacher a low salary we will get what we pay for unless a particular teacher gives more that what they are paid which many do.
I am certainly worth more than my salary, but I choose to do my work because I believe in it. Does that mean I am undervalued? no, it means that my money situation isn't where I would like it to be, but in terms of value, my co-workers value me highly, so does my family, friends, and industry really, I am very valued...As far as teachers go, i don't see too many news stories about the stock broker of the year, I don't see too many news stories about the factory worker of the year...
As a teacher, I believed the same- that I was worth more than I was paid. I certainly believe that about being in the used book business. But I can afford to be underpaid because I don't have kids in the home to care for and I have a reasonably comfortable life. The only problem is that I will have to work until I drop dead. Is a darned good thing I like what I do!
What it boils down to is that people will never be happy, every system has faults, there is no utopia...if you aren't happy with your station in life, work to change it, but something that is easier is to quit subscribing to the idea that we aren't valued highly enough.
No utopia- that's for sure. I think what we're trying to do here- at least I hope so- is discuss better ways to do things- to make it possible for people to be fulfilled, satisfied, safe and healthy. There's some idealism for you!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Question for anyone who wants to answer: In your opinion, were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult?
by "virtue" of having slaves?
However you see it. Would being a slave owner be considered part of a capitalistic system to you?
im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no
actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!
No utopia- that's for sure. I think what we're trying to do here- at least I hope so- is discuss better ways to do things- to make it possible for people to be fulfilled, satisfied, safe and healthy. There's some idealism for you!
What makes some happy is not what makes all happy. The more free we all are to pursue those goals the better. I think it is up to you to find happiness no matter what your station in life is. My life doesn't need to change to make you happy, and vice versa, I shouldn't expect a degradation of your life, no matter how small, that doesn't come willingly from you in order to improve my life. when I lived downtown in Minneapolis I walked past a smiling homeless man every day. He sang gospel songs and wished everyone a happy morning. He was certainly happier than I was those days, and probably most days since the last time talked to him...I realized that it was me making me unhappy, not anyone else...longing for what others have can only lead to an unfulfilled life...
Does capitalism have issues, sure every system does...when one is the dominant form we will often 'noble savage' the hell out of other forms claiming how great they can be, but often will ignore the problems that are inherently possible and the unintended consequences that create a terrible situation for some and a great one for others
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no
actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!
Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway
It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.
However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.
I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.
im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no
actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!
Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway
It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.
However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.
I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.
awesome post!
i get everything except "all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations" can u give an example of what you refer to here?
im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no
actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!
Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway
It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.
However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.
I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.
awesome post!
i get everything except "all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations" can u give an example of what you refer to here?
An excerpt from this article that I found in a quick google search about Monsanto using regulation to their benefit, pay more attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. In a nutshell, large corporations lobby for regulatory requirements that only their vast-reaching resources can provide at low cost, and smaller businesses are muscled out: http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
"The Regulatory Irony
Laws governing biotechnology continue to favour agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, but as the industry has developed, the corporate push for specific types of regulations has taken ironic twists. The initial lack of a cautious regulatory approach enabled small biotechnology companies to develop and market new bioengineered products at a rapid pace. In the meantime, larger agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy were buying up these small companies while developing their own expansive in-house biotechnology research and marketing operations. During this time, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and several other agribusiness corporations came virtually to dominate the world market for bioengineered food products, strengthening their hold over much of the world's food supply.
From their position at the top, Monsanto and other corporations have actually favoured some seemingly tight regulations, but, it turns out, only when the regulations serve corporate marketing purposes. Regulations that require corporations to submit a plethora of costly scientific data to regulatory agencies, for example, discourage competition from smaller biotechnology and seed companies while giving the public the illusion that new biotechnology products undergo rigorous safety evaluations and are therefore safe.
In 1995, for example, Monsanto lobbied against a provision in the EPA funding bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating agricultural plants bioengineered to contain the toxic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Genetically engineered foods had just hit the market, and Monsanto was fully aware that almost any EPA regulations for Bt plants would publicly sanction the genetically engineered products and defuse resistance from public interest environmental groups. Furthermore, corporations could only get their Bt products to market if they had extensive money and resources to jump through all the regulatory hoops. Big corporations alone can meet data requirements and, once in the system, manipulate and pass the EPA's safety evaluation process. With the competition out of the way, the market is theirs."
Nothing wrong with "work, earn, buy"... that's what socialists want too.
The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?
I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.
For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.
Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.
To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)
Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.
To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)
Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.
Agreed! Most of Vinny's thoughts on this are aligned with mine.
To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)
Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.
Ah, but I'm not so sure I trust society to decide so properly. I'm not talking about how we treat each other as a culture, but about putting limitations on earnings. My own definitions of important, should, etc. are good enough for me - and I'd never apply them to or impose them on anyone else.
While I'm not a Twitter user, I have to give credit to the person(s) who came up with the idea. It'd be ridiculous for me to declare they shouldn't have the wealth (again, subjective word but here specifically related to money), or put a cap on it. Look at the person who invented the Pet Rock and made a fortune from it. Sure it was a silly idea, but it was a silly idea that people loved and spent their money on. Good for these people. Money doesn't have to be the only goal for inventions or ideas, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.
Ah, but I'm not so sure I trust society to decide so properly. I'm not talking about how we treat each other as a culture, but about putting limitations on earnings. My own definitions of important, should, etc. are good enough for me - and I'd never apply them to or impose them on anyone else.
While I'm not a Twitter user, I have to give credit to the person(s) who came up with the idea. It'd be ridiculous for me to declare they shouldn't have the wealth (again, subjective word but here specifically related to money), or put a cap on it. Look at the person who invented the Pet Rock and made a fortune from it. Sure it was a silly idea, but it was a silly idea that people loved and spent their money on. Good for these people. Money doesn't have to be the only goal for inventions or ideas, but it sure doesn't hurt.
So... you think inventing the Pet Rock entitles a person to more wealth than a person working the overnight shift in a nursing home or any solider on the front line of battle... and that's there's no way we could come together to decide that certain jobs or certain inventions have a certain worth... just let the market sort it out, no matter what... even though we have our government make life and death decisions all the time? That's your assessment, huh? Well I don't reach that conclusion, and I will keep on fighting for a society that makes a lot more sense than that.
Nothing wrong with "work, earn, buy"... that's what socialists want too.
The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?
I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.
For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.
Of course, this notion that you earn what you're worth is utter nonsense to begin with. Consider your average doctor or surgeon. This is a person who regularly deals in one of the most valuable commodities available; another person's life, yet they are heavily regulated by the government and may only bill according to very specific guidelines. Doctors can't simply pass you a bill for what they feel their services are worth. There are many other industries have similar regulations or restrictions on pricing. Conversely there are businesses where the operator may set his own rates and let the market decide whether the goods or services are worth what the operator is asking for.
If you want a truly free market, any person should be able to set his or her own prices for services rendered. The best surgeon should be able to bill $50,000,000 per hour if he so chooses. Chances are he will clean house when Donald Trump or another billionaire comes to call. If you are a star in your field, why shouldn't you be able to extort others for your full worth just as they would do to you? It seems to me that we pick and choose different sets of rules for different members of society. The uber rich don't want restrictions on their earning potential yet we decree doctors an essential service and deprive them of the right to hold us for a king's ransom.
Nothing wrong with "work, earn, buy"... that's what socialists want too.
The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?
I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.
For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.
Of course, this notion that you earn what you're worth is utter nonsense to begin with. Consider your average doctor or surgeon. This is a person who regularly deals in one of the most valuable commodities available; another person's life, yet they are heavily regulated by the government and may only bill according to very specific guidelines. Doctors can't simply pass you a bill for what they feel their services are worth. There are many other industries have similar regulations or restrictions on pricing. Conversely there are businesses where the operator may set his own rates and let the market decide whether the goods or services are worth what the operator is asking for.
If you want a truly free market, any person should be able to set his or her own prices for services rendered. The best surgeon should be able to bill $50,000,000 per hour if he so chooses. Chances are he will clean house when Donald Trump or another billionaire comes to call. If you are a star in your field, why shouldn't you be able to extort others for your full worth just as they would do to you? It seems to me that we pick and choose different sets of rules for different members of society. The uber rich don't want restrictions on their earning potential yet we decree doctors an essential service and deprive them of the right to hold us for a king's ransom.
Yes, let's build a society based on extorting one another.
Honestly, that is some of the most twisted logic I've ever read.
So... you think inventing the Pet Rock entitles a person to more wealth than a person working the overnight shift in a nursing home or any solider on the front line of battle... and that's there's no way we could come together to decide that certain jobs or certain inventions have a certain worth... just let the market sort it out, no matter what... even though we have our government make life and death decisions all the time? That's your assessment, huh? Well I don't reach that conclusion, and I will keep on fighting for a society that makes a lot more sense than that.
You're certainly entitled ( :P ) to your opinion. I disagree with it...and for what it's worth, I don't over or undervalue anyone based solely on how much or how little they earn.
But yeah, the Pet Rock is one of many examples of the free market (I think blueandwhite made some excellent points on this as well).
The value that's put on the almighty dollar is pretty sad, if you ask me.
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
The value that's put on the almighty dollar is pretty sad, if you ask me.
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
Dear Jeanwah, I truly feel that you are concerned with nothing. I would say that most people have a realistic value of money but it is sad when some people put the pursuit of money ahead of love and joy. It is sad when people are forced to work crazy hours to cover the basics. Or are forced to take a low paying job because there are so many qualified people out there looking for the same jobs. Just because people are striving for more doesn't mean they worship the dollar; isn't nice to buy cool shit that you want? And you know what? People are in general good, charitable, and generous. Rich people almost always contribute to charity...think about it.
You should feel good about poverty in the US because it isn't that bad really. Homelessness is practically erased except for mentally ill people which is the biggest problem in this country and is never mentioned. There is no reason what so ever for a person to not have the basics. There are food stamps, cash subsidies, rent subsidies, and if you get sick or fucked up in an accident you can go to the ER with an ambulance ride. And if a law abiding person wants they can go to college with grants and loans. Poverty in America is not anything like some of our grandparents went through. So be happy about that.
I am sorry but you are very wrong when you think that Americans care more about money than people; it's just simply not true. Sure, you can find horrible people out there but there are way more truly good/decent people out there. I would bet my '96 Istanbul poster that every single person you know is a good person because you have a good heart.
I think the biggest problem America has drug abuse. I'll tell you this...a drug addict is greedy and worships money more than people. People who need their drug and don't have the money will fucking kill people for their money and people addicted with money will spend until it runs out or they are dead.
So count your blessings and seek out the good in people it makes life more enjoyable.
Nothing wrong with "work, earn, buy"... that's what socialists want too.
The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?
I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.
For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.
Of course, this notion that you earn what you're worth is utter nonsense to begin with. Consider your average doctor or surgeon. This is a person who regularly deals in one of the most valuable commodities available; another person's life, yet they are heavily regulated by the government and may only bill according to very specific guidelines. Doctors can't simply pass you a bill for what they feel their services are worth. There are many other industries have similar regulations or restrictions on pricing. Conversely there are businesses where the operator may set his own rates and let the market decide whether the goods or services are worth what the operator is asking for.
If you want a truly free market, any person should be able to set his or her own prices for services rendered. The best surgeon should be able to bill $50,000,000 per hour if he so chooses. Chances are he will clean house when Donald Trump or another billionaire comes to call. If you are a star in your field, why shouldn't you be able to extort others for your full worth just as they would do to you? It seems to me that we pick and choose different sets of rules for different members of society. The uber rich don't want restrictions on their earning potential yet we decree doctors an essential service and deprive them of the right to hold us for a king's ransom.
Yes, let's build a society based on extorting one another.
Honestly, that is some of the most twisted logic I've ever read.
I thought that was what the US free market was already based on extortion. The only difference as it now stands is that not everybody is allowed to play.
The value that's put on the almighty dollar is pretty sad, if you ask me.
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
I don't see how we can eliminate poverty without eliminating unearned income at the top. Likewise, there shouldn't be any unearned income at the bottom. If people are able to work, but refuse to, then (and only then) is their poverty their fault, and no one should else should have to pay for it. The way to end unjustified poverty is to create an honest system of labor.
The value that's put on the almighty dollar is pretty sad, if you ask me.
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
I don't see how we can eliminate poverty without eliminating unearned income at the top. Likewise, there shouldn't be any unearned income at the bottom. If people are able to work, but refuse to, then (and only then) is their poverty their fault, and no one should else should have to pay for it. The way to end unjustified poverty is to create an honest system of labor.
In this system you would like to create, how are goods and materials priced? Who decides what is "honest" labor? Why should the president be paid the most? The last I checked, he hardly ever has to lift a finger, physically speaking, lots of travelling aside. If the goal of this system is to place greater value on labor, why not have a coal miner make more the president since he or she actually labors so much harder? Sure, the president has a lot of big thinking to do, granted, so does an inventor. Does the inventor of the pet rock get paid the same scale as the inventor of the smart phone or an MRI machine? Is there a prevailing wage schedule for every job ever, and must be amended every time a new occupation comes about?
The concept seems noble, but then again they always do. I don't know your plan for implementation, but I'm having trouble seeing it implemented with anything less than an absolute dictator with a bureau twice the size and twice as mean as the IRS at their disposal.
***Edit: I re-read your statement about the president, and you said his job was most important, and not the hardest / most difficult.
1. Boost productivity while keeping worker wages flat.
The trend is unmistakable, and startling: productivity has continued unabated while wages have simply stopped growing. Improved technologies have reduced the need for workers while globalization has introduced the corporate world to cheap labor. In effect, the workers who built a productive America over a half-century stopped getting paid for their efforts.
Paul Krugman suggests that a "sharp increase in monopoly power" is another reason for the disparity. As John D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin." That certainly is the rule of thumb in banking and agriculture and health insurance and cell phones. Yet despite the fact that low-wage jobs are increasingly defining the American labor market, apologists for our meager minimum wage claim an increase will worsen unemployment. So it remains at $7.25. A minimum wage linked to productivity would be $21.00 per hour.
2. Build up a financial industry that has no maximum wage.
This is where the money is. In 2007, before the financial crisis, a Harvard survey revealed that almost half of the school's seniors aspired to careers in finance. The industry's share of corporate profits grew from 16% in 1980 to an astonishing 45% in 2002.
And there's no limit to the earning potential. Hedge fund manager John Paulson conspired with Goldman Sachs in 2007 to bundle sure-to-fail subprime mortgages in attractive packages, with just enough time for Paulson to collect other people's money to bet against his personally designed financial instruments. He made $3.7 billion, enough to pay the salaries of 100,000 new teachers.
3. Keep accumulating wealth created by the financial industry.
Experienced schemers have undoubtedly observed that over the past 100 years the stock market has grown three times faster than the GDP. The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of such non-home wealth.
In the last 25 years, only the richest 5% of Americans have increased their share of non-home wealth, by the impressive rate of almost 20 percent.
In just one year, the richest 20 Americans earned more from their investments than the entire U.S. education budget.
4. Tax yourself as little as possible.
The easiest and least productive way to make money - holding on to investments - is also taxed at the lowest rate. In addition to the capital gains benefit, tax ploys like carried interest, performance-related pay, stock options, and deferred compensation allow hedge fund managers and CEOs to pay less than low-income Americans, and possibly even nothing at all.
The richest 400 taxpayers doubled their income in just seven years while cutting their tax rates nearly in half. U.S. corporations can match that, doubling their profits and cutting their taxes by more than half in under ten years. The 1.3 million individuals in the richest 1% cut their federal tax burden from 34% to 23% in just 25 years.
5. Lend out your excess money to people who can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle.
As stated by Thom Hartmann, "The 'Takers' own vast wealth, and loan it out at interest to everybody from students to governments.." Overall, Americans are burdened with over $11 trillion in consumer debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit card liabilities.
Wealth has largely disappeared for the middle- and lower-income classes. More than $7 trillion has been lost in the decline of home prices since 2006. Young college graduates have an average of $27,200 in student loans, and the 21-35 age group has lost 68% of its median net worth since 1984, leaving each of them about $4,000. Median net worth for single black and Hispanic women is a little over $100.
The value that's put on the almighty dollar is pretty sad, if you ask me.
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
I don't see how we can eliminate poverty without eliminating unearned income at the top. Likewise, there shouldn't be any unearned income at the bottom. If people are able to work, but refuse to, then (and only then) is their poverty their fault, and no one should else should have to pay for it. The way to end unjustified poverty is to create an honest system of labor.
In this system you would like to create, how are goods and materials priced? Who decides what is "honest" labor? Why should the president be paid the most? The last I checked, he hardly ever has to lift a finger, physically speaking, lots of travelling aside. If the goal of this system is to place greater value on labor, why not have a coal miner make more the president since he or she actually labors so much harder? Sure, the president has a lot of big thinking to do, granted, so does an inventor. Does the inventor of the pet rock get paid the same scale as the inventor of the smart phone or an MRI machine? Is there a prevailing wage schedule for every job ever, and must be amended every time a new occupation comes about?
The concept seems noble, but then again they always do. I don't know your plan for implementation, but I'm having trouble seeing it implemented with anything less than an absolute dictator with a bureau twice the size and twice as mean as the IRS at their disposal.
***Edit: I re-read your statement about the president, and you said his job was most important, and not the hardest / most difficult.
I think once honest labor is established, the prices of goods and services will have to be determined in a much more honest way in the marketplace. I don't think we need total control of the marketplace... I think there is a lot of good in some degree of free trade. I don't think we would need more government to create an honest labor system, I actually think we would need less. It's more about setting up laws and enforcing them then about having government as the middle man.
If we pay the President the most money, then the most qualified people for that job will seek that job. I think the President currently makes $400,000. We could up that to $500,000, and the minimum salary could be something like $50,000. To which one might reply, what about teenagers working part-time or summer jobs? We could have different rules for that... My main point is that we should work toward a system of equitable employment for all who can work, rather than extorting and exploiting one another. I guess that's too much to ask for in the world... but I'll never understand why.
I think once honest labor is established, the prices of goods and services will have to be determined in a much more honest way in the marketplace. I don't think we need total control of the marketplace... I think there is a lot of good in some degree of free trade. I don't think we would need more government to create an honest labor system, I actually think we would need less. It's more about setting up laws and enforcing them then about having government as the middle man.
If we pay the President the most money, then the most qualified people for that job will seek that job. I think the President currently makes $400,000. We could up that to $500,000, and the minimum salary could be something like $50,000. To which one might reply, what about teenagers working part-time or summer jobs? We could have different rules for that... My main point is that we should work toward a system of equitable employment for all who can work, rather than extorting and exploiting one another. I guess that's too much to ask for in the world... but I'll never understand why.
As Judge Smails so eloquently put it, "the world needs ditch diggers too."
What do you honestly think would happen to the price of goods and services if everyone suddenly received 1,000,000? We would all be better off right? if everyone had a million dollars who would pick up trash? How much would a pack of skittles be? If you look at what happens to the value of a dollar and its relative purchasing power it wouldn't be a good thing in the long run.
What is your answer to this question; who would pick up the garbage and wash dishes at a restaurant if everyone lived comfortably? Who would push the boundaries of what a computer can do if there was no reward? Who would put the effort in to invent the ipod without proper compensation for the product?
Right now there is a certain type of person who pursue the dream of being a CEO because of the money...based on some of their behavior, I am not sure we would want someone who goes after being president because it has the HIGHEST salary out there...I think we get a better quality individual BECAUSE it isn't the highest paid position, which isn't saying much considering the character of some of the folks who have been president.
I hate poverty, I give my free time and resources, and a large portion of my work day to those who are less fortunate than myself...but I do not feel guilty for what I have, no one just handed me this job, no one handed me my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart...Life isn't fair. In all seriousness, Eddie Vedder once said in a speech that will forever be my savior, " [things] probably won’t change unless you make them.
The best way to change something around you, something you don’t like, is to change
yourself."
I realize not everyone will end up being a ceo, or a president, but everyone can be something if they work hard enough. Make no mistake about it, some have to work MUCH harder than others and will never achieve the same thing, but they can still be very happy with life...
People need help, I get that, and we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be. But forcing regulations and caps on income is not the way to help everyone, it is the way to bring some up and some down to a certain level and I am not sure the results would be what you think they would be
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As Judge Smails so eloquently put it, "the world needs ditch diggers too."
What do you honestly think would happen to the price of goods and services if everyone suddenly received 1,000,000? We would all be better off right? if everyone had a million dollars who would pick up trash? How much would a pack of skittles be? If you look at what happens to the value of a dollar and its relative purchasing power it wouldn't be a good thing in the long run.
What is your answer to this question; who would pick up the garbage and wash dishes at a restaurant if everyone lived comfortably? Who would push the boundaries of what a computer can do if there was no reward? Who would put the effort in to invent the ipod without proper compensation for the product?
Right now there is a certain type of person who pursue the dream of being a CEO because of the money...based on some of their behavior, I am not sure we would want someone who goes after being president because it has the HIGHEST salary out there...I think we get a better quality individual BECAUSE it isn't the highest paid position, which isn't saying much considering the character of some of the folks who have been president.
I hate poverty, I give my free time and resources, and a large portion of my work day to those who are less fortunate than myself...but I do not feel guilty for what I have, no one just handed me this job, no one handed me my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart...Life isn't fair. In all seriousness, Eddie Vedder once said in a speech that will forever be my savior, " [things] probably won’t change unless you make them.
The best way to change something around you, something you don’t like, is to change
yourself."
I realize not everyone will end up being a ceo, or a president, but everyone can be something if they work hard enough. Make no mistake about it, some have to work MUCH harder than others and will never achieve the same thing, but they can still be very happy with life...
People need help, I get that, and we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be. But forcing regulations and caps on income is not the way to help everyone, it is the way to bring some up and some down to a certain level and I am not sure the results would be what you think they would be
Probably the best thread overall, I've read here.
Cult? Maybe, but this tag could be applied to many systems of control.
Overall, I agree with somebody's statement; "Capitalism isn't the problem. Actions of certain folks within that framework is. And there's no economic theory that mitigates that."
From this statement on, this thread then flowed toward individual responsibility, individual worth and opportunity. Basically, if we are allowed to flourish & compelled to strive -- we will. Education & lack of oppression create the backdrop but only a healthy dose of individual thus expanding societal, morals & ethics can trump the greed or dog-eat-dog base mentality of humans; our measure-up meter that prevents us from becoming just another Madoff-like scumbag.
Thread then flows into yet another engaging area; viable ways in which to fix what's broken.
For a communal species, there will always be some form of governing, it's just a matter of how dominant. In that, we are a species that comes with a few basic requirements in order to survive so we gravitated from a barter system to a free market conducted by coins of real value, then onto an unbridled capitalistic brand where paper money's being replaced by digital-value trading. An event that has stocks & bank notes zooming around the world in nano seconds colliding, regrouping one power move onto another so fast, our brains can't keep track of it all so we invented robo-traders thereby completely remove all traces of basic human ingredients such as integrity from the picture -- but not our competitive streak. Robo-trader ITs' were conceived in the pool of dog-eat-dog competition. Like the song 'all of this is moving at the speed of sound' . I suspect this how we suddenly awakened to find we've landed at an oligarchy juncture.
So...
1) do we back up and regroup and if so, back to which juncture?
2) do we press on with all that we've learned, but only this time, to finally but finally, emblazon in our minds that it's OUR job to maintain healthy societal parameters? Parameters that we all know have been breached from the very ruling-duo cadre at our helm. Will we begin to shore this up by first voicing loud opposition to these transgressions and if so, where & how do you want to begin as it's a one voice at time process?
Powermongers who rule over us, (gov/corp now intertwined) left unchecked by us, are likely more susceptible to all that can so easily render any of us vulnerable to all that corrupts, but when it happens on their playing field, it becomes a mudslide catastrophe in the making and we become little more than accumulating debris as their recklessness gains momentum, driving us all into a crash-landing bottom.
I think once honest labor is established, the prices of goods and services will have to be determined in a much more honest way in the marketplace. I don't think we need total control of the marketplace... I think there is a lot of good in some degree of free trade. I don't think we would need more government to create an honest labor system, I actually think we would need less. It's more about setting up laws and enforcing them then about having government as the middle man.
If we pay the President the most money, then the most qualified people for that job will seek that job. I think the President currently makes $400,000. We could up that to $500,000, and the minimum salary could be something like $50,000. To which one might reply, what about teenagers working part-time or summer jobs? We could have different rules for that... My main point is that we should work toward a system of equitable employment for all who can work, rather than extorting and exploiting one another. I guess that's too much to ask for in the world... but I'll never understand why.
As Judge Smails so eloquently put it, "the world needs ditch diggers too."
What do you honestly think would happen to the price of goods and services if everyone suddenly received 1,000,000? We would all be better off right? if everyone had a million dollars who would pick up trash? How much would a pack of skittles be? If you look at what happens to the value of a dollar and its relative purchasing power it wouldn't be a good thing in the long run.
What is your answer to this question; who would pick up the garbage and wash dishes at a restaurant if everyone lived comfortably? Who would push the boundaries of what a computer can do if there was no reward? Who would put the effort in to invent the ipod without proper compensation for the product?
Right now there is a certain type of person who pursue the dream of being a CEO because of the money...based on some of their behavior, I am not sure we would want someone who goes after being president because it has the HIGHEST salary out there...I think we get a better quality individual BECAUSE it isn't the highest paid position, which isn't saying much considering the character of some of the folks who have been president.
I hate poverty, I give my free time and resources, and a large portion of my work day to those who are less fortunate than myself...but I do not feel guilty for what I have, no one just handed me this job, no one handed me my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart...Life isn't fair. In all seriousness, Eddie Vedder once said in a speech that will forever be my savior, " [things] probably won’t change unless you make them.
The best way to change something around you, something you don’t like, is to change
yourself."
I realize not everyone will end up being a ceo, or a president, but everyone can be something if they work hard enough. Make no mistake about it, some have to work MUCH harder than others and will never achieve the same thing, but they can still be very happy with life...
People need help, I get that, and we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be. But forcing regulations and caps on income is not the way to help everyone, it is the way to bring some up and some down to a certain level and I am not sure the results would be what you think they would be
You're making baseless assumptions about my way of thinking and arguing against those assumptions.
It would be ridiculous to give $1,000,000 to everyone. I'm not proposing that anyone by given anything. I'm only proposing that we do our best to ensure that people earn the right of amount of compensation for their work. And of course the world needs ditch diggers, and people to work in waste management, and clean up restaurants, etc. People work to make money, and it's generally not something that is fun. When I say all people should live comfortably, I don't mean that their work should never be unpleasant. In fact, I think all people should do their fair share of the very unpleasant work... it shouldn't all fall on the people who get cast as the underlings of society. Of course, brilliant people should be doctors and mayors and hold other positions where their intelligence can be put to good use, and not have their talents wasted on too much menial work, but currently we exploit the people who aren't born with great minds and have them do all the shit work, and that just ain't fucking right. There should be a community service requirement for all citizens... could be something you do for a year or two right after high school. It would teach kids to have some respect for their community, and give them some perspective before they go off to college or into a career.
Fine, life isn't fair... but that's not an excuse to not do what we can to make it fairer... "liberty and justice for all" shouldn't be just words that we recite as children and don't attempt to live up to as adults.
You're making baseless assumptions about my way of thinking and arguing against those assumptions.
It would be ridiculous to give $1,000,000 to everyone. I'm not proposing that anyone by given anything. I'm only proposing that we do our best to ensure that people earn the right of amount of compensation for their work. And of course the world needs ditch diggers, and people to work in waste management, and clean up restaurants, etc. People work to make money, and it's generally not something that is fun. When I say all people should live comfortably, I don't mean that their work should never be unpleasant. In fact, I think all people should do their fair share of the very unpleasant work... it shouldn't all fall on the people who get cast as the underlings of society. Of course, brilliant people should be doctors and mayors and hold other positions where their intelligence can be put to good use, and not have their talents wasted on too much menial work, but currently we exploit the people who aren't born with great minds and have them do all the shit work, and that just ain't fucking right. There should be a community service requirement for all citizens... could be something you do for a year or two right after high school. It would teach kids to have some respect for their community, and give them some perspective before they go off to college or into a career.
Fine, life isn't fair... but that's not an excuse to not do what we can to make it fairer... "liberty and justice for all" shouldn't be just words that we recite as children and don't attempt to live up to as adults.
First my assumptions weren't baseless, limiting income and forcing a bottom line won't solve the problem you wish it to solve. Secondly, I chose a million dollars to prove a point, 50,000 would do the same thing...Poverty isn't a certain number of dollars, it is a purchasing power of dollars problem.
The answer isn't to cap the prices, because then less people have work, the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create.
How would you suggest people be not exploited? by forcing a certain wage on the job? Is it just to cap someone's earnings? I am guessing you and I disagree on that, and the rest of it stems from that.
Maybe you are right, maybe capping income is the true answer to how we solve poverty, but I tend to think it isn't. You never did answer my question, what happens to innovation when there is no reward equal to the initial investment?
Lastly, I did say this:
People need help, I get that, and I am sure we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be though.
I am all for helping people, I do it all the time in one way or another. Because a journey is easier for some than it is for others doesn't make life unjust. When you say things like, 'of course brilliant people should be doctors', and then say we exploit those 'born without great minds' I get confused. Wouldn't forcing people who are intelligent to work harder to attain a certain level of education be exploiting them as well if we cap their potential?
again I will say it, this whole world seems to revolve around needs and wants...what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First my assumptions weren't baseless, limiting income and forcing a bottom line won't solve the problem you wish it to solve. Secondly, I chose a million dollars to prove a point, 50,000 would do the same thing...Poverty isn't a certain number of dollars, it is a purchasing power of dollars problem.
The answer isn't to cap the prices, because then less people have work, the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create.
How would you suggest people be not exploited? by forcing a certain wage on the job? Is it just to cap someone's earnings? I am guessing you and I disagree on that, and the rest of it stems from that.
Maybe you are right, maybe capping income is the true answer to how we solve poverty, but I tend to think it isn't. You never did answer my question, what happens to innovation when there is no reward equal to the initial investment?
Lastly, I did say this:
People need help, I get that, and I am sure we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be though.
I am all for helping people, I do it all the time in one way or another. Because a journey is easier for some than it is for others doesn't make life unjust. When you say things like, 'of course brilliant people should be doctors', and then say we exploit those 'born without great minds' I get confused. Wouldn't forcing people who are intelligent to work harder to attain a certain level of education be exploiting them as well if we cap their potential?
again I will say it, this whole world seems to revolve around needs and wants...what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need.
Your assumptions were baseless, and you've followed up with more baseless assumptions.
"I chose a million dollars to prove a point" - You haven't proved any point.
"the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create" - That is completely baseless. People don't need the possibility of one day having millions of dollars to inspire them to create great and important things. And I don't need to explain why what I just said is true.
More important than capping income is making sure people earn a just compensation. No more, and no less. Most people would earn somewhere between the minimum and maximum. We could create a formula to determine the living wage, and make that the minimum wage, while setting the maximum at 10 times the minimum wage... or 11 times... or 12 times... but it's not arbitrary... it would be based on what we think as a democratic society that jobs are worth.
Most people don't need help. They need a society that respects them. They need just compensation. We should work toward creating a society where people need less and less help.
First my assumptions weren't baseless, limiting income and forcing a bottom line won't solve the problem you wish it to solve. Secondly, I chose a million dollars to prove a point, 50,000 would do the same thing...Poverty isn't a certain number of dollars, it is a purchasing power of dollars problem.
The answer isn't to cap the prices, because then less people have work, the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create.
How would you suggest people be not exploited? by forcing a certain wage on the job? Is it just to cap someone's earnings? I am guessing you and I disagree on that, and the rest of it stems from that.
Maybe you are right, maybe capping income is the true answer to how we solve poverty, but I tend to think it isn't. You never did answer my question, what happens to innovation when there is no reward equal to the initial investment?
Lastly, I did say this:
People need help, I get that, and I am sure we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be though.
I am all for helping people, I do it all the time in one way or another. Because a journey is easier for some than it is for others doesn't make life unjust. When you say things like, 'of course brilliant people should be doctors', and then say we exploit those 'born without great minds' I get confused. Wouldn't forcing people who are intelligent to work harder to attain a certain level of education be exploiting them as well if we cap their potential?
again I will say it, this whole world seems to revolve around needs and wants...what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need.
Your assumptions were baseless, and you've followed up with more baseless assumptions.
"I chose a million dollars to prove a point" - You haven't proved any point.
"the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create" - That is completely baseless. People don't need the possibility of one day having millions of dollars to inspire them to create great and important things. And I don't need to explain why what I just said is true.
More important than capping income is making sure people earn a just compensation. No more, and no less. Most people would earn somewhere between the minimum and maximum. We could create a formula to determine the living wage, and make that the minimum wage, while setting the maximum at 10 times the minimum wage... or 11 times... or 12 times... but it's not arbitrary... it would be based on what we think as a democratic society that jobs are worth.
Most people don't need help. They need a society that respects them. They need just compensation. We should work toward creating a society where people need less and less help.
what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need and deserve.
The point I proved, whether you like it or not, with using 1 million dollars as an example was that the concept of a certain amount of money being the end of poverty and the change to living comfortably for all who wish to earn it just isn't as simple as saying it is x amount, or even the result of a formula because it is impossible to calculate every possible cost that would affect that dollar amount for every single person...the purchasing power of that dollar will adjust to the amount of dollars that are out there no matter who has them...Supply and demand still applies in a wage capped world. Unless you manage every single aspect of the economy, from pricing of gum to the pricing of homes, I don't see it working. How on earth would that be possible? do we cap profits for corporations as well? what happens to the rest of the money? does the government just get to keep it and use it as they see fit? is it distributed equally among all people? Do all nations have to subscribe to your philosophy for it to work?
Honestly, do you not see one bad thing happening with your model?
as for the rest, I guess I am not comfortable with the amount of innovation we would have without proper compensation for those individuals. People don't push the envelope technologically so that they can have their name in the paper. Most don't know who invented a technology used by millions every day, CDMA, I am wondering what would be the advantage of MASSIVE infrastructure improvements made by private companies like Sprint's revision to 4g LTE? you may not need to explain why you think they would continue, but I sure would love it if you would...Lot's of money as a reward is not necessary for innovation or for great things, but I just don't think you can argue with the idea that it sure as hell speeds it up and gets more people in on it...
If my assumptions are baseless than they are floating just below, above, or next to yours
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
It is true, mikepegg, that many of us work at the job of our choice. I just think if we pay teacher a low salary we will get what we pay for unless a particular teacher gives more that what they are paid which many do.
As a teacher, I believed the same- that I was worth more than I was paid. I certainly believe that about being in the used book business. But I can afford to be underpaid because I don't have kids in the home to care for and I have a reasonably comfortable life. The only problem is that I will have to work until I drop dead. Is a darned good thing I like what I do!
Yeah- cult doesn't seem like the right word.
No utopia- that's for sure. I think what we're trying to do here- at least I hope so- is discuss better ways to do things- to make it possible for people to be fulfilled, satisfied, safe and healthy. There's some idealism for you!
im not sure i see the correlation between salve owners and capitalism, maybe slavery in general but i havent slept well the past few nights so im not as sharp as usual... first i dont see capitalism as an extreme cult, are there fanatics that think capitalism is the be all end all? certainly but i dont think most think of it as a cult. anyway to answer your question
were American slave owners members of this capitalist extremist cult? yes and no
actually this just came to mind...i think i missed the entire point of this thread since it was started!
What makes some happy is not what makes all happy. The more free we all are to pursue those goals the better. I think it is up to you to find happiness no matter what your station in life is. My life doesn't need to change to make you happy, and vice versa, I shouldn't expect a degradation of your life, no matter how small, that doesn't come willingly from you in order to improve my life. when I lived downtown in Minneapolis I walked past a smiling homeless man every day. He sang gospel songs and wished everyone a happy morning. He was certainly happier than I was those days, and probably most days since the last time talked to him...I realized that it was me making me unhappy, not anyone else...longing for what others have can only lead to an unfulfilled life...
Does capitalism have issues, sure every system does...when one is the dominant form we will often 'noble savage' the hell out of other forms claiming how great they can be, but often will ignore the problems that are inherently possible and the unintended consequences that create a terrible situation for some and a great one for others
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well, no one other than you really answered the question, but I'll get to my point anyway
It all depends on how one defines "capitalism." More and more people are defining capitalism to mean making money off of other people in Machiavellian fashion. Slavery, which included the endorsement and sanctioning of force against other individuals by government on behalf of slave-owners would fit that definition. By this definition, slave-owners would be extreme capitalists.
However, free-market capitalism, which is what I think of when I hear capitalism, would promote exactly the opposite of slavery. Under that system, the government is supposed to protect against coercion, and at its most intrusive level enforce voluntary contracts. This system isn't free of people trying to take advantage of each other. No system is. Humanity has to overcome its very nature for that to happen. But at least there is choice in this system, and a series of checks and balances by the market and government alike, so long as the government is playing its proper role of protecting against fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, and doing nothing more, nothing less.
I'm all for abandoning the use of the world "capitalism" as a synonym for the free-market because it has lost its original meaning to most of the population. What left-leaning people are railing against when they are railing against capitalism is likely what free-marketers are also railing against: corporatism. Now there's a system that uses the force of government, and even manipulates the laws to legally permit fraud, theft, assault, vandalism, extortion, and coercion, all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations. Corporatists play the game so well because they not only re-write the rules to their benefit, but also own the referee, or play the role of referee themselves.
awesome post!
i get everything except "all while burdening competition with excess and impractical regulations" can u give an example of what you refer to here?
An excerpt from this article that I found in a quick google search about Monsanto using regulation to their benefit, pay more attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. In a nutshell, large corporations lobby for regulatory requirements that only their vast-reaching resources can provide at low cost, and smaller businesses are muscled out:
http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
"The Regulatory Irony
Laws governing biotechnology continue to favour agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, but as the industry has developed, the corporate push for specific types of regulations has taken ironic twists. The initial lack of a cautious regulatory approach enabled small biotechnology companies to develop and market new bioengineered products at a rapid pace. In the meantime, larger agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy were buying up these small companies while developing their own expansive in-house biotechnology research and marketing operations. During this time, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and several other agribusiness corporations came virtually to dominate the world market for bioengineered food products, strengthening their hold over much of the world's food supply.
From their position at the top, Monsanto and other corporations have actually favoured some seemingly tight regulations, but, it turns out, only when the regulations serve corporate marketing purposes. Regulations that require corporations to submit a plethora of costly scientific data to regulatory agencies, for example, discourage competition from smaller biotechnology and seed companies while giving the public the illusion that new biotechnology products undergo rigorous safety evaluations and are therefore safe.
In 1995, for example, Monsanto lobbied against a provision in the EPA funding bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating agricultural plants bioengineered to contain the toxic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Genetically engineered foods had just hit the market, and Monsanto was fully aware that almost any EPA regulations for Bt plants would publicly sanction the genetically engineered products and defuse resistance from public interest environmental groups. Furthermore, corporations could only get their Bt products to market if they had extensive money and resources to jump through all the regulatory hoops. Big corporations alone can meet data requirements and, once in the system, manipulate and pass the EPA's safety evaluation process. With the competition out of the way, the market is theirs."
The difference is capitalism says any amount of money a person receives for work is earned income. But does anyone really earn $3,500,000.00 per hour? Or even $350.00 per hour?
I think we need to come together to decide upon maximum and minimum salaries that are fair.
For starters, what is the most important job in America? President, right? Why should anyone earn more money than the President? The President's salary should be the maximum salary. The minimum salary should be an amount that any person can live on comfortably.
To Kenny - I think "importance" is subjective (as is comfort). I just don't believe it's anyone's place to dictate what someone *should* earn. (and perhaps "earn" is subjective as well.)
Society has been dictating through their representative government what people should and should not do since the founding of our government. Yes, these terms are subjective, but so are such terms as liberty and justice. Society can decide in a general way what these terms mean.
While I'm not a Twitter user, I have to give credit to the person(s) who came up with the idea. It'd be ridiculous for me to declare they shouldn't have the wealth (again, subjective word but here specifically related to money), or put a cap on it. Look at the person who invented the Pet Rock and made a fortune from it. Sure it was a silly idea, but it was a silly idea that people loved and spent their money on. Good for these people. Money doesn't have to be the only goal for inventions or ideas, but it sure doesn't hurt.
So... you think inventing the Pet Rock entitles a person to more wealth than a person working the overnight shift in a nursing home or any solider on the front line of battle... and that's there's no way we could come together to decide that certain jobs or certain inventions have a certain worth... just let the market sort it out, no matter what... even though we have our government make life and death decisions all the time? That's your assessment, huh? Well I don't reach that conclusion, and I will keep on fighting for a society that makes a lot more sense than that.
Of course, this notion that you earn what you're worth is utter nonsense to begin with. Consider your average doctor or surgeon. This is a person who regularly deals in one of the most valuable commodities available; another person's life, yet they are heavily regulated by the government and may only bill according to very specific guidelines. Doctors can't simply pass you a bill for what they feel their services are worth. There are many other industries have similar regulations or restrictions on pricing. Conversely there are businesses where the operator may set his own rates and let the market decide whether the goods or services are worth what the operator is asking for.
If you want a truly free market, any person should be able to set his or her own prices for services rendered. The best surgeon should be able to bill $50,000,000 per hour if he so chooses. Chances are he will clean house when Donald Trump or another billionaire comes to call. If you are a star in your field, why shouldn't you be able to extort others for your full worth just as they would do to you? It seems to me that we pick and choose different sets of rules for different members of society. The uber rich don't want restrictions on their earning potential yet we decree doctors an essential service and deprive them of the right to hold us for a king's ransom.
Yes, let's build a society based on extorting one another.
Honestly, that is some of the most twisted logic I've ever read.
But yeah, the Pet Rock is one of many examples of the free market (I think blueandwhite made some excellent points on this as well).
You know what I'd like to see? Not that people are paid what they're worth, not that society should should put limits on how much a profession can make. I'd like to see poverty erased. I'd like to see that everyone can live somewhat comfortably yet within their means, that no one has to worry about going to work sick because they can't afford to stay home, that cooperation is valued more than competition. But it's a dream because America worships money way more than people.
One thing I believe will absolutely happen, that the preoccupation with money will be human's downfall and ultimately will be the reason for the specie's demise.
Dear Jeanwah, I truly feel that you are concerned with nothing. I would say that most people have a realistic value of money but it is sad when some people put the pursuit of money ahead of love and joy. It is sad when people are forced to work crazy hours to cover the basics. Or are forced to take a low paying job because there are so many qualified people out there looking for the same jobs. Just because people are striving for more doesn't mean they worship the dollar; isn't nice to buy cool shit that you want? And you know what? People are in general good, charitable, and generous. Rich people almost always contribute to charity...think about it.
You should feel good about poverty in the US because it isn't that bad really. Homelessness is practically erased except for mentally ill people which is the biggest problem in this country and is never mentioned. There is no reason what so ever for a person to not have the basics. There are food stamps, cash subsidies, rent subsidies, and if you get sick or fucked up in an accident you can go to the ER with an ambulance ride. And if a law abiding person wants they can go to college with grants and loans. Poverty in America is not anything like some of our grandparents went through. So be happy about that.
I am sorry but you are very wrong when you think that Americans care more about money than people; it's just simply not true. Sure, you can find horrible people out there but there are way more truly good/decent people out there. I would bet my '96 Istanbul poster that every single person you know is a good person because you have a good heart.
I think the biggest problem America has drug abuse. I'll tell you this...a drug addict is greedy and worships money more than people. People who need their drug and don't have the money will fucking kill people for their money and people addicted with money will spend until it runs out or they are dead.
So count your blessings and seek out the good in people it makes life more enjoyable.
Peace and Love
I thought that was what the US free market was already based on extortion. The only difference as it now stands is that not everybody is allowed to play.
I don't see how we can eliminate poverty without eliminating unearned income at the top. Likewise, there shouldn't be any unearned income at the bottom. If people are able to work, but refuse to, then (and only then) is their poverty their fault, and no one should else should have to pay for it. The way to end unjustified poverty is to create an honest system of labor.
In this system you would like to create, how are goods and materials priced? Who decides what is "honest" labor? Why should the president be paid the most? The last I checked, he hardly ever has to lift a finger, physically speaking, lots of travelling aside. If the goal of this system is to place greater value on labor, why not have a coal miner make more the president since he or she actually labors so much harder? Sure, the president has a lot of big thinking to do, granted, so does an inventor. Does the inventor of the pet rock get paid the same scale as the inventor of the smart phone or an MRI machine? Is there a prevailing wage schedule for every job ever, and must be amended every time a new occupation comes about?
The concept seems noble, but then again they always do. I don't know your plan for implementation, but I'm having trouble seeing it implemented with anything less than an absolute dictator with a bureau twice the size and twice as mean as the IRS at their disposal.
***Edit: I re-read your statement about the president, and you said his job was most important, and not the hardest / most difficult.
1. Boost productivity while keeping worker wages flat.
The trend is unmistakable, and startling: productivity has continued unabated while wages have simply stopped growing. Improved technologies have reduced the need for workers while globalization has introduced the corporate world to cheap labor. In effect, the workers who built a productive America over a half-century stopped getting paid for their efforts.
Paul Krugman suggests that a "sharp increase in monopoly power" is another reason for the disparity. As John D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin." That certainly is the rule of thumb in banking and agriculture and health insurance and cell phones. Yet despite the fact that low-wage jobs are increasingly defining the American labor market, apologists for our meager minimum wage claim an increase will worsen unemployment. So it remains at $7.25. A minimum wage linked to productivity would be $21.00 per hour.
2. Build up a financial industry that has no maximum wage.
This is where the money is. In 2007, before the financial crisis, a Harvard survey revealed that almost half of the school's seniors aspired to careers in finance. The industry's share of corporate profits grew from 16% in 1980 to an astonishing 45% in 2002.
And there's no limit to the earning potential. Hedge fund manager John Paulson conspired with Goldman Sachs in 2007 to bundle sure-to-fail subprime mortgages in attractive packages, with just enough time for Paulson to collect other people's money to bet against his personally designed financial instruments. He made $3.7 billion, enough to pay the salaries of 100,000 new teachers.
3. Keep accumulating wealth created by the financial industry.
Experienced schemers have undoubtedly observed that over the past 100 years the stock market has grown three times faster than the GDP. The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of such non-home wealth.
In the last 25 years, only the richest 5% of Americans have increased their share of non-home wealth, by the impressive rate of almost 20 percent.
In just one year, the richest 20 Americans earned more from their investments than the entire U.S. education budget.
4. Tax yourself as little as possible.
The easiest and least productive way to make money - holding on to investments - is also taxed at the lowest rate. In addition to the capital gains benefit, tax ploys like carried interest, performance-related pay, stock options, and deferred compensation allow hedge fund managers and CEOs to pay less than low-income Americans, and possibly even nothing at all.
The richest 400 taxpayers doubled their income in just seven years while cutting their tax rates nearly in half. U.S. corporations can match that, doubling their profits and cutting their taxes by more than half in under ten years. The 1.3 million individuals in the richest 1% cut their federal tax burden from 34% to 23% in just 25 years.
5. Lend out your excess money to people who can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle.
As stated by Thom Hartmann, "The 'Takers' own vast wealth, and loan it out at interest to everybody from students to governments.." Overall, Americans are burdened with over $11 trillion in consumer debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit card liabilities.
Wealth has largely disappeared for the middle- and lower-income classes. More than $7 trillion has been lost in the decline of home prices since 2006. Young college graduates have an average of $27,200 in student loans, and the 21-35 age group has lost 68% of its median net worth since 1984, leaving each of them about $4,000. Median net worth for single black and Hispanic women is a little over $100.
I think once honest labor is established, the prices of goods and services will have to be determined in a much more honest way in the marketplace. I don't think we need total control of the marketplace... I think there is a lot of good in some degree of free trade. I don't think we would need more government to create an honest labor system, I actually think we would need less. It's more about setting up laws and enforcing them then about having government as the middle man.
If we pay the President the most money, then the most qualified people for that job will seek that job. I think the President currently makes $400,000. We could up that to $500,000, and the minimum salary could be something like $50,000. To which one might reply, what about teenagers working part-time or summer jobs? We could have different rules for that... My main point is that we should work toward a system of equitable employment for all who can work, rather than extorting and exploiting one another. I guess that's too much to ask for in the world... but I'll never understand why.
As Judge Smails so eloquently put it, "the world needs ditch diggers too."
What do you honestly think would happen to the price of goods and services if everyone suddenly received 1,000,000? We would all be better off right? if everyone had a million dollars who would pick up trash? How much would a pack of skittles be? If you look at what happens to the value of a dollar and its relative purchasing power it wouldn't be a good thing in the long run.
What is your answer to this question; who would pick up the garbage and wash dishes at a restaurant if everyone lived comfortably? Who would push the boundaries of what a computer can do if there was no reward? Who would put the effort in to invent the ipod without proper compensation for the product?
Right now there is a certain type of person who pursue the dream of being a CEO because of the money...based on some of their behavior, I am not sure we would want someone who goes after being president because it has the HIGHEST salary out there...I think we get a better quality individual BECAUSE it isn't the highest paid position, which isn't saying much considering the character of some of the folks who have been president.
I hate poverty, I give my free time and resources, and a large portion of my work day to those who are less fortunate than myself...but I do not feel guilty for what I have, no one just handed me this job, no one handed me my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart...Life isn't fair. In all seriousness, Eddie Vedder once said in a speech that will forever be my savior, " [things] probably won’t change unless you make them.
The best way to change something around you, something you don’t like, is to change
yourself."
I realize not everyone will end up being a ceo, or a president, but everyone can be something if they work hard enough. Make no mistake about it, some have to work MUCH harder than others and will never achieve the same thing, but they can still be very happy with life...
People need help, I get that, and we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be. But forcing regulations and caps on income is not the way to help everyone, it is the way to bring some up and some down to a certain level and I am not sure the results would be what you think they would be
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Cult? Maybe, but this tag could be applied to many systems of control.
Overall, I agree with somebody's statement; "Capitalism isn't the problem. Actions of certain folks within that framework is. And there's no economic theory that mitigates that."
From this statement on, this thread then flowed toward individual responsibility, individual worth and opportunity. Basically, if we are allowed to flourish & compelled to strive -- we will. Education & lack of oppression create the backdrop but only a healthy dose of individual thus expanding societal, morals & ethics can trump the greed or dog-eat-dog base mentality of humans; our measure-up meter that prevents us from becoming just another Madoff-like scumbag.
Thread then flows into yet another engaging area; viable ways in which to fix what's broken.
For a communal species, there will always be some form of governing, it's just a matter of how dominant. In that, we are a species that comes with a few basic requirements in order to survive so we gravitated from a barter system to a free market conducted by coins of real value, then onto an unbridled capitalistic brand where paper money's being replaced by digital-value trading. An event that has stocks & bank notes zooming around the world in nano seconds colliding, regrouping one power move onto another so fast, our brains can't keep track of it all so we invented robo-traders thereby completely remove all traces of basic human ingredients such as integrity from the picture -- but not our competitive streak. Robo-trader ITs' were conceived in the pool of dog-eat-dog competition. Like the song 'all of this is moving at the speed of sound' . I suspect this how we suddenly awakened to find we've landed at an oligarchy juncture.
So...
1) do we back up and regroup and if so, back to which juncture?
2) do we press on with all that we've learned, but only this time, to finally but finally, emblazon in our minds that it's OUR job to maintain healthy societal parameters? Parameters that we all know have been breached from the very ruling-duo cadre at our helm. Will we begin to shore this up by first voicing loud opposition to these transgressions and if so, where & how do you want to begin as it's a one voice at time process?
Powermongers who rule over us, (gov/corp now intertwined) left unchecked by us, are likely more susceptible to all that can so easily render any of us vulnerable to all that corrupts, but when it happens on their playing field, it becomes a mudslide catastrophe in the making and we become little more than accumulating debris as their recklessness gains momentum, driving us all into a crash-landing bottom.
You're making baseless assumptions about my way of thinking and arguing against those assumptions.
It would be ridiculous to give $1,000,000 to everyone. I'm not proposing that anyone by given anything. I'm only proposing that we do our best to ensure that people earn the right of amount of compensation for their work. And of course the world needs ditch diggers, and people to work in waste management, and clean up restaurants, etc. People work to make money, and it's generally not something that is fun. When I say all people should live comfortably, I don't mean that their work should never be unpleasant. In fact, I think all people should do their fair share of the very unpleasant work... it shouldn't all fall on the people who get cast as the underlings of society. Of course, brilliant people should be doctors and mayors and hold other positions where their intelligence can be put to good use, and not have their talents wasted on too much menial work, but currently we exploit the people who aren't born with great minds and have them do all the shit work, and that just ain't fucking right. There should be a community service requirement for all citizens... could be something you do for a year or two right after high school. It would teach kids to have some respect for their community, and give them some perspective before they go off to college or into a career.
Fine, life isn't fair... but that's not an excuse to not do what we can to make it fairer... "liberty and justice for all" shouldn't be just words that we recite as children and don't attempt to live up to as adults.
First my assumptions weren't baseless, limiting income and forcing a bottom line won't solve the problem you wish it to solve. Secondly, I chose a million dollars to prove a point, 50,000 would do the same thing...Poverty isn't a certain number of dollars, it is a purchasing power of dollars problem.
The answer isn't to cap the prices, because then less people have work, the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create.
How would you suggest people be not exploited? by forcing a certain wage on the job? Is it just to cap someone's earnings? I am guessing you and I disagree on that, and the rest of it stems from that.
Maybe you are right, maybe capping income is the true answer to how we solve poverty, but I tend to think it isn't. You never did answer my question, what happens to innovation when there is no reward equal to the initial investment?
Lastly, I did say this:
People need help, I get that, and I am sure we can figure out the best way to help them, each person probably has a different idea of what that may be though.
I am all for helping people, I do it all the time in one way or another. Because a journey is easier for some than it is for others doesn't make life unjust. When you say things like, 'of course brilliant people should be doctors', and then say we exploit those 'born without great minds' I get confused. Wouldn't forcing people who are intelligent to work harder to attain a certain level of education be exploiting them as well if we cap their potential?
again I will say it, this whole world seems to revolve around needs and wants...what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Your assumptions were baseless, and you've followed up with more baseless assumptions.
"I chose a million dollars to prove a point" - You haven't proved any point.
"the answer isn't to cap the income, because then less people will work hard to create" - That is completely baseless. People don't need the possibility of one day having millions of dollars to inspire them to create great and important things. And I don't need to explain why what I just said is true.
More important than capping income is making sure people earn a just compensation. No more, and no less. Most people would earn somewhere between the minimum and maximum. We could create a formula to determine the living wage, and make that the minimum wage, while setting the maximum at 10 times the minimum wage... or 11 times... or 12 times... but it's not arbitrary... it would be based on what we think as a democratic society that jobs are worth.
Most people don't need help. They need a society that respects them. They need just compensation. We should work toward creating a society where people need less and less help.
what most seem to want is to tell someone else what they need and deserve.
The point I proved, whether you like it or not, with using 1 million dollars as an example was that the concept of a certain amount of money being the end of poverty and the change to living comfortably for all who wish to earn it just isn't as simple as saying it is x amount, or even the result of a formula because it is impossible to calculate every possible cost that would affect that dollar amount for every single person...the purchasing power of that dollar will adjust to the amount of dollars that are out there no matter who has them...Supply and demand still applies in a wage capped world. Unless you manage every single aspect of the economy, from pricing of gum to the pricing of homes, I don't see it working. How on earth would that be possible? do we cap profits for corporations as well? what happens to the rest of the money? does the government just get to keep it and use it as they see fit? is it distributed equally among all people? Do all nations have to subscribe to your philosophy for it to work?
Honestly, do you not see one bad thing happening with your model?
as for the rest, I guess I am not comfortable with the amount of innovation we would have without proper compensation for those individuals. People don't push the envelope technologically so that they can have their name in the paper. Most don't know who invented a technology used by millions every day, CDMA, I am wondering what would be the advantage of MASSIVE infrastructure improvements made by private companies like Sprint's revision to 4g LTE? you may not need to explain why you think they would continue, but I sure would love it if you would...Lot's of money as a reward is not necessary for innovation or for great things, but I just don't think you can argue with the idea that it sure as hell speeds it up and gets more people in on it...
If my assumptions are baseless than they are floating just below, above, or next to yours
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan