Correction. That is what happens when SOCIETY allows the rich to purchase laws. Pffft. Democracy. :lol: Fourty winks.... i thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between freedom and.plutocracy Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
so then i guess my question for you is this. Should rich people be allowed to exist? As long as the lower class have a good standard.of living and society doesnt sell laws, is a wealth gap really so bad? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Every person should be allowed to exist. Do you mean to say,"should rich people be inherent to our society?"? A wealth gap can be negative, as wealthy individuals exert an unproportionate amount of influence over the rest of society, and their wealth is not necessarily distributable with the rest of society, which means that the 'pool' of wealth/resources for the rest of society shrinks. However, would it be moral for us to decide that no wealth 'gap' should exist? How would society enforce this? How would this system be sustainable? I think a society with absolutely no wealth gap is unsustainable and not even possible (even 'communist' countries have incredibly wealthy leaders). I also think a society with too large of a wealth gap is unsustainable (not possible in the long term). The Babylonians were not using differential equations, fancy statistical utility functions and so on, but they had a very good understanding of compound interest. The essence of the problem is related to the dynamics of wealth distribution disparity. Whenever the 1% privileged minority, achieves by force or persuasion, a wealth growth rate consistently higher than the wealth growth of the whole society, the system becomes unstable. Such a system cannot mathematically exist in a stable form. It's doomed to fail from its first day. Let's suppose we have a small Babylonian kingdom with 1000 people. Out of these 1% are the rulers (king, soldiers, high-priests and tax collectors). They are the the privileged. The rest of the 990 subjects are the peasants, craftsmen, builders... basically the serfs. When the kingdom is formed, by settling the land, everybody has an equal net wealth of 1 gold coin (no fiat money). Let's examine two scenarios over 80 years of economic activity: Kingdom 1. Constant population of 1000 people. Initial wealth 1000 gold coins, equally distributed. The land is rich, people industrious and the wealth of the kingdom is growing every year at a rate of 3,7%. The rulers (only 1% of population), because they are rulers, demand of wealth growth of 10.1% year. It shouldn't make a big difference (after all there are only 10 privileged people in the whole kingdom). This is what happens if the rulers increase their wealth at a rate higher than the total increase of wealth in their kingdom: In 78 years all the wealth in the kingdom is captured by the 1% ruling elite. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Kingdom 2. We have the same 1000 Babylonians, starting with 1 gold coin each. The land is not so fertile and the kingdom can grow only at 2.8 % a year. The rulers are greedier and more corrupt, their wealth increasing at a rate of 11% every single year. In the second scenario the rulers acquire all the wealth of the people in only 61 years. The Babylonian economists knew very well nobody can escape the mathematical realities of the compound interest rates or the conservation laws. Not even the kings could do it. When the top 1% elite acquires all the wealth in the country, not only that the 99% majority is destitute, but the elite itself cannot increase anymore its wealth at the previous high levels. The system cannot continue anymore. The Babylonians knew there are only three possible outcomes after this point: a) external injection of wealth in the system by starting a war and looting another kingdom, but that is nothing else than kicking the can further down the road. After a few years, the rulers will acquire again all wealth in the system and then they will need another war and expansion by stealing wealth from the neighbors. This is why empires have to grow or collapse. B) wealth redistribution by violent uprising. The serfs can't take it anymore and rebel. They defeat the unpaid troops (there is not enough money left for paying well the soldiers). The top 1% elite is killed or their wealth is simply 'nationalized' and redistributed to the rest of the population. The problem is that after the bloody revolution, the wealth distribution equality doesn't last for long. The most heroic group or revolutionaries and rebels, who fought for equality, becomes the new elite. This new revolutionary elite starts extracting wealth from the country at a rate, of course, higher than the total rate of economic growth. Wash, rinse, repeat. This is how an economic crisis sparked the French Revolution, and in the end King Louis XVI was replaced by Emperor Napoleon. The new French elite of imperial revolutionaries, in order to increase their own wealth extraction rates without causing another revolt, had to engage in an aggressive campaign of conquest. If Napoleon had won in Russia ... c) wealth redistribution by jubilee-debt forgiveness. That was the favorite Babylonian way, but not because the ancient kings were really charitable and preoccupied for the well being of their subjects. The jubilee was just a partial wealth redistribution reestablishing another start for the income base of the elite. If at the beginning of our hypothetical kingdom, the rulers had only 1% of the wealth, after the jubilee the rulers with restart the process of unsustainable extraction from a 10% base of the total wealth. After the second jubilee they would restart with 20% base .. and so on. The important part is that jubilees make people happy, and they feel rich again, supporting the new king which will start again the unsustainable wealth extraction. This is nothing else than slow boiling a frog in water, in order to perpetuate the hereditary right of the elite to extract wealth from a country. The jubilee is not a charity. It's just the smart elite accepting a temporary decrease in the proportion of the kingdom's wealth they control, in order to preserve their status and being able to pass it to the next generation of rulers. One may argue that such a slow boiling of the serfs with the jubilee trick, doesn't really solve the problem, just kicks the can down the road and ensures the crown for the next generation of the monarchic line. Eventually the refresh base grows high enough the jubilee trick doesn't convince the masses they escaped the debt and poverty trap. After all the Babylonian empire collapsed like any other empire in history.</span></blockquote> http://utterlycorrelated.blogspot.com/2009/03/tale-of-securitized-cod-babylonian.html
So it sounds to me that Coperatism is a mutation of sorts from theoretical Capitalism. In which case, capitalism HAS failed, since in the US it has devolved to a highly flawed corporate wonderland...
As I see it, capitalism would always eventually create government. Unless almost every single person in society was a libertarian... Capitalism eventually concentrates more and more wealth into the hands of a few. These few will protect their wealth through creating/or using a government.
No. Corperatism is a mutation of socialism. Government programs designed to "help" the poor are to blame. Every time minimim wage rises. Small buisnesses get hurt. Corperation take the hit and absorb the extra buisness. Same.goes for regulations and liscences. These keep small fries from playing, while supposedly protecting the consumer, and empowering the corperations. Taxes for healthcare? Same shit. A LACK of capitlalism is what resulted in corperatism Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You keep blaming "capitlaism" like its some sort of "system" Well yea duh. If you allow people freedom some will abuse it. There are ways to bring justice to these people without blaming freedom. blaming capitalism for this is like blaming beer for drunk drivers Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
A government controlled by an oligarchy can corrupt capitalistic virtues. A government based on direct democracy, or actually a significantly weak central government would best avoid any corruption of capitalism.
Drunk driver blame beer Corrupt ceo Blame freedom Yay logic! Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Yes in a way you're right, "true" communism has never fully been implemented, and it would be interesting to see how it would turn out. But it seems far too Utopian in my opinion for it to actually be implemented in human society. People would get paid the same in a true communist society, correct (correct me if I'm wrong)? Now if that is the case, don't you see that aspect detrimental towards human society and progress? For example, if your nations doctors will be getting paid nearly the same as your nation's laborers, people would lose complete motivation to strive for a mentally demanding career path that leads them to becoming doctors. As a result, your nation's doctors would be terrible! Also, I question, in a communist society, who gets to decide how much money you earn? The amount of money people get in a communist society, or the amount of goods they receive I should say, is based on what they "need" correct (again, I may be incorrect about the exact attributes for a true communist society)? Now since you've stated a true communist society would in turn become stateless, then I'd suspect the people would tell me what I need correct? So...if that is truly the case (correct me if I'm wrong lol), don't you see a fallacy in having others tell you what YOU NEED, being it a government or the people? When you talk about "need", you talk about essentials that you need to get by for survival, meaning people would only "need enough rations to survive throughout the nay. And people don't need houses right? Tents could do that job. You see where I'm getting at? It is having that desire for "want" that makes living, well living, and builds up motivation inside others. Again, maybe these are not the precisely correct attributes of communism, and if that's the case I apologize for the mix up.
Capitalism is a system Non capitalism is a system Slavery is a system Freedom is a system Collectivism is a system Individualism is a system
While i do not agree with the first part, the second i applaud you for, here you go This is not directed at you Murray, just a general comment. Show me an ism that works. Im sure ism is synonymous with fuck the people.
If a person is motivated to become a doctor for the money and not for the service providing then he shouldnt be one. I never understood why would someone would set his life s goal to become rich. Either way he s not taking them with him when he dies. A person should lead his life and make choices so that he is happy. You talked about the "want" that acts as a motivation for society. It is this want that has led to modern consumerism, people buying uselless stuff that they dont need that eventually end up in a dumpster. The need subject in communism is opent to interpretation. Personally when I m talking about the need I am not saying to live in tents but in decent human conditions appropriate for the modern age. Neither tents or super huge mansions. Something in between a regular house maybe. When talkong about the need we mean to satisfy human needs without much extravagance. Sent from my SGH-I337M using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Well to answer your question about who decides how much money who makes. The answer is nobody. This is because money is abolished. You see that's how class is made. Marx saw that the class conflict was the main evil of capitalism. So the only way to have a truley equal and communistic society money must not exist. Good question! I get that one a lot
Governments will always exist unless the prevailing view in society is libertarian (unless you're defining libertarianism in some very narrow sense). Governments are unethical by definition (read: territorial monopolies on the initiation of force). Capitalism doesn't necessarily concentrate "more and more wealth into the hands of a few". Capitalism is an economic system where private property rights are paramount.
Freedom is a system? I dont understand this "capitalism(freedom) has failed" Allowing people to freely associate isnt a "system" Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app