It cost a lot of money to develop and research advanced technologies. Plains ships cars buildings,, all these things are imensly expensive. Would we have access to these things if not for the concentration of wealth that exists in the.form.of.corperations? I don't believe so. What about the effecient mass production and distribution of goods? Donyou really beleieve local buisness could outproduce corperations? I'm not sure Discuss -yuri
This entire process of "Wealth" makes sense on a small level, but complicates our entire lives, every single person living on this planet is affected by greed. I just don't have any better solutions to suggest, but I know our current system of work to earn money to pay to live isn't going to last much longer.
No unless they don't get checked. They should bring back charters to keep them in line, but that won't happen. Because corporate owns most of the politicians.
Soooo ditch the idea of work for pay and move onto something else...any ideas on how to satisfy trillions of people's needs? im sorry i had to point this out since you did it twice. Corporation* not Corperation Back to what you were asking, big businesses startup and expand by many people coming together investing. This is the whole idea of an IPO or debt issuance. If i want to start a $1m (very small) business and I dont have $1m what do I do? I promise to share my profits with others if they give me startup money. Do I believe small business can become large without the help of investors? Possibly. Johnson & Johnson for example is still family owned and one of the only fortune 500 companies chartered as an S Corp. It's much harder to expand when your only income is from operations.
Since you want to be an asshole when I clearly said I have no suggestion, There is no where near "trillions" of people on earth.
ha sorry it was just a stupid post im sorry if you got butt hurt. Saying the idea of working in exchange for money is stupid and will go away soon is about as retarded as saying eating is overrated and we'll stop eventually. Actually that sounds better, if everyone stopped eating, think of how many useless people would die off, then we wouldn't have to worry about working for money, we can just give it away and no one will have to work!! See, that's a suggestion.
A communistic nation could work, assuming leaders aren't greedy. There was a conqueror who gave all the spoils of war to his soldiers and only wanted women and land. His empire did ok until his greedy sons and grandsons ruined the empire.
I never said the idea of working in exchange for money is stupid I said working entirely just to barely make a living will start a revolution eventually, fuck you're hardheaded.
its not so rediculous Space craft for example cost billions possibly trillions to make Do you think society would just get together out of mutual cooperation to create such endeavors? Do you think a state should tax society for such things? No matter how you look at it, a large concentration of wealth is required for large projects. Would you prefer government or private? -yuri
the idea of working for money is stupid if your not materialistic and only earning a wage to survive, only the rich benefit from money. yuki is right aswell greedy corporations do speed up the process of production but at the cost of some poor persin being extorted in some third world country, cmon people we survived as cavemen im sure we would do fine without mass production alot of people would die but the world would be a better place once weve settled into a new way of life manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls
Assuming the lleaders aren't greedy :lol: The problem with communism here is that central planning is not as effective as natural selection and supply and demand. A lot of people like to say the Soviet union was not true communism. But its a fact that central planning and communistic practices lead to the famous toilet paper shortage. Maybe Russia wasn't truely.Communist, but the tp shortage was the result.of ignoring the market and supply aand demand -yuri
Its Yuri BTW The problem I have with this caveman idea, and forgive me if I misunderstood your view, is the idea of freedom. Would you agree that everyone has the right to pursue "wealth"? Hypothetically speaking, does the wealth gap matter if everyone is happy? Is it wrong to be a trillionair just because some people are starving? Think about this. Limited resources exist. There are only two ways to go about distributing resources. You can either enforce population control and distribute resources fairly, or you can allow competition. Allowing competition has the advantage of protecting everyone's right to life and freedom even if it does end with a lot of impoverished people. I'd rather allow a person to fail and starve than to not even let them be born on the first place. Helping people is good, but how far should one go to help people? Many people don't deserve help. -yuri
Yeah sometimes I'm confused whether we are a hive colony or individual organisms. We should model our society like ants, no true leader.
I don't know. We had a carpenter ant problem once and the only way we could solve the infestation was to kill the Queen. When I finally managed to poison her, you shoulda seen the speed at which the colony emptied! No Queen, no commitment to colonial order.
if people being rich didnt effect the quality of others i wouldnt mind but it does, the africans wer happy living in little tribes until they were introduced to money, they would have just traded crops and resources now theyre digging diamonds and being forced to sell them to the west at dirt prices because they need money to keep up with the rest of the world none of us really have a choice in what we do in this system as theres really only 1 option... make money, yeah we have nice little things like cars, holidays etc. but these are just little illusions of freedom, its stupid to call it freedom when we have goverments deciding the factors of everyday life manolito #1 dator Brave hash balls