How to distribute wealth equally?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Saint, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    I really doubt that. Monetary wealth is completely irrelevant to mother Nature.

    In fact the bible recognizes that "the meek shall inherit the world" and that includes microbial and insect life.
    Long after humans have disappeared he insect will go happily on their billion year old ways. What can be wealthier than having the ability to use all the assets of the earth. To an ant a leaf is a treasure, how many leaves exist in nature? Wealth is a relative term and only applies to human values.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Hmmm....I see

    Yet imagination of Humanity allows for a deeper understanding of this Universe . Which is what wealth can provide .

    When has an ant have a opportunity to explore more than its immediate enviroment ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    It doesn't need to. It just responds to external stimuli and need for food (energy).
    But in a beehive mind, there can be heated discussions between two scouts about different locations and size of an abundant food supply and that this would be a good place to swarm to and establish a new hive.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Your going off on a tangent .
     
  8. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    In a capitalist economy, there is no basis for thinking wealth should or would be equally distributed. Under capitalism, income, wealth, profits are the "reward" for innovation, productivity and being more adept than others at matching what one opts to supply with what individuals and organizations want to buy. At any point in time, some individuals will be markedly more innovative than are others and those more-innovative persons/entities are entitled to reap, to the extent the market will pay the price they demand for their goods/services, the benefits of being so. The only equitable exception to that apply to individuals and entities that supply goods/services that are most efficiently provided by under a natural monopoly economic model.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    I agree with the philosophical logic, but in a symbiotic culture each organism exchanges equal value for their very mutual co-existence.
    The Capitalist philosophy is based on a very Darwinian law of "survival of the fittest" (a competitive imperative, and not the more Humane law of symbiotically sharing in the public wealth ( national resources) and services for which it is taxed in the name of "the shared public good".
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  10. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Well, you won't get any disagreement from me about the nature of what you call "humaneness" vis a vis my stated and implied stance. I openly attest to being both a capitalist -- the closer to laissez faire, the better, IMO -- and something of, but not entirely, a social/economic Darwinist.

    That some individuals are not "fit enough" doesn't at all disturb me; it happens. What disturbs me is the implementation of social mores and binding formulations that constrain individual's ability to bring to bear the full weight and force of whatever nature and extent of "fitness" they may have.

    BTW, the equality of value exchanged by "organisms" is a function of how each organism competing for a given resource values that resource. Applied to humanity's circumstance whereby, say I give up $2 to receive a candy bar, the value of the candy bar and the $2 is equal. The difference is that the $2 can be used to obtain other items, such as a cup of coffee. Be that as it may, the coffee, the $2 and the candy bar each have the same value: $2.

    The money is merely an accepted medium of exchange. We designate something as a medium of exchange merely to facilitate efficient exchanges, not to define the intrinsic value of goods and services.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  11. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,218
    Your humble minion here considers ALL commerce to be a pyramid scheme
    How could it be anything else?
    Everything (a few tiny weeny exceptions) comes from the ground
    So farmers and miners are the only true producers
    Everyone else is a value adder
    Banks sell money. That's ALL they do. Ask for any of their products, examine it and you will find the banks money lies at the foundation
    If that particular banks money is not at the bottom they have incestually passed you to competition who has a reciprocal arrangement and probably charged you a fee

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    The Not for Profit system works great, it's a good thing, I spent 5 years as accountant of a large not-for-profit community service company. But working for a non-profit organization does not produce a profit incentive to the for the service provider. Just an honest exchange of equal value, so that all thrive. Life itself is tough enough, it's a commonly shared condition by all species.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    What is missing in Capitalism , is the potential of everybody on the Planet .

    Capitalism is short sighted , greedy , mean and controlling of people , all based on the suduction of power .

    Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    That's why I suggested to take the profit motive (greed) out of the equation, especially when it comes to communal health care services.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    I understand your point , give wealth to health . No problem here .

    But those who aquire wealth can give to health research .

    The thing about Capitalism , is that allows for the individual destiny , the expression of free will .

    Capitalism is not about greed for greeds sake or power , but in a more advanced thinking , can raise the those that had not the fortunate position of being wealthy , to be wealthy .
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    In an ideal world, I would totally agree with you. But that is not how it works,

    The problem is that now you can profit from money trading. Somewhere along the line someone is going to end up with all the money. Just like a poker game.

    The idea of free trade is wonderful, when each has agreed on the value of the exchanged goods.
    That's why the days of slavery were so productive in building entire plantations. Free labor.

    I am not against the accumulation of wealth, many wealthy people are of excellent character and ethical behavior.

    But it takes a couple of rotten apples to spoil the entire crop. This is why certain restrictive rules must be in place to prevent one or more individuals to gain too much financial impact on voluntary compliance.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    To your last statement , no argument there .

    Not with all the money , just some of the money .

    Oligarchies are not only baned , 10 companies at minumum , but also , NO executives are allowed on more than one corp. board . Further , no communication between executives of corps. is tolerated or allowed .
     
  18. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Okay. You and I see the matter differently.
     
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    How to distribute wealth equally?
    Take all of the money and wealth in the country, divide by the number of people in the country and take the resulting amount and give that amount to each person.

    I am not sure if that is fair but it does answer the question.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    LOL
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    It does .

    But here is the thing ; if every corp. is forced from taxation to give 10% , of its net profits to the poor educational schools , world wide . Then Humanity would find progress .
     
  22. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    How do you think about wealth? Money? Resources? Status? Power? Those are all ideas and tools of the aristocracy to bring us around to their way of thinking in a world where they are the owners, and we are the cattle. Conversely, we are not obligated to think about wealth in those terms. It's obvious to anyone that social systems as they are now were tooled through history to benefit an aristocracy who had no responsibility to be concerned about the source of those benefits.

    Global social systems are wrong. Money based economies are wrong. Families, communities, wisdom, and love are a few things that work well in place of money. If maintaining life on this planet at it's fullest potential is the focus of our work, then there might not be any requirement or need for money. There is no mandate from God to require a monetary transaction in payment for our work. People who need get. People who have give. If we need to grow potatoes for food then someone who likes to do that does it. The simplicity of it is staggering. Why do we tolerate the status quo? The system itself tells us that it is in charge of our lives.

    There is no mandate from God that we must tolerate a broken system that is leading us to mass graves as effectively as the worst disease. The focus should be to take care of people. The formal agreements (laws) of the civilization should have only that one concern, and no other.

    Mmm. After hundreds of thousands of years this is the best we can do? This way is senseless, unimaginative, and ill conceived. If we cannot fix it, then we deserve it, but I think people can do better. First task - stop war - let it get quiet for a good long time - time to think about it. People can use their intelligence, and their imagination, and their resources to build a better system, and it should happen, because this one has been broken for a long time.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,621
    I have a simpler idea. Restrict the unlimited acquisition of wealth. When the (very generous) limit is reached, any excess must be returned into the workforce as payraises or other benefits to the employees, thereby stimulating the economy. That would be the perfect model for a trickle down economy.

    Right now it all gushes up and leaves the bottom poorer and poorer, negatively affecting the economy. We are close (if not already in) to an Autocracy (Financial Dictatorsip).
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    Xmo1 and RainbowSingularity like this.

Share This Page