The Queen's death has raised the issue again of whether that monarchy, or any monarchy, has a place in the modern world. It is fairly simple to argue that an accident of birth should not give anyone the privileges of royalty. But how far are we willing to take that argument? It is an accident of birth that I was born a white male to a stable middle-class family in the United States. Without any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances.
We generally apply a stricter standard of judgment when critiquing people above our class than we do for ourselves. King Charles has pledged to continue his mother's commitment to serving his nation. Is that sufficient to justify the continuation of the House of Windsor? Not for me to decide, but what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am?
We may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought.
^ :this:
look at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.
elon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i can become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?
leveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMWe may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought.
I think my position on this is pretty well-known, but I'll give it a go.
No, I would not say that inequality in itself creates any sort of obligation. A person may
assume such obligation, and perhaps it is a hallmark of a good person that they would, however, if something is lawfully
yours, whether you have inherited it, been given it or earned it through the application of effort, time and/or talent, then it is
yours to do with as
you please.
My usual disclaimer for those who would read too much Anarcho-Capitalism into it; no, taxation in itself is not theft. It's your lease for living in the society in which you live. How it's implemented may well be theft-like, however. For instance, taxing the money already taxed is difficult to describe in other terms than the "we" stealing shit from the "I."
In any case, back to answering the points;
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMWithout any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances.
Why would you need to justify that privilege of yours? to me, it seems like it's something that just
is.That said, if Bill and Bezos were simply born to
different families, and let us for the sake of it assume that they were born way better off than they were, financially speaking, they would likely have been two completely different people today - perhaps, neither would have achieved nearly as much as they have. Change the past - whichever way that may be - and you are likely to change the product of said past, in directions that are difficult to predict at best - "unknowable" at worst.
Quote...what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am?
It's your life. Speaking only for myself, of course, but you owe me no justification - neither does Bezos, King Charles III or a homeless dude under the bridge.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 20, 2022, 11:26:52 AMlook at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.
elon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i will become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?
leveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.
...Where to start? Ok, here goes.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 20, 2022, 11:26:52 AMlook at economic disparity. it exists on a bell curve. i suggest getting rid of the very poor by getting rid of the very rich.
How would that get rid of the poor? By giving them the money? How will that prevent new poverty from occurring? How does it prevent old poverty from
re-occurring? Remember, once you have effectively gotten rid of the very rich, their wallets are no longer there to pay the bills.
Quoteelon musk has 400 billion dollars. if i make $10,000 per day, 365 days out of the year, i will become as rich as elon musk in 109,000 years. does that make any sense?
He does not have anywhere near that much money. What he does have, is an ownership stake in some companies that offer their stock to the public. When those companies are hot, his stock is worth a lot. If he tried to sell it all, the value would crash in the process. Not if he did it slowly, I suppose, but my point is; it's not
money that he has that much of - it's
assets. To put it this way, if you own a house that has a market value of one million dollars and no loans or savings of any kind, then you are worth one million dollars. Do you
have one million dollars? Do you even have ten thousand dollars with which to pay property tax on that million dollar house?
Quoteleveling out the wealth of the top one percent will have more economic benefit for the poor than leveling out the remainder.
Some would say that's debateable. I would go further and say that it is simply untrue. For starters, the assets are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Who would you sell Tesla or Amazon to? Would they run it in such a way that it generated more wealth? Would any of that wealth even be under your nation's umbrella? And where will you be once you have used up the top 1%? Now that Musk and Bezos and all that lot are merely multi-millionaires, how do you propose to sustain the money flow needed for keeping the formerly-poor from becoming poor again? Planned economy, perhaps?
my source was wrong. elon musk is currently worth $150 billion.
at $10,000 per day, it will only take me 41,000 years to be as rich as elon musk. 57,000 years to be as rich as jeff bezos was in 2020.
asmo, i think ive been clear that i am in favour of any economic system that prevents children from going hungry. i dont care what its called, or how its structured. our current system fails in that very fundamental task while allowing billionaires to play flash gordon in space.
how would you propose to feed children currently going hungry, if that is an issue?
I wouldn't.
That is, I can come up with a few suggestions, but I would not force you - or anyone - to feed someone else's kids.
Initially, I suggest a bond of incentive between the various industries and the education system. Even for low-skill jobs, a company would (or should) be happy to "test run" future employees. Then, incentives to hire full-time workers rather than part-time. My company does it under my supervision, in fact. The kids get a taste of doing business, learn some skills and take with them a weighty referral - or a job offer - if they apply themselves. I get to spread out the labour a little. It's excellent.
These suggestions alone are expensive to implement, however, it's an investment strategy, rather than some sort of public redistribution "charity."
you misunderstand me, asmo. im not advocating taking elon musk's bank account and scattering it out among the poor.
im suggesting a complete re-thinking of the social economy, one in which people prosper through their own efforts without their sustenance having to trickle down to them through the enlightened self interest of the rich. i advocate a system in which elon musks do not rise the top in the first place.
for example, i support the american railroad workers currently contemplating a strike. th eowners have specifically said that the workers do not contribute to the immense profits of the industry, that the profits are due to the fact of ownership, and accrue to them by virtue of their ownership. i suggest that in fact, the profits of the industry are a direct result of the labour of the workers, and that they should receive benefits in accordance with that contribution.
the system that we have in america has failed the large body of the people. our standard of living has decreased significantly in my lifetime. the prospects of my children are poorer than were mine. our for-profit economy has destroyed much of the natural world in my country that i once took for granted. our for -profit prison system has made an industry of incarcerating citizens. representatives of my government routinely advocate destroying the educational system in order to ensure an ignorant and pliant electorate. our life expectancy is going down, our for-profit health care is expensive yet our health is poor, our impoverished are more impoverished than th eimpoverished of most other countries, and so on.
i would replace it with a system in which health, food, and shelter for the general populace are treated as fundamental rights, and ensuring those are the primary purpose of government. i would not use government as a force to redistribute the wealth of successful people, but i woud use it to prevent political and social power from becoming restricted to the wealthy to the detriment of the general population.
and i would reduce the annual taxes by half to anybody who made a motorcycle a major part of their daily transportstion, weather permitting. maybe more than half. the world needs more motorcycles.
At least Asmo is consistent - he doesn't place any obligation on anyone as a result of their birth. Perhaps there is no moral obligation that arises from accidents of birth, but what about social policy? To billie's point, if you simply had a fairer tax system so that those who profit the most paid a higher percentage of their income/wealth, then you would at least have the socially positive goal of giving those on the lower in more equal opportunity. If we are running a 100 meter race, but I am starting out on the 50 meter mark, it's not really fair. Higher taxes for the wealthy (as long as it is used to benefit in some way the underclasses) has the potential for achieving a more just society. That, I think, benefits everyone. Or am I being idealistic?
nothing wrong with being idealistic. its how change comes about. but i dont see your system as any likelier to be enacted than mine.
we have an entrenched system in this country where money determines the goals and practices of politics. that has to change before anything else can happen.
regarding accidents of birth, its the way of the world and will never change. what i want is a system where being accidentally born poor doesnt load the dice towards you staying that way.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 21, 2022, 02:22:20 AMnothing wrong with being idealistic. its how change comes about. but i dont see your system as any likelier to be enacted than mine.
we have an entrenched system in this country where money determines the goals and practices of politics. that has to change before anything else can happen.
regarding accidents of birth, its the way of the world and will never change. what i want is a system where being accidentally born poor doesnt load the dice towards you staying that way.
I'm a white heterosexual male. I was born into a bit of poverty. Not sure how to describe it, other than experiencing too little to eat, having the electricity and gas turned off, that sort of thing. I was born in Minnesota but was moved to California when I was little (3). Eight children and uncles who couldn't seem to keep a job, and who were sleeping on a couch in the living room, sometimes with a wife and a couple of kids. ONE bathroom. >:( Good thing us guys could go and piss outside. I will not claim riches, but I worked for 45 years and retired at age 62, which I did not expect. My investment people claim that I have enough to live on until I die...whenever that is, but enough for the satisfaction of actuarial tables, which claim 92. Pretty sure that's not going to happen, I have a blood disorder that is 25% certain to turn into cancer. Well, hell, most of my relatives never made it past 58, so at 69 YO, I've made some progress.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 20, 2022, 10:52:57 PMAt least Asmo is consistent - he doesn't place any obligation on anyone as a result of their birth. Perhaps there is no moral obligation that arises from accidents of birth, but what about social policy? To billie's point, if you simply had a fairer tax system so that those who profit the most paid a higher percentage of their income/wealth, then you would at least have the socially positive goal of giving those on the lower in more equal opportunity. If we are running a 100 meter race, but I am starting out on the 50 meter mark, it's not really fair. Higher taxes for the wealthy (as long as it is used to benefit in some way the underclasses) has the potential for achieving a more just society. That, I think, benefits everyone. Or am I being idealistic?
I have touched on the problem with many such "fairer" tax systems;
If you have a house worth a million dollars, does that mean you also have 10K for the property tax? Should you sell the house to pay it?
Now, imagine that the house is a business producing anchor chain. Let's say it's worth ten million dollars, eight of which are industrial machinery and buildings and most of the rest is product. What precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?
Quote from: Asmodean on September 21, 2022, 08:13:49 AMNow, imagine that the house is a business producing anchor chain. Let's say it's worth ten million dollars, eight of which are industrial machinery and buildings and most of the rest is product. What precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?
as an owner, what, exactly, do you contribute to the business of producing anchor chain?
do you know how to mine the iron ore?
do you know how to cast the pigs?
to smith the links?
just what exactly is your role in producing anchor chain?
considering the business of producing anchor chain, what essential component of the process would stop forever if you suddenly fell over dead?
Quote from: billy rubin on September 21, 2022, 09:28:49 PMas an owner, what, exactly, do you contribute to the business of producing anchor chain?
That depends a lot on what kind of owner you are. If you are someone like me, a minor(-ish) stock owner, what you get is the ability to vote on shareholder decisions, your votes being weighted by your shares (Usually one vote per share)
If you are a majority (or even just -major) shareholder, you pretty much are a member of the club that decides the company's course. Do we merge with them there? Do we expand into that there market? Do we buy that there competitor? Such like.
If you are the sole proprietor or are owner AND <insert C-title> then you likely also do strategic day-to-day stuff, like deciding on suppliers, figuring out where and how to actually sell whatever it is you make... The like.
Quotedo you know how to mine the iron ore?
Well, I actually do, for certain ways of getting at it. As a owner of a mine or a closely-related business - yes. You know how to mine the iron on the scale of your company. If you are good at the craft, that is. If your product is iron and you are making a profit and surviving setbacks, then I'd say you know enough. If your product is chain, the likelihood is that you buy the iron from whatever wholesales company you have gotten into bed with - probably your job as the owner as well, that. Getting into bed with major suppliers in mutually-profitable ways. What you know then is how to make
anchor chain of desired price and quality and in desired quantity. additionally, you know how to get rid of it in exchange for coinage.
Quotejust what exactly is your role in producing anchor chain?
It includes, but is not limited to the above. There is a reason why I clock in some 40-45 work hours a week, while my CEO, who has a major ownership stake in the company, clocks closer to 50-60.
Quoteconsidering the business of producing anchor chain, what essential component of the process would stop forever if you suddenly fell over dead?
Everything. Unless contingency plans have been made, and most large or just well-run companies will have made them, it would all grind to a halt.* To put it into a beat-up metaphor, you will have fried the central processing unit in your computer.
Now, if you would answer my question, please?
An anchor chain company owned by you. It's worth 10 million USD. How should that wealth of yours be taxed, specifically, such that it is fair to the poor?
*EDIT: I suppose I should explain this.
Among the reasons companies have boards of directors is that the directors are all each other's deputies. If one is incapable of making a decision, the rest will. If all but one perish dramatically - that one will, until the new board is in place. Of course, there are intricacies to it as the directors may have different attributes that no-one else on the board has. However, they have the power to make decisions for the company - and usually hold a significant stake in it. sometimes not, however. So if we assume that the only owner with signatory power is one overweighed middle-aged dude with a penchant for eating raw cholesterol for every meal, and he suddenly and totally unexpectedly falls over dead over a plate of prime steak, the decision-making capability in that company will be crippled. There are ways out of such situations, however, it has happened and is often disastrous.
A other EDIT:
I think I can un-complicate this, actually, with the example of my own sweet self. My day job is salaried. I have my responsibilities in generating income for the company and all the usual stuff. So what is my company's owner (Another company is a majority shareholder - but I said un-complicate, so we let that one lie) responsible for? Well, they are responsible for me - and themselves, for that matter, still having our jobs
tomorrow.
asmo, think about what youve written. you describe a CEO whose job isnt making anchor chain, its pushing papers across a desk, holding meetings, and making telephone calls, and processing intangible tokens.
you discuss tasks such voting on your share of the capital, deciding who to merge with, choosing which competitor to buy . . .
your focus is on skills relating to ownership, not on maneuvering a crucible of molten steel, or forging a red hot link under a stamping mill.
business ownership is the least important part of an anchor company. the owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners. if the ownership is derived by buying stock, the owners dont need to know anything at all about anchors-- all they need is credit to buy into the system and harvest the profits of other people's work.
making decisions regarding the direction of a company through an economy that emphasizes and rewards ownership of tokens rather than productivity is a limited skill. it certainly is needed to perform in the current system. but does it demonstrate a skill set hundreds of millions of times more important than those of the mill worker actually forging the anchor chain? because thats how it is currently compensated.
i dont think so, personally.
regarding taxes, ive never used the word in this conversation until <<<here. its not part of any plan i have considered, so i dont have any viable solution that uses it.
see, im not interested in taking elon musk or jeff bezos hostage, taxing more of their hard-earned profits out of them, then coming back for more, like using them as a cash crop to harvest.
i want them to cease to exist.
whatever system takes what we have now and turns it into one in which more people do better with more health, shelter, and security is what i am in favour of, asmo. the system in my country is broken. i dont want to tweak it. i want to replace it.
sorry this post is so long. ill try to focus.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 21, 2022, 08:13:49 AMWhat precisely should you as the owner, worth ten million dollars, be taxed for here? What should you pay that tax with?
I am more focused on the mega-wealthy, the billionaires. If someone is worth 100 billion, and their wealth increases by 5 percent year (a lot less than the increase they got during the pandemic), a 2-3% tax on their net worth each year should not be a problem. This, in addition to any applicable income tax. At 100 billion, that's 2-3 billion in wealth tax, and their net worth increased by 5. Net gain for them, benefit for the rest of society. Their income is a separate issue, but it would be 40% or so, so they still come out ahead. If they have income of 3 billion, they are taxed 1.2 billion in income tax. Net gain for them, benefit for society. Taxes on the wealthy should be earmarked for things like education, health care, poverty reduction, infrastructure, etc. Things that benefit society as a whole.
Billy, I'll long-form a reply when on a computer.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 22, 2022, 06:40:05 PMI am more focused on the mega-wealthy, the billionaires. If someone is worth 100 billion, and their wealth increases by 5 percent year (a lot less than the increase they got during the pandemic), a 2-3% tax on their net worth each year should not be a problem. This, in addition to any applicable income tax. At 100 billion, that's 2-3 billion in wealth tax, and their net worth increased by 5. Net gain for them, benefit for the rest of society. Their income is a separate issue, but it would be 40% or so, so they still come out ahead. If they have income of 3 billion, they are taxed 1.2 billion in income tax. Net gain for them, benefit for society. Taxes on the wealthy should be earmarked for things like education, health care, poverty reduction, infrastructure, etc. Things that benefit society as a whole.
You own a house worth one billion dollars. The housing bubble be a-bubbling, and the value of your house increases by 5% a year. 5% of a billion is five million. Let us assume a ten percent "income" tax. You now owe the government 500000. Yes, you have a billion dollar house. Do you have 500000 without needing to "plunder" said house for it?
Yes, if you make monetary income, taxes are good and well. Taxes on "locked" funds, however... Distasteful at best. Like, those 2-3% of your house's whole value every year. Tax the property income - fine. Not it's
value. That one does not generate money by itself.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 22, 2022, 08:04:02 PMBilly, I'll long-form a reply when on a computer.
sure.
its an academic point. i have no plan and dont expect anything to change.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 22, 2022, 03:12:38 PMasmo, think about what youve written. you describe a CEO whose job isnt making anchor chain, its pushing papers across a desk, holding meetings, and making telephone calls, and processing intangible tokens.
The CEO's job is that of the executive. Much of the company-wide decision-making power rests there. Yes, it's what you may call a mostly paper-pushing job. (Actually, most of it is spent in meetings) However, without it, in our example, you would have a company with no resources to make anchor chain from, nor any way of consistently selling it beyond filing pre-existing contracts. Further, and this applies more to the
owner than a
hired exec, it is also your job to keep up with the market and make adjustments. For example, when to expand and when not are major decisions - as is how many people to hire, and of what kind. That not even mentioning "this product's getting cold. Now what?" The executive offices have the birds eye view required to make such decisions.
Quoteyou discuss tasks such voting on your share of the capital, deciding who to merge with, choosing which competitor to buy . . .
your focus is on skills relating to ownership, not on maneuvering a crucible of molten steel, or forging a red hot link under a stamping mill.
As a mill owner, I suspect I may want to hire someone who is willing to sell his crucible knowledge and practical hands-on skill for money. They have the skills - I have the machinery, access to raw materials and a market for the product. It is quite possible that I myself am perfectly capable of working the mill - in our example, it's not beyond reason that the owner of our anchor chain business started out in life making anchor chain with his own hands. That is particularly common in food industry and retail. The rest is a matter of scope.
Quotebusiness ownership is the least important part of an anchor company.
And yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's
his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies,
sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever
bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.
Quotethe owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners.
Wow..! I demand a quote where I said anything like the owner being the most easily replaced. If I did, I cannot believe the garbage what came out of my mouth. The most easily replaced in any company is any position, for which suitably qualified labour is in greater supply than it is in demand. Company owners are very -
very rarely that, with the possible exception of "vulture funds," which also require a skill set no lesser than that of any self-respecting professional to do well.
A merger is not a simple process - nor an easy one. Nor is a buyout. They also often happen precisely because the owners of the company are way over their head, and it's get bought, merge or bust. There are a ton of interests to consider - shareholders, if either party sells shares, employees, supply chains, existing contracts and other obligations, government meddling, shifting markets...
It must be mentioned that sometimes, companies will buy each other or merge to strengthen their position in the market, open up new avenues of generating profit, gain access to patents or technology, new geography and so on.
Quoteif the ownership is derived by buying stock, the owners dont need to know anything at all about anchors-- all they need is credit to buy into the system and harvest the profits of other people's work.
Who do you think
sells the stock in the first place? Sure, eventually, it's shareholders selling to each other in an attempt to make money off each other, but initially, one hundred percent of the stock come from the owners (If a bank or a friend loans you money to start a company for, say, 30% stake - then they too are among those initial owners)
Quotemaking decisions regarding the direction of a company through an economy that emphasizes and rewards ownership of tokens rather than productivity is a limited skill. it certainly is needed to perform in the current system. but does it demonstrate a skill set hundreds of millions of times more important than those of the mill worker actually forging the anchor chain? because thats how it is currently compensated.
And yet, strangely, the companies that don't make product or can't sell it go bust. Oh, there is the occasional Tesla, who do make and sell product, but are not worth nearly as much as people are willing to pay for them - but then their CEO is the master of hype. Point is, in a market economy, if you focus on productivity to the exclusion of following the market, you'll go belly-up very quickly. When a company does, sure, our good old chain smith still has his skills in smithing chain. How shall he now convert it into money? Assuming there is a demand, there are two ways; become a business owner himself, potentially even Bezos or Gates of anchor chain - barely ever even touching the stuff anymore, or... Get hired by someone else.
Quoteregarding taxes, ive never used the word in this conversation until <<<here. its not part of any plan i have considered, so i dont have any viable solution that uses it.
see, im not interested in taking elon musk or jeff bezos hostage, taxing more of their hard-earned profits out of them, then coming back for more, like using them as a cash crop to harvest.
i want them to cease to exist.
Kill them? What will that accomplish? Let us assume just for a second that any-one who manages to amass, say, fifty million dollars in assets falls over dead the second they do. Then what? Say you now have potential 50 million in stock floating in ether. What would you do with it? How would you convert it into, say, soup for the hungry? I mean, I suppose you could use the CEOs private jet to carry illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, but beyond that... I mean, you could
sell it, though it's not yours to sell, but wealthy people falling over dead everywhere, who would even want to buy?
Why would they want to buy?
Or are you saying that you wish they never existed in the first place? In which case, what would that world look like? Soviet Union, only worse?
Quotewhatever system takes what we have now and turns it into one in which more people do better with more health, shelter, and security is what i am in favour of, asmo. the system in my country is broken. i dont want to tweak it. i want to replace it.
Capitalism. bringing smart phones and soft drinks to the poor everywhere since... The invention of smart phones and soft drinks.
Quotesorry this post is so long. ill try to focus.
No need to ever apologize to me for being long in the proverbial wind. I live for this shit 8)
I love this thread, please keep the arguments going...
billy suggests getting rid of the very poor, and very rich.
I commend this idea.
I would like to add an amendment though. I suggest, we also include everyone that fits in between the very poor, and very rich.
Well, getting rid of everyone is rather drastic (I suppose).
I've got nothing again people who are poor or filthy rich.
There are three simple laws for staying out of poverty in America that applies to all races and ethnical groups.
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
Regarding the superrich, I frankly don't give a damn as long as they pay their taxes. I read somewhere that the top 10 percent of earners in the US paid over 71 percent of all income taxes and the top 25 percent paid 87 percent of all income taxes. That sounds fair and square to me
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 19, 2022, 08:57:50 PMThe Queen's death has raised the issue again of whether that monarchy, or any monarchy, has a place in the modern world. It is fairly simple to argue that an accident of birth should not give anyone the privileges of royalty. But how far are we willing to take that argument? It is an accident of birth that I was born a white male to a stable middle-class family in the United States. Without any question, I have privileges that others do not have. Had I been born a poor black female in Haiti or born a female into a Taliban household, clearly my life would have been a lot worse. My privilege is no more justified than the privilege of the Prince of Wales. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos would not have accomplished what they did had they been born in worse circumstances.
We generally apply a stricter standard of judgment when critiquing people above our class than we do for ourselves. King Charles has pledged to continue his mother's commitment to serving his nation. Is that sufficient to justify the continuation of the House of Windsor? Not for me to decide, but what justifies my own continued privileged position (albeit not as privileged as royalty) when there are people all around me who are significantly worse off than I am?
We may not have as much to justify as the Windsors, but does the accidental inequality from which many of us benefit create an obligation to do more? If so, is some process of involuntary levelling called for? If not, how can we complain about royalty? Just food for thought.
I don't feel like I have to justify my definitely privileged position of having been born white and middle class in a wealthy country. But I do feel a personal moral obligation to my fellow man to do what I can with what I've been given to make sure everyone's got a fair shot at a good life. I feel like that's what we all owe each other. And yes, of course, the devil's in the details, and we all have different ideas about the best way to accomplish that goal.
As for "some process of involuntary leveling" being "called for." Yes, of course. We've already collectively agreed to some things--e.g., a progressive tax system, taxes going toward social programs. Again, it's the devil of the details. How progressive should that tax system be, how big should the social programs be? If you're hinting at much larger-scale leveling, like redistribution of real property, then I think most people, me included, would say the cure would be worse than the disease.
WRT "accidents," yes, I have no control over having been born white into a middle class family, and I have no control over what people in the past did. But--to take the small, limited example of homeownership--my parents, and my parents' parents' were able to buy homes and accumulate equity in those homes and pass that wealth down to their kids and eventually to me. And all sorts of economic benefits accrued to them and to me just by virtue of the security and stability of homeownership. Up to nearly the present day (and even still) African Americans have been denied homeownership through all sorts of nefarious means (redlining, discriminatory denial of credit, denial of participation in federal programs). I, today, am benefiting from all the racist housing policies of the past, and African Americans are still suffering the consequences of those policies. I may not have been personally responsible for the creation of unjust policies of the past, but those policies were no accident. And to the degree that they continue to exist, it is on me and my fellow citizens to eliminate them and figure out how to move forward fairly--what "process of involuntary leveling" is fair.
hey asmo
Quote from: Asmodean on September 23, 2022, 03:56:11 PMThe CEO's job is that of the executive.
i would eliminate the role of an executive as parasitic, asmo. CEOs occupy a niche i consider unnecessary for the common welfare.
QuoteAs a mill owner, I suspect I may want to hire someone who is willing to sell his crucible knowledge and practical hands-on skill for money.
i would eliminate mill owners. the techn ical people have all the necessary skills even in the absence of a mill owner.
QuoteAnd yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies, sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.
i would skip the individual ownership stage and go right to worker's ownership. without an owner to protect against, there isnt even a need to have a union.
QuoteQuotethe owner is the individual most easily replaced. you acknowledge this yourself by emphasizing mergers and buyouts, which are just changes of owners.
Wow..! I demand a quote where I said anything like the owner being the most easily replaced.
you didnt say it. i pointed it out because you havent perceived it.
QuoteWho do you think sells the stock in the first place?
i would eliminate the buying and selling of stock. that system is not particularly old, and hasnt proven to be an improvement over what came before, or to be something that benefits the people that create the value. as a petroleum geologist, i owned stock in exxon corporation the day the company laid me off to benefit stockholders who owned more stock than i did.
QuotePoint is, in a market economy . . .
i would eliminate a market economy.
QuoteKill them?
i would offer them a job in the warehouse, asmo. but as for killing them, i'm afraid we're headed in that direction.
at some point in economic exploitation, the masses of the exploited always end up executing their exploiters. i would like to move beyond that point without killing anybody, but as i see it we are in late-stage capitalism, where the masses are slowly discovering that they are not actually benefitting from the system that they are making possible. if you strip the CEO of a corporation naked, he is indistinguishable from the poorest of his employees. all his advantages accrue from things written on pieces of paper. eliminate the paper, and you can assess his true contribution.
my former president, the real estate billionaire, is a good example. what abilities does donald trump have in real estate, beyond skills in deceit, in fnancial trickery, in navigating serial bankruptcies, and in persuading banks to make loans that he then defaults on, to his advantage? what contribution does donald make based on his own genuine abilities? he demonstrates how the system can make you rich without actually creating value.
at any rate, sooner or later revolutions happen. the uber-rich are already beginning to worry:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
https://www.newframe.com/survivalism-rich/
https://www.businessinsider.in/Rich-Survivalists-Can-Pick-Up-One-Of-These-3-Million-Luxury-Condos-In-A-Former-Nuclear-Missile-Silo/articleshow/45198420.cms
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2020/03/27/billionaire-bunker-owners-are-preparing-for-the-ultimate-underground-escape/
while my opinions on how to solve our problems are pretty nebulous, i dont see the current system as sustainable. i also dont have any faith that it will be successfully replaced, asmo. in my opinion, we're circling the drain right now. while i dont see the world disappearing in a puff of smoke (unless putin finally decides to cash in his chips,) i dont see anything in the next century that i wouldn't describe as apocalyptic.
just my opinion. i'll be dead in a just few more years, so it won't be my problem. and in the long run, it doesn't matter to anybody. but my kids will have to make decisions that i would have preferred them not to have had to face.
Quote from: Asmodean on September 22, 2022, 08:04:02 PMYou own a house worth one billion dollars. The housing bubble be a-bubbling, and the value of your house increases by 5% a year. 5% of a billion is five million. Let us assume a ten percent "income" tax. You now owe the government 500000. Yes, you have a billion dollar house. Do you have 500000 without needing to "plunder" said house for it?
But the reality is that the mega-rich own stock in companies. It is relatively easy for them to sell a few shares to pay taxes. Elon Musk did that recently. One billion dollar houses are not the norm.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 24, 2022, 09:02:20 PMQuoteAnd yet without it, the anchor chain company does not exist. It never even started, in fact. Companies don't grow on trees. Every single one with a modicum of success started with someone doing his own thing. Making a buck, as it were. It's his thing, no matter how many people he hires and fires over the years. It's his until he dies, sells it (therein goes public/partly sells it) or goes bust. In either of those cases, it then belongs to whoever bought it - be it a worker's union or a hedge fund.
i would skip the individual ownership stage and go right to worker's ownership. without an owner to protect against, there isnt even a need to have a union.
QuotePoint is, in a market economy . . .
i would eliminate a market economy.
QuoteKill them?
i would offer them a job in the warehouse, asmo. but as for killing them, i'm afraid we're headed in that direction.
at some point in economic exploitation, the masses of the exploited always end up executing their exploiters. i would like to move beyond that point without killing anybody, but as i see it we are in late-stage capitalism, where the masses are slowly discovering that they are not actually benefitting from the system that they are making possible. if you strip the CEO of a corporation naked, he is indistinguishable from the poorest of his employees. all his advantages accrue from things written on pieces of paper. eliminate the paper, and you can assess his true contribution.
. . .
at any rate, sooner or later revolutions happen.
Not sure how we'd get to this "ideal" society where no companies were privately owned and all were somehow collectively run by workers without a whole lot of bloodletting and much more human misery than we have now. It also sounds completely unworkable. I have worked in a large institution where most decisions were made by committee--in reality, that meant no decisions were made. And as Asmo points out (God--that is so painful to type, pigs are flying and hell is freezing over), companies don't grow on trees. What incentive would there be for anyone to create anything new?
What governmental structure are you envisioning? It's sounding like Soviet-style "communism," which is just a flavor of autocracy. Institutions don't run themselves, and neither do nations. In the absence of strong democratic processes and traditions to prevent it, a "strong man" always steps in.
I agree with you, billy rubin, that the U.S. is in dire straits right now, but I think there are a lot of options for fixing it short of blowing up the entire democratic experiment--which I don't think fixes anything. Let's not throw up our hands just yet.
Quote from: Anne D. on September 25, 2022, 08:39:41 PMNot sure how we'd get to this "ideal" society where no companies were privately owned and all were somehow collectively run by workers without a whole lot of bloodletting and much more human misery than we have now. It also sounds completely unworkable. I have worked in a large institution where most decisions were made by committee--in reality, that meant no decisions were made. And as Asmo points out (God--that is so painful to type, pigs are flying and hell is freezing over), companies don't grow on trees. What incentive would there be for anyone to create anything new?
What governmental structure are you envisioning? It's sounding like Soviet-style "communism," which is just a flavor of autocracy. Institutions don't run themselves, and neither do nations. In the absence of strong democratic processes and traditions to prevent it, a "strong man" always steps in.
I agree with you, billy rubin, that the U.S. is in dire straits right now, but I think there are a lot of options for fixing it short of blowing up the entire democratic experiment--which I don't think fixes anything. Let's not throw up our hands just yet.
i think we're in for the bloodletting, anne. there was a strong stable government in france right up to the day they stormed the bastille.
that doesn't mean i recommend it. i just think we're headed in that direction.
regardiing committees, there are lots of companies that are run as collectives. sioux honey corporation, various trucking companies, and so on. the differences are that the employees are the owners, and they have a stake in the organizaation larger than whatever an owner considers appropriate to trickle down to them.
i dont have any plans. i dont see my point of view as likely either. i just think it would be an improvement over what we have now.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 25, 2022, 01:04:09 PMBut the reality is that the mega-rich own stock in companies. It is relatively easy for them to sell a few shares to pay taxes. Elon Musk did that recently. One billion dollar houses are not the norm.
Ah, but here is the catch, falling share prices due to major insider sales notwithstanding; you can only sell so much before you lose your controlling interest. Long before that approaches, you are increasingly more likely to take resources (Profit, if you're lucky) out of the company in order to pay that tax. Resources that would otherwise not have been taken out. thereby, you practically plunder the company - or rather, pass on the cost down the line, usually all the way to the consumer. My house analogy is not a bad one. Let us revisit it;
You have houses worth that billion dollars we discussed. You rent them out. The government comes along and wants 20 million from you because you just own too damned much. Every year they want it. You pay the twenty mil, but now you are kinda' out of pocket - in debt, likely as not - so... You adjust the rent to bring it back in.
Again, I'll long-form a other response when I'm in a position to do so. There is a lot to respond to, though I think we are approaching the agree-to-disagree point.
P.S; just because The Asmo is an impatient Asmo and cannot resist;
Quote from: Tom62 on September 24, 2022, 04:44:08 PM2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
The most important part here is; don't have children until you can be reasonably assured of your capability to support them - even if "shit" "happens." Things like life insurance can go a long way, so can pre-made agreements in case of a breakup.
I think this point can be summed up in the wise words of every flight attendant like... Ever; "Put your own mask on before you try to help someone else." That is, make sure that you can take care of yourself before you try to take care of someone else. If you can't - you simply. Will. Not. Do. It. Well - be it a child or a spouse or a pet hamster.