I begin to notice that many of the political quarrels over money have their roots in this question:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it?
The two are rarely the same person. Those who deserve it worked hard for it those that don't deserve it never really put any effort into making anything of themselves, made poor decisions, or handled what they had badly and lost it. Those who need it have to have it to survive or have basic necessities, and those who don't need it already have all of these, and then some.
So, what's your answer to that question?
Am I nearing the core of the problem, you think, or am I off-base?
This is a very interesting question. Personally I would argue that those who have it in a lot of cases don't deserve it. Let's look at it like this.
A rich child grows up with a rich family, and because of his families wealth manages to go to a high quality university and gets a job easily. However, a person who is poor and has a poor family will grow up going to potentially lesser off schools and will unlikely be able to afford to go to University. Even if he or her is smarter then the rich child, because of the rich child's roots and high profile university degree they will almost always get the better job and earn more money even if the poorer person works harder.
Personally, I always felt that was the sad part of capitalism, that in most cases there was an unfair spread of wealth.
But anyway, that is just my opinion, whether you agree or disagree is up to you. 
Anyone else? taking your fair reasoning as a basis:
there are needy people who dont deserve it because they don't make an effort.
and there are deserving people who dont need it.
but.
we are all human beings aand therefore we should be concerned that our basic NEEDS are fulfilled. i now have lived in a very poor country after 50 years in europe. before i moved here i always thought i had big NEEDS - now i realise that they were just WANTS. i had to totally re-evaluate my own standards - and i am happy that i have achieved this as much as i can given my cutural background.
as far as material things are concerned we all need food water shelter and clothing - the last either for climatic reasons but mostly for cultural ones. that's really all we NEED - apart from intellectual fulfilment. if we just could try to fulfil these needs - be it at a national or global scale - that would be a great step forward in out thinking.
This is a good question and posting Ocalhoun. I have thought about this question many times. But then I wonder about how interrelated the two are, as the rich do need the needy as much as the needy needs the rich to survive. On the most simple level there are many motivational books that have the message, the more rich share their money, the wealthier they become. Recently I saw an interview with a self-made millionaire, a guy who came from a very poor beginning (there are a number of them), and in his sixties is living a life totally of his own choosing. He believes that the only way a person can make money is to throw it into society so that it can work in a directed way. You have to be out and working with the money all the time. I also agree that there is a category of needy people who cannot look after themselves, i.e. children with special needs for example, or beyond and perhaps that is a test for those who are healthy and able to help.
Last night when I was learning about "Memes" (under the heading of evolutionary psychology) I arrived at excerpts from a book by Richard Dawkins: "The Selfish Gene". It really caught my imagination. He found a place for altruism and perhaps the quotation below explains it well:
| Quote: |
However speculative my development of the theory of memes may be, there is one serious point which I would like to emphasize once again. This is that when we look at the evolution of cultural traits and at their survival value, we must be clear whose survival we are talking about. Biologists, as we have seen, are accustomed to looking for advantages at the gene level (or the individual, the group, or the species level according to taste). What we have not previously considered is that a cultural trait may have evolved in the way that it has, simply because it is advantageous to itself.
We do not have to look for conventional biological survival values of traits like religion, music, and ritual dancing though these may also be present. Once the genes have provided their survival machines with brains that are capable of rapid imitation, the memes will automatically take over. We do not even have to posit a genetic advantage in imitation, though that would certainly help. All that is necessary is that the brain should be capable of imitation: memes will then evolve that exploit the capacity to the full.
I now close the topic of the new replicators, and end the chapter on a note of qualified hope. One unique feature of man, which may or may not have evolved memically, is his capacity for conscious foresight. Selfish genes (and, if you alllow the speculation of this chapter, memes too) have no foresight. They are unconscious, blind, replicators. The fact that they replicate, together with certain further conditions means, willy nilly, that they will tend towards the evolution of qualities which, in the special sense of this book, can be called selfish. A simple replicator, whether gene or meme, cannot be expected to forgo short-term selfish advantage even if it would really pay it, in the long term, to do so. We saw this in the chapter on aggression. Even though a `conspiracy of doves' would be better for every single individual than the evolutionarily stable strategy [=ESS], natural selection is bound to favour the ESS.
It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, desinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight -- our capacity to simulate the future in imagination -- could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a `conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.(
|
From: Chapter 11 of "The Selfish Gene": (http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html)
The Web page below gives some comments by people on "The Selfish Gene", 30 years on (2006). Contains interesting reading:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html I admit I have really nothing solid to add to the discussion, but, wouldn't you agree that if you took money from those who deserve it, and have it to those who need it, wouldn't the situation change around? (Those who deserve it now become those who need it and those who needed it are undeserving, because they are now taking away from the needy)
Something to think about.
| saratdear wrote: |
I admit I have really nothing solid to add to the discussion, but, wouldn't you agree that if you took money from those who deserve it, and have it to those who need it, wouldn't the situation change around? (Those who deserve it now become those who need it and those who needed it are undeserving, because they are now taking away from the needy)
Something to think about. |
If money is taken away from those who deserve it, I am sure they will come up with something ingenius to still be wealthy at the end of it. In most cases it takes someone really smart to accumulate wealth. It would have to be someone very artful to take that wealth away. And if they managed to do that, very soon all wealthy people will be doing business completely differently.
I think it is much better if giving is spontaneous and natural. In quite a number of cases, those who would feel voluntarily to give their money to those who need it, would have ten times the vision or wisdom to do it in an empowering way, rather than Governments, who have to employ bureacrats at high salaries to create programmes and make the needy feel like disempowered beggars, causing them to be even more needy than before assistance was given to them.
How many times have we heard of spontaneous giving, i.e. someone who lost everything they had in a fire, and a businessman from nowhere make an incredible donation. Think somewhere they also say that it particularly enriches those who keep it anonymous. I really believe in that. The more you give, the wealthier you become and the other way round. And this is not only limited to money. For example if there is something you really have your heart set on and you focus totally on it, i.e. give your energy to it, then there is a payback for it. If your focus is negative, and you give your negative energy to it, then that will also have a negative reward. We are both powerful as well as vulnerable in this, as business men who do well also say that they had to be prepared to take risks, in other words in order to be rich, you have to be completely comfortable with the risk of losing everything you have, the fear of losing can completely trip you up.
The other way round, how many times have we heard of a needy person, or people surrounding the needy focussing so strongly on being helped, and by a miracle a business man pipes up somewhere and helps them, so it is a two way street. I believe in the message that says "ask and it will be given to you", but also "be careful what you wish for". For me there is definitely a natural link between needy and those who have. And it can be positive for both. | deanhills wrote: |
| saratdear wrote: | I admit I have really nothing solid to add to the discussion, but, wouldn't you agree that if you took money from those who deserve it, and have it to those who need it, wouldn't the situation change around? (Those who deserve it now become those who need it and those who needed it are undeserving, because they are now taking away from the needy)
Something to think about. |
If money is taken away from those who deserve it, I am sure they will come up with something ingenius to still be wealthy at the end of it. In most cases it takes someone really smart to accumulate wealth. It would have to be someone very artful to take that wealth away. And if they managed to do that, very soon all wealthy people will be doing business completely differently.
I think it is much better if giving is spontaneous and natural. In quite a number of cases, those who would feel voluntarily to give their money to those who need it, would have ten times the vision or wisdom to do it in an empowering way, rather than Governments, who have to employ bureacrats at high salaries to create programmes and make the needy feel like disempowered beggars, causing them to be even more needy than before assistance was given to them.
How many times have we heard of spontaneous giving, i.e. someone who lost everything they had in a fire, and a businessman from nowhere make an incredible donation. Think somewhere they also say that it particularly enriches those who keep it anonymous. I really believe in that. The more you give, the wealthier you become and the other way round. And this is not only limited to money. For example if there is something you really have your heart set on and you focus totally on it, i.e. give your energy to it, then there is a payback for it. If your focus is negative, and you give your negative energy to it, then that will also have a negative reward. We are both powerful as well as vulnerable in this, as business men who do well also say that they had to be prepared to take risks, in other words in order to be rich, you have to be completely comfortable with the risk of losing everything you have, the fear of losing can completely trip you up.
The other way round, how many times have we heard of a needy person, or people surrounding the needy focussing so strongly on being helped, and by a miracle a business man pipes up somewhere and helps them, so it is a two way street. I believe in the message that says "ask and it will be given to you", but also "be careful what you wish for". For me there is definitely a natural link between needy and those who have. And it can be positive for both. |
Good points made, but how many people do that? A doubt only a small proportion. Is your average Joe (one who has pretty much enough to live by and some) going to be so compassionate like a person who has so much money that it doesn't matter if he reinstates a poor man's house? Also, it depends a lot on the person who is giving, too. If he had inherited his wealth, and knows he cannot make it back if he lost it, going to give it away, only to perhaps end up on the street himself? | saratdear wrote: |
| If he had inherited his wealth, and knows he cannot make it back if he lost it, going to give it away, only to perhaps end up on the street himself? |
There is that too. People being fearful of losing their money often act that way. And then of course it really happens as of course when you fear something, there is a good chance that you will manifest it. Some experts say that your mind does not have the ability to interpret negatives, so if you feed it negatives, it interprets the fears as wishes. So that is why they often say, be careful what you wish for? Also be careful what you fear? | ocalhoun wrote: |
I begin to notice that many of the political quarrels over money have their roots in this question:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it?
The two are rarely the same person. Those who deserve it worked hard for it those that don't deserve it never really put any effort into making anything of themselves, made poor decisions, or handled what they had badly and lost it. Those who need it have to have it to survive or have basic necessities, and those who don't need it already have all of these, and then some.
So, what's your answer to that question?
Am I nearing the core of the problem, you think, or am I off-base? |
You know, just because the two people aren't necessarily the same person, that doesn't imply the theories are mutually exclusive. At worst, you just have to prioritize. For example: first make sure those that need have their need taken care of, then let everything else fall to those who deserve. The rationale for this is simple - if someone has worked for something, it is immoral to take it from them without a reasonable justification... but suffering should always be avoided or minimized as much as possible. The prevention/limiting of suffering is, therefore, your reasonable justification... but you should only take so far as to prevent/limit suffering, and no more.
Once you have that notion in place, you just need to consider the possible circumstances:
- There is more than enough to meet everyone's needs: In this case, those who earn more get taxed more in order to ensure that everyone has a certain minimum standard. But once that standard is met, everything above that is by merit only. Someone who works hard may complain about having some percentage of their earnings skimmed to give to people they feel didn't deserve it, but frankly tough on them. Fairness is a luxury. Need is not.
- There is just enough to meet everyone's needs: In this case - the limiting case - it's practically, for all intents and purposes, communism. No one really has any motivation to work because everyone gets the same allotment (which is the minimum they need to survive). This sucks, yes, but the alternative is quite literally allowing individuals to advance at the expense of others - a dog-eat-dog, social Darwinist nightmare.
- There is not enough to meet everyone's needs: In this case, no matter what you do, some will suffer. It is unavoidable. Those who work harder will, naturally, have a better chance at survival. Those who don't, won't. The only thing you'd have to watch out for is if someone is earning more than the minimum they need to meet their needs. In that case, any excess should be syphoned off to someone who does not meet the minimum. Again, it may not be fair, but the alternative is needless suffering, and that's simply unjustifiable.
Those who oppose sharing the wealth under any circumstances - die-hard libertarians and capitalists - will often try appeals to emotion in their arguments, painting the ones that earn more than they need as heroic, hard workers, and those who that don't as lazy freeloaders riding on the coattails of society. They will also use slippery slope arguments, and try to argue that if the wealth is distributed, people will lose the motivation to work hard for it - which is nonsense, because the harder you work the more you benefit (assuming that we are not in the limiting case)... it's just the benefit is now non-linear. | Indi wrote: |
| ... it's just the benefit is now non-linear. |
True, but where in that spectrum will you find the 'ideal' work/benefit ratio, supposing that you want to work the least for the most benefit?
Also, there's a problem of 'if I don't take care of my own needs (take saving for retirement as an example), someone else will, so why bother?' | Indi wrote: |
Once you have that notion in place, you just need to consider the possible circumstances:
[list=1][*]There is more than enough to meet everyone's needs: In this case, those who earn more get taxed more in order to ensure that everyone has a certain minimum standard. But once that standard is met, everything above that is by merit only. Someone who works hard may complain about having some percentage of their earnings skimmed to give to people they feel didn't deserve it, but frankly tough on them. Fairness is a luxury. Need is not. |
Really enjoyed the posting Indi. My question has to do with who gets to calculate the minimum standards in the first paragraph above, as naturally minimum standards are different for people who are in the business of making money? For example someone who is surviving from day to day and has no interest in making money may live on one side of town. The financial broker who is brokering huge deals between say the City of Michigan and elite property dealers would be living on the other side of town? And the educated guy in Government who gets to assess the standards is living in yet another area of town. Sort of essential part of capitalism. My fear is if you are going to fiddle with that, you may just fiddle with the goose that lays the golden egg? Those making money may loose the incentive to continue to do so and start to hide it in the million clever ways that are always available to the savvy guys, less money will be available then for skimming, so those who need it may get less as well? Sort of a real art to take from the wealthy who happen to really work hard to produce their money and show profits year in and year out, just to have to be evaluated by someone who is much inferior to them, working on a salary, in fact, public companies have a fudiciary duty to protect their shareholders from allowing money to be skimmed. There will always be a savvy lawyer on the side of those who are savvy money earners. That is what makes them savvy in the first place? It may therefore be better to do this subtly and tax cuts employed artfully, i.e. by expanding on donation credits, etc. may work much better, sort of like the military crisis in Afghanistan, you have to use experts expertly to deal with those who are making the money to ensure that it goes round the financial system in the most efficient way that is beneficial to everybody? Perhaps skimming may not be a good way of doing it? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | ... it's just the benefit is now non-linear. |
True, but where in that spectrum will you find the 'ideal' work/benefit ratio, supposing that you want to work the least for the most benefit? |
That will depend on a lot of factors, including how much above the minimum needed to survive the country (or whatever) has per person, the distribution of that wealth (heavily concentrated, spread out), etc.
For example in a country where there is only a tiny number of people who are below the minimum acceptable standard of living, very little will have to be skimmed off of the earnings of those who make more than the minimum - so little that it may be entirely unnoticeable to anyone but the most anal-retentive of accountants. By contrast, where there are a large number of people below the minimum standard, the skimming will be more pronounced.
Also, when there is a very tiny middle class, the skimming on the very rich will be far more pronounced than when there is a large middle class and few ultra rich.
These are things that would have to be tuned to the specific situation in practise... but the general philosophy always holds.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Also, there's a problem of 'if I don't take care of my own needs (take saving for retirement as an example), someone else will, so why bother?' |
That is the standard objection by capitalists to this kind of socialist structure... but it's frankly nonsense.
First, the theoretical objection: assume there are enough people that feel this way to actually effect the overall economy - they decide that since they will be provided for if they don't work, they don't want to work, and they couldn't care less about the fact that they will only have the minimal standard. As more and more people feel this way, the economy suffers more and more until it gets to the point that it simply can't support everyone. And then you drop from point 1 on my list to point 3 (passing through 2 - i'll talk about 2 in a moment). And when that happens... you have to work to survive. One of two things will happen now... either people will continue to be lazy and just start dying off, shrinking the population until either it can support itself again (and it jumps back to 1) or dies off completely... or people will buck up and start working again until it jumps back to 1. So you see? No matter what happens, either the situation comes back to 1... or the civilization dies off (and the likelihood of the latter is... well it's not). Thus, 1 is the only stable state, and one way or another it will level off at 1.
(If it happens to stabilize at 2 - which is a very unstable state - then it could theoretically stay there... but like i said, this state is unstable, so it probably won't stick there.)
The point of pure capitalism is that it hopes to get into state 1 big time - whereas what i am describing may mean you only barely make it to state 1. This would mean slow economic growth compared to capitalism's promise of fast growth... but on the other hand it means no suffering, and capitalism has no promises there at all. Morally, i think it's pretty clear which is preferable.
Now, aside from the theoretical objection, there is also the practical objection: socialism has been tried in hundreds of countries, and there is no appreciable effect on the desire of most individuals to work a little extra to get more stuff, and rise above the minimum standard. The minimum standard doesn't have to be luxurious or even nice, after all. It just has to be the minimum standard for health and survival. Yes, there are free-wheelers - it's not a perfect world - but the evidence shows they are the minority. (Consider also that we have also seen (theoretically) communist states... and even there, where no one had to work at all (theoretically), people still tried to do better than their neighbours. It's in our genes to try and better our condition.)
| deanhills wrote: |
| My question has to do with who gets to calculate the minimum standards in the first paragraph above, as naturally minimum standards are different for people who are in the business of making money? |
The minimum standard of living has nothing to do with making money, and should be "calculated" (such as it is) by doctors, sociologists and psychologists. Those standards are the same for everyone, everywhere, no exceptions.
| deanhills wrote: |
| For example someone who is surviving from day to day and has no interest in making money may live on one side of town. The financial broker who is brokering huge deals between say the City of Michigan and elite property dealers would be living on the other side of town? And the educated guy in Government who gets to assess the standards is living in yet another area of town. |
i don't see that where the guy who determines the minimum standard of living actually lives matters at all. He is not using his lawn or his neighbours to determine what the minimum standard is, he is using an understanding of human psychology and physiology to determine what humans need to survive and be healthy. The address of the person who determines this doesn't factor into that equation at all.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Sort of essential part of capitalism. My fear is if you are going to fiddle with that, you may just fiddle with the goose that lays the golden egg? Those making money may loose the incentive to continue to do so and start to hide it in the million clever ways that are always available to the savvy guys, less money will be available then for skimming, so those who need it may get less as well? |
First of all, i don't have any philosophical objection to using clever tricks to try and hide your money from the tax man... so long as those tricks are legal. Why? Because in the end, it's extra work for extra money, which is what i have been talking about all along.
As for the other concern - that if enough people hide money to make it difficult or impossible to maintain the minimum, the answer to that seems obvious to me... skim more. It all comes back to the same thing, no matter how clever or greedy people might try to be - just enough is taxed to ensure that no one suffers... and while it is true that more you make the more you are taxed, the bottom line is still that you end up with more, so you still have incentive.
Maybe this will make more sense with numbers. Suppose you had 10 people and the cost of the minimum standard was $5. Let's say 2 people make $2, 5 make $5, 2 make $7 and 1 makes $10. The total amount available is $53, which means an average of $5.3 per person... so there is a surplus. Those two people who make less than $5 will not be taxed, and neither will the 5 who make exactly that. Only the 3 who make more will be taxed, and between them they will have to provide the $6 to support the 2 below $5. Let's say you take $1.75 from each of the $7 people and $2.50 from the $10 person. Now the total earnings for everyone are: 7 people make $5, 2 make $6.25 and 1 makes $7.50. You see? The people who work more still earn more.
Now suppose one of the $7 people decides to work harder, and eventually earns $10. So there are two who earn $2, 5 who earn $5, 1 who earns $7 and 2 who earn $10. Now the tax scale gets adjusted so the $7 person pays $1.50, and the two $10 guys pay $2.25. So the final totals are: 7 people making $5, 1 making $5.50 and 2 making $7.75. You see? Everyone gets richer! (Except those at the minimum, of course.) No one suffers.
Again i say: as in pure capitalism, the harder you work, the more you get - the only difference is that it is not linear. Note that some people got more wealthy while doing the same amount of work - and the reverse is true that if less people work. Everyone is motivated to work (assuming they want to live better lives and not just get by on the minimum), and everyone is motivated to ensure that everyone else does well. And, most importantly, no one suffers.Thanks Indi this is an excellent example to work with. If all those guys who are going to do the calculations along the numbers you have shown can be of your calibre and integrity, I have no problem with it working out. But this is probably more likely to happen: there will be an X Government Department doing lots of research on a special form that has to be completed. Those who earn 10$ may work with their own special research teams in order to bring the reporting of the amount down to about 7$ or less. It would be easy to hide it somewhere in the assets or affiliate companies who have not reported profits for the year. Those earning $5 and more may not have the same resources for special research teams for savvy reporting, and like all present income tax systems, it will be that middle category that will be footing the bulk of the "skim" bill. By skimming more it will have a double whammy effect on that middle category as well. Much better to work subtly with it through donations and special tax credits in an empowering way. Perhaps there is a psychological dimension that when someone forces you to do something through a regulation, you are much less motivated to do it, than skilful pursuasion that has benefits for the ego. An idea comes to mind for example to have a programme of recruitment in place where tax credits can be given for employing the unemployed in selected categories. Etc.
| Indi wrote: |
| And when that happens... you have to work to survive. One of two things will happen now... either people will continue to be lazy and just start dying off, shrinking the population until either it can support itself again (and it jumps back to 1) or dies off completely... or people will buck up and start working again until it jumps back to 1. |
The first way of returning to 1 here doesn't seem like it would be a good part of a system to reduce suffering... Especially since by that point, the system will have to be skimming the maximum possible amount, so even the hard-working people will be near the brink of failure as people start dying off... | deanhills wrote: |
| Thanks Indi this is an excellent example to work with. If all those guys who are going to do the calculations along the numbers you have shown can be of your calibre and integrity, I have no problem with it working out. |
If you're going to assume that level of corruption in the government, then no system at all will work. The only ones who will benefit in that case - no matter how you structure the society - will be the most powerful. Any formal system you try to put in place, whether capitalist or socialist, will just be for show - what you'll really have is just social Darwinism.
But in a free country, that should never happen. In theory, the citizenry - who are really ultimately responsible for the government and what it does - should be well enough informed, and interested enough in the working of their own society to see that the people doing the calculating are of the highest calibre, and integrity. If they fail to do so, for whatever reason (they're not well enough informed, they don't care about economic policies and/or they just "trust" certain people to handle things to their benefit), then they are only screwing themselves. The point of a socialist structure is that it is set up so that when one person tries to make their own life better, everyone (the society as a whole) benefits - as opposed to capitalism where when one person tries to make their own life better, no one else but themselves benefits (and, in fact, one person's improvement is at the expense of everyone else). But no one can help people if they just want to screw themselves - which is the case if they allow the system to be corrupted as you suggest.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Those who earn 10$ may work with their own special research teams in order to bring the reporting of the amount down to about 7$ or less. It would be easy to hide it somewhere in the assets or affiliate companies who have not reported profits for the year. Those earning $5 and more may not have the same resources for special research teams for savvy reporting, and like all present income tax systems, it will be that middle category that will be footing the bulk of the "skim" bill. |
As i said, i am not opposed to people who want to spend the extra time and money to find ways to pay less to the society. But that holds true not only for the rich, but for the middle class. If it is possible for the $10 earners to really bring down their reported earnings that far - to the point where it starts to put a burden on everyone else - then it is the responsibility of everyone else to put a stop to that. For example, they could lobby to change the tax laws stricter to make this kind of thing illegal - so that moving money from one company to another to hide it is not possible.
The bottom line is that people will have to keep an eye on the government to make sure they are not corrupted, on the system to make sure that it is fair, and on each other (for example, by having a government office that audits people occasionally, to ensure they are not pulling anything too funny). But how is that different from any other system?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And when that happens... you have to work to survive. One of two things will happen now... either people will continue to be lazy and just start dying off, shrinking the population until either it can support itself again (and it jumps back to 1) or dies off completely... or people will buck up and start working again until it jumps back to 1. |
The first way of returning to 1 here doesn't seem like it would be a good part of a system to reduce suffering... Especially since by that point, the system will have to be skimming the maximum possible amount, so even the hard-working people will be near the brink of failure as people start dying off... |
No, you've misunderstood me. To reply to you before, what i did first was assume the absolute worst of people... and then i showed that even with that assumption, the system eventually stabilizes for the best (it just does so after a fair amount of hardship). Then i went on to explain that all the historical and contemporary evidence shows that assuming the absolute worst of people is simply a bad assumption - it's just not the way people really are. So the scenario i outlined first will just never happen.
However! Let's assume again that people are as lazy as all that - such that if they were guaranteed a certain minimum of survival, they simply won't bother to try any harder, and people would be disinclined to work if some of their money was going to be taken and put back in to society. Once again, you get the scenario i described before, where it goes down to 3, then either people buck up or die off until it gets back to 1. As horrible as this extreme hypothetical case is, realize that at every single point throughout the whole thing, the absolute minimum people are suffering. As you say, yes, at that point, even the hardest workers are just barely getting by... but think about what that means! Because if they were doing anything better than just barely getting by, they would have luxury money when others are dying off! It sucks that so much of their earnings are being taken from them, sure, but if those earnings weren't being taken, then they would simply have comforts (as opposed to satisfied needs) while others don't even have their needs met.
The system is intended to guarantee that at any point in time - no matter what else is happening - the fewest amount of people suffer. And no matter what the nature of people is - even if you assume the absolute worst of them - that will always be true. A side effect of the system is that every time a person works harder they benefit both themselves and society in general, whereas if they choose to slack off they hurt both themselves and the society. The system has a bit of a failsafe in that it can tolerate a certain amount of people who don't care about hurting themselves and the society, before it actually starts to slip down into 3... but it can only tolerate so many, and even those that it can support before slipping down are still hurting the society. It is thus the responsibility of the rest of society - and it is in their best interest! - to find ways to minimize the number of people below the poverty line (both the ones who are there because they are lazy, and those who have good reason). Basically: you help yourself, and everyone benefits; you help others, and you benefit indirectly.
The problem with capitalism is that while those that benefit from it benefit handily... people are left unnecessarily suffering when there is enough wealth in the society that they should not have to. In order to alleviate this suffering, capitalists appeal to charity... but the evidence is clear that charity isn't that powerful a human motivator - most people are charitable, to a point, some of the time, but it is hardly something you can rely on. On the flip side you have socialism, where those that benefit do not benefit quite as largely... but there is never any more suffering than necessary. And in order to minimize this suffering, socialists appeal to... greed! And self-interest - because the more you benefit yourself, the more society benefits as a side effect. These are far more powerful motivators, and much safer to rely on.Web developers should have it...
| Indi wrote: |
| The point of a socialist structure is that it is set up so that when one person tries to make their own life better, everyone (the society as a whole) benefits - as opposed to capitalism where when one person tries to make their own life better, no one else but themselves benefits (and, in fact, one person's improvement is at the expense of everyone else). But no one can help people if they just want to screw themselves - which is the case if they allow the system to be corrupted as you suggest. |
Thanks Indi, the whole comment was well put and I was shaking my head up and down right through it. I listened to Obama's inaugural speech and matching up its content with your comment, was wondering whether his objectives are then to move more towards socialism? As it pretty much embraced what you were saying.
| Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Those who earn 10$ may work with their own special research teams in order to bring the reporting of the amount down to about 7$ or less. It would be easy to hide it somewhere in the assets or affiliate companies who have not reported profits for the year. Those earning $5 and more may not have the same resources for special research teams for savvy reporting, and like all present income tax systems, it will be that middle category that will be footing the bulk of the "skim" bill. |
As i said, i am not opposed to people who want to spend the extra time and money to find ways to pay less to the society. But that holds true not only for the rich, but for the middle class. If it is possible for the $10 earners to really bring down their reported earnings that far - to the point where it starts to put a burden on everyone else - then it is the responsibility of everyone else to put a stop to that. For example, they could lobby to change the tax laws stricter to make this kind of thing illegal - so that moving money from one company to another to hide it is not possible.
The bottom line is that people will have to keep an eye on the government to make sure they are not corrupted, on the system to make sure that it is fair, and on each other (for example, by having a government office that audits people occasionally, to ensure they are not pulling anything too funny). But how is that different from any other system? |
Sorry to refer to Obama's speech again, but looks as though the above comment matches up again. Obama wants more audits for the banking system, greater responsibility of officials in charge of Government Programme spending as well as checking systems to check up that the programmes are having the desired results for the people that they are intended for. Will be interesting to see whether and how this will manifest in the US. | deanhills wrote: |
| Thanks Indi, the whole comment was well put and I was shaking my head up and down right through it. I listened to Obama's inaugural speech and matching up its content with your comment, was wondering whether his objectives are then to move more towards socialism? As it pretty much embraced what you were saying. |
Yes, in the United States - in theory at least - the Democratic party is a fairly socialist party whereas the Republican party is big on the free market. (In practice, though, if the US Democratic party were compared to socialist parties in most countries, it wouldn't be considered very socialist at all. And the Republican party is just an ideological mess right now - it is supposed to be about libertarian values ("small government"), but it is actually much less libertarian than the Democratic party - it might even be considered to be socialist if it weren't for the fact that its idea of redistributing the wealth is giving all the wealth to the wealthy and praying that it will trickle down, rather than the socialist concept of spreading the wealth around evenly.)
| deanhills wrote: |
| Sorry to refer to Obama's speech again, but looks as though the above comment matches up again. Obama wants more audits for the banking system, greater responsibility of officials in charge of Government Programme spending as well as checking systems to check up that the programmes are having the desired results for the people that they are intended for. |
Wanting more oversight of the big companies and programmes isn't really a socialist concept per se. Even a hard-core supply-side economist would want proper oversight of big companies. Socialism is about how to structure the economy so that wealth travels in certain directions (while growing). Other theories want to structure the economy in different ways, so that wealth travels in other directions. But all of them would want to make sure that companies are not cheating, and that all taxes are being collected - they just differ on how those tax revenues will be spent.
The demand for better oversight of the economy is not a socialist change, it is a reaction to the mismanagement by the previous US administration. Their economy is in a mess now because of the fact that the previous administration did not do proper oversight (and, in fact, relaxed oversight requirements). If their previous administration were not incompetent, they would have done proper oversight - the only thing that would have changed is how the government spent the money it earns in taxes.
Or to put it another way, the current economic mess would exist regardless of whether the previous administration were socialist or capitalist - given it was as badly managed as it was. Either a socialist or a capitalist president could fix it now - by managing it properly. You see? The problem there was not economic ideology. It was just incompetence. The previous administration managed the economy badly. Obama wants to manage it better - not because he is a socialist, but because he is not an idiot. | Indi wrote: |
| Their economy is in a mess now because of the fact that the previous administration did not do proper oversight (and, in fact, relaxed oversight requirements). If their previous administration were not incompetent, they would have done proper oversight - the only thing that would have changed is how the government spent the money it earns in taxes. |
Thanks Indi! So well written. A thought occurred to me as I was listening to UK Brown and Darling addressing a Press Conference on their latest bail-out package to the banks, and boy ol' boy did they ask Brown and Darling specific questions; it did not look as though Brown was very impressed with that, possibly expected the Press to be wowing him all the way. I was wondering, by giving such a lot of money to the banks, in almost a blank cheque, is that not going to continue what was bad before, all the ingredients are still the same? The same players are involved, doing the same things. Even with the best and noblest intentions, isn't this going to have the same result? Everyone looking after themselves, and the banks most of all? Wasn't that the problem right from the beginning? The Building Societies got worked out by being taken over, the big banks became bigger, and too big to really take proper care of its bottom line. Wouldn't it be better to start from scratch and recreate those very solid Building Societies we had before? The Banks have grown so very far away from normal people. I saw it when I was in Guernsey. Banks like HSBC say they have an office in Guernsey, but it is an office on the Internet really. Nothing is transparent. The Building Societies were completely transparent and that is compliance in its own right when you can see and know what you are dealing with! Think some bright guy said somewhere by trying to solve a problem by doing it the same way will not have the desired change as a result. And I think he is right. The problem occurred when there was already strict compliance policies with highly paid compliance officers in place. I know, because I worked for the brokerage industry in Canada and had to learn all the rules and regulations, be licensed to death as well as all trades were supervised and scrutinzed by compliance officers. So now we still have everything the same, maybe stricter compliance rules, but we are still dealing with those same Banks which aren't that transparent in their structure or in their dealings with their customers. And on the Government side these magic bail-out packages are not that transparent either. Who are the Governments protecting really? They need money from Banks, Banks have to underwrite all their loans and bonds? I wonder really how savvy all of this really is?The picture is incredibly complex and defies simple 'socialist vs capitalist' analysis. I know several hard-line capitalists who think the banks should have been left to go bankrupt. I know several socialists who agree, for different reasons.
It is certainly a bitter-pill for the average tax payer to swallow - particularly when, like today, there are media reports of the executives of failed banks (Northern Rock in this instance) receiving large bonuses which are supposed to reward success.
I doubt whether it would be possible to reinstate the old 'mutual' Building Societies and I'm not too sure what the benefit would be. The fact is that modern financial instruments are incredibly complex -way beyond the abilities of most people to grasp (including me). Securitisation was supposed to spread risk and reduce the chance of catastrophic failure - in fact it has done the opposite because nobody knows anymore which risks are good and which are bad.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The picture is incredibly complex and defies simple 'socialist vs capitalist' analysis. I know several hard-line capitalists who think the banks should have been left to go bankrupt. I know several socialists who agree, for different reasons.
It is certainly a bitter-pill for the average tax payer to swallow - particularly when, like today, there are media reports of the executives of failed banks (Northern Rock in this instance) receiving large bonuses which are supposed to reward success.
I doubt whether it would be possible to reinstate the old 'mutual' Building Societies and I'm not too sure what the benefit would be. The fact is that modern financial instruments are incredibly complex -way beyond the abilities of most people to grasp (including me). Securitisation was supposed to spread risk and reduce the chance of catastrophic failure - in fact it has done the opposite because nobody knows anymore which risks are good and which are bad. |
The Building Societies were situated right within the communities, were completely approachable, made sense, and performed a great role in circulating cash and loans for real estate, automobiles etc. The Banks of today are big business, completely shrouded in layers of departments, business sections, they have gone too big, are more interested in multi-million deals, and I think this could be part of the reason that they defaulted and actually must fold. Wouldn't it have been better for the Government to allow those banks to fail, and then to invest in new banks that are close to those people that the money is intended for, or a combination of both? The big banks in the way they are structured presently are layers of bureaucracy away from the people that the money is supposed to reach. With new compliance regulations, this could even get worse. Protect the banks to the detriment of those who are supposed to benefit from the package, and who indirectly are bailing the banks out. Real irony in that.1. there is more than enuff to meet everyone's need!
* This is the truth!!!!! I ensure you.
Then ask:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it?
| spinout wrote: |
1. there is more than enuff to meet everyone's need!
* This is the truth!!!!! I ensure you.
Then ask:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it? |
I thought everyone would need money, even those who deserve it? | ocalhoun wrote: |
I begin to notice that many of the political quarrels over money have their roots in this question:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it?
The two are rarely the same person. Those who deserve it worked hard for it those that don't deserve it never really put any effort into making anything of themselves, made poor decisions, or handled what they had badly and lost it. Those who need it have to have it to survive or have basic necessities, and those who don't need it already have all of these, and then some.
So, what's your answer to that question?
Am I nearing the core of the problem, you think, or am I off-base? |
I think that there are not simply 2 categories as you mention
- people who deserve it (I think that to some extent everybody would deserve a share of it, the other point is the repartition)
- people who are missing it (I guess also everybody needs it, so it is more a point if you don't have enough)
In the 2 categories above ther is a kind of implicit assumption that the ones that get the more money deserve it (as they are not in the missing money category). And I guess that is very far from the truth.
Many people will work very hard doing jobs that are not rewarded to their correct values.
And some other people (no need to mention all the financial scandals lately for instance) that do huge mistakes that harm a lot of people and get handsomely rewarded.
So you can make very poor decisions and be very rich specially if you have the good connections and work very hard and get low wages.
So maybe a better question is "does people getting most of the money deserve it".
In my opinion some of them do but most of them not.sorry double post due to bad internet connection
| fx-trading-education wrote: |
| sorry double post due to bad internet connection |
I'm having the same problem tonight. Feels as though I am negotiating the Rapids in Colorado
I liked your posting and when I got to the quote below, was thinking about the Banks, and those responsible for making decisions in the Banks that got us to the position we are in today? And not only the Banks are at fault, but Governments too. And all of them were handsomely rewarded for their services and are still in the process of being rewarded, have you seen any heads rolling yet, anyone asked to account for their actions, or is all of this done hush-hush behind the scenes and then a guy like Brown comes out and says that the real problem was not really in the Banks in England, but their international transactions. Nothing is transparent. Guess everyone has noted that the bail-out money of November is not reaching the people who are actually sponsoring this exercise and for which the money was intended and since this delay when quite a number of businesses could have been saved a number of good people in small businesses, who deserve to have money, have gone under.
So good point on your part:
| Quote: |
So maybe a better question is "does people getting most of the money deserve it".
In my opinion some of them do but most of them not. |
^Well, yes, by the people who deserve it, I don't mean the super-elites. Nobody could possibly deserve that much money.
By those who deserve it, I mainly mean the middle to upper-middle class, the kind who went to college for four to six years and applied themselves to become well-off.
| deanhills wrote: |
| spinout wrote: | 1. there is more than enuff to meet everyone's need!
* This is the truth!!!!! I ensure you.
Then ask:
Who should have the money? Those who deserve it, or those who need it? |
I thought everyone would need money, even those who deserve it? |
Of course! Who deserves not money??? | ocalhoun wrote: |
^Well, yes, by the people who deserve it, I don't mean the super-elites. Nobody could possibly deserve that much money.
By those who deserve it, I mainly mean the middle to upper-middle class, the kind who went to college for four to six years and applied themselves to become well-off. |
How about the guys/gals who came from the lower classes and became very rich? Self-made millionnaires? Was just thinking about how good they would be for society as they would create something successful that would employ people as well as set a wonderful example and motivate people. They probably deserve what they got? Depending of course on how ethical their businesses are? Obviously there are also self-made millionnaires via dope dealing, racketeering, etc. etc. Not only are they destroying society but they are setting bad examples. I do not believe they deserve the money they have.Everybody needs money and everybody who earns it without braking law deserves it!
Breaking the law; i'd pay people if they break stupid laws ) Well I agree with biljab. Those that work hard deserves to have the money but then the world is not fair!!!. What about those who do not have the opportunity to work hard to earn the money?
