My aplogies, but have you taken a look at Japan’s economy of late?
I hear that Japan is at top with the technology industry?
What’s wrong?
They’ve had a terrible economy since the early 90’s when their finacial markets crashed. While their exports are up, and some sectors remain very cometitve, the inside of the country is in financial turmoil. Their GDP is awful. Prices are very high. And for example, to buy a Sony here in the U.S. will cost less for an American consumer than it will for a Japanese consumer. And don’t forget the Japense have a very different social system, they are a collectivist society, and that has deep social and political effects.
We cannot have both: Socialism is the lower phase of Communism, in which the means of production are owned by the workers. In Captialism, the means of production are owned by a small minority of private owners. It does not make sense to have both. What people call the “Socialist-Captialist hybrid”, is in reality, Capitalism with more regulations placed upon it. Captialism itself is riddled with contradictions that will lead to its downfall. Socialists seek to overthrow Captialism to bring about a much better society, while Capitalists want to safeguard their rights to exploiting workers for surplus-value by any means necessary.
I have a proposal pretty much along those lines…
A ROAD TO FREEDOM (UNLIKE RUSSIA’S)
Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism; and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not the other way around. Why not HUMANISM?
Naturally, education and health care should be the maximum priorities; they should be free -or affordable, in the case of higher education- and accessible to all. Education should emphasize the learning of English -or Esperanto, if we all ever agree on it- and literacy… in computers. Likewise, culture and sports should receive special attention (for example, adopting the affordable child-care centers; in general, we would have much to learn from the Scandinavian model). A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, that includes competition and cooperation, would create a healthy competition, and it would allow to satisfy the material and human needs of all. (In this way, the cooperative enterprises would be forced to become more efficient, while capitalist enterprises would be forced to become more humane; we would have much to learn from the Israeli kibbutz [non-profit cooperatives]; and from the industrial cooperatives of Mondragon, in the Basque Country [a “workers capitalism”].) We should seek full employment (for instance, by creating jobs in the construction of the transportation infrastructure; but, if unemployment persists, the work time could be reduced). Public transportation should be A1. (The city of Curitiba, in Brazil, offers us a functional model of transportation; bicycle lanes should be implemented along all major streets.) The homeless, who now occupy our better parks, should be incorporated into light but necessary duties, like picking up litter, in exchange for a decent wage; there should be no homeless. (Again, Curitiba is a model on this.) Junk food should have a warning label (just like cigarettes), particularly the one destined to children, and also be taxed to subsidize healthy alternatives. Housing should be available at popular prices. (Prefabricated multifamily units can help accomplish this; the movement of “new urbanism” can provide them with a sense of community and quality of life, say by having abundant green areas.) Public corruption should be treated as “public enemy No.1.” TV and radio should be independent of Big Business and the State. (This is due to two reasons: culturally, because the ratings make bad programs become “good”… for business; and, politically, because whoever has power over the media… will be in power; however, people should be able to watch anything on video and cable; the BBC offers us and example of an independent media.) The “Free Press” should be democratized, so that, among other things, the censorship of the opinions of the public is eradicated. Politics should become cheaper to avoid its control by powerful groups (for example, offering free time on TV to the candidates; we would have much to learn from the political model of Switzerland [in particular, its political decentralization and its opportunity to “vote with your feet” between cantons]). Politicians should live in the worst area they represent. Nevertheless, we should never follow neither anything nor anyone -including myself- blindly. And, of course, everything can be improved. Something to think about: While the prohibition of drugs has been largely ineffective and costly (in money, lives, crime), regulated legalization -like that of Holland- can be a better solution to both addiction and crime. And living free from fear of crime should be treated as a basic need of society. In general, our policy should be that of “teaching them how fish,” not of “giving them the fish.” The final form of this system would be determined by the acceptance of the people themselves: Each and everyone of these proposals should be submitted to referendum. And, the basis of everything else: We should learn to live, not FROM, but WITH Nature. This would amount to COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE.
A COMMENT FROM A FRIEND:
The system you describe sounds awfully good. I’d say no country is on the road you suggest, but it might be a good thing for world leaders to read your article, since it could give them some goals. What a wonder it’d be, for example, if George Bush announced some actual long-term goals for the country, instead of reacting to events in a knee-jerk fashion. I’m picking on George, but much the same can be said of most any world leader I know of.
-Charles
that is a well written proposal that sounds like it could actually make me like this countrys leadership if they did it all.
ive discovered the only thing that we need for ultimate world happiness: leaders who give a shit.
I was watching a rerun of the Daily Show last night and caught Jon commenting on a priest giving a prayer in the Senate, and blessing all the congressmen. It occured to me that if they wanted to be blessed by their god, the least they could have done was do it in a church and not in a secular building. Then again, they’re politicians, and they don’t give a shit about what others want, only what they want.
What I don’t get is the total lack of respect for freedom here. Future man, you ask why a wealth cap wouldn’t work, I’ll give you a few reasons.
One, it infringes on freedom. Say I’m an inventor and I invent a space ship because I’d really like to do some experiments in space and flying into space has been a dream of mine. Let’s say the government values my new invention as being worth 150 million dollars and thus confiscates a 2/3-share in it. Now suddenly, there are two choices, either the government will regulate how I use it, or they will use it how they like. Frankly, my share in it will be useless since I won’t be able to partake in any profit from the spaceship since I’m already worth 50 million dollars. Now I can’t buy a new spaceship, I get no benefit from the spaceship I’ve built, and I’m at the mercy of the government. I no longer would even have the right to fly my own spaceship. All my hard work has gone to crap.
Two, another type of infringement on freedom. My first infringement merely showed how independent technological research would be dissuaded and it also shows how assets would be totally kept down. Secondly I would like to note that all freedom would be curtailed since the standard would be set that no one actually owns their property or the fruits of it, or even their own labour and the fruits of it. Rather, all labour and property and their fruits belong to some misty thing known as “government”. Effectively, we would all be slaves, period.
Third, it would utterly destroy any chance at competition and non-government companies. Why? Well there would no longer be any leadership in the private realm. Can you imagine limiting people to 40 million dollars of Walmart or Microsoft stock and expecting any decisions to be made? (I say 40 million, since people would likely keep the rest of their wealth cap in cars and homes and other usable assets) Without majority stockholders there would be no reliable way of assigning leadership. If both Bill Gates and Joe Shmoe III have 50 million dollars in wealth how do you know which is more able? Wealth is the way in which large corporations can find out which businessmen are the most able for their jobs, the ones who know how the market works, have connections in high places, and know how to build and consolidate a large enterprise. Without this means of identification it is undoubtable that corporations would quickly be taken over by government to keep them afloat or simply nationalized under the “community interest”. This would make leadership of these corporations now dependent upon the government way of doing things, bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is just not effective in producing the right type of people for entrepreneurial decisions. Bureaucrats are not risk-takers, they advance by seniority rather than ability, they also advance by political connections rather than ability. Bureaucrats aren’t creative, they are instead built to follow regulations to the letter and are trained to always follow the policy of CYA. Quickly all consumer goods would be provided without any thought of the market, namely consumer’s wishes, and instead would be ruled by politics. Read “Bureaucracy” by Ludwig Von Mises for a better identification of this, it is a classic. Competition with the government run enterprises would be virtually nil no matter how much freedom was given since every entreprenuer would be limited to 50 million dollars before his profits ceased to matter and his accumulation of assets began to result in government shares in his corporation and eventually government ownership of his corporation. 50 million dollars in assets is not that much and it does not take long for a good entrepreneur to reach that plateau. Imagine how much worse computer technology would be if every one of the men like Bill Gates had quit as soon as they hit 50 million? All of our best innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, and businessmen would be out of the system almost before they started.
Fourth, it would be ineffective. My examples have assumed that your plan would work precisely as you want it. Although my examples still hold true, the fact is that your plan WOULDN’T work precisely how you want it. What happens when I hit 50 million? Well I invite an immigrant in and give them the title to most of it and I continue reaping the profits. I bribe a few inspectors and bureaucrats to keep this going on and everything’s hunky dory. I can also give control of assets and money to friends, family, etc. All I’d have to do is sign ownership over to them but then have them sign ove control and power of attourney to me. And if you tried to deal with this, it would just lead to a black market for banking. People will start reporting “thefts” in excess of ten million dollars. Your only defense will be to persecute and imprison the most able people in our society. Even then you will have to depend on bureaucrats not taking bribes to let them out. Then entire plan will punish the law-abiding, the good-natured, and the new entrepreneurs/inventors while the old rich will get away scot-free. Not to mention that real control will swing to bureaucracy and the government. You thought free market businessmen were bad? Well at least they had to help people to get money, bureaucrats only have to raise taxes. You think you can make a system where only the nice people get to the top? Well let me tell you, if the prize is all those billions of dollars and the power that goes with them do you really think you’ll stop the devious of our society from getting power? They will act, they will bribe, they will lie, and eventually they’ll take control. Only while the gem of government power is dull will we be safe, when that gem is as amazing as you want to make it we’ll become as oppressed as any people has ever been. All for you good intentions…
hmm, to answer the initial question:
they can, try the Belgian model
it works, ya know 
hey thanks a lot poetic. zeno look at that, he actually wrote something that directly talks about what i said.
i can very much imagine this. i can very much imagine not caring about making more than $50mil if i can still fly around in space and have tons of fun. i can actually imagine working hard (and not having space fun) for the sake of people i dont know simply because working is a time waster and golf gets boring after 20 years. sure i wouldnt work as much and technology would slow down, who said that tech slowing down will neccesarily decrease human happiness? what else matters besides human happiness?
why does not making tons of cash equal ‘not having a useful share in it’. arent you interested in making your product do the great things that its intended for? dont you consider working towards the betterment of humans you dont know a decent thing to waste time on once you have given $50mil to all the people you know and care about?
if you care about money and not making a perfect product simply for the sake of making a perfect product, i dont want you making products. i dont want you ‘discovering’ a new cheap way to make walmart quality goods simply because it makes you more money and not because it helps humans.
who said that? the fact that it costs more than $50mil to fly it? ok fine, well since you invented it, you are in charge of the gov program that regulates and does the things that happen with it. thats fair. see what i did? i give a crap about what happens so i make a little arbitrary rule that makes it work. all you have to do is try.
no, not all. i dont know why you would use the word ‘all’ when obviously you have $50mil. “all ridiculously superfluous freedom that you dont need is curtailed” is what you meant to say i think.
except for the fact that you can stop working and play golf and sit on your $50mil for the rest of your life at any point in time after becoming a slave. wait thats not slavery is it?
thats weird, what happens to those companies that dont have stockholders? anarchy? or were they able to select a leader?
thats a good point, however! its not effective in this current system we have today. the reason why beaurocratically selected officials are such wusses is because they know that the beaureau has their eye on them and they dont want to lose their salary so they do the thing that will most certainly keep their job and their cash.
in the utopia, the only people who are going to be selected by the beaureau are those who truly want to help the company and not those who want money in their pockets. if you have nothing to lose by being fired, youll take plenty of risks. if the beareau doesnt care about being fired by their boss beareau, they will be less likely to fire risk takers. everything changes when money isnt the goal, everybodys attitude changes.
i dont see where you get this conclusion from. besides, consumers want stupid things. im more than willing to take away a little bit of their freedom to choose DMX over Bela Fleck. if MTV wasnt out to make money, but rather to promote the best music no matter the cost, rap would be done with and my radio would have more than 3 stations worth listening to.
i should have been a lot more specific. you can own a business that has tons of money and you can spend that money on the business or on something besides yourself. you cant spend it on your own masturbation. the regulation would be less aimed at confiscating business profits and more on making sure that people have less than 10 houses and 300 cars.
you decide where the money goes. give it to your wife until she has $50m, then your kids, then your friends, then business associates, then maybe charity, whatever. it doesnt matter as long as its not all in your black hole bank account forever. what if bill gates was forced to find friends to give all his spare personal cash to? if he has $10b, he could $50m to 200 people. i guess it doesnt sound like that much, but most likely most of those people would be spending it back into the economy at a faster rate than bill can by himself. also, as those 200 people spend the money, they get more happiness per dollar than bill would a la the law of decreasing marginal utility.
what if microsoft was focused on making computer products instead of countless billions? oh man would that be awesome. i dont care if the technoogy develops slower if its higher quality all the time. personally i dont think it would slow down enough to care. i think the fact that the company will be entirely ruled by people who only care about computers and not their personal masturbation, that could actually increase the rate of tech development.
the way i see it, if rich people have the opportunity to make infinite money, but are forced to give it to somebody else of their choosing, then they are still completely motivated, except they arent so focused on the money anymore. they still work as opposed to golf because they know they can help the world and their friends, but they are less worried about taking risks, less focused on the material rewards that they will personally receive, and just more relaxed about life in general.
well if thats why we dont do big economic plans, then its time for laissez faire.
so wait you say youre worried about evil billionaires taking control and having evil power over the world, you say they will lie and bribe and then you say the way to stop this is to have less govt regulation?! id be very interested to see the benefits of fewer govt regulations.
precisely, and some people get a major “high” from making profits. I mean, i seriously doubt Bill Gates needs to stay in control of his company any longer, he’s got enough money to do whatever he wants. So why does he still do it? Because he seems to be the sort of person who, like Scrooge, enjoys counting shekels, or rather increasing the amount of sheekels he can count. Your plan would stop the happiness of those types of people.
How many inventors have produced great goods for the sake of making a dollar versus how many have made good products just for the sake of making good products? Your problem is that you don’t realize that value judgements are subjective. I may consider one car good, and you another. Who’s right, who’s wrong? In the market there is no right and wrong. As long as some people agree with you, you can make your “good” car. To complete this, say I think a good car is one that lasts long, you think a good car is one that is environmentally friendly, and Bill thinks a good car is one that’s cheap and affordable so that poor people can afford it. Now who’s cars get built? With profit-making in mind, supply and demand solves the problem. No one is crapped on by government deciding what’s best for them, and if they pursue their goal with enough vigor they can get the car they like. Under the idea that I should just make what I think is good, my values end up trumping the values of the consumers. I’m not saying either way is perfect, but we are limited by practicality to either a top-down approach or a bottom-up approach. The bottom-up, or free market, approach is what I feel to be the “best” because it makes the most people happy. Not to mention that the bottom-up approach protects us against the corruption that results from too much power residing int he hands of one person or one group.
Only problem is that that often doesn’t happen. How smart is it to make a mere inventor the pilot when he doesn’t have the best reflexes and other qualifications? By your own way of organizing things often the inventor would be left out. Not only that, but why would a government want to reward a person who proved that advances could be made without it? An inventor is a huge threat to government in that they decrease trust in government. That is why when government takes control of inventions the inventors almost always lose control. Not to mention that people who spend their time inventing instead of politicking often don’t have the connections in government to retain control. You may think it’s “just that easy” but what happens when corporation A helps out government in some way and “just wants control over the space industry in return”?
Suppose you were allowed to do a certain amount of work, but the second after you finished that work someone came and put you in chains, how are you any less a slave just because you’re allowed to do SOME work for yourself? Why its even worse, because at elast slaves get something in return for their slavery…
TBC…
the law of decreasing marginal utility says that if i eat one candy bar, i am five units of happy. when i immediately eat another one, its going to be slightly less simply because being deprived of candy bars increases the enjoyment of getting the first one. if bill gates was given 10k, i suppose he would be slightly amused if he noticed. compare that to dancing, shouting, crying poor people who just got rid of their debt.
when was the last time this was possible?
absolutely. for this reason, i do not advocate communism. most people will not have $50 million and the world will look exactly as it does today, minus the pointless and pure evil billionaires. the only problem with billionaires is that they dont realize that more happiness across the planet really does matter and they are not gods among men.
forcing them to give their money to somebody will show them over and over again how ridiculously good it feels to give somebody $50mil. they will learn and they will love to do it without govt intervention. if we dont first intervene, they wont learn and they and thousands of their neighbors will be much less happy as a result.
again, i dont want the gov to confiscate their stuff and let evil govt billionaires do the evil. i want the gov to make sure that they donate it to something besides their bank account. the irs could do this if they wanted couldnt they?
because the govt of the awesome future isnt a bunch of bastards who i hate. its me, im world emperor and i dont pull this crap. i actually care about helping the country and not finding a way to hide my lies.
if i considered my job nothing but pure work and no interesting brain exercise, id leave in a second. if it was a challenge for me and i felt like i was making a good difference in the world, and i knew that there were lots of people who would appreciate it if i donated money to them, then id prefer a job to golf any day.
if people exist who dont agree with me that donating money to the downtrodden is a good use of time, i dont want them infesting my country. i want to make rules that make their pathedic lives less enjoyable for them so that they go pollute some other country. this will help america retain its superpower status more than all the evil subterfuge we have perpetrated ever can.
I also wanted to mention that not everyone gets happiness from leisure time. that’s why there is such disparity in wealth and occupation among Mensa members. Some are truck drivers, some are billionaires.
They don’t select a leader, the entrepreneur creates the company and is therefore its leader. If you would respond to the whole part instead of piecemeal you would notice that I deal with both entrepreneurial companies and established corporations.
A utopia is a place that doesn’t and can’t exist. I thoguht we were talking about plans for the future, about a possible, if not exactly plausible, way of doing things. If we are talking about a utopia, I’ll stop as soon as you tell me and you can continue talking about blue unicorns and neverending gobstoppers
Truly this is a utopia. How can you tell who wants to help and who’s just a loon or a good liar? Also, most people, I believe, are good intentioned. Yet they have vastly different programmes. A bureaucracy which selects people based on their “good intentions” will quickly become mired in unending arguments, sort of liek this discussion board, and either never do anything or will constantly pursue contradictory programmes.
And how do we decide which risks should be allowed and which prohibited? I mean, its a risk to pursue technology in any number of areas. Some pay off, like computer technology, some are total crap, like smell-o-tronic TV’s 
In the market someone has to produce something good before they can waste money on something crappy. In a bureaucracy there’s no way of making regulations that work. I’m not saying the market’s way of assigning risks is perfect, but its better than the rest.
Also, I would note that bureaucracy’s aren’t evil, even in their present form. I believe, and I was partly led by Mises in this, that some industries must necessarily be bureaucratic, among them government administration, policing, and defense. I think there are ways they could be improved, but ultimately the bureaucratic method does work in those areas, though in no others. The problem isn’t in bureaucracy itself, but merely applying it to fields it doesn’t belong in.
No offense, but what gives you the right to tell millions of people that their musical tastes aren’t as good as yours? I don’t like DMX as well, but musical tastes are subjective and should be left to the consumer to decide. I mean, personally I am very eclectic in musical taste. I enjoy the symphonic clash of Tchaikovsky as well as the beat of some good metal and even the twang of a good conutry tune. I would never seek to force my tastes on someone else, however. Who am I to judge what music is good and what is bad? If the music makes people happy, why should I care? I mean that would be as bad as forcing everyone to have heterosexual missionary-style sex just because some people think that’s the only “good” way to have sex. Values are subjective, let them be.
First of all, most of the capitalists you are on a diatribe against don’t waste their money like you think they do. Most of those who are so casual about money are those who get it with much less effort, namely celebrities and sports stars. You talk about Bill Gates, well I’m not a gambling man, but if I were I’d put good money on the idea that he has almost no money in bank accounts and rarther keeps all his wealth tied up in his business, stocks, and real estate. What good is there to having money in a bank account? Rich people have very little of their money in bank accounts because they know what a ripoff banks are.
But even in the case of “wasteful” spending of celebrities you fail to see all the effects of their spending. It is really their wasteful spending on things like cars, dishwashers, and cell phones which led to all of that technology being improved and evnetually made available to regular people. Had they not bothered to spend their money on such things, our world wouldn’t be as nice as it is. To go back further, how would you like it if they had refrained from buying silk and cotton clothes because those clothes were so “extravagant” compared to wool? I don’t know about you, but I’m happy I don’t have to wear wool.
Technology improvement is WHY you have higher quality goods. This part is totally contradictory 
And again, without profits to measure how much people want things, how will people know where they should expand or invest? Values are subjective. Even social goods are subjective. I mgiht think it’s more important to feed everyone than educate them, you mgiht think differently, how do we decide? The invisible hand is a nice practical, efficient way of doing it. And frankly, there’s been no greater advances in human history than when it was adhered to.
Except that some people are offended by being slaves. Also, relaxation won’t help production and some people don’t liek to relax. Your arrogance is extremely tiring. Why do you think everyone should be forced to live life as you like it? I like sexual relations with one girl only, I don’t like orgies, S&M, or homosexual sex. They aren’t attractive to me. I don’t care if some people find them exciting, relaxing, fun, or enjoyable; they’re just not for me. Would you say I should be forced into that way of life? I think not. Well it is the same in your way of looking at things. You think everyone should get a high off of the things you get a high off of. Well not only is it not going to happen, but it’s also extremely arrogant. I really hope you can see this, b/c I don’t see a better way of elucidating it to you. You might have a case if your way worked better, but it doesn’t. The only possible reason to take your way would be based on values, but since those values are subjective, can’t you see we can’t? Can’t you see freedom is required?
The difference is that when government helps someone, government carries a gun and forces people in line. When there is no government helping them it doesn’t matter how rich they are, they’re still screwed. In my ideal government would be concerned only with violations of rights. If there was even the hint of a violation of rights the government would prosecute to the full extent of the law, and so the billionaires would be limited to getting their wealth only by providing the best (most valued) goods at the best price (i.e. lowest cost). And if they bribe that limited government, every person should be armed and trained in order that bribery can be punished and corrupt governments expelled. I beleive it is a responsibility of every citizen to protect their rights and the rights of their neighbors and that people should own weapons to do this and that government should train them in the use of weaponry in order to protect agaisnt tyranny at home or abroad.
oh, so we are talking about utopias… well then I must bid you adieu, I prefer to spend my time talking about possibilities, not impossibilities. I mean if we can just pull anything out of our ass to make the perfect world then I’ll just say everyone should have a food tree which is the size of a common house, stays warm all the time, forms tunnels within itself with rooms perfect for human life and produces a fruit which provides people with all their vitamin and mineral needs. Plus it secretes enough water at specified point for two people and has a couple holes where you can dump waste which it then uses as fertilizer.
I prefer reality.
yeah i said that. thats why a capped billionaire isnt going to spend the last 40 years of his life doing nothing but golf. hell go about business as usual, and more people will be happy than would be if he werent capped, including him.
i dont know why i rashly started those two fights. youre right, communism doesnt work. private wealth capism is not communism. people and products will be judged on the same value that they are today, how much money they made for the corporation. nobody will be judged on how pretty their car is or how big their house is, but they can still be judged on how much money they made for their corporation.
ok bad example, its not mtv’s fault the world is full of people who find simpleton music easier to enjoy. a better example would be jewelry. “if you give her a rock, you get laid” or “rocks equal true happiness”, these are images that the company pays to force people to believe. if nobody ever heard of diamonds, would our lives be better or worse? if you say better, and you say shiny objects are a useful pursuit, you should not be trusted with the welfare of this country. if not diamonds, i know that there are plenty of examples of marketing that results in people making decisions that are not completely perfect.
if any of them do, jesus has failed. like i said, if somebody wants to give their money to a corporation, then ok. if they want to take that money out and spend it on masturbation, they can only do that up to $50mil. if they want to take out more money than that, they have to give it to somebody besides themselves.
spending on things like that isnt the same as golden toilet seats or in home movie theaters and bowling alleys.
if you had never worn silk, i dont think you would care. “itchy” would be a fact of life just like the pain in the ass leg motions i have to keep making every freaking second i want to move. ugh! if only i could have brought my Asian Slave Co brand hover shoes through the time machine. see Epicurus quote at the bottom of my sig.
you could say that windows ME is a technology ‘improvement’ over an older linux OS, since it does things that linux didnt, but if you looked at things like stability, ease of use and overall happiness/frustration created by the two products, the less advanced one just might create more human happiness overall, even though its ‘less advanced’
windows ME could have been a lot better if bill was focused less on money and more on products. the thing i use to define ‘better’ is that chemical in your brain that feels ‘bad’ when you are pissed off. i think all of humanity either agrees or doesnt understand.
not slaves, harmony by force. do you refer to taxation as slavery? because people are FORCED by the wicked hand of govt to do something that they dont want. on average they actually work a good three months of the year or so just to pay for gov programs that they may or may not approve of. the “slavery” you speak of is here to stay.
ok so how would you deal with the minimum wage? please dont say you would let the market decide, because that only works for rich people and they are happy enough as it is. i will pre-emptively attack your wage market.
lets say theres a village of mexican migrant farmers surrounded by three farms. two pay well and one pays crap. once the two are full, a father has two options. he can work ten times as much for one tenth the money and force his family to come with him or he can walk 30 miles to the nearest town and futilely hope to god his family doesnt die.
the job market does not at all come close to coming up with a fair minimum wage. i guess it comes up with a somewhat fair CEO wage, but economic law clearly states that paying your machines the least amount of money possible, preferably zero, is the key to a successfull business. “oh if it pays too low the workers will quit” no, they cant quit, theyll die.
so basically, keep whatever is neccesary to maintain the country we have today, and destroy those stupid things that do nothing but bad. when rich people are ostentatious, they are depressed. i think wed all be surprised at just how depressed they are. there is no reason for them to be able to enjoy more than $50mil worth of stuff, in fact the limit should be lower. if they have complete choice over who gets their extra cash, i see no possible harm. i mean they arent going to starve or live worse lives because of their lower amount of money and there is no oppressive govt to missapropriate it.
i imagine when somebody starts buying diamond sculptures, the IRS will simply bust them when they get audited. it will be like regular old tax fraud, just one new tiny rule. its not like they have problems releasing new rules. the only problem is accepting what Epicurus, Jesus, Buddha and pretty much every smart person in the history of the world has said, stop hoarding money, help others, even scrooge will be happier if he does. or dickens is a liar.
Well, first of all, I will encourage you to continue “dipping” into the “red” thoughts 
Second, I don’t understand what you mean by socialism and capitalism “getting along”…if you’re talking about a “blend” of both, then you’re referring to a “mixed-market,” which, in essence, will always be “capitalist.” A welfare system, universal healthcare, free education, etc. are merely social reforms and social institutions, not “socialism” in itself. The core of capitalism still remains, regardless of whether these reforms are adopted. Much of Europe is a good example of this.
If you mean, however, “why can’t socialism and capitalism get along” in terms of one nation “socialist” and the other “capitalist,” it is because there will be, inevitably, competition. What if the USSR ended up “winning” the Cold War, for example? Well, it’s very likely that the entire world would have been eventually subjected to authoritarian “state socialism”…and that is not much better than mixed-market capitalism, or, as it is in some places, “state capitalism”…the competition would have forced one system to win, but, unfortunately, since competition occurred, the “winning” system – especially if it is socialism – will be caricature of its former, intended self. I say “especially socialism” because socialism has a specific function, and that is to cultivate certain positive aspects of every individual. If this process is interfered with, then the delicate nature of human development could proceed in contradictions…and the human condition would be no better than it is today. What is the point?
To me, it is an “all-or-nothing” deal…you cannot really “compromise” with another economic or politicla system, especially if you perceive the other system to be unethical as well as impractical (depending, of course, on your idea of “ethics” and such).
Also…it is true that many capitalist nations are “getting alone fine” for a good number of people…but, of course, capitalism is not beneficial to “every” individual. Let’s ask a resident of Harlem in New York City, for example, whether he is “lazy” or simply cannot find a job. There is this myth that employment constantly exists…well, it’s true to an extent, but the place of its existence is often limited. Minority neighborhoods, for example, are lacking in employment, especially since many of these neighborhoods – such as Brooklyn’s “Willliamsburg” area – had strong industrial growth, only to see factories closed down and re-locate to places with cheaper labor.
That is, however, nothing compared to the plight of the individuals throughout the world. Forget about blacks in America for a second. Think about the torture that children in Sierra-Leone go through, having their limbs cut off for the DeBeers diamond corporation, and etcetera. You got it right when you said that corporations are not accountable for their actions.
True, every now and then there is a successful “muckraker” that cleans up the mess that these companies make, but that cannot be regarded as anything more than theatre; the majority of these cases are simply ignored and/or denied.
Great words here
1.Capitalism kills the competition
2.Socialism is a decaying form of capitalism
3.Socialism is Communism but with a small degree of order and sense
True capitalism should be the new order in the world, monopolies are great for society at large because new inventions and development incease at an amazing fast pace. we would have holo panals right now if our society was built on pure capitalism because people would want a piece of the pie in the sky…read it again and take it supperflousely. (spellcheck)
See, as I was reading the previous posts, I was thinking that we should create a system that combines both capitalism and socialism and give it a new name… damn, you beat me to it! Not to mention that you have a pretty nice plan to go with the word. I agree fully that we should adopt a government style similar to those found in the UK, where there isn’t a two party system fighting it out for control, rather that we have an election involving many parties, and based on however many votes each party recieves, they recieve a parallel amount of seats in a parlimentary type system. That way, whichever party receives the most votes will be the leader, but have to appeal to the authority of the other parties when making an action or a law… who knows though, I could see how this could require effort and time… something we’re not such a big fan of it seems.
Free education and health-care, you know that nobody can argue that those should be in our “rights”. Living in Canada, Health-Care is a luxury, and we can afford it. Unfortunately from what I hear, in my province of Ontario, they may be Raising tuition costs in post-secondary… as if we don’t pay enough as it is. In reality, you would think it should be going in the other direction… actually, the price is supposed to be frozen, but that’s another promise broken by Dalton McGuinty… bastard! lol
Hmmm, so thinking about starting your own country? How can I help? 
A few comments on what I have read here:
-
50 million wealth cap:
I would be against this on the principle that if someone creates a business that, for example, employs 50,000 people at, say, an average of $35,000 a year they should be rewarded for this. I would argue that the contribution of giving 50,000 people a decent wage is worth more than 50million dollars. I think that the motivation of money is very powerful and rather than trying to eliminate it after a certain point, perhaps it could be harnessed for better use. This also does not mention the practical consequences - as mentioned, the rich usually invest their money, investment drives growth, growth drives job creation, job creation drives the tightening of the labor market which drives up wages. I am not advocating giving the rich huge tax breaks to drive investment, I would just rather not see the govt. left to manage this huge windfall…which brings me to my second point -
Who really trusts govt. with more money? At least in the U.S., we tend to have a fairly strong libertarian bias against government. No one really trusts govt. or politicians. Why do you think 3 outta our 4 last presidents were kinda folksy governors from way outside D.C.? Considering how much pork goes into every govt. bill, I really don’t want to hand them a huge windfall in cash. Theoretically, a well-regulated competitive structure (i.e. regulated capitalism) creates a situation where inefficiencies in expenditure of limited. The type of regulation I am looking for (i know more hard-core capitalists will disagree with me here, but I do think that govt. has a duty to protect people from unbridled capitalism/corporate greed): minimum wage laws (strictly enforced with a strong immigration policy which allows many more people to enter the country legally as “guest workers” or whatever you would like to term them), anti-monopoly laws (competition is a good in my book, and while I am wary of too much govt. regulation, i think the strangulation of competition promotes stagnancy), workers rights laws (i.e. conditions for the workplace… i think it is an employers duty to provide a safe working environment).
-
a few good socialistic ideas:
I am in favor of govt. providing for a few very basic needs. I justify this not only morally (i think it is good to provide healthcare and eduction to people), but in very practical terms.
Universal healthcare creates a system of much healthier more efficient workers. Just look at the costs to businesses during flu season (why many businesses now offer flu shots) and you will see what I mean. I think by providing basic health care (including yearly checkups) the state can avoid the costs to businesses due to illness, as well as being able to catch costly diseases in their infancy when they are easier (i.e. cheaper) to treat. This could make the whole system that much more efficient (again, cheaper).
As for medicines… ok yes, drug companies charge too much, at the same time, none of those generic drugs would exist if it were not for those greedy drug companies developing the original medicines. Profits drive them to produce newer and better medications (yes, only for those diseases which can be profitable, but that still helps millions). I would argue that without those profits, medical R&D would go way down. At this point I would not trust the govt. with the responsibility of picking up the slack there. Basically here I am cautious and have not fully made my mind up.
As for taxes… I am divided here as well. In one way, I would rather see a flat tax, or even a lowered progressive tax with no loopholes (barring deductions for charity… this is one of those times when I think govt. can help use greed to affect social change for the good). Basically, while I think a wealth cap is a bad idea, I would not mind see higher taxes for the super-wealthy. Perhaps there simply needs to be a new bracket for 5 million + a year. At the same time, for the all the bitching about how much of the wealth the richest 10% or so have, they also pay, by far, the most (the top 20% paid roughly 79% of the taxes in 1999…top1% paid 29% top 5% paid 50%, top 10% paid 63%). I also wouldn’t mind a large inheritance tax after say, the primary household and/or business (up to a combined total of 10-20 million) + 10million in other assets. While I can fully imagine a situation where a person has produced something worth far more than $50million, I can’t really imagine situations where that persons heirs should be entitled to huge sums of money. I would earmark these funds to go directly towards health care, education, and debt erduction.
Finally, education. I would argue that the U.S. has the best university system in the world. I think privatization has alot to do with this. That being said, I think that having an educated population is good for the country, good for the economy, and very justifiable in terms of cost. To that end I would like to see a massive increase in governments grants for college education. I think that grants are important, not just low interest loans, because too many students are burdened for yrs by debt. I think that if the govt. could assume some of that debt, we could have a more educated population, as well as a population which could both save and spend more (both of which would strengthen the economy). Furthermore, without 50K in school debt, recent graduates could more easier get loans (and not go bankrupt because of those loans) to buy houses which I think is a good in and of itself, as well as a good way to drive the economy.Basically in the end, I think that capitalism is the way to go, but I trust neither govt. nor corporations completely. I think that in the end, the people, the businesses, and the govt. need to all act as checks and balances upon eachother. I think govt. not only has a moral duty, but very practical reasons for providing healthcare and education grants. At the same time, I am wary of overtaxation for fear of driving business away, and thus losing jobs (and having more people to support, which leads to more taxation, etc. and a downward spiral) as well as giving govt. too much money to paly with. Basically I am trying to provide for everyone some basic human needs, without completely ruining a prime motivation for progress/work (i.e. greed) and without driving businesses and the rich (whose taxes pay for most govt. programs) out of this country
You do realize the Canadian and British political systems are almost exactly alike, right? We just have MORE viable political parties in Canada…