The idea that one human, one lone animal, one “evolved” primate, is entitled to own such a large amount of resources, while so many others are suffering due to insufficient resources, I think will be viewed by future generations hundreds of years from now as an obvious moral blind spot, akin to how morally repugnant we find slavery from a current perspective.
I would argue that the entire monetary system / economy is artificial and to an extent arbitrary. It is a machination, a love child born from both blind evolutionary forces of progress, and human input fueled by our most primal and most sophisticated desires.
There is no law intrinsic to the fabric of the universe, or even within free market capitalism, that dictates the recipient of profits from labor or goods is entitled to keep 100% of those profits, and IMO, it doesn’t seem like a good idea in general to allow any individual to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth.
Yes, the line drawn would need to be arbitrary. Where would you draw it?
i think you probably don’t know
nearly as much as the economists
and company executives
therefore you should retire yourself
to your place of ignorance
and let the people who know what their doing
make all the important decisions
and just trust that they have your best interests at heart
seewhatididthere?
Not sure if I agree.
I think there should be UBI, like 1000 dollars a month, that or what they call a living wage.
Pretty hard to abuse 1000 dollars, only enough to pay for rent, or food and other bills.
Unfortunately the political establishment won’t give us anything like that without terminating our democracy, freedom and small businesses, which’s what they intend to do, yet the masses keep reelecting them.
These days, most people on this forum, and in general, fall into 1 of 3 camps, the statists, the libertarians and the centrists.
The statists usually trust the state, libertarians rarely do, and centrists are somewhere in the middle.
The statists usually trust academia and MSM, especially the hard sciences, the libertarians often don’t, particularly the soft sciences, which they believe have been infiltrated by Marxists and progressives.
The statists usually lean globalist, the libertarians nationalist.
I’m kind of on my own, because I’d like to see government go after the 1% more, but other than that I’d like to get government out of the way.
And while I’m skeptical of manmade climate change, I think nature conservation, where we don’t consume some natural resources faster than they grow back, and nature protection, where we don’t consume some natural resources at all, is good thing.
I’m also a nationalist who wants to radically reduce or eliminate all immigration, illegal and legal.
Yea so I don’t really fit in, which’s fine by me.
K: this is an excellent question deserving of some thought…we can’t just blindly walk
down the same path that has lead to a failed economic system that forces millions
upon millions of people to live in poverty… those who have answered you above,
don’t have the imagination or intellect to even understand the question… Ignore them…
I would start with limiting individual wealth to 25 billion and anything over that is given to
the government… but you can hold to 50 billion at the start with the provision
that over time, the amount of money will be reduced to 25 billion and then to
10 billion and corporations, they also need to have limits…
that one is a little trickier, I would say, to start, the limit starts
at 100 billion and drops every couple of years by 10 billion? so within
a few years, not a single corporation is worth 50 billion dollars…
that is of course a start to level out the massive income inequality problem we
have in the west… but I am open to the actual numbers we may use…
Thx for the reply PK. So based on your reply, we should continue to allow the existence of individual billionaires, but cap to $10B?
That is much more generous than what I was thinking. I was thinking perhaps any accumulation of wealth over $500mm would be taxed at 99 cents on every dollar (keeping progressive tax system we have currently in U.S.), something along those lines.
here you go again kropo
making these unqualified
dramatic sounding claims
and not backing them up with any data
if you’re going to advocate for drastic measures
then you data better be iron fucking clad
and i know it ain’t
it’s disingenuous as fuck
for you to start from a false premise
making an emotional appeal to people’s negative perception of the world
essentially letting out a smoke screen
and then offering to put out the fire
when there is no fire
just smoke
because when you look at any quality of life indicator
have your pick of source
and just look at them
for the past 50 years or so
there has been absolutely resounding success
and when i call you out on it
you conveniently forget to reply
i’ll make you the same challenge again
same challenge that ecmandu also conveniently forgot to reply
show me the data
let’s look at some charts
i love charts
while at that
answer the post from the marxism thread
that i keep pointing out to you
here, I’ll paste the exchange here for you
so you don’t have to go looking for it
pages 24 and 25 if you need more context
Right, I’d reallocate as much money from unnecessary expenditures like excessive bureaucracy, corporate welfare for big business and regime change wars to pay for the UBI.
If that wasn’t enough to pay for it, I’d increase taxes on the 1% to pay for the rest.
Yea, either we should have UBI or a living wage.
I’d subsidize small business owners with the 1%'s income to make sure they weren’t harmed by it.
I’d also tax rich Canadian citizens making money outside Canada, so they couldn’t escape the higher taxes.
We should also build more affordable housing.
In Canada we already have relatively free healthcare, we should also have free postsecondary education.
in sum
i realize that there are good intentions all around
it sucks to see people struggling
knowing that there is so much wealth
really, there is plenty to go around
and we want to help
but the socialist approach to addressing these good intentions
is completely misguided
it’s like treating a symptom
instead of treating the source of the disease
except the treatment of the sympton aggravates the disease
if you look at the actual root of the problem
instead of just following your emotions
like walking cunts
you’d realize
that having an entire infinitesimal little cast of society
whose sole purpose is to hold all the power
and control all the public money
as a central unit
is a way to guarantee a perpetuation of abuse