Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There are theories out there that the only ways in which wealth is created is through either growing it, mining it or creating(producing) products from raw materials. I wonder how that theory would be modified to fit in with our current technology? Does google take electrical 0's & 1's and create something with them, like a website? Do they add value to our system through their technology? How does google benefit society? Would others easily be able to step into their shoes and do it for free?

Something I would really like to see is the functioning of our stock and bond markets with a set amount of currency/digital currency. If they couldn't create pretend value out of thin air, would the markets even function? They would have to cannibalize themselves because without creating money out of thin air, us cannon fodder would run out of sustenance in about 1 week. It would be nice to see the vampires suck off of each other for a change. Then it would truly be who owns the most regulators or access to lobbyists that would come out on top.

The "Adam Smith" Lasseis faire system of not regulating or manipulating the economy - is constantly getting a monkey wrench thrown into it by modern technology. Specifically "labor saving devices".


Suppose in 20 years time we reach a point where 10% of our work force is all that is needed to produce subsistence goods for everyone. (Food, shelter, etc.)

Hell, we might already be there for all I know.

People keep thinking that lowering the price of labor is going to be good for the economy, but what happens if you somehow get the majority of your workers to agree to work 60 hour weeks just to get basic subsistence?

Then ... there would only be enough jobs for 10% of the population.


If you artificially forced people to accept a high enough wage so the average worker was making 10 times the price of subsistence, that would be the point where you achieve full employment.

That would be the ONLY WAY demand could ever equal supply at full employment.





So: why is there so much political opposition to doing that?

a reply to: andy06shake

Hi Andy.
Seems to me, that possibly a paradigm shift would be the only way.

What's the chance that the good people could beat TPTB at their own game ?

Perhaps the answers will come from outside of 'the way things are' ?

a reply to: ClovenSky

Tax the correct people and the system might work, no point trying to get blood out a stone through, even a digital one.

A completely equal system would require completely equal people to function fairly and effectively.

And as much as we care to promote and strive towards equality, its hardly the case where the human condition is concerned.

Let's just say "they" need to come up with something better before the whole house of cards fall down around there ears and by default right on top of our heads with all its weight, because most people don't have an ivory castle to ride out the storm.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The only thing I don't understand with trying to bring our current model into an almost fully automated system is...where are the plebs going to get the money or funds to buy stuff? How much of our economy or GDP is consumerism? When the consumer is no longer able to consume, what happens to all of these businesses that rely on frivolous spending?

I think the people that pondered this situation boiled it down to having everyone massively reduce the time spent working and massively increase the pay. Basically one of the side junctions into this topic...the owners of the capital would have to start sharing. Their infinite game of making money off of assets or passive income would end. It just wouldn't be possible.

a reply to: ClovenSky

The problem with that model is that it becomes a centrally planned economy because no one has the goods or services to exchange for what they want and need because too many are relying on what is being produced by automated systems.

Essentially, the automated systems would have to planned to produce what everyone needs which inevitably leaves out what people will end up wanting which opens the door to a capitalist system of exchange arising in some medium whereby people seek to get what they want and others seek to produce it in order to get what *they* want and so on and so forth.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hmmm, that is an interesting thought. So the non essentials ... are we back to barter? I make or create something that someone else wants in exchange for..... and so on.

We wouldn't even need to go back to the corrupt system (sorry, I couldn't resist) that we have now. A barter system would be massively more fair and better able to serve society than what we have right now.

On a side note, regardless of personal freedom and choice, do you think our consumerist society is good for mental health? Is instant gratification good for personal development? Maybe it would be better if the things we gained needed a little sweat and tears mixed in. Just a thought.

a reply to: ClovenSky

The problem with barter (and sparked the creation of currency in the first place) is that if you don't have what I want but I have what you want, there is no exchange, and you're stuck in a complicated series of trades trying to track down and barter into what I do want in order to trade for what I have that you want.

Currency allows for a representation and recognition of the worth of a items even if the actual item isn't what is needed.

So ... Say I was scribe. My skills had value, but if you really needed a chicken when I needed your boots, my scribe skills weren't something I could barter for those boots and I had to work through the system until I could somehow arrange my scribing skills into getting the chicken you did need. Currency allowed me to directly trade for you boots and then let you take that currency to the person who had the chicken. It allowed for a short cut in the barter process.

a reply to: ketsuko

Around and around we go. Maybe would could try dual currencies. One for the bankers to get fabulously wealthy through such society improving methods as stock buybacks and one for the rest of us that just want to be left alone...to have a stable medium of exchange where we wouldn't have to gamble simply to retain purchasing power. Then to never allow the 2 to cross. But somehow without our (us plebs) full faith and participation in their rigged game, I would imagine their version of a medium of exchange would fail spectacularly. Kind of like our federal government needing taxes...it is simply to keep the ruse going...to method to keep the people in full participation.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I think you'll find that in any situation with human nature, you'll have trouble with corruption no matter how much you guard against it.

Communists like to rail about how no one has tried true communism, but basically you can't ever have it because you have human nature. Capitalism is in no way immune to human nature either, but when you're free to make your own choices, it can minimize the damage corrupt people are allowed and able to cause.

Money money money... In the rich mans world... ahhhhhhh arrrhaaa, all the things I could do, if I had a little money, it's a rich mans world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
There is a solution that is right between all these arguments, but no one can bare to imagine it, lest they lose what they have. All things are built upon on, all people are slaves unto it, but yet, it becomes a largely meaningless concept when people no longer need to fight over it and work towards common causes without it.

What is the cost of something when you remove value? What barrier remains once it is gone?

Left, right, rich, poor, haves and have nots. Arguments that have no end, no winner. A tug of war. Power over others.
Magical paper enslaving the minds of the world. Precious value of rocks and metal, not minds and ideas. One has limits, the other doesn't.

But of course, without a little imagination, and trust in the fellow man, irrelevant of what they look like, where they are from, that desperate climb to get to the top continues, with those at the top who will joyously kick you down should you climb too high. Those so lost, that they forgot, or were never taught what the true meaning of it all is... teaching every one below that this is how everyone should see the world and who should stand at the peak.

When you're at the bottom, you can laugh at those at the top, and roll your eyes at those that scrabble up the sheer face for something that can never be attained. Where does happiness begin? How high do you need to climb?

To those, lost in the program, they will argue their side until the end of their lives and upon reaching their last days, realise what a pointless endeavour it all was, and all they really wanted was for the people around them to be happy.

Of course people try to make it work, to find a line that minimises its' impact, to ease their conscience with all the good they pass down their own unique pyramid, but just so long as it is their pyramid. But they stand no greater than any other atop a tower built on misery. The weight pressing down on those below. Authority or wealthy, all built upon the same thing, and laughing at those that wave flags for them.

And honestly, they can have it! Have it all! A lesson to look back on.

Slugworth will help you up that hill... but perhaps that isn't what is needed when you look at it all.



Just food for thought. What do I know?

as a child i use to go along the highways and pick up coke and orange crush bottles and turn them into the local gas station for 2 cents a bottle, I knew nothing of poverty then.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake

Do you think there would be a way to reform our financial system to the point we didn't need to go after the hoarders of wealth? Maybe even something that wouldn't require a wealth cap to institute a system that was fair.

Maybe with our advanced technology, we wouldn't even need to resort to precious metals to back currency. I wonder, would you be in support of a limited amount of digital dollars to fund our system with? Something close to being backed by gold or silver but more like an electrical certificate. You would have a set amount of 'money' in the system for all use. If someone gained a dollar, someone else would need to transfer or lose that dollar. A completely equal system. No more creating fiat or digital 0's & 1's out of thin air. You could either just allow deflation to happen or setup some very very visible, easy for the public to access indicator of any newly added 'fiat' and why it was created out of thin air.

You could tie creation to maybe population increase and if the population decreased or is decreasing, no new issuance.

At least you're thinking further outside the box. Rather than just "redistribute it all!!!"

My take in this is that mineral resources are nobody's creation.

Owning the "product of your labor" is the difference between slavery and freedom.

But owning something that nobody made, or that "god made" is not owning the "product of your labor". It's basically taking credit for something you didn't do, and nobody else did either.

The Saudis are onto something very right. The state owns the oil fields. Private industry pumps/extracts it. And the crazy thing is: it's working out well for BOTH PARTIES. The Saudis are doing well for themselves, as they simply set a price per barrel, and let the extraction firms extract and pay them. The extraction firms are doing well for themselves (they were very nearly the only sector that didn't fall behind during the recession.)

It would be a small step before we get to the big ones of determining if the phrase 'behind every great fortune is a great swindle'. We could start looking at how certain wealth extractions happen and determine if they are beneficial for a society. Maybe even if they aren't beneficial to still allow personal freedom for the unscrupulous to engage in such practices, but tax the #(*&*# out of their profits. If their profits are simply off of the backs of society without benefiting society, should we examine their methods more closely?

I don't think Sergey Brin and Larry Page swindled anybody at all when they started Google. And the value that company has added to the economy is WAY WAY WAY WWAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than what either of them has claimed as their personal fortune.

At most, they're keeping maybe 5% of the value, and giving 95% to the world.

I have no problem with that. I'm happy to let people like that get as rich as they possibly can.

Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, treats his workers worse than dogs. Does he deserve to become a trillionaire in exchange for that?

Of course, if we had better labor laws, and tariffs in place to allow our government to manipulate the market in favor of working class citizens, he would never have made it that far.

(Without tariffs, the government is powerless to manipulate markets, because they have to either manipulate the whole world market all at We once, or none of it.) (The 1% are the only ones who made more money on free trade.)

Some people always want to believe that more government will fix all the problems. A bigger nanny state is not the answer. Government always takes away power from the people, not give it to people. Those who run government always seem to give themselves more power and money and the people less.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake

Do you think there would be a way to reform our financial system to the point we didn't need to go after the hoarders of wealth? Maybe even something that wouldn't require a wealth cap to institute a system that was fair.

Maybe with our advanced technology, we wouldn't even need to resort to precious metals to back currency. I wonder, would you be in support of a limited amount of digital dollars to fund our system with? Something close to being backed by gold or silver but more like an electrical certificate. You would have a set amount of 'money' in the system for all use. If someone gained a dollar, someone else would need to transfer or lose that dollar. A completely equal system. No more creating fiat or digital 0's & 1's out of thin air. You could either just allow deflation to happen or setup some very very visible, easy for the public to access indicator of any newly added 'fiat' and why it was created out of thin air.

You could tie creation to maybe population increase and if the population decreased or is decreasing, no new issuance.

At least you're thinking further outside the box. Rather than just "redistribute it all!!!"

My take in this is that mineral resources are nobody's creation.

Owning the "product of your labor" is the difference between slavery and freedom.

But owning something that nobody made, or that "god made" is not owning the "product of your labor". It's basically taking credit for something you didn't do, and nobody else did either.

The Saudis are onto something very right. The state owns the oil fields. Private industry pumps/extracts it. And the crazy thing is: it's working out well for BOTH PARTIES. The Saudis are doing well for themselves, as they simply set a price per barrel, and let the extraction firms extract and pay them. The extraction firms are doing well for themselves (they were very nearly the only sector that didn't fall behind during the recession.)

It would be a small step before we get to the big ones of determining if the phrase 'behind every great fortune is a great swindle'. We could start looking at how certain wealth extractions happen and determine if they are beneficial for a society. Maybe even if they aren't beneficial to still allow personal freedom for the unscrupulous to engage in such practices, but tax the #(*&*# out of their profits. If their profits are simply off of the backs of society without benefiting society, should we examine their methods more closely?

I don't think Sergey Brin and Larry Page swindled anybody at all when they started Google. And the value that company has added to the economy is WAY WAY WAY WWAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than what either of them has claimed as their personal fortune.

At most, they're keeping maybe 5% of the value, and giving 95% to the world.

I have no problem with that. I'm happy to let people like that get as rich as they possibly can.

Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, treats his workers worse than dogs. Does he deserve to become a trillionaire in exchange for that?

Of course, if we had better labor laws, and tariffs in place to allow our government to manipulate the market in favor of working class citizens, he would never have made it that far.

(Without tariffs, the government is powerless to manipulate markets, because they have to either manipulate the whole world market all at We once, or none of it.) (The 1% are the only ones who made more money on free trade.)

Some people always want to believe that more government will fix all the problems. A bigger nanny state is not the answer. Government always takes away power from the people, not give it to people. Those who run government always seem to give themselves more power and money and the people less.

Isn't that the truth? C'mon people rise up be the force that can effect change.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
Steve jobs was a billionaire and died of pancreatic cancer. Ghenghis Khan owned millions of slaves and had millions killed on a whim, and he was also pretty rich.

You know what they all have in common? There all dead.

People who are afraid of green paper or zeros in a computer. Are brain dead morons.

You know what you all are? Walking talking meat puppets. Following the carrot in front of the cart.

That is all. Then end of the story.

And you all dump asses still waiting to go to the moon, waiting for some billionaires to take you there.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

And yet history tells us one lone person can make a difference and effect great change. So, no, we are not a lost cause.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There are theories out there that the only ways in which wealth is created is through either growing it, mining it or creating(producing) products from raw materials. I wonder how that theory would be modified to fit in with our current technology? Does google take electrical 0's & 1's and create something with them, like a website? Do they add value to our system through their technology? How does google benefit society? Would others easily be able to step into their shoes and do it for free?

Something I would really like to see is the functioning of our stock and bond markets with a set amount of currency/digital currency. If they couldn't create pretend value out of thin air, would the markets even function? They would have to cannibalize themselves because without creating money out of thin air, us cannon fodder would run out of sustenance in about 1 week. It would be nice to see the vampires suck off of each other for a change. Then it would truly be who owns the most regulators or access to lobbyists that would come out on top.

Entertainment has value.

If the only wealth you count as "wealth" is subsistence, then clearly automation makes it impossible to employ very many people producing that. In micro-econ there is a point in a production curve where adding another worker not only doesn't add to your output, but can actually take away. (Too many hands spoil the soup).

But once subsistence is assured, people start to value other things. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. Artistic trinkets off of etsy. Or video games (which are just 1's and 0's).

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The only thing I don't understand with trying to bring our current model into an almost fully automated system is...where are the plebs going to get the money or funds to buy stuff? How much of our economy or GDP is consumerism? When the consumer is no longer able to consume, what happens to all of these businesses that rely on frivolous spending?

I think the people that pondered this situation boiled it down to having everyone massively reduce the time spent working and massively increase the pay. Basically one of the side junctions into this topic...the owners of the capital would have to start sharing. Their infinite game of making money off of assets or passive income would end. It just wouldn't be possible.

That's why you have to artificially bolster the wage.

The economy never has to stop producing. It just shifts from physical necessities to luxuries.

There no limit on how much entertainment the economy can produce.


So if you only could employ 10% of your workers on subsistence goods, and forced the wage up so the average worker was making 10 times that, so there would be enough demand for 100% employment.

If you did that, then 10% of what you produced would be subsistence, and 90% would be luxuries.

One of those "luxuries" might just be a worker choosing to work only 10 of their available 40 to 60 hours. That worker would only receive enough money to pay their necessities, and not much more.

But they would be happy.

Alan Watts is spot on regarding money, in so much as how it should be leveraged. But as others have pointed out, some can't help but fall into greed, and thus corruption. Money has been useful, perhaps at accelerating "progress", but ultimately, this is now where we are. Nearly every single topic on this site rotates around it, even when it is never mentioned.
It is buried in the motives of the people talked about. A means to power.

All this left and right talk is really about who controls it and how. All the other arguments only exist within those camps to try and justify their camp controlling it by trying to apply a moral aspect, but it still comes down to the same thing.

It is the fulcrum around which we have allowed all things to turn. The spindle on the cog.

It's all wasted breath, because it has already been taken out of your hands. These arguments will never end so long as the pivot remains the same. You're a fool if you think otherwise.

Does anyone remember James Tiberius Kirk speaking of the future, where we no longer have money? Why Star Trek was an ideal to reach towards? It would seem to have been forgotten, and certainly (from what I hear) to have been forgotten by the writers of "new Trek".
The higher ideal allowing them to visit other worlds and help them, as reflections of our current time. Challenged by the questions that haunt us now.

It served a purpose, but now lies in the way of nearly every turn that humanity, spiritually needs to make. Trying to make it work, forcing half the world to conform to their ways of thinking is creating the deepest division as control of it has already been taken.

Is humanity capable of looking beyond? I can see it... Can you? Does anyone even understand? If you have read this, and continue to write about trying to make it work in some form or the other, then I suggest that you have already been lost to it. Your mind controlled, and unable to imagine beyond the bars of the prison and the guards beyond that.
To quote a little more pop culture... "What you don't control, ends up controlling you", and there is no greater controller.

If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it... Anything you want to, do it... want to change the world, there's nothing to it...

Some would say that I "don't live in the real world", and I'd say, "you simply lack imagination, and don't understand what the world really is".
I just hope more people begin to recognise the machine that has men and women running around in circles. That most of the arguments that this site has devolved in to have no meaning at all, yet consume all of your time.

a reply to: saladfingers123456

The problem with humanity is its longevity.

We cannot really see beyond our current generation.

And seem hell-bent on a repetition of our ancestor's past historical mistakes.

We refuse to learn from one generation to the next, stubbornly so.

Then there is our penchant for destruction and capacity for evil that no other animal on Earth displays.

We are simply not around long enough to know any better, and generally, when we do manage to glean a modicum of wisdom, we are hit with senility or death soon after.

We are a puzzle, wrapped in an enigma, stuck in a bag of meat and bones, that goes off far too quickly, for us to realize our full potential.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Now I'm not saying I disagree or I agree. The thing is you haven't even come close to making your case. I read all your posts in this thread bit tou haven't explained how exactly multibillionaires are hurting our society.

Show where their bad outweighs the good they do. You have been very ineffective at arguing your point and why we should agree with you.