Individual Wealth Cap

Good to recognize your accomplishments are shared, but that doesn’t devalue your own effort. Yes there are exceptions, some get by with putting forward less and sometimes quite well, and others put a lot and don’t get much for it (jeez I talk about myself too much), but effort is always rewarded.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

a reply to: InTheLight
Who said your a lost cause? This is not even reading between the lines. That's just not reading at all.

Change come and goes all the time, by each and every person out there. Even the act of waiting around for others with more money or paper to change things is the actual act of change put into action, and practice day in and day out.

There can be nothing but change ever and forever. And everything you see before you is, a collective choice which was brought to a reality. And now that they have had that change? They changed there minds...Etc... etc.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

You are killing me. It seems that the crux of your argument is that, according to you, 75% of billionaires are “born into their money”. The implication is that the overwhelming majority of billionaires are legacies, and that according to you, this is bad.

Well debunking that claim was easy- Turns out that 88% of billionaires earned their wealth, with 55% completely self made.

So,,,, your premise is wrong, and that makes you either lazy, or a dangerous person (my nice way of calling someone a liar).
I’ve known three billionaires, and all were self made, and I trust all three with more money than I trust the government. It sounds like your just a bit bitter.

To add to that, I'm sure where this statistic comes from, but :

money.com...

70% of rich families blow their wealth by the second generation.

90% lose it by the third.


People like Trump, who start with a lot of money and actually build more on that than they started with, are really pretty rare.

However, this does not apply to corporations getting richer and richer. Corporations are immortal. Giant corporations are very good at pulling wealth into themselves and making it vanish forever. And once they get really big it's hard for anyone to break into their markets.

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.

Nobody needs to share.

There is always something that's not automated. Computers can't make up new jokes, or write interesting movie scripts on their own.

Once the robots are done satisfying all our PHYSICAL needs, their job is done. Humans will take jobs satisfying other humans' EMOTIONAL needs.

But........... only if we depart from our antiquated version of capitalism, where workers are encouraged to work for as low a wage as possible.

If they accept a low wage, all those "satisfy emotional needs" jobs never happen.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Exactly!

As you said: the " automated systems would have to planned to produce what everyone NEEDS"

But what about what everyone WANTS?

There is still unsatisfied demand for that, even after the robots are done.

But only IF....... we build that demand into our economy. It won't put itself there.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
People like Trump, who start with a lot of money and actually build more on that than they started with, are really pretty rare.

He actually lost it all, more than once if I'm not mistaken, and built it back up himself, so anyone who says that his was inherited is just plain wrong.

However, this does not apply to corporations getting richer and richer. Corporations are immortal. Giant corporations are very good at pulling wealth into themselves and making it vanish forever. And once they get really big it's hard for anyone to break into their markets.

I agree with one thing - the laws governing Corporations absolutely need to be changed back to what they were much earlier in the day.

They should not be able to do most of what they can do now. For example:

A Corp should not be able to own other legal fictions (one corporation should not be able to buy/own other corps, or LLCs, or LPs, Trusts, etc).

A Corp should be able to be chartered to do one thing/for one purpose, and they should be limited to just that purpose.

A Corp should be excluded by law from being able to be considered a 'Person' under the law, with any rights, and only having the privileges granted by the State where they are chartered.

Today, due to their lobbying efforts and the ignorance of the people, they actually have far more Rights than individual people do, with almost zero accountability.

But........... only if we depart from our antiquated version of capitalism, where workers are encouraged to work for as low a wage as possible.

Eh? I have never, in my entire life, been encouraged to work for the lowest wage possible. On the contrary, I strvie to get the best/highest wage possible.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

But........... only if we depart from our antiquated version of capitalism, where workers are encouraged to work for as low a wage as possible.

Eh? I have never, in my entire life, been encouraged to work for the lowest wage possible. On the contrary, I strvie to get the best/highest wage possible.

Clearly I didn't word that very well. I should have said they are pushed to work for less. "Encourage" can be taken to mean it's your friends telling you to, which they care clearly not.

Businesses are pushed to sell their products for as low a price as possible. Which means they are pushed to pay as little as possible for the things that go into making that product. Which means they try to pay their workers as low a wage as they can get away with.

That's all well and good, as far as it goes, because it keeps them looking for efficient ways to make their product. And makes workers want to develop skills that allow them to negotiate a better wage.

But if you take it too far, there's nobody making enough money to buy the products that are being made.

This creates a feedback effect, because with less demand, competition becomes more fierce, which results in further wage cutting, which dries up even more of the demand.......... which makes competition become still more fierce, which results in further wage cutting, which dries up demand even more............. ect....

People often have a hard time understanding that Gold is found in "Goldilocks" zones. Not when the porridge is as hot as the Sun. and not when it is frozen ice cold.

They also fail to understand sometimes that there is no guarantee that making someone else worse off will necessarily result in you being better off.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I should have said they are pushed to work for less.

You could still word that better. This is simply the nature of the free market.

As the saying goes, the seller will charge whatever price the market will bear.

I (an individual) am selling my services (labor), and will charge what the market will bear.

Any business, as a buyer of labor, will obviously want to pay as little as possible, but they have to be careful, because of another saying that goes, you get what you pay for.

Businesses are pushed to sell their products for as low a price as possible. Which means they are pushed to pay as little as possible for the things that go into making that product. Which means they try to pay their workers as low a wage as they can get away with.

That's all well and good, as far as it goes, because it keeps them looking for efficient ways to make their product. And makes workers want to develop skills that allow them to negotiate a better wage.

But if you take it too far, there's nobody making enough money to buy the products that are being made.

That's the beauty of the free market - the process is self-regulating - as long as governments are not allowed to interfere (beyond laws preventing fraud).

Today, governments and big business 'work together' (this is called fascism) to create artificial monopolies by creating extremely high bars (in the form of regulations intended to protect the established businesses from competition) for new/startup businesses that may want to enter the market.

This creates a feedback effect, because with less demand, competition becomes more fierce, which results in further wage cutting, which dries up even more of the demand.......... which makes competition become still more fierce, which results in further wage cutting, which dries up demand even more.

Stop the fear mongering. It is all self-regulating, as long as artificial roadblocks/incentives are kept out of the equation.