reply to post by ANOK
Nature IS capitalism. How else can I explain this to you? You say that it's natural for people to cooperate and thus to compete is unnatural. However,
does a poor person really need to compete with a very rich person? Does a highschool basketball player have to compete with an NBA star player? How
does being inferior to someone else suddenly lead to competition? Just because people are working hard in society to get their share and there're
people making 800x more, does not mean people are not cooperating. In their own unique way, gradeschool kids that turn on the TV to watch their NBA
star play his game are cooperating, aren't they? Isn't society also cooperating when it agrees to give the very rich their (much larger) share of
economic worth? You make it sound like it's a crime that there're rich people and poor people. That somehow if people "cooperated" we would all be
rich and satisfied. But nature didn't make humans equal and humans don't develop equally. There's stratification; there's hierarchy. You're somehow
mistaking this hierarchy for competition. I'm telling you that if competition was removed that this hierarchy would remain. Nature can't be
In capitalism we cooperate by recognizing each others strengths and paying appropriate dues. We give appropriate shares of the economy to each person
dependent on their assessed contribution. We do this as a society. We cooperate be respecting the laws that're passed and by respecting others, no
matter their talents or achievements. But the peace and goodwill end there, as we also recognize that people are not equal and so do not deserve equal
rewards. Thus, we cooperate by allowing others to have more or less than we do. We never harm another without a lawful reason.
Competition is just the act of boiling the cream to the top of the mixture. From there we can judge who's who by examining the cream and correctly
apportioning our resources to each individual.
Remember that this is a mutual agreement. Society AGREES with the extremely wealthy and so gives them their share of the economy. You have to prove
that person A SHOULD NOT be earning 1000x or 10000x more than person B. It's you versus the whole society. How much chance do you think you have of
making any difference, unless you can make most people agree with you?
It's natural for there to be extremely wealthy people that own large chunks of the world. It's the 80/20 rule. 80% of your earnings will come from 20%
of your consumer base. A power law curve means that the extremely wealthy will not just have double the wealth or triple the wealth or so on (as they
might if it fit a bell curve), but thousands of times or hundreds of thousands of times more! For example, height distribution fits a bell curve. Have
you ever seen any human that was 1000x taller than another human? NO. That's because height distribution fits a bell curve, not a power law curve.
This is the point I'm trying to get across to you. Until you can change this, you'll never be able to get them to re-distribute their wealth since it
would be dramatically going against their perceived worth to society and nobody willingly compromises themselves that way.
You have to make income so it doesn't fit a power law curve or you have to somehow force the wealthy to re-distribute their wealth in favor of those
less wealthy. Or you need extremely cheap infinite resources so that everyone gets everything. I really don't see any other workaround.
Here's one area where you can start: government.
Did you know that almost 50% of members of congress are millionaires? Yet in society only approximately 8% of people are millionaires? Is this
representative? Maybe not in terms of population representation. But in economic terms, it kind of is. How? Well, the top 1% or so own about 30% of
the worlds resources. If the goal is to represent the economy in congress then you'd expect 1 congressman to own a vote worth 30 congressman if there
were in total 100 congressman. And - all things equal - 20 congressman should own approximately a vote worth 85 congressman.
Like this (100 votes in total and 100 members):
20 congress members own 85 votes (1 member owns 30 votes of these 85 votes)
80 congress members own 15 votes (approx 0.1875 each)
It would look something like that if it was modeled after the economy. Except we wouldn't be looking for the power of a vote. Instead we'd be looking
at the income of each member. I told you that nearly 50% of congress members are millionaires. If you examined congress members and were to tally
their total worth individually and compare it to the actual distribution of total worth in the population, would it coincide? Or would there be a
discrepancy? Perhaps government doesn't always model the economy? And if this is the case, how do we tie up loose ends such that the 1% who own 30% of
the worlds resources feel like their voice is heard? Should a wealthy person have a larger voice?
Do you think a person that has 10 billion dollars in total worth should have a larger voice in government? I mean, they might own 30% of the land you
walk on, so shouldn't their voice be larger? How comical would it be if 30% of the country is economically owned by 1% yet their voice is equal to a
homeless man? Why should a homeless man have any say if he doesn't actually own anything?
When was the last time a homeless man had any real say in anything? Most people frown on homeless people. Yet the average person earning average
income is like a homeless person when they're compared to a very rich person. So the comparison here is actually not far from the truth at
edit on 10-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)