You're viewing a single thread.
the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It's not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won't be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt's job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it's essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
Is there an inherent need to have something like "businesses"? Do I have to be rewarded? Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
Humans exist for a very long time. I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism. Edit: And without billionaires. Especially without billionaires.
Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
You might not, but there are people who might want, and in a free country their needs are needs too.
I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism
You suggesting we need to leave technology and luxury behind? Again you can but there are people who might want them
And demand creates incentive which creates innovation.
These were questions to ask yourself, to think about what really matters.
Wants do not equal needs. I might want to have a superyacht, but do I need one? Am I entitled to one? If I work "really hard", is it fair that I get to spend tons of resources on my superyacht, while other people don't know how to feed their children?
Yes, other people might want luxuries and technology, too. But is it fair that these luxuries / wealth are accumulating in the hands of a few individuals while there are people in the world who literally live in the dirt without a roof?
Maybe, if I wasn't allowed to have my superyacht, we could improve living conditions for a lot of people, prevent people from dying etc. It is a distribution problem, and in a world of limited resources, we should strive to provide a more or less equal amount of wealth to every single human being, instead of a few guys having superyachts while others can barely afford shoes.
Also, since you wrote "free country" I assume you are American - I really cannot understand how someone could in all seriousness believe that they live in a free country. This is not a free country, you are not free. Sure, we can argue about the definition of "freedom", but from my point of view people are not truly free when there are economic constraints, you can get shot because your skin does not have the right color, because of your sexual preferences, or even just because you have a fucking multicolored flag outside your store.
I don't see myself as truly free either, but at least I have the possibilty to choose to do fuck all with my life, never working a single hour, never providing anything of "value" to society, and still I get provided basic necessities and an monthly income which can finance a basic life. I will not die because I can't afford a doctor, I will not get shot because I am in the wrong neighborhood, police won't approach me with drawn weapons if my skin is a little darker.
Now this got way too long, but maybe someone might read this some time and think a little bit about wants, needs, "freedom" and superyachts.
I am not an american
And about that yacht, I can't get enough wealth to buy superyacht unless 1) I provide some product/service that LOT of people buy or 2) I did some major heist. We can all agree to put the 2) in jail.
The "luxury" I was talking about is not "yacht", but more like the mobile/PC you use. Certainly you don't need a mobile or PC to live, but would you not buy a mobile and instead donate all your money to the homeless? I don't think so.
In an ideal capitalist society, there will be a lot of competition in the market, all trying to get a market share. Therefore there will be lot of models of mobile and the buyers can choose exactoy what they want. In a socialist society, there will either be no mobiles, or one model.