You're viewing a single thread.
Is the line right at billion, how rich should people be allowed to be?
Should it matter how the money was acquired?
Should everyone always have to have the same amount of money as everyone else?
Personally, I don't care how much someone accrues in their life. I do think there should be a cap on inheritance. Peg that cap to some multiple of the minimum wage, let's say 1million, then if billionaires want to pass on more than $7.25 million they need to raise the minimum wage.
Tax 'em when they die and move on.
I remember watching an intervew with a philosopher dedicated to answering those questions. She says that, in her country (Norway or somewhere near, I can't remember), surveys show that the majority of citizens consider having 2 million dollars the max amount a family of 4 should have before being "too much money any family should have". So she suggests putting a cap at 10 millions for an individual. In her country, that's officially more than enough while not detering people to try to become "rich". Big emphasis on "in her country". She believes it should be very dependant of the amount and quality of public services. Good quality and cheap public education etc.
Money shouldn't exist. Hope that helps!
How should goods and services be exchanged?
Should everything be done with bartering?
Basic needs and resources should be provided, the rest by bartering or agreement, yes.
Have you seen Star Trek?
Money would like immediately be reinvented.
"I need my window repaired but I don't know how to do it"
"I can repair windows but I need someone to help my sick dog"
"I can diagnose animals but I need someone to translate Spanish".
"I can translate Spanish but I need someone to deliver this package "
They're not going to all line up and do a series of trades. Someone's going to be like "what if I give you a token, and we all agree that token is worth work? Then you can take that token to anyone*
Nobody is advocating for keeping the current system and simply removing the concept of money. Money is of course a necessity of the current system, but need not be if the system itself is changed.
The person I replied to literally said "the rest by bartering or agreement". I guess you could stir money is an agreement but that's not what I took from their message
Also how are you going to solve the scenario I provided?
Collective ownership of Capital. You don't need money in every system.
I don't understand how that's going to solve the scenario I described.
There's stuff I can do but don't want to. There's stuff I would do in exchange for something. But once that "something" isn't what you have, the reasons for currency become apparent.
Money is a unit of measurement. This is as insane as talking about removing the concept of length.
No, money is a commodity used to exchange commodities. You can have a functional society without relying on markets.
Star Trek has replicators.
It does, but we have the means to provide the basic needs for everyone already, no replicators required.
We do, but it requires a good deal of manual labour. Which isn't something people will just do for fun. Even someone who enjoys sowing isn't going to want to spend all day in a factory making t-shirts, for example.
I don't like taking out the trash and my partner doesn't like doing the dishes but we both do them happily because we understand when we contribute to the household we both benefit in vastly greater measure than our individual efforts.
Looks like you have a much more optimistic view of humans than I do. Because I don't think that "it's necessary" would be enough motivation for most people to do things that they fundamentally dislike doing without having an immediately tangible benefit.
Whenever you have anything you don't need for survival, give it to someone who can use it to survive. You can't force anyone else to do this, but if enough of us do it, then we we will live in the Utopia described. If we dont do this, then we are actively fighting against this Utopia. I'm afraid we will not be able to continue this conversation, however, because we do not need these phones to survive.
Yeah I thought we might be having a conversation, but your last comment did in fact clarify that you're being disingenuous, so I agree we not be able to continue.
What about if you make flower necklaces and you want a remote-controlled truck, but the person making trucks doesn't want necklaces? Should you need to go ask all the people making truck parts if they want to trade with you so that you can trade with the truck maker? What if you can't find anyone who wants to trade with you who also has things that the truck maker wants?
People used to barter long ago, that gradually shifted into everyone bartering for a specific type of seashell. Seashells are the most used "currency" in history. They were really great as a currency because you could measure them individually, or weigh lots of them for bigger trades. Some people stuck with the old bartering system without using seashells, but they didn't get the stuff they wanted nearly as easily. Eventually, some people switched from seashells to other things that worked even better for them, gold being a very popular one. Alchohol was one for a long time as well. Even muslims that wouldn't drink it still used it as currency. The advent of strong liquors was incredible because it allowed for easier transport of large quantities of wealth when compared to beer or cider.
One of the most surprising currencies was massive carved donut shaped rocks. They were not divisible, but they were extremely hard to steal since they were so heavy.
I've seen a few episodes of Star Trek long ago, back when it was on TV. Did they have a successful barter system?
You seem to think the flower crown maker is making them for profit. You're stuck in the capitalist mentality. We shouldn't be defined by what we do and we shouldn't only do that which is for monetary gain. I don't want somebody needlessly making an endless supply of flower crowns, I want a person free to make flower crowns only when they want to for pleasure.
Absolutely. I would love for them to be free to make them as well without any worry about survival. I just don't think that anyone should be able to go to them and demand that they have to give them their flower crowns that they just spent all weekend making. They have friends that they want to give these flower crowns to in exchange for other cute accessories.
Also, I think that if someone spends 3 months making an RC truck, then the flower maker should not be allowed to demand they give them a truck simply because they make flowers crowns that the truck maker doesnt want. The truck maker wants to give this truck to the drone maker who is going to give him a drone.
What have I said that implies they would get to demand anything? Where I have I said everyone gets to have everything they want?
I agree. In this hypothetical world without currency, people don't get to have as many things that they want. In a world with currency, they get more of the things they want. Human nature for nearly everyone is that they keep wanting more and more things. That's why most people choose to live with currency instead of living without it.
Why does the truck maker need anything? Why can't he just give the truck for free if his basic needs and resource requirements are being met?
The truck maker spent many years learning how to make trucks, and even still, it is very exhausting and time-consuming. They can't make very many. Because of this, there are not enough trucks for everyone who wants them. The truck maker likes rare and difficult-to-make things, so they prefer to give their trucks to other people who are willing and able to give them rare and difficult-to-make things.
Honestly, the flower necklaces are kind of sweet. The truck maker can tell that the flower maker tried to put a little smiley face on them, but they fall apart very easily, and any child can make dozens of them in an afternoon.
Then the flower crown maker doesn't get to have a truck, but that's okay because all of their needs are still being met. Utopia doesn't mean everyone having everything they want all the time, it just means having everything they need
In a world with a currency system, the flower maker is free to make flowers as much as they want and has the ability to exchange them for trucks through a medium of exchange.
In a world with no currency, the flower maker has to live without a truck.
Our ancestors were faced with the decision of which world they wanted to live in. Most chose the first option. Some chose the second.
Even today, there are people who are still largely choosing the second. They live their lives going from one Rainbow Gathering to another, everyone shares the necessities freely, there is no currency, and there are barter markets. This is a life that anyone, no matter how broke they are, can choose(at least in the US and many other 1st world countries). It is a beautiful place to be, and they happen year round. I highly recommend it to anyone to try, whether or not they think they would like this kind of life. Especially anyone who genuinely longs for a life without currency should absolutely go try it. It is a life-changing experience, almost guaranteed.
Workers should collectively own the Means of Production and direct it democratically as they see fit.
More and more companies are replacing workers with independent contractors who are running their own businessness where they are in complete control. We have now begun seeing some workers be replaced by AI, and this is a trend that will only continue to grow. This means that we are heading to a future that you described, a board of directors, or maybe even a single CEO who is the sole worker in a company and has complete control.
More and more companies are replacing workers with independent contractors who are running their own businessness where they are in complete control.
Lol. In many cases, that's just a tax dodge. I worked as an "independent contractor" for a cleaning company once, they supplied the equipment and told me where to go and when and what to do, same with all the other workers. The only formal employees were management and the only difference for us was fewer benefits.
That's not collective ownership, nor would it actually be a viable system, when production costs are practically 0 there will be no profits.
Why does reducing production costs reduce profits?
If everyone in a company are equal owners, then how is that not collective ownership?
Excellent question. Where do you believe prices come from? We can work from there.
As for individually owned companies of single people, that's just a bunch of sole proprietorships. I mean the whole of society should own the whole of Capital.
Prices come from what people are willing to pay. Sure, in a distant future where there are super cheap and available robots to make everything with no human labor, everything is free. In the meantime, due to current ownership differences, if you are selling something and your cost of production decreases, but your prices stay the same, then your profits increase.
Who do you imagine choosing what society wants? As of now, we are at a technological wall when it comes to provably fair voting systems. Nobody has invented one yet. Even something as simple as presidential elections are just trust based. Even if we had a hypothetical way for us to all vote on how all resources are used, people simply don't have the time or interest to constantly be voting on every decision of resources.
Prices come from supply, demand, and value. Prices will naturally fall to Cost of Production where there is Competition. I suggest reading Wage Labor and Capital if you want a thorough explanation, prices don't materialize out of mid-air.
Society can choose what society wants. You can elect managers and government functions to allocate, manage, and distribute production.
Those managers you are referring to are the current system. The way we elect who has the power is with our money. If you want Samsung to make choices about resources, you buy Samsung devices or stock. This is the fairest voting system we've managed to create.
Thanks for the link. I agree with your assessment of where prices come from. Eventually, robots will drive the costs down to nothing.
That is not how our current system works, because you assume Samsung has no outsized agency and that people have a plethora of chocies.
If you have any questions about WLaC, I can answer for you.
There may not be a plethora of really good tech companies to choose from, but we also have the choice to not vote for any of them. Fact of the matter is that people selfishly prefer to support these companies in their mission to get better and better than the competition, making their be fewer and fewer really good tech companies to choose from.
What is WLaC?
I think the question could be summarised as, how much is "enough"? Is it enough to live on? Enough to feel secure that you know you could pay for that big ticket item? Is that big ticket item the necessity you need or have to pay for?
And for that, alot of people have different lines that are deemed enough.
Exactly. Everyone has their own line. Some people are content to sit in the woods and live off of the land. Some people are content living a life of bartering without as many interesting things to spend their time with. The majority of people are not content no matter what they have. They are always looking for a way to get more than they have now, however much it is.
The trick to justifying extinction level greed is to ask people to draw a fine line between needs and wants.
You are not wrong. But there are a lot of people who would draw the line either before or after extinction level greed.
Whoa! Which one of these questions do people not like and why?
Ok so.... I can't speak for everyone, but
Is the line right at billion, how rich should people be allowed to be?
This could be perceived as sealioning, or just asking questions. Looking through the thread I don't believe that to be the case, so I personally don't find this one objectionable. My answer to that would be $100,000,000 US Dollars. No more than that, and people should really be retiring once they hit $10,000,000 USD
Should it matter how the money was acquired?
Perfectly reasonable question, and I would answer, "yes, absolutely." I would then immediately ask two follow up questions.
-
Is Wage Theft a crime?
-
Will we prosecute the crimes that these rich people have committed?
Should everyone always have to have the same amount of money as everyone else?
This is a strawman question, even if you didn't intend for it to be. No one thinks that everyone should have the same as everyone else, even those of us that advocate for moneyless and stateless society. I suspect this is the one that is getting the down votes, though the first is also a potential candidate.
My apologies. This got long. Read it or not, doesn't matter to me, I half write to work out my own thoughts anyways. Thanks for taking the time to write your comment!
I guess I just dont quite subscribe to the whole idea that if someone is making a bunch of money, then they must be hurting society. People choose to use amazon because it gets them better prices, things come faster, they have good customer support, its easy to refund things, etc. I don't care if Bezos has billions, he's not even going to spend it all. Most billionaires end up giving a shitton to decent organizations. Shopping was so shitty before Amazon, the experience is way better for me now. If he is going to come up with more ideas that get me good deals, then I selfishly don't want him to be forced to retire just because he's already pleased too many people and made too much money.
I guess I would think it's cooler if he was getting taxed 99% if the tax money was being used better. I never go to bed at night wishing the government could afford to bomb more gazan babies, or lock up more people for weed, or pay more cops awesome salaries to hide outside schools when theirs gunmen, or to force 13 year olds to have incest babies. The potholes still suck most places, they aren't giving us healthcare, education is rediculously priced, lots of people can't drink their tap water..
All that said, absolutely, if Bezos is scamming his employes and breaking contracts to rip them off, then absolutely punish him. I don't see low, agreed upon wages as a crime, though. If you don't like your job, then quit, if you can find a job then get benefits, if there's no benefits to be had, then that sucks and it needs to be dealt with. The thing is, Jeff is just going to use bots if you try to make him pay people too much, and then a whole bunch more benefits are going to be needed.
I don't know, I can change my mind if better ideas are presented. For the most part, it seems like people just want to have all the good ideas that got other people money, take their money, and strangely enough, they then want to get rid of the system that resulted in people being motivated to come up with the good ideas that we all love. Even more strange, many people on here think the idea of money is what's causing the problems, and they just want to go around bartering all the time. Or they think they do, at least.
-