I thought that the article was rather well thought through until reaching this:
What if the way to achieve the strongest possible economy is to give every citizen more money to spend? For example, what if we gave every citizen of the United States $25,000 to spend? $25,000 sounds impossible the first time you hear it, but consider the possibility.
Putting aside the laugability of the idea of a capitalist government giving each person a years worth of middle income wage for a moment - it would be great if
Exactly! Gov't HAS NO MONEY to give! Money is seized by the government from the citizens. If the government were to seize money and then redistribute it, that's called.. oh I dunno.. COMMUNISM. The fact is, capital is earned, not distributed.
If the government were to seize money and then redistribute it, that's called.. oh I dunno.. COMMUNISM.
No, that's called THE CURRENT US GOVERNMENT. They are just going about it in a half baked way. The Communists went about it with more dedication (still not complete, though; there were still plenty of privileged classes in the USSR) and failed abjectly. Will the US fail just as abjectly?
Churchill may have said it best with, "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Karl Marx realized this as well, in stating, "There is only one way to kill capitalism -- by taxes, taxes, and more taxes."
"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money."
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
She was absolutely dead-nuts right at the time. But lately it seems the corporations, with fiduciary responsibility only to the stockholders, have turned into evil monsters, exporting jobs, discarding workers like yesterday's trash, yet somehow enriching those at the top more and more, often just for being there, to an outrageous, absurd extent.
I used to think we were headed for 1929. Now I think maybe we are headed for October 1917.
She was absolutely dead-nuts right at the time. But lately it seems the corporations, with fiduciary responsibility only to the stockholders, have turned into evil monsters, exporting jobs, discarding workers like yesterday's trash, yet somehow enriching those at the top more and more, often just for being there, to an outrageous, absurd extent.
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800's and early 1900's was what eventually brought up the income levels of Europe, the U.S., and Japan to first world levels. Thi
"The gap between the rich and poor is much wider today..."
This is simply not true. The problem with statements like this is that the people who usually make them (and then have them repeated by others) never specify who the "rich" and the "poor" are and at what point in their lives they are in.
If you use the "government" definition of the top and bottom 20% of income levels to define "rich" and "poor", you end up with "poor" who are richer than the "rich" of 50 years ago, so how come they are "poor" now?
Now I think maybe we are headed for October 1917.
Because that worked REALLY well.
Well, the original poster was wrong. We would first head for a february revolution, the one that overthrew the Tsar. If they had managed to overcome their inexperience at government and stave off the bolshevik revolution, it might have worked as well as it did for the majority of us Europeans.
It's really only the English that haven't had the socialist revolution.
Indeed, in our current post-Enron, post-Worldcom climate of "corporate accountability", we'd be happy to see a company that even seemed to show some fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. At least if we establish a culture of corporate self-interest, we can then build on that to reach Rand's "enlightened self-interest."
It seems to me the "evil monster" corporation is the result of corporations looking out for the personal interests of the CEO, not the interests of the corporation itself. The la
It seems to me the "evil monster" corporation is the result of corporations looking out for the personal interests of the CEO, not the interests of the corporation itself.
The parent post to this really deserves to be modded up.
Last time I saw that point made was in the book Capitalist Fools, by Nicholas von Hoffman. This is a point that needs to be made in order to understand how modern businesses really work.
Are CEOs 10x as good as they were 20 years ago? Then why are they paid well over 10x as much?
> Read "Street Meat" by Harlan Ellison > to get a picture of what the most linear > projection of current trends are.
Do you mean "Street Meat" by Norman Spinrad? [Just from looking with Google, I haven't read it.] I like his "A World Between" novel.
By the way, no one has raised E.F. Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful" but he makes similar points -- that only 5% of work is productive, the rest is primarily moving stuff around, and maybe rather than focus on primary production efficiency, we could
The world was not a magical place from 1776-1950, where everyone looked out for the other guy, employers paid their employees as much as they possibly could, and dogs and cats lived together peaceably.
It is extremely dangerous to think that it was all right for others to have Rights and Freedoms previously, but now things are different. So-and-so is no longer nice, supply and demand isn't what it used to be, and others can't be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves.
If it's October 1917, hea
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
Almost insightful.. (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the way to achieve the strongest possible economy is to give every citizen more money to spend? For example, what if we gave every citizen of the United States $25,000 to spend? $25,000 sounds impossible the first time you hear it, but consider the possibility.
Putting aside the laugability of the idea of a capitalist government giving each person a years worth of middle income wage for a moment - it would be great if
Re:Almost insightful.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Resdistribution (Score:2)
No, that's called THE CURRENT US GOVERNMENT. They are just going about it in a half baked way. The Communists went about it with more dedication (still not complete, though; there were still plenty of privileged classes in the USSR) and failed abjectly. Will the US fail just as abjectly?
Re:Resdistribution (Score:5, Insightful)
"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money."
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,
What has gone wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
She was absolutely dead-nuts right at the time. But lately it seems the corporations, with fiduciary responsibility only to the stockholders, have turned into evil monsters, exporting jobs, discarding workers like yesterday's trash, yet somehow enriching those at the top more and more, often just for being there, to an outrageous, absurd extent.
I used to think we were headed for 1929. Now I think maybe we are headed for October 1917.
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:2)
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800's and early 1900's was what eventually brought up the income levels of Europe, the U.S., and Japan to first world levels. Thi
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:2)
This is simply not true. The problem with statements like this is that the people who usually make them (and then have them repeated by others) never specify who the "rich" and the "poor" are and at what point in their lives they are in.
If you use the "government" definition of the top and bottom 20% of income levels to define "rich" and "poor", you end up with "poor" who are richer than the "rich" of 50 years ago, so how come they are "poor" now?
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:2)
Because that worked REALLY well.
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:2)
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:2)
Well, the original poster was wrong. We would first head for a february revolution, the one that overthrew the Tsar. If they had managed to overcome their inexperience at government and stave off the bolshevik revolution, it might have worked as well as it did for the majority of us Europeans.
It's really only the English that haven't had the socialist revolution.
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:1)
Indeed, in our current post-Enron, post-Worldcom climate of "corporate accountability", we'd be happy to see a company that even seemed to show some fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. At least if we establish a culture of corporate self-interest, we can then build on that to reach Rand's "enlightened self-interest."
It seems to me the "evil monster" corporation is the result of corporations looking out for the personal interests of the CEO, not the interests of the corporation itself. The la
short-term thinking in a long term world (Score:2)
The parent post to this really deserves to be modded up.
Last time I saw that point made was in the book Capitalist Fools, by Nicholas von Hoffman. This is a point that needs to be made in order to understand how modern businesses really work.
Are CEOs 10x as good as they were 20 years ago? Then why are they paid well over 10x as much?
Re:short-term thinking in a long term world (Score:2)
> to get a picture of what the most linear
> projection of current trends are.
Do you mean "Street Meat" by Norman Spinrad? [Just from looking with Google, I haven't read it.] I like his "A World Between" novel.
By the way, no one has raised E.F. Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful" but he makes similar points -- that only 5% of work is productive, the rest is primarily moving stuff around, and maybe rather than focus on primary production efficiency, we could
Re:What has gone wrong (Score:1)
It is extremely dangerous to think that it was all right for others to have Rights and Freedoms previously, but now things are different. So-and-so is no longer nice, supply and demand isn't what it used to be, and others can't be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves.
If it's October 1917, hea