What the 1% don't want you to know

[donquixote99]

There is some good discussion here. What I meant by 'right distribution first time,' of course, is not some 'absolutely accurately correct' distribution, since there are no stone tablets or anything containing rules on how to calculate that. I just mean something more approximately good than the way things are trending now.

People claim 'the market' should decide all this, but the market is not some neutral force of nature. It exists in a legal and cultural framework, made by humans, and alterable if we have the will to do it. For example, corporations normally are set up so workers get a defined return (wages) and the owners get a variable return (profits). We might do it the opposite way if we wanted. We might invent a scheme that blends these two approaches.

What is the right way? The way that most avoids human misery and most promotes the most people feeling like they have a good life. The one where we most often do justly, and love mercy. The one where people love their neighbors as themselves, do unto others as they think is right when others are doing unto them, and return blessings for hate. (Everyone knows this stuff, even those who reject it.)

The idea is certainly to put more money into the hands of the many, and less into the hands of the few. And not by giving it to the few, and then taxing it away from them. That irritates their sense of entitlement. (That sense is an irrational thing that most people have, but the .01% are currently in a position to be really obnoxious about it.) Anyway, I'm saying more pie, up front, to the many. Alter the distribution.

How? Altering the profit entitlement, as I alluded to above, would be one way. Working with minimum and maximum wage laws would be a way. Returning negotiating power to organized labor would be a way. I fully expect there are other ways. All the ways will have good and bad aspects.

Whatever ways we go with should be considered deeply, as to their long and varied effects, against the basic ideas of goodness I mentioned in the 'What is right' paragraph. I'm not saying I know exactly what the best solution. But I'm pretty sure that 'whatever the greediest of the .01% want' is not the way. Instead I see the power this group wields as being likely to just lead to more and more suffering for everybody. We are now in a headlong rush to 'a few own EVERYTHING,' and that needs to change, and quickly.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

For example, corporations normally are set up so workers get a defined return (wages) and the owners get a variable return (profits). We might do it the opposite way if we wanted. We might invent a scheme that blends these two approaches.

What is the right way?

Perhaps this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

John

[bobabode]

Co-ops? That'll get that pimple oozing.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Actually, I'm just asking questions. I suspect you might direct your comments about "silly" and "weak" to the post about "right redistribution".

Oh I believe that I was on target the first time.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There is some good discussion here. What I meant by 'right distribution first time,' of course, is not some 'absolutely accurately correct' distribution, since there are no stone tablets or anything containing rules on how to calculate that. I just mean something more approximately good than the way things are trending now.

People claim 'the market' should decide all this, but the market is not some neutral force of nature. It exists in a legal and cultural framework, made by humans, and alterable if we have the will to do it. For example, corporations normally are set up so workers get a defined return (wages) and the owners get a variable return (profits). We might do it the opposite way if we wanted. We might invent a scheme that blends these two approaches.

What is the right way? The way that most avoids human misery and most promotes the most people feeling like they have a good life. The one where we most often do justly, and love mercy. The one where people love their neighbors as themselves, do unto others as they think is right when others are doing unto them, and return blessings for hate. (Everyone knows this stuff, even those who reject it.)

The idea is certainly to put more money into the hands of the many, and less into the hands of the few. And not by giving it to the few, and then taxing it away from them. That irritates their sense of entitlement. (That sense is an irrational thing that most people have, but the .01% are currently in a position to be really obnoxious about it.) Anyway, I'm saying more pie, up front, to the many. Alter the distribution.

How? Altering the profit entitlement, as I alluded to above, would be one way. Working with minimum and maximum wage laws would be a way. Returning negotiating power to organized labor would be a way. I fully expect there are other ways. All the ways will have good and bad aspects.

Whatever ways we go with should be considered deeply, as to their long and varied effects, against the basic ideas of goodness I mentioned in the 'What is right' paragraph. I'm not saying I know exactly what the best solution. But I'm pretty sure that 'whatever the greediest of the .01% want' is not the way. Instead I see the power this group wields as being likely to just lead to more and more suffering for everybody. We are now in a headlong rush to 'a few own EVERYTHING,' and that needs to change, and quickly.

Sounds nice, but at some point if a society is going to do this an actual process will need to be established to carry out the objective. We've had and currently have some examples of how this approach has NOT worked. We also have an example of an approach that, warts and all, seems to work pretty well.

Also, all of the hand-wringing in this forum recently about the so called "death of the middle - class, there's plenty of to the contrary about income mobility in this country.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356...wo-decades-ago

Also, the constant bleating about income inequality ignores the reality that the top rungs of income earners in this country are not a static and unchanging group of individuals. Its really more like a revolving door:

".... Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell and I looked at 44 years of longitudinal data regarding individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience these different levels of affluence during their lives. The results were striking.

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/op...rags.html?_r=1

Frankly, if given a choice, I'd vastly prefer a system that allows greater individual economic freedom and mobility, and the opportunity to succeed - or fail - based on what I contribute.

There will always be ass holes, as history shows, that will try to rig the game in their own favor, and some of them will succeed while others end up behind bars. No matter what economic system you deploy, you'll always have ass holes. I'd offer that our efforts at "leveling the playing field" by changing how our current system operates does more damage than the few ass holes who try to rig the game.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

What is the right way? The way that most avoids human misery and most promotes the most people feeling like they have a good life. The one where we most often do justly, and love mercy. The one where people love their neighbors as themselves, do unto others as they think is right when others are doing unto them, and return blessings for hate. (Everyone knows this stuff, even those who reject it.)

There is the rub DQ, most people rather obviously do not love themselves and thus find it impossible to 'love thy neighbour'.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds nice, but at some point if a society is going to do this an actual process will need to be established to carry out the objective. We've had and currently have some examples of how this approach has NOT worked. We also have an example of an approach that, warts and all, seems to work pretty well.

Also, all of the hand-wringing in this forum recently about the so called "death of the middle - class, there's plenty of to the contrary about income mobility in this country.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356...wo-decades-ago

Also, the constant bleating about income inequality ignores the reality that the top rungs of income earners in this country are not a static and unchanging group of individuals. Its really more like a revolving door:

".... Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell and I looked at 44 years of longitudinal data regarding individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience these different levels of affluence during their lives. The results were striking.

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/op...rags.html?_r=1

Frankly, if given a choice, I'd vastly prefer a system that allows greater individual economic freedom and mobility, and the opportunity to succeed - or fail - based on what I contribute.

There will always be ass holes, as history shows, that will try to rig the game in their own favor, and some of them will succeed while others end up behind bars. No matter what economic system you deploy, you'll always have ass holes. I'd offer that our efforts at "leveling the playing field" by changing how our current system operates does more damage than the few ass holes who try to rig the game.

Awesome that was very good.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by merrylander

There is the rub DQ, most people rather obviously do not love themselves and thus find it impossible to 'love thy neighbour'.

Pretty sure I seen your property in a photo great place can I have half of it? Well even an 1/8 would be fine and more than I have. You always talk a game all the while living fat collecting what ever you can get.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There is some good discussion here. What I meant by 'right distribution first time,' of course, is not some 'absolutely accurately correct' distribution, since there are no stone tablets or anything containing rules on how to calculate that. I just mean something more approximately good than the way things are trending now.

People claim 'the market' should decide all this, but the market is not some neutral force of nature. It exists in a legal and cultural framework, made by humans, and alterable if we have the will to do it. For example, corporations normally are set up so workers get a defined return (wages) and the owners get a variable return (profits). We might do it the opposite way if we wanted. We might invent a scheme that blends these two approaches.

What is the right way? The way that most avoids human misery and most promotes the most people feeling like they have a good life. The one where we most often do justly, and love mercy. The one where people love their neighbors as themselves, do unto others as they think is right when others are doing unto them, and return blessings for hate. (Everyone knows this stuff, even those who reject it.)

The idea is certainly to put more money into the hands of the many, and less into the hands of the few. And not by giving it to the few, and then taxing it away from them. That irritates their sense of entitlement. (That sense is an irrational thing that most people have, but the .01% are currently in a position to be really obnoxious about it.) Anyway, I'm saying more pie, up front, to the many. Alter the distribution.

How? Altering the profit entitlement, as I alluded to above, would be one way. Working with minimum and maximum wage laws would be a way. Returning negotiating power to organized labor would be a way. I fully expect there are other ways. All the ways will have good and bad aspects.

Whatever ways we go with should be considered deeply, as to their long and varied effects, against the basic ideas of goodness I mentioned in the 'What is right' paragraph. I'm not saying I know exactly what the best solution. But I'm pretty sure that 'whatever the greediest of the .01% want' is not the way. Instead I see the power this group wields as being likely to just lead to more and more suffering for everybody. We are now in a headlong rush to 'a few own EVERYTHING,' and that needs to change, and quickly.

So, the best way isn't just; "Whatever costs business less."?

Wow. What a concept.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Pretty sure I seen your property in a photo great place can I have half of it? Well even an 1/8 would be fine and more than I have. You always talk a game all the while living fat collecting what ever you can get.

No, but I've got a lower intestine full of something you can have.

Dave