4 ms·

I can hear the "Socialism" shouts from here, that goes against the god of free market, and how the hell the corporations are going to get the funds to buy polit

I can hear the "Socialism" shouts from here, that goes against the god of free market, and how the hell the corporations are going to get the funds to buy politicians.Next you are going to ask is basic health care for the poor.

radmuzom 11y ago
Another interesting thing I have noticed in online discussions. Whenever it comes to putting more money in hands of the few generally considered "rich", one of the standard explanations is that they will invest and create more jobs. However, things which will put extra money in the hands of "ordinary" people; like reduction in high prices or a higher wage always comes with a threat of reduction in jobs. Money in the hands of ordinary people is almost always spent or invested, thus providing a large boost to the economy (perhaps after a short term of 6-12 months of lower employment due to the rise in cost of doing business).
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  That line is on Page 1 of the Book of Political Lies that gets rolled out whenever there's a fight over resource allocation. The reality is that "invest and create more jobs" actually means "fire as many people as you can, cut wages as far as they go, make all hires as at-will as possible, and offshore to save money if you possibly can, even if it hurts the company in the long term." The rest of the reality is that our political system is an assholeocracy. The people responsible for this kind of idiocy should be nowhere near policy - not just because of some abstract sense of moral wrong, but because it's incredibly toxic to real economic and social development.
aianus 11y ago
It is better for rich people to have power than politicians. At least their wealth might have something to do with skill (creating a successful drug in the past, etc.)
- wiz21c 11y ago
  Read the price of inequality by Stiglitz, he explains whay this not quite true anymore (and that's unfortunate)...
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Politicians (in a liberal democracy) can have their power removed without revolution. In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all. They won't sit still while you're trying to do this.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all. 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy [1]. So the power seems to naturally defuse without having to "kill them all". [1] http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      Do you think that would still be the case in a society in which they were in charge? I don't.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  Eh? Rich people don't get rich because of skill, ever. No one gets rich because of skill, they get rich because they are in a position to exploit power. You simply cannot earn a billion dollars through wages. No one is that valuable or unique. The only way to do it is by appropriating the output of others, or having it handed to you. For example, the wealthiest family in America, the Waltons, owns more money than 40% of the country. All of them inherited their billions. Even if we do believe that Sam Walton deserved untold billions, how does this tell us anything about his children? In addition, why should we empower rich people at all? Why is giving a single person a billion dollars, skillful or not, better than allowing a million people to democratically direct that wealth? Even if those million people simply redistribute that money into their pockets, the outcomes will likely be better for everyone, and it's mathematically far more likely that those people will direct it towards the common good than a single person would.

radmuzom 11y ago

Another interesting thing I have noticed in online discussions. Whenever it comes to putting more money in hands of the few generally considered "rich", one of the standard explanations is that they will invest and create more jobs. However, things which will put extra money in the hands of "ordinary" people; like reduction in high prices or a higher wage always comes with a threat of reduction in jobs. Money in the hands of ordinary people is almost always spent or invested, thus providing a large boost to the economy (perhaps after a short term of 6-12 months of lower employment due to the rise in cost of doing business).

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
That line is on Page 1 of the Book of Political Lies that gets rolled out whenever there's a fight over resource allocation. The reality is that "invest and create more jobs" actually means "fire as many people as you can, cut wages as far as they go, make all hires as at-will as possible, and offshore to save money if you possibly can, even if it hurts the company in the long term." The rest of the reality is that our political system is an assholeocracy. The people responsible for this kind of idiocy should be nowhere near policy - not just because of some abstract sense of moral wrong, but because it's incredibly toxic to real economic and social development.

aianus 11y ago

It is better for rich people to have power than politicians. At least their wealth might have something to do with skill (creating a successful drug in the past, etc.)

wiz21c 11y ago
Read the price of inequality by Stiglitz, he explains whay this not quite true anymore (and that's unfortunate)...
EliRivers 11y ago
Politicians (in a liberal democracy) can have their power removed without revolution. In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all. They won't sit still while you're trying to do this.
- aianus 11y ago
  > In a different system of government in which the rich are in charge, the only way to change government is to destroy it and kill them all. 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy [1]. So the power seems to naturally defuse without having to "kill them all". [1] http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    Do you think that would still be the case in a society in which they were in charge? I don't.
astazangasta 11y ago
Eh? Rich people don't get rich because of skill, ever. No one gets rich because of skill, they get rich because they are in a position to exploit power. You simply cannot earn a billion dollars through wages. No one is that valuable or unique. The only way to do it is by appropriating the output of others, or having it handed to you. For example, the wealthiest family in America, the Waltons, owns more money than 40% of the country. All of them inherited their billions. Even if we do believe that Sam Walton deserved untold billions, how does this tell us anything about his children? In addition, why should we empower rich people at all? Why is giving a single person a billion dollars, skillful or not, better than allowing a million people to democratically direct that wealth? Even if those million people simply redistribute that money into their pockets, the outcomes will likely be better for everyone, and it's mathematically far more likely that those people will direct it towards the common good than a single person would.