13 ms·

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue

by Clubber 10y ago

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings. This will probably go on perpetually.

HeavenBanned 10y ago
>or just enough to quell the uprisings. There's actually an economic model for this "sweet spot" wherein the rich can maximize their profits to the breaking point before revolt happens believe it or not, and it's widely taught in Capitalist universities as a very reliable and worthy economic tool to ensure the rich stay rich without reprieve. Though the way they frame it is not malicious or neo-feudalistic, it's as a way of promoting "stability." Capitalism=Feudalism with makeup.
mtrn 10y ago
You might like The Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick[1]. In this 1964 novel the world has shifted slightly: Instead of giving "just enough to quell the uprisings", large parts of the population are just kept eternally busy to support the wealthy lifestyle of a few. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth
- marmot777 10y ago
  Hey if you're a person receiving basic income so you have basic security, then you're free to work for more money or if that fails as it likely will at times, you'll really appreciate having that foundation of basic income. Yes, there are huge disparities of wealth but when I look at the world my young son is living in and has to deal with, I don't want instability, revolutions, chaos as know enough history to know the failure rate of all that stuff's very high. If the underlying purpose is to "quell the uprisings" or because of pure motives does not particularly concern me. I'm interested in results.
paulpauper 10y ago
Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened. History suggests revolts occur when basic needs are unmet, usually after a nation falls into debt and ruin as a consequence of war
- marmot777 10y ago
  If you're saying there haven't been revolts and chaos then I refer you to a citation called the 20th century. Do you want to go another round of that craziness but very likely worse?
- malandrew 10y ago
  What amazes me is that people keeping keep increasing the definition of basic needs and we wonder why things become unstable. Universal healthcare is now considered a basic need. We're not even talking about basic healthcare either. I see people arguing all the time that everyone is entitled to a level of care that is for all intents and purposes a premium product that commands a premium price. If you were to tally up all the entitlements people argue should be basic human rights, you'd have a economically unsustainable system, because you'd eventually take so much from those working that the motive for them to continue participating in the system would disappear. It got so bad in East Germany, that they had to build a wall to keep those that were productive from fleeing.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    The max is generally: food, shelter, health care, education, communication
    - greendesk 10y ago
      But what good is the minimum? Food that you grow and cook yourself, or fried chicken at McDonald's? Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now). Health care - does it include complex treatments? Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education? Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.
ouid 10y ago
the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you can give it to people in exchange for things. The value of money itself falls in proportion to its concentration.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Could you elaborate? I was thinking along the lines of money as it relates to Maslow's triangle. The more money you have (or skills that equate to money) the higher you can go. Money is freedom, money is self esteem (for many), money is power. Lack of money is imprisonment, despair and weakness to even protect yourself from predators (metaphorically speaking). If 70% of the population is stuck on the first rung, nasty things are going to happen. Once creating automation can itself be automated, that will jump to 90-95%. For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land). Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.
- marmot777 10y ago
  I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?
morgante 10y ago
> The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Huh? In your worldview is charity just not a thing?
- Clubber 10y ago
  Not when it comes to payroll, it isn't. You think companies are gonna start cutting payroll checks for charity's sake? They ship jobs overseas to get cheaper workers and skirt environmental protections, what do you think they are going to do when they don't need 90% of them?
  - morgante 10y ago
    You started by talking about "wealthy people" and then switched to talking about companies and payroll. This is a motte and bailey argument: your reply is perfectly reasonable, while your original statement was definitely not.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Large companies that lobby congress are controlled wealthy people, are they not?
marmot777 10y ago
I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air, an intact Amazon Basin, etc. The things that I can think of that would make the world a better place are not impossible.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
      - marmot777 10y ago
woodandsteel 10y ago
>The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. No, that is not true. Human beings are complicated, and different people do things for different reasons. There are lots of rich people like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates who spend the first part of their lives doing everything they can to get rich, and the second part giving it away for the benefit of mankind.
- Clubber 10y ago
  I agree with you, but those are the exceptions, not the norm and I was generalizing. Also, the context I intended was payroll or taxes. Carnagie did it because he believed rich people won't go to heaven. "He believed in the "Gospel of Wealth," which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society." I'm not sure why Bill Gates does it, but I commend him for it. Also keep in mind, most of his charity goes over seas. Furthermore, Gates is worth around $90 billion. If he gave the entirety of his wealth to all US working people (about 150 million), it would come out to a one time payment of $600. The US is going to have to start keeping it's natural resources and stop giving it to companies for free or pennies on the dollar. You should see how cheap my state sells water to bottling companies that then sell it for a %1600 markup or something like that.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Exactly. I remember when Bill Gates was the king of the villains now he's a saint. I have whiplash.
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    Whitewashing his reputation for posterity by spending money that has never been rightfully his.
    - marmot777 10y ago
      Oh man, don't get me nostalgic for Bill Gates, the greatest villain the world has ever known. I was happy when he was the villain but didn't know I was happy. We can't call him out of retirement now, he's busy, and besides Microsoft isn't as scary as it used to be. Nothing stays the same so learn to appreciate it next time an assholish villain rises up to roll you without the slightest pretense of charm and subtlety. Thank him for occupying you and your friends' thoughts and prayers for mercy and for endless hours of debate, strife, and paranoia because you won't realize what you've lost until it's gone. One day you'll wake up and your favorite villain will have become a hippie, smoking hash with bedouins, curing diseases, and exuding something suspiciously close to charisma but it's hard to tell.
guntars 10y ago
I see this sentiment a lot and it saddens me because it's a) extremely dark and b) generalizes and simplifies the motivations of large groups of people. Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.
- skybrian 10y ago
  Um, cite? I'd expect most wealthy Democrats aren't lobbying for lower taxes, because that's a Republican belief. Famous billionaires who have spoken in favor of higher taxes include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Speaking and lobbying are completely different things. You and I speak, ExxonMobile lobbies. Guess where half of congress (slightly more) currently stand on global warming?
- Clubber 10y ago
  >They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't. Heh. Now who's generalizing? (sorry, a little snarky). There's a little over 500 billionaires in the US. Gates and Buffet are on record pledging to do this, as are some of their friends. That's a whole lot shy of "most."

by Clubber 10y ago

HeavenBanned 10y ago

>or just enough to quell the uprisings. There's actually an economic model for this "sweet spot" wherein the rich can maximize their profits to the breaking point before revolt happens believe it or not, and it's widely taught in Capitalist universities as a very reliable and worthy economic tool to ensure the rich stay rich without reprieve. Though the way they frame it is not malicious or neo-feudalistic, it's as a way of promoting "stability." Capitalism=Feudalism with makeup.

mtrn 10y ago

You might like The Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick[1]. In this 1964 novel the world has shifted slightly: Instead of giving "just enough to quell the uprisings", large parts of the population are just kept eternally busy to support the wealthy lifestyle of a few. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penultimate_Truth

marmot777 10y ago
Hey if you're a person receiving basic income so you have basic security, then you're free to work for more money or if that fails as it likely will at times, you'll really appreciate having that foundation of basic income. Yes, there are huge disparities of wealth but when I look at the world my young son is living in and has to deal with, I don't want instability, revolutions, chaos as know enough history to know the failure rate of all that stuff's very high. If the underlying purpose is to "quell the uprisings" or because of pure motives does not particularly concern me. I'm interested in results.

paulpauper 10y ago

Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened. History suggests revolts occur when basic needs are unmet, usually after a nation falls into debt and ruin as a consequence of war

marmot777 10y ago
If you're saying there haven't been revolts and chaos then I refer you to a citation called the 20th century. Do you want to go another round of that craziness but very likely worse?
malandrew 10y ago
What amazes me is that people keeping keep increasing the definition of basic needs and we wonder why things become unstable. Universal healthcare is now considered a basic need. We're not even talking about basic healthcare either. I see people arguing all the time that everyone is entitled to a level of care that is for all intents and purposes a premium product that commands a premium price. If you were to tally up all the entitlements people argue should be basic human rights, you'd have a economically unsustainable system, because you'd eventually take so much from those working that the motive for them to continue participating in the system would disappear. It got so bad in East Germany, that they had to build a wall to keep those that were productive from fleeing.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  The max is generally: food, shelter, health care, education, communication
  - greendesk 10y ago
    But what good is the minimum? Food that you grow and cook yourself, or fried chicken at McDonald's? Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now). Health care - does it include complex treatments? Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education? Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.

ouid 10y ago

the problem with this scenario is that it does not correctly evaluate the dynamic nature of "wealth". Money has exactly one use, and that's the fact that you can give it to people in exchange for things. The value of money itself falls in proportion to its concentration.

Clubber 10y ago
Could you elaborate? I was thinking along the lines of money as it relates to Maslow's triangle. The more money you have (or skills that equate to money) the higher you can go. Money is freedom, money is self esteem (for many), money is power. Lack of money is imprisonment, despair and weakness to even protect yourself from predators (metaphorically speaking). If 70% of the population is stuck on the first rung, nasty things are going to happen. Once creating automation can itself be automated, that will jump to 90-95%. For many, money is survival. It's just a convenient instrument to trade. If you are unable to make or have money, you are unable to accomplish anything you can't do by yourself (this includes shelter and sustenance which requires land). Also, wealth concentration globally is a lot different from wealth concentration nationally. In other words, if we follow globalization as it's been seen in the US recently, the owners can easily sell goods to offshore markets while neglecting the local labor market, allowing them to further diminish. The wealth class can (and do) simply pay the government for protection (police, imprisonment, military, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Personally, I'm not so sure a living wage is enough to keep the population at bay. People need something to climb up Maslow's triangle that money is only a prerequisite for. People still need a feeling of accomplishment.
marmot777 10y ago
I think you're saying that money does not ipsofacto have value, it's valuable because we agree to that value and can exchange it for items with real value? Sure, so this program won't protect anyone from a famine but are shortages usually the issue?

morgante 10y ago

> The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Huh? In your worldview is charity just not a thing?

Clubber 10y ago
Not when it comes to payroll, it isn't. You think companies are gonna start cutting payroll checks for charity's sake? They ship jobs overseas to get cheaper workers and skirt environmental protections, what do you think they are going to do when they don't need 90% of them?
- morgante 10y ago
  You started by talking about "wealthy people" and then switched to talking about companies and payroll. This is a motte and bailey argument: your reply is perfectly reasonable, while your original statement was definitely not.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Large companies that lobby congress are controlled wealthy people, are they not?

marmot777 10y ago

I have no idea if what you say is true but let's say it is true. So the options are incomes and stability or no income and uprisings and instability. Which world would you rather live in? The uprisings don't put food on the table but are likely to have the opposite effect so I'm in favor of the income and I'm in favor of stability. I have a young son and a stable world is my dream for him, along with breathable air, an intact Amazon Basin, etc. The things that I can think of that would make the world a better place are not impossible.

Clubber 10y ago
Nobody can predict the future, I was just pontificating, BUT the US government (both parties) don't really work for the American people. I'm talking Congress and the House, the ones that have the real power. The US government was setup by elites for elites. Why do you think white, male landowners were the only ones who could vote? It's in our foundation and has only changed in brief periods. I think a living wage will be required eventually, but you better believe the people who donate largely to campaigns will fight it tooth and nail. Not only that, they will make sure it's just enough to quell uprisings and comes out of debt rather than increased taxes.
- marmot777 10y ago
  Why would they fight it if it was in their interest? The elites have an interest in stability. There would have to be some good marketing and some good direct sales to said elites but to me, it seems obvious that something will have to be done on this to preserve stability. Even an ice cold sociopath would want that, I would think unless these elites are a different species altogether. I doubt it.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    For the same reason they fight it now, they don't like writing checks.
    - marmot777 10y ago

woodandsteel 10y ago

>The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. No, that is not true. Human beings are complicated, and different people do things for different reasons. There are lots of rich people like Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates who spend the first part of their lives doing everything they can to get rich, and the second part giving it away for the benefit of mankind.

Clubber 10y ago
I agree with you, but those are the exceptions, not the norm and I was generalizing. Also, the context I intended was payroll or taxes. Carnagie did it because he believed rich people won't go to heaven. "He believed in the "Gospel of Wealth," which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society." I'm not sure why Bill Gates does it, but I commend him for it. Also keep in mind, most of his charity goes over seas. Furthermore, Gates is worth around $90 billion. If he gave the entirety of his wealth to all US working people (about 150 million), it would come out to a one time payment of $600. The US is going to have to start keeping it's natural resources and stop giving it to companies for free or pennies on the dollar. You should see how cheap my state sells water to bottling companies that then sell it for a %1600 markup or something like that.
marmot777 10y ago
Exactly. I remember when Bill Gates was the king of the villains now he's a saint. I have whiplash.
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  Whitewashing his reputation for posterity by spending money that has never been rightfully his.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    Oh man, don't get me nostalgic for Bill Gates, the greatest villain the world has ever known. I was happy when he was the villain but didn't know I was happy. We can't call him out of retirement now, he's busy, and besides Microsoft isn't as scary as it used to be. Nothing stays the same so learn to appreciate it next time an assholish villain rises up to roll you without the slightest pretense of charm and subtlety. Thank him for occupying you and your friends' thoughts and prayers for mercy and for endless hours of debate, strife, and paranoia because you won't realize what you've lost until it's gone. One day you'll wake up and your favorite villain will have become a hippie, smoking hash with bedouins, curing diseases, and exuding something suspiciously close to charisma but it's hard to tell.

guntars 10y ago

I see this sentiment a lot and it saddens me because it's a) extremely dark and b) generalizes and simplifies the motivations of large groups of people. Of course the wealthy are going to lobby for lower taxes, only a dumdum in their situation wouldn't. They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't.

skybrian 10y ago
Um, cite? I'd expect most wealthy Democrats aren't lobbying for lower taxes, because that's a Republican belief. Famous billionaires who have spoken in favor of higher taxes include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Speaking and lobbying are completely different things. You and I speak, ExxonMobile lobbies. Guess where half of congress (slightly more) currently stand on global warming?
Clubber 10y ago
>They'll also donate large chunks of their wealth to charity because only the most heartless wouldn't. Heh. Now who's generalizing? (sorry, a little snarky). There's a little over 500 billionaires in the US. Gates and Buffet are on record pledging to do this, as are some of their friends. That's a whole lot shy of "most."