3 ms·

Something like that. Obviously the specifics are important, but I think the main advantage from this is the limiting of amassed wealth.

sudosysgen 6y ago
In that case can I interest you to market socialism? It is almost exactly that, except that you immediately start sharing your wealth as soon as you have a employees, in different amounts.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  Market socialism sounds like what China does rather than preventing amassed wealth, but sure any system that accomplishes the goal of not letting individuals unreasonably impose their will on anyone else sounds good. Votes are powerful, but uber rich people can undermine voting.
  - danemorgan 6y ago
    China has "social markets", but this really just means capitalism with a communist party oversite. They allow billionaires and will soon have more of them than the US.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    China does not have market socialism, sadly. Market socialism directly prevents wealth accumulation. Indeed, the idea of market socialism is that we keep the free market and low government control over industrial matters, and instead make all companies owned by their employees. This would slow down accumulation of wealth substantially, as I don't know of any company you could work at that would make you accumulate more than 100 million dollars as a lowly worker, without any investment. The closest thing we have to market socialism right now would be worker co-ops, which do not allow massive wealth accumulation, as all wealth created would be shared equally among employees of a given firm. (Investment would also largely be impossible, because you would not be able to own stocks in such a system. Instead, interest would have to be accumulated via financing, which is much fairer to distribution of power and prevents accumulation of wealth.)
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Well that sounds great. I think it would be better to have a somewhat hierarchical compensation system instead of a flat compensation structure. Who's going to want to do hard and impressive work if the .5x intern is getting rich as fast as you are?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Oh yes, of course. Wages would not be flat, they would be determined by a vote of the employees. In real-world examples, people there for longer, that have more education, that do a more demanding job or have more responsibility have different salaries, up to a certain limit of inequality, of course. Even Karl Marx didn't want total equality, he thought (rightly) that it was absurd. Crucially though, the thing is that while wages are not the same, ownership is equal. Most of the wealth would be in shares of the company, not in wages, because wages are needed for consumption and because investment would be much more difficult.

sudosysgen 6y ago

In that case can I interest you to market socialism? It is almost exactly that, except that you immediately start sharing your wealth as soon as you have a employees, in different amounts.

briefcomment 6y ago
Market socialism sounds like what China does rather than preventing amassed wealth, but sure any system that accomplishes the goal of not letting individuals unreasonably impose their will on anyone else sounds good. Votes are powerful, but uber rich people can undermine voting.
- danemorgan 6y ago
  China has "social markets", but this really just means capitalism with a communist party oversite. They allow billionaires and will soon have more of them than the US.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  China does not have market socialism, sadly. Market socialism directly prevents wealth accumulation. Indeed, the idea of market socialism is that we keep the free market and low government control over industrial matters, and instead make all companies owned by their employees. This would slow down accumulation of wealth substantially, as I don't know of any company you could work at that would make you accumulate more than 100 million dollars as a lowly worker, without any investment. The closest thing we have to market socialism right now would be worker co-ops, which do not allow massive wealth accumulation, as all wealth created would be shared equally among employees of a given firm. (Investment would also largely be impossible, because you would not be able to own stocks in such a system. Instead, interest would have to be accumulated via financing, which is much fairer to distribution of power and prevents accumulation of wealth.)
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Well that sounds great. I think it would be better to have a somewhat hierarchical compensation system instead of a flat compensation structure. Who's going to want to do hard and impressive work if the .5x intern is getting rich as fast as you are?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Oh yes, of course. Wages would not be flat, they would be determined by a vote of the employees. In real-world examples, people there for longer, that have more education, that do a more demanding job or have more responsibility have different salaries, up to a certain limit of inequality, of course. Even Karl Marx didn't want total equality, he thought (rightly) that it was absurd. Crucially though, the thing is that while wages are not the same, ownership is equal. Most of the wealth would be in shares of the company, not in wages, because wages are needed for consumption and because investment would be much more difficult.