4 ms·

I thought I was a capitalist growing up, but these days I think my political affiliation is more likely just 'hacker'. Anyways, as thought experiments, I have

by jdavid 16y ago

I thought I was a capitalist growing up, but these days I think my political affiliation is more likely just 'hacker'. Anyways, as thought experiments, I have been toying with the idea of limiting company size to 150 people, based on dunbar's number, which would guarantee distributed ownership and accountability. By keeping group size small i think it's harder to cheat and waste social capitol. And secondly, I have been thinking of requiring companies to distribute a certain percentage of revenue to employees for a tax break. Since 60+% of federal income is via earned income, it makes sense for the government to encourage this sort of income anyways. I also think this might align executive interest with their employees and help us make earned income more attractive. I am not really sure it's fair that capital income, like dividends and sale of property should be flat taxed at 15-20%, while hard working people are effectively taxed at 30-60%. ( don't forget about the employment/ SS tax which your employer pays, or in the case of a consultant they pay entirely. )

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
michaelochurch 16y ago
I thought I was a capitalist growing up, but these days I think my political affiliation is more likely just 'hacker'. I can relate to this. I had a socialist and a capitalist phase-- more than one of each, actually. In truth, I'm a pragmatist, a syncretist, and I'd include "libertarian" had that word not been stolen from us by right-wing idiots. Both "socialism" and "capitalism" encompass two centuries' worth of economic innovations, and it's idiotic to think either column has all of, or none of, the answers. We need enough socialism to prevent economic degeneracy (e.g. an outcome where people become so rich or so poor that fail deals become impossible and the system devolves) and we need enough capitalism to remain innovative, to reward hard work, to put the talented and skilled people (who, for statistical reasons, usually are not born into well-connected elites) into decision-making roles, and to allow people to try out new ideas without having to answer to (government or corporate) bureaucrats. I hate American-style corporate "capitalism" with a passion, though. It's a horrible system that exists to give a socially insular elite (~0.5%) the best of both systems (socialism and capitalism) and leave everyone else with the worst of both worlds.

by jdavid 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

michaelochurch 16y ago

I thought I was a capitalist growing up, but these days I think my political affiliation is more likely just 'hacker'. I can relate to this. I had a socialist and a capitalist phase-- more than one of each, actually. In truth, I'm a pragmatist, a syncretist, and I'd include "libertarian" had that word not been stolen from us by right-wing idiots. Both "socialism" and "capitalism" encompass two centuries' worth of economic innovations, and it's idiotic to think either column has all of, or none of, the answers. We need enough socialism to prevent economic degeneracy (e.g. an outcome where people become so rich or so poor that fail deals become impossible and the system devolves) and we need enough capitalism to remain innovative, to reward hard work, to put the talented and skilled people (who, for statistical reasons, usually are not born into well-connected elites) into decision-making roles, and to allow people to try out new ideas without having to answer to (government or corporate) bureaucrats. I hate American-style corporate "capitalism" with a passion, though. It's a horrible system that exists to give a socially insular elite (~0.5%) the best of both systems (socialism and capitalism) and leave everyone else with the worst of both worlds.