3 ms·

I'm sorry, but your post is impossible to grok. - What do you mean by "the economy" treating a business a certain way? - You use the sentence "Specifically ar

I'm sorry, but your post is impossible to grok. - What do you mean by "the economy" treating a business a certain way? - You use the sentence "Specifically around raw material consumption and/or other commodities such as energy prices, and even human resources, etc." -- what did you actually intend that sentence fragment to say? - You say "I would imagine the formula would be based on how many standard deviations from the mean or median a given company was" -- what formula? That's the first time you bring up the idea of some kind of formula. - You say "based on statistical polling of consumers and/or other businesses it's likely the wealth would be distributed evenly enough" -- woah, what wealth distribution? This is the first time you bring up this topic. In fifteen or fewer words, what is your proposal?

unexaminedlife 6y ago
Basically instead of the government being the middle man, businesses become (by law) responsible for at least some of redistribution of wealth within the economy. The premise, fundamentally, is that wealth (re)distribution is likely required to "level the playing field".
unexaminedlife 6y ago
I'll comment separately for each question to keep the ideas clear: Raw materials / human resources are the building blocks of an economy. Without them nothing else can happen. So by requiring company A to charge company B more than they charge company C for these things (because company B has 1 million times more revenue than company C) it prevents collusion between large entities. Large companies are notorious for "picking winners" in an economy just like large powerful governments are.
unexaminedlife 6y ago
So with regards to the "formula", it's kind of the same idea as "tax tables" the IRS creates. But instead of telling us "how much taxes you owe" these other tables decide "how much MORE energy prices are for the largest companies in the world vs the smallest". So the government isn't receiving the money before it's "distributed". Instead the "pain threshold" ultimately becomes too great for one company (as they get bigger and bigger) to own everything that they become forced to "distribute responsibility" to other companies that aren't all controlled by the same small group of people.
unexaminedlife 6y ago
The "statistical polling" idea is really just acknowledging the fact that a government (if they put something like this into law) would then of course be required to "uphold that law". So it's just my way of explaining that I think it's FEASIBLE for a government to not only put something like this into law, I think a government could probably enforce it reasonably well.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but you are making it very difficult to follow your train of thought. If you don't want to answer direct clarifying questions, that's fine, but a refusal to answer questions is generally not a sign of trustworthiness. Good luck.
  - unexaminedlife 6y ago
    This is a dialogue my friend. I don't know what prior knowledge you're bringing to the table so I don't know ahead of time how to explain myself. By interacting and asking questions and me answering (and vice-versa) we can hopefully come closer to understanding one another. I'm not trying to dismiss your questions. I probably just need more from you in order to know how to answer them. EDIT: And that's not to say I'm necessarily "right" about any of what I'm talking about. It's just an idea, and sometimes ideas can be a little complex and nuanced, which can make them even more difficult to explain.

unexaminedlife 6y ago

Basically instead of the government being the middle man, businesses become (by law) responsible for at least some of redistribution of wealth within the economy. The premise, fundamentally, is that wealth (re)distribution is likely required to "level the playing field".

unexaminedlife 6y ago

I'll comment separately for each question to keep the ideas clear: Raw materials / human resources are the building blocks of an economy. Without them nothing else can happen. So by requiring company A to charge company B more than they charge company C for these things (because company B has 1 million times more revenue than company C) it prevents collusion between large entities. Large companies are notorious for "picking winners" in an economy just like large powerful governments are.

unexaminedlife 6y ago

So with regards to the "formula", it's kind of the same idea as "tax tables" the IRS creates. But instead of telling us "how much taxes you owe" these other tables decide "how much MORE energy prices are for the largest companies in the world vs the smallest". So the government isn't receiving the money before it's "distributed". Instead the "pain threshold" ultimately becomes too great for one company (as they get bigger and bigger) to own everything that they become forced to "distribute responsibility" to other companies that aren't all controlled by the same small group of people.

unexaminedlife 6y ago

The "statistical polling" idea is really just acknowledging the fact that a government (if they put something like this into law) would then of course be required to "uphold that law". So it's just my way of explaining that I think it's FEASIBLE for a government to not only put something like this into law, I think a government could probably enforce it reasonably well.

torstenvl 6y ago
I'm sorry, but you are making it very difficult to follow your train of thought. If you don't want to answer direct clarifying questions, that's fine, but a refusal to answer questions is generally not a sign of trustworthiness. Good luck.
- unexaminedlife 6y ago
  This is a dialogue my friend. I don't know what prior knowledge you're bringing to the table so I don't know ahead of time how to explain myself. By interacting and asking questions and me answering (and vice-versa) we can hopefully come closer to understanding one another. I'm not trying to dismiss your questions. I probably just need more from you in order to know how to answer them. EDIT: And that's not to say I'm necessarily "right" about any of what I'm talking about. It's just an idea, and sometimes ideas can be a little complex and nuanced, which can make them even more difficult to explain.