TFYS

12 ms·

151.
by TFYS 1y ago
Why would you limit to only billionaires, and why would you compare it to all spend? Try funding pensions and healthcare by taxing the wealth of the top 0.5% and it doesn't sound so impossible.
152.
by TFYS 1y ago
Yes. Wealth tax was abolished quite a while ago.
153.
by TFYS 1y ago
Tax wealth. I know that's a very hard thing to do due to the mobility and political power of capital, but we need international co-operation and just do it. That's where all the money is and where it's going at an acceleratin
154.
by TFYS 1y ago
Come on, the U.S is devolving into a fascist dictatorship as we speak, mostly due to capitalism and the worship of wealth. And for as long as capitalism remains, it will only get worse and worse, because capitalism is deeply flawed in that
155.
by TFYS 1y ago
I agree, and that's why the decision-making process should be more complex than just a simple vote. It should be a process where everyone participating is forced to consider the issue from all sides.
156.
by TFYS 1y ago
The wealth should be going to the people who create it, which is the people who do the work and the customers that use the product. The only reason owners get to take a part of it is the power that ownership of capital gives them. Using pow
157.
by TFYS 1y ago
That's why we need new ways to make decisions using direct democracy. Any system that delegates decision making to an individual or small group is vulnerable to corruption. Everyone should participate in decision-making.
158.
by TFYS 1y ago
We've caused a mass extinction, we're warming the planet at a dangerous rate, we've covered it with harmful long lasting chemicals that are now in the bloodstreams of most living things, we've damaged the mental health o
159.
by TFYS 1y ago
Academia is competitive because it's designed to be competitive. If things like funding, recognition and opportunities go to "winners", people will try to win. It's possible to design systems that do not force people to
160.
by TFYS 1y ago
Cheating happens in competition based systems. No one cheats in games where the point is to co-operate to achieve some common goal. We should aim to have a system based on recognizing those common goals and enabling large scale co-operation
161.
by TFYS 1y ago
You can't really separate wealth and power, they're pretty much the same thing. The process that is going on in the US is also happening in Europe, just at a slower pace. Media is consolidating in the hands of the wealthy, unions
162.
by TFYS 1y ago
You're right, political corruption is a problem in other systems as well, not just capitalism. I guess it would be more accurate to say that power concentration causes political corruption. We should try to figure out if it's poss
163.
by TFYS 1y ago
We haven't really been trying to find such a system. The technological progress that we've had since the last attempts at a different kind of a system has been huge, so what was once impossible might now be possible if we put some
164.
by TFYS 1y ago
Political corruption is a consequence of capitalism. Taking over the political system provides a huge competitive advantage, so any entity rich enough to influence it has an incentive to do so in an competition based economy that incentiviz
165.
by TFYS 1y ago
Sure, but you can't ignore the negative sides like environmental destruction and wealth and power concentration. Just because we haven't yet invented a system that produces a good standard of living without these negative side eff
166.
by TFYS 1y ago
I don't think regulations are enough. They're just a band-aid on the gaping wound that is a capitalist, market based economy. No matter what regulations you make, some companies and individuals become winners and over time will gr
167.
by TFYS 1y ago
Does this innovation in the form of patents increase the quality of life in the country? Not everything is fixed by "numbers go up", it matters where those numbers end up. If they end up in the hands of the wealthy, the quality of
168.
by TFYS 1y ago
You can choose who to work for, but you can't choose the nature of the relationship. It's always the same, you're a worker who has to give away a part of what you produce and you have to do what the owners tell you or you&#x2
169.
by TFYS 1y ago
Everyone "agrees" to it because there's no other choice, it's the system we have. Everyone agrees to it the same way people in communist countries agree to do what the state tells them to do. Most people have to agree, o
170.
by TFYS 1y ago
Most innovation is done by workers working for some company, no? Product development, research, etc is usually done by workers for a salary, not because they're competing against someone. Competition is not needed for paying people to
171.
by TFYS 1y ago
Deciding direction is also just work. Why does the reward for that kind of work have to be ownership over the work other people do? An architect makes decisions about a building, a doctor makes decisions about treatments, a developer makes
172.
by TFYS 1y ago
Competition is not the reason. The reason is workers choosing to improve things, invent things and make things more efficient. Competition is a way to incentivize people to do that, but it's not the only way.
173.
by TFYS 1y ago
They pay fat salaries because the talent they need is in high demand, not because they have fat profits. In any industry where that is not the case, a union is a must.
174.
by TFYS 1y ago
Can you just make the choice to solve P versus NP? Or climb K2? There's a lot of factors that affect a persons ability to make any choice. Willpower, knowledge and experiences, time, intelligence, etc.
175.
by TFYS 1y ago
People and communities are not that different from each other, so I don't think the idea that each community would benefit from a customized local solution would work. You'd lose the benefit of economies of scale and add a lot of
176.
by TFYS 1y ago
Relying too much on free-market competition is what is causing the west to stagnate. Left on their own, markets will produce monopolies and won't invest in expensive and risky basic research, or really anything of value where that valu
177.
by TFYS 1y ago
Capitalism. Instead of outright owning people, we just rent them now. The core idea is still the same though. One set of people do the work, another set of people own the results.
178.
by TFYS 1y ago
I don't think many people have a problem with the kind of income inequality you describe. Natural inequality does not produce the level of inequality we are seeing today. This is the result of Gnurgh and his friends setting up rules th
179.
by TFYS 1y ago
I guess nothing can ever again harm us now that it turned out those things didn't, nice. Do you have a link to the studies that say those things didn't do any harm, btw?
180.
by TFYS 1y ago
My belief is that our inability to make good decisions collectively is what causes inequality to arise. Large groups of people don't have any way of making decisions beyond very simple ones with obvious answers. Because of this the gro

More ›