You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I agree with you to a point. A "benevolent dictatorship" is certainly not the answer, not to mention nothing more than a wet dream.
Where I differ is your assessment of the .1% versus the rest of us. Your forgetting something called the Pareto principe. It's basically a mathematical economic model that predicts that all of the money automatically flows to a smaller and smaller percentage as time goes on. This has been born out by observation of real life economic history.
Its basically this: obtaining wealth is very difficult, but once you have wealth, it's easier to become even more wealthy. An example would be in business, it's hard to start a business and make it successful. But once that business is successful, more people are more likely to buy your product/services, invest capital, etc.
Look at celebrities as another example, it's hard to become A-list. But once you do, your income grows exponentially, almost without even trying. People bend over backward to give them free products and services, that would cost the rest of us a hell of a lot of money, in the hopes that they drive up business. Which it actually does, so it's a win/win, and such opportunities are far, far more likely to present themselves once you are already wealthy and successful.
This Pareto principle also applies to productivity. Out of roughly 100 employees, about 20 of them are going to produce about 80% of the company product/service. As the company gets larger, the number of high producers in relation to number of employees gets even smaller.
Play a game of monopoly to see this principle in action.
Think of it as a form of evolution. Economically speaking, it's the survival, and thriving, of the fittest. Note: this is why communism and socialism ultimately fail. It's basically humans trying to circumvent the laws of nature, which might work for a time, but entropy gets its way in the end.
And there is no answer to the Pareto principle problem. Even when you try to redistribute from the top to stratify the wealth, production, etc. it just goes right back to the top.
You are right, I agree. I've thought about what you are referring to precisely. It's sometimes the conclusion of universal basic income paid for by taxes to 'the rich' which seems like one answer to this riddle, perhaps another relates to certain degrees of wealth limits. In the end, I don't really know what to call that, some hybrid of capitalism and socialism perhaps, maybe it's just a weak form of socialism, maybe you are absolutely right and I haven't put enough thought into the subject. Truthfully it's a subject I've feared and avoided to large degrees as so many other systems seem to go horribly wrong, I just hate the idea of concentrated power in the hands of few so the notion of a dictator pisses me off.
Some people try and say things like 'real communism has never been tried', although the definition of communism varies wildly from person to person. As I noted, I simply fear vastly too much power concentration, as the world bankers hold today.
[–]10472961?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
I do too, and I find both the left and right wings to be playing with fire these days. To those who claim real communism hasn't been tried, I say, tell that to the tens if not hundreds of millions of people who died under these horrific regimes. Tell that to North Koreans who live it every day. Tell that to the Chinese, you know, the vast majority who live in poverty at such levels the poorest in America couldn't comprehend it. China puts on a false face, but is every bit communist. They've somewhat adopted a more capitalist-like economy, but they are communist to the core.
I'd argue that the banking oligarchy the west is under today is a de facto dictatorship. It also has the blood-thirst for ultimate power and control. I think this also contributes to the state of things today.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 10469895? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I agree with you to a point. A "benevolent dictatorship" is certainly not the answer, not to mention nothing more than a wet dream.
Where I differ is your assessment of the .1% versus the rest of us. Your forgetting something called the Pareto principe. It's basically a mathematical economic model that predicts that all of the money automatically flows to a smaller and smaller percentage as time goes on. This has been born out by observation of real life economic history.
Its basically this: obtaining wealth is very difficult, but once you have wealth, it's easier to become even more wealthy. An example would be in business, it's hard to start a business and make it successful. But once that business is successful, more people are more likely to buy your product/services, invest capital, etc.
Look at celebrities as another example, it's hard to become A-list. But once you do, your income grows exponentially, almost without even trying. People bend over backward to give them free products and services, that would cost the rest of us a hell of a lot of money, in the hopes that they drive up business. Which it actually does, so it's a win/win, and such opportunities are far, far more likely to present themselves once you are already wealthy and successful.
This Pareto principle also applies to productivity. Out of roughly 100 employees, about 20 of them are going to produce about 80% of the company product/service. As the company gets larger, the number of high producers in relation to number of employees gets even smaller.
Play a game of monopoly to see this principle in action.
Think of it as a form of evolution. Economically speaking, it's the survival, and thriving, of the fittest. Note: this is why communism and socialism ultimately fail. It's basically humans trying to circumvent the laws of nature, which might work for a time, but entropy gets its way in the end.
And there is no answer to the Pareto principle problem. Even when you try to redistribute from the top to stratify the wealth, production, etc. it just goes right back to the top.
I despise Wikipedia, but it provides a decent explanation of the principle, go to the Applications tab to slip the mathematical jargon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
[–] White-Supremacist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You are right, I agree. I've thought about what you are referring to precisely. It's sometimes the conclusion of universal basic income paid for by taxes to 'the rich' which seems like one answer to this riddle, perhaps another relates to certain degrees of wealth limits. In the end, I don't really know what to call that, some hybrid of capitalism and socialism perhaps, maybe it's just a weak form of socialism, maybe you are absolutely right and I haven't put enough thought into the subject. Truthfully it's a subject I've feared and avoided to large degrees as so many other systems seem to go horribly wrong, I just hate the idea of concentrated power in the hands of few so the notion of a dictator pisses me off.
Some people try and say things like 'real communism has never been tried', although the definition of communism varies wildly from person to person. As I noted, I simply fear vastly too much power concentration, as the world bankers hold today.
[–] 10472961? ago
I do too, and I find both the left and right wings to be playing with fire these days. To those who claim real communism hasn't been tried, I say, tell that to the tens if not hundreds of millions of people who died under these horrific regimes. Tell that to North Koreans who live it every day. Tell that to the Chinese, you know, the vast majority who live in poverty at such levels the poorest in America couldn't comprehend it. China puts on a false face, but is every bit communist. They've somewhat adopted a more capitalist-like economy, but they are communist to the core.
I'd argue that the banking oligarchy the west is under today is a de facto dictatorship. It also has the blood-thirst for ultimate power and control. I think this also contributes to the state of things today.