One To Five?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Investment is one thing, money can be channelled into investments without being channelled into the pockets of private shareholders. Incomes from a certain activity can be cooperatively managed and invested where they are needed, without being ammassed into the hands of certain individuals.

So 5:1 for everybody except people you trust to be good with it?

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

So 5:1 for everybody except people you trust to be good with it?

I do not exactly know what you mean but a process of ditribution must ofcource be open to societal control and follow a certain set of rules made by society. With good rules redistribution of wealth could be done in a just way.

[redpaintednavi]

One interesting approach on equality is also that it promotes a better health among the population. And these health effects cuts right through society. So in an unequal society unhealth affects both rich and poor and in a more equal society all groups benefit of it because reduced stress, which gives a better overall health.

One can read about this interesting connection in the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

I do not exactly know what you mean but a process of ditribution must ofcource be open to societal control and follow a certain set of rules made by society. With good rules redistribution of wealth could be done in a just way.

I don't think there's any way to justly take from others.

[Human No More]

Wasn't that communism's basic idea, except with 1:1 and the reason it collapsed was because the people who were 'trusted' to have more were all politicians, their friends and families?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Wasn't that communism's basic idea, except with 1:1 and the reason it collapsed was because the people who were 'trusted' to have more were all politicians, their friends and families?

The politicians were mostly executed, and the communist leadership took their spots. Then took a larger share of the wealth. (Because they of course were more "responsible" than the capitalist overlords)

[Sonoran Na'vi]

As others have mentioned, the problem with too much wealth redistribution is that it takes away incentive. Incentive is an important aspect to an economy and we see its effects in such regulation as patent rights. But there is a fundamental question we must ask ourselves. I believe it was John Rawls who proposed the question of what type of society we would like to be born into if we were ignorant of how we would end up in that society (in other words, we wouldn't know if we were to be born poor, wealthy, et cetera).

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

The politicians were mostly executed, and the communist leadership took their spots. Then took a larger share of the wealth. (Because they of course were more "responsible" than the capitalist overlords)

'communist leadership' == politicians by any other name. Or are you going to tell me Stalin and Lenin were apolitical?
Of course, they lived in luxury while millions were worked to death, all because they and the few they kept around them were the 'trusted' ones. Communism is OK in theory, but 100% unimplementable in practice.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

'communist leadership' == politicians by any other name. Or are you going to tell me Stalin and Lenin were apolitical?
Of course, they lived in luxury while millions were worked to death, all because they and the few they kept around them were the 'trusted' ones. Communism is OK in theory, but 100% unimplementable in practice.

Anything can be "Okay in theory".

[Human No More]

The difference is people choose to do business with them rather than have what they earned taken from them.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

The difference is people choose to do business with them rather than have what they earned taken from them.

Well, choice can be imaginary in a society where commercial messages and status thinking are more or less brainwashing people to buy a lot of rather unneccesary things. This contributes in creating a skwewed distribution of wealth. And that in its turn creates an unhealthy society.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Well, choice can be imaginary in a society where commercial messages and status thinking are more or less brainwashing people to buy a lot of rather unneccesary things. This contributes in creating a skwewed distribution of wealth. And that in its turn creates an unhealthy society.

So you'll just brainwash people to honor your ideals. Society's still going to be "unhealthy" it'll just look unhealthy to the rest of us rather than you.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Yet some people don't do that. People who offer real competition, who let people save money and resources, are the ones who succeed.
That's called innovation.

Innovation is often a chimera used to rationalize unequality. That some people use the system for their own gain is in itself not so innovative.

Originally Posted by Aihwa

So you'll just brainwash people to honor your ideals. Society's still going to be "unhealthy" it'll just look unhealthy to the rest of us rather than you.

An unequal society is actually quite unhealthy, it is not just an opinion but based on many, many studies concerning different societal factors. If we can create an equal society (or at least as equal as possible) we will reduce several social, psychological and health related problems. The gains of such an effort far outhweights the trouble some rich people can find in having to share a part of their amassed resources to the rest of society.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Innovation is often a chimera used to rationalize unequality. That some people use the system for their own gain is in itself not so innovative.



An unequal society is actually quite unhealthy, it is not just an opinion but based on many, many studies concerning different societal factors. If we can create an equal society (or at least as equal as possible) we will reduce several social, psychological and health related problems. The gains of such an effort far outhweights the trouble some rich people can find in having to share a part of their amassed resources to the rest of society.

So a nice guilded cage for all those poor people who can't properly take care of themselves. Because you know what's best for them. The last group that did that were Russian based...



Communism! Yeah, it failed the last six times, but we should do it again!

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Well, choice can be imaginary in a society where commercial messages and status thinking are more or less brainwashing people to buy a lot of rather unneccesary things. This contributes in creating a skwewed distribution of wealth. And that in its turn creates an unhealthy society.

Yet some people don't do that. People who offer real competition, who let people save money and resources, are the ones who succeed.
That's called innovation.