That thing rich people do where they make money into more money

[Norton]

[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION], I'm in complete agreement.

I think we also need to look at limiting the size and lifespan of corporations but once again it's a complex issue. Some corporations to be effective must be large and/or have an international span. How do you decide which corporations? and how do you impose limits without suffocation?

Intellectual property is another area that needs refinement. I think a huge mistake has been made by allowing corporations to extend those rights beyond 70 years.

The class segretation that naturally arises in capitalist societies is also another issue.

Perhaps, the whole system should be scratched and replaced with one more appropriate for the current situation but even that will result in massive displacement and suffering. Conundrum.

Regarding the size and lifespan of corporations: I don't think we know enough about the optimum size of a corporation, but, certainly, antitrust regulation as it relates to corporate mergers seems to have become quite lax in the last decade or two. I think that competition is critical for an optimum economic system.

Regarding intellectual property: If you are talking about the U.S. patent system, currently the patent right extends 20 years from the date of the patent application. Before May 1995, the right was 17 years from the patent issue date. These rights are not extendable except in rare cases of some pharmaceutical patents, which can be extended to compensate for the time it takes to get regulatory approval from the FDA (no more than 5 years, I think, but usually less). Trademark and copyright law is different, but these usually confer less coverage than is available to a patent holder.

The patent system can be improved, that's for sure. Patent examiners are under a lot of pressure and have too much work to do a good job of patent prosecution. The very concept of an invention is still poorly defined. That is, no one, the Supreme Court included, really knows what an invention is. Supposedly, it has to be useful, novel, and "non-obvious." Despite two centuries of case law, these criteria are still fuzzy and poorly applied. Take a patent for a gene. At the time a gene is patented, its most important potential uses are rarely known or specified. Furthermore, a gene is not novel, and just discovering it with known techniques doesn't make it so. Finally, there is nothing "non-obvious" about a gene because the techniques for isolating genes are widely known, and genes are just sitting there in the cell's nucleus (or mitochondria) waiting to be analyzed. What you find is that that which is patentable is less dependent on the law and more dependent on what industry "wants" to patent. To me, "business methods" and software per se do do not meet the criteria for what is an invention. As an inventor, I've given Congressional testimony on the patent system, and let me tell you, what industry perceives to be in its best interests is usually accommodated by Congress. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions (paid speech) is rife. Of course, what industry perceives to be in its best interests does not necessarily turn out to actually be in its best interests.

 

[~jet]

 

[muir]

I like Che Guevara's definition of socialism:

'For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another'

If a country has failed to do that then it is not socialist. This includes the capitalist bogeymen: China under Mao, Russia under Stalin and Cuba under Castro

Where is our current trajectory under capitalism taking us?

The world's population is booming under globalisation, the using up of the world's resources is accelerating to feed capitalism's rapacious appetite for consumption, there is increasing conflict over the world's dwindling resources, nuclear proliferation, a growing disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor and constant cycles of economic upheaval

Some people argue it isn't capitalisms fault it is just how we are operating the system

I'm not convinced by that. Tweak capitalism as much as you want, but by its very nature you will always end up at the same point. I think that those who control the system are the architects of reform

Reforms as far as I am concerned are designed for one thing and that is to manage an uneasy balance in power and wealth between the capitalist class (those that make a living from their investments) and the working class (those that make a living from their labour)

Reforms are not made out of the kindness of the ruling class (the capitalist class)....if they really cared they would share their wealth....they simply want to give the working class just enough that they don't become so disgruntled that they rebel

The capitalist class have FAILED to do that in many countries which is why we are seeing so much civil unrest at the moment

The world's problems are coming into sharper focus for people all the time.

There needs to be a recognition that capitalism is failing and that there are other options.

If the problems are power imbalance and wealth imbalance then surely the instruments which uphold those things must be removed?

Once those things are removed it would be the task of humanity, having overcome the illusion of nationalism to use its great ingenuity to find ways to allocate the world's resources in such a way that everyone was taken care of.

I don't think the organisation for such an effort would be best imposed from the top down (as under capitalism) but rather from the bottom up (as under anarchist systems)

All this discussion can help how we read the events of the world and how we choose to interact with it so i think they have value, but on a more individual level there is the question of what is wealth?

I think that under the current system we put profit before everything else....before people, before the environment and before the truth....this is not a healthy state of being

If we as individuals become too focused on money it can also imbalance us. Arguably true wealth is not in money or material things but in more intangible things such as: love, happiness, wisdom & understanding and in sharing those things

There

 

[Norton]

I like Che Guevara's definition of socialism...

Sorry, but in the U.S. at least, with the Republicans in the ascendancy and the Democrats loath to be labeled or associated in any way with Socialism, your embrace of Socialism is a total outlier. There is no way this country will ever go that way. It's just not going to happen. If you want to make a change to the system, you've got to conceive it in the context of capitalism, modified though it may have to be. Work against the corruption that labels corporations "individuals" with the campaign contribution rights thereof. Work for union representation and collective bargaining rights. Work for equal education and opportunity for the poor. But, whatever you think or wish for, Wall Street is not going away.

Some naive dreamers may find Che Guevara romantic. To me, he was a psychopath who saw nothing wrong with violence to enforce his will. The Bolivians did us all a favor.

 

[not sure]

I want to see people get rich by inventing/selling solar and wind power... by inventing software that makes people's lives easier... by developing crop dispersion techniques that dramatically reduce the need for pesticides... by investing in and building hydroponic skyscrapers for all the major cities of the world... by developing nanomachines that can hunt down and kill cancer one cell at a time and disperse topical treatments (thus dramatically reducing cost and increasing effectiveness of medicine) ...by developing better education, by investing in the betterment and technological leapfrogging of the third world... by mining asteroids instead of mountains... by storing electricity inside ceramics... by ending the use of hydrocarbons as a fuel source... et cetera.

Nice ideas but how will you finance it?

Rather than, you know, by cheating millions out of their hard earned pensions and healthcare premiums, starting pointless wars, spreading toxins and poisons, cutting back on safeguards, engineering captive-audience traps where the buyer essentially has no choice in the matter, placing bets on bets on bets on bets of the financial failures of industries they can directly manipulation through hedge funds, and so on and so forth. This is where the majority of modern 'wealth' is tied up right now, and the problem is getting worse.

Your pensions and healthcare benefits are not hard earned. Your pension contributions and you insurance premiums are. What you eventually receive in pension and insurance benefits are earned by investing in profit making business or interest earning instruments. This is not money you worked for. I believe that's your beef with the wealthy is that they did not work for their money. Yet here you are wanting to benefit in the same way.

What do you call wealth, anyways? As an innovator and laborer, I'm doing unusually well at about 76k/yr... but I can't afford to live within an hour's commute of work. The only ones who can are the lobbyists and insurance salesmen whose jobs are essentially institutionalized system gaming and information manipulation. They're making, 200-400k a year (according to D.C. metro statistics). Personally, I'd consider that to be WEALTHY. I don't know what I'd do with 200k a year, much less 400k.

Their bosses, though... they are making millions a year on the low end (helmsley, through fiscal mass-rape, took home 1.5 billion for only 10 years 'work,' and in that whole time did no one any good except himself, the board, and major shareholders, but did do incredible harm to millions.)

I can't find any sympathy in my heart for the fact that you live far from work and earn less than others. Such is life. The bosses make millions because they pilot their companies to earn even more. You benefit because your pension fund invests in these companies so that they can pay you a pension you earned but did not work for. You don't seem so different from the rich to me.

Prior to Reagan and following the last banker-started economy-destroying depression that required wealth-moderation measures to fix, tax rates on what, in today's dollars would have been ~OVER~ 3.5million in take-home personal income per year was taxed between 70 something and 90 something percent. Depends on when you check. Keep in mind, thats only on the portion over 3.5 relative million dollars... the tax rate is much more modest below that rate... but as we all know, 3.5million was never enough for a honest human being to survive on. That same era, however, was America's single most golden, wealthy, self-sufficient, and demonstrably wholesome. Prior to that people were being shot in wisconsin for demanding a couple days off a week to rest, people were falling into meat grinders and their families were left to starve, and bankers like J.P. Morgan manipulated the market so that he could buy up the carcasses of smaller companies for a song after the stock market crashed. This is a cycle now being ramped back up once again. Accidents will always happen, but incidents such as the Exxon Valdez, the gulf spill, the massey mine, and halliburton fatalities were all traced back to willful negligence fueled by EXCESSIVE self-interest and greed for those reaping the rewards at the top of the pile. Even though these people are worth billions and making millions more every year, a few hundred thousand was too much to ask to prevent the deaths of workers on myriad occasions.

Doesn't the US have laws? Because this looks like a failure to enact and enforce proper laws.

Worse, though, is that what you accuse people of in being poor is something that is largely forced upon them by unnecessary circumstances by these same people and institutions and corporations. A financially satisfied and secure public is one that can afford to take a stand against injustice and abuse... a financially strapped public will either take it on the chin or cower in the corner until all else fails and violence is their own remaining recourse.

I didn't accuse poor people of anything. I demand you withdraw that. In fact, what I did was argue against your unjustified stereotyping of people. As to wealth, it is relative and so is poverty. When I hear people in the first world whine about poverty I wonder if you stop to think how self-absorbed you sound. You don't know the half about poverty.

When Lehman Bros. collapsed N. American and European investors (mostly pension funds) called for their money. Our financial institutions were unprepared so our government had to shore them up to the tune of billions. Then our government asked the citizens to take a hit on their investments to keep the economy afloat. We did it (rich and poor alike). Yes, there are poor people who learn to invest because they have an open mind. There was 99% voluntary compliance. We did it for our country even though none of us were at fault including our banks. We didn't whine about it. We just got on with it. We took risks. We won some and we lost some. We also insisted that our government provide some kind of relief for the most vulnerable.

Well, now I wait and wait for the American people to insist on the enforcement of their laws and to insist that the banks and suspect corporations come clean with their books. After all, the entire world economy depends on it. Instead, it's just this incessant whining. Capitalism is a flawed system as all are and all will eventually fail. Capitalism however did not fail because of its inherent flaws. It failed because your laws failed and because the American people failed and still fail to do something about it. The next excuse will be that your to poor to do even that. Tell that to the people of Egypt. I'm sure they'll find it hilarious.

 

[muir]

Sorry, but in the U.S. at least, with the Republicans in the ascendancy and the Democrats loath to be labeled or associated in any way with Socialism, your embrace of Socialism is a total outlier. There is no way this country will ever go that way. It's just not going to happen. If you want to make a change to the system, you've got to conceive it in the context of capitalism, modified though it may have to be. Work against the corruption that labels corporations "individuals" with the campaign contribution rights thereof. Work for union representation and collective bargaining rights. Work for equal education and opportunity for the poor. But, whatever you think or wish for, Wall Street is not going away.

Some naive dreamers may find Che Guevara romantic. To me, he was a psychopath who saw nothing wrong with violence to enforce his will. The Bolivians did us all a favor.

That always seems to be the fall back position for capitalist apologists: calling people 'romantic' or 'naive' to think outside the capitalist box

What is naive is believing that you can reform capitalism into something that works for everyone....or even that works for most

Wall street can disappear as soon as the people decide not to play its game anymore. That could be done peacefully by non cooperation......things are often more fragile then people realise

Guevara was no psycopath. But he did decide that the only way to make change was to violently overthrow the oppressors. I don't know if you have been to South America, but it becomes very obvious whilst there and whilst learning the history of it what a negative impact the western powers and capitalism in general have had on the people there and their culture

Also it wasn't the Bolivians who killed him it was the US. It was them that reinforced the dictatorial Bolivian authority, trained and supplied their military and who assassinated Che

The people who consistently have no problem using violence to enforce their will is the capitalist class...he just decided to meet that violence with some of his own....sometimes people feel they are left with little choice but to fight back....and that is what we are seeing happening around the world at the moment with all the civil unrest

 

[Norton]

That always seems to be the fall back position for capitalist apologists: calling people 'romantic' or 'naive' to think outside the capitalist box

What is naive is believing that you can reform capitalism into something that works for everyone....or even that works for most

Wall street can disappear as soon as the people decide not to play its game anymore. That could be done peacefully by non cooperation......things are often more fragile then people realise

Guevara was no psycopath. But he did decide that the only way to make change was to violently overthrow the oppressors. I don't know if you have been to South America, but it becomes very obvious whilst there and whilst learning the history of it what a negative impact the western powers and capitalism in general have had on the people there and their culture

Also it wasn't the Bolivians who killed him it was the US. It was them that reinforced the dictatorial Bolivian authority, trained and supplied their military and who assassinated Che

The people who consistently have no problem using violence to enforce their will is the capitalist class...he just decided to meet that violence with some of his own....sometimes people feel they are left with little choice but to fight back....and that is what we are seeing happening around the world at the moment with all the civil unrest

I don't believe capitalism works well for everyone, but it's better than socialism, communism, and other "isms" that masquerade as benevolent systems but almost always diminish the initiative of the individual to produce new wealth and destroy the automaticity of free markets. Social democracies such as in Scandinavia succeed only because they retain a significant aspect of capitalism. They succeed because of companies like Nokia, Ikea, and Ericcson, not because of their high taxes.

Capitalism works well for most people. It doesn't work well for a certain small aspect of society but, because capitalistic societies produce new wealth efficiently, a larger portion of society benefits than one finds in socialistic economies. In the name of socialism we have such paragons of socialistic inefficiency, failure and "freedom" as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Bolivia, Belarus, etc. Notice something here? In these countries, everyone is poor except for the miniscule ruling class. There's no middle class. All these socialist societies have quickly moved from "dictatorship of the masses" to the dictatorship of a murdering tyrant. Dis-empower the individual, take away his freedom, his property rights, his free speech rights and you get a dictator (not a "dictatorship of the masses).

It only took me only an hour and $40 to start my first company here in the U.S. I did it because I had the incentive to implement my ideas, employ people, make money, and produce products that help people. Why would I have taken the risk, taken a second mortgage on my house and work 100 hours a week if it weren't for the possibility of producing wealth both for myself and stockholders? We had the freedom to take risks (i.e., to win and to lose), didn't have to pay any bribes, and were able to succeed and make money. Everyone in the enterprise was a winner except for the alcoholic we had to fire after numerous attempts at helping him. This is the kind of thing that keeps an economy healthy and helps a troubled economy to fix itself.

I once tried to start a company in Switzerland, which is hardly a socialist country, but quit the attempt because of a complex bureaucracy and the requirement that we set aside the equivalent of $50,000 to stagnate in a bank to maintain the corporation. The labor laws in many European countries are draconian such that even the least motivated, uncooperative, unproductive workers can't be fired. What is the incentive for someone to work hard if there is no risk of being let go? The enthusiastic, bright, competent hard worker, so valued in a capitalistic economy, is undervalued in a socialist system. So, yes, capitalism rewards initiative, risk taking, hard work, good ideas, action, and intelligence. That's part of why it works well.

So, how do you hope to convince, for example, the vast majority of Americans that they should embrace socialism? With Che Guevara's methods? How are you going to raise and efficiently distribute capital without a Wall Street or its equivalent? Or, do you believe in a command economy like that of the former USSR? What makes you think you're so smart that you can direct every aspect and manage every detail of a complex economy through socialistic decree and without the automaticity of free markets? I'm not worried about the U.S. becoming socialist because there's no way it will ever happen. Even Bernie Sanders would admit this. But, if it were ever to happen, I'd be fighting against you. By the way, on most issues, I'm neither on the right or left. I consider myself a radical moderate.

 

[~jet]

Sorry, but in the U.S. at least, with the Republicans in the ascendancy and the Democrats loath to be labeled or associated in any way with Socialism, your embrace of Socialism is a total outlier.

I'd insert DEMOCRATIC before the world socialism, but it really doesn't matter either way... if America doesn't return to the anti-dynastic, wealth-moderated, pro-worker eras it once flourished under, it will cease to be. You can use any label you like;

 

[Barnabas]

No-one ever died as the result of good trade.

Pirates sir, lots of Pirates.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Pirates sir, lots of Pirates.

Because appropriating the wealth generated by the ideas and productivity of others is what the socialist has common with the criminal. But it's okay if everyone 'votes' to kick someone off their land so they can give 1% to the nearest 100 people, because that's democratic.

 

[Barnabas]

Because appropriating the wealth generated by the ideas and productivity of others is what the socialist has common with the criminal. But it's okay if everyone 'votes' to kick someone off their land so they can give 1% to the nearest 100 people, because that's democratic.

Light hearted humor is meant to be light hearted.

 

[daydreamer]

I find it amazing how much negativity there is regarding money, money is not something to be scared of and is not something "evil".

I agree, we need money for things like food, shelter, and clothing.

However, people have done bad things for money, but that doesn't make money evil.