05-06-2003, 01:22 AM
Hi,
That is, they say the rich should be keeping less capital to themselves, and reinvesting more of it into improving life for everyone on this planet, not just themselves and their do-nothing offspring.
Actually, the rich do this or don't stay rich long. You can consider inflation a tax on uninvested capital ;)
What about inherited wealth? If someone inherits 20 billion from oil tycoon daddy and uses it wastefully (as most inheritors seem to), how does it create jobs or help the economy?
How is the wealth being used? Is it being burned to heat an ice cave (only good line in Cliffhanger, "It costs a fortune to heat this place.")? If not, then it is being spent, used to buy goods and services. And thus it is helping in that someone has the job of making those goods and supplying those services. So that money may not help the overall economy as much as it would if used wisely, but it is still generating some jobs, still helping the economy some. After all, the economy is based on people making and doing things for other people. The only money that does not help the economy is the money stashed away in a mattress. And that money is slowly dwindling away to inflation.
The flaw is research - companies that accumulate enough capital can spend it on R&D - either in-house or by grant - and possibly assist some really smart labcoated type in making some discovery which will add value to the system.
That is just another way in which the system generates wealth. As a former (hopefully smart) labcoat, I can tell you that research is no different than steel making. You invest time and material, and the result is a product worth more than the effort (or not). If it is worth more, you've created wealth, if it isn't your job goes away ;)
Simply put, they were ignorant, arrogant pricks
Now that, as a description of the practicing Soviet communist, is admirable in its accuracy and terseness :)
However, I think the fundamental flaw is with the principle itself. Both capitalism and communism are flawed theories. Neither is based on the realities of how people interact and each leads to conflict. Which is why a certain amount of each is needed and the best result is in some form of compromise. Unbridled capitalism failed and fell in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has not really existed since (except, to a limited extent, in a few places like Hong Kong). Marxism has never really been tried (and that's probably a good thing, but if his theories have any merit, then they will come about on their own in the fullness of time and can't be rushed). The forms of communism that have been tried have failed because, as you said, they were tried by people. Perhaps communism would work, like Jeffersonian democracy, if humans were perfect beings. But, if that's the requirement, then the theory (either one) is a waste since there is no species that it is fit for.
The American system is very productive, but perhaps does not attain the overall standard of living it is capable of. This is probably the fault of both the rich and the poor.
I don't really understand what you are saying here. The American system (basically Hamiltonian economy) is what it is and does what it does. There may be some *idealized* model of the American system that would do better. There may be more value for all in a more socialist system (like Denmark's), there may be better productive potential in a less socialist system (like Taiwan's). But then, it wouldn't be the American system. And even the American system is constantly in a state of flux. The American system of JP Morgan is not that of Bill Gates. And even that of Bill is on its way out, to be replaced by some other approximation.
Evolution, not revolution? The Americans have a much more modern launch system than the Russians. The American system has been redesigned completely twice since the start of the space age, that of the Russians has simply been improved with no major change. Which one has been more productive? Which one has been shut down for three lengthy periods?
We seem to have the right idea in a political and economic system and the wrong one in technology -- must be a form of compensation ;)
--Pete
That is, they say the rich should be keeping less capital to themselves, and reinvesting more of it into improving life for everyone on this planet, not just themselves and their do-nothing offspring.
Actually, the rich do this or don't stay rich long. You can consider inflation a tax on uninvested capital ;)
What about inherited wealth? If someone inherits 20 billion from oil tycoon daddy and uses it wastefully (as most inheritors seem to), how does it create jobs or help the economy?
How is the wealth being used? Is it being burned to heat an ice cave (only good line in Cliffhanger, "It costs a fortune to heat this place.")? If not, then it is being spent, used to buy goods and services. And thus it is helping in that someone has the job of making those goods and supplying those services. So that money may not help the overall economy as much as it would if used wisely, but it is still generating some jobs, still helping the economy some. After all, the economy is based on people making and doing things for other people. The only money that does not help the economy is the money stashed away in a mattress. And that money is slowly dwindling away to inflation.
The flaw is research - companies that accumulate enough capital can spend it on R&D - either in-house or by grant - and possibly assist some really smart labcoated type in making some discovery which will add value to the system.
That is just another way in which the system generates wealth. As a former (hopefully smart) labcoat, I can tell you that research is no different than steel making. You invest time and material, and the result is a product worth more than the effort (or not). If it is worth more, you've created wealth, if it isn't your job goes away ;)
Simply put, they were ignorant, arrogant pricks
Now that, as a description of the practicing Soviet communist, is admirable in its accuracy and terseness :)
However, I think the fundamental flaw is with the principle itself. Both capitalism and communism are flawed theories. Neither is based on the realities of how people interact and each leads to conflict. Which is why a certain amount of each is needed and the best result is in some form of compromise. Unbridled capitalism failed and fell in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has not really existed since (except, to a limited extent, in a few places like Hong Kong). Marxism has never really been tried (and that's probably a good thing, but if his theories have any merit, then they will come about on their own in the fullness of time and can't be rushed). The forms of communism that have been tried have failed because, as you said, they were tried by people. Perhaps communism would work, like Jeffersonian democracy, if humans were perfect beings. But, if that's the requirement, then the theory (either one) is a waste since there is no species that it is fit for.
The American system is very productive, but perhaps does not attain the overall standard of living it is capable of. This is probably the fault of both the rich and the poor.
I don't really understand what you are saying here. The American system (basically Hamiltonian economy) is what it is and does what it does. There may be some *idealized* model of the American system that would do better. There may be more value for all in a more socialist system (like Denmark's), there may be better productive potential in a less socialist system (like Taiwan's). But then, it wouldn't be the American system. And even the American system is constantly in a state of flux. The American system of JP Morgan is not that of Bill Gates. And even that of Bill is on its way out, to be replaced by some other approximation.
Evolution, not revolution? The Americans have a much more modern launch system than the Russians. The American system has been redesigned completely twice since the start of the space age, that of the Russians has simply been improved with no major change. Which one has been more productive? Which one has been shut down for three lengthy periods?
We seem to have the right idea in a political and economic system and the wrong one in technology -- must be a form of compensation ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?