quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku
Corporations not having the legal rights of an individual would decimate the economy as it would cripple the flow of capital and still not prevent their contributory affect on politics (or it would in the sense that there would hardly be any corporations left).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Incomes should not be capped. However, neither should incomes be enhanced by fucking over the little guy. How many CEOs earned HUGE bonuses by laying off half their workforce or more? Or by moving the production overseas?

No, let's keep the capitalist sytem intact, but let's put the rewards of that system on an anchor to the country that give people their opportunity to be rich.

1) all corperate heads MUST reside in the US, and be subject to our tax laws.
2) any product sold by a company in the US MUST employ at least 50% of all their personel via US citizenry.
3) Executive bonuses contracted to increase via layoffs, would be illegal, triggering a 100% tax on the executives responsible for initiating such an action. Effective for 4 years. Repeat offenders are to be considered unemployable by US companies, or multi-nationals that wish to remain in the American Market without paying huge penalties. Let them try to make their millions elsewhere, in some other, lesser market.

I know these sound like crackpot ideas, but from what I gather, Japan already has something similar in place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

The only people whose income should be capped are those who think incomes should be capped. There is nothing stopping them from writing a check to the government for the difference now.

It's amazing how generous people can be when it isn't coming out of their pocket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia

no, but taxes should

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

I think wealth (not just income) should be capped, but at a very high level of wealth. $100,000 USD is too low and frankly ridiculous for that very reason. But if you start thinking of wealth above $50,000,000 USD you can start to see that such an amount is certainly more than any person has a fair right to. I mean, let's say you are twenty years old and have 50 million dollars in accumulated wealth. Unless you literally burn the money or otherwise behave irresponsibly with it, you would likely be hard pressed to actually spend it all in your lifetime. I realize that there are single purchase items valued at that price or higher, but there is a reasonableness factor I would appeal to here.

The movie is old, the numbers and percentages would have to be updated for the present time, but still I agree with the political trajectory of this dialogue from "Wall Street":

Bud: How much is enough, Gordon? When does it all end, huh? How many yatchs can you water-ski behind? How much is enough, huh?
Gekko: It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a Zero Sum game - somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply, transferred - from one perception to another. Like magic. This painting here? I bought it ten years ago for sixty thousand dollars, I could sell it today for six hundred. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it. Capitalism at it's finest.
Bud: How much is enough, Gordon?
Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons; And what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own.

-----

40% of world's wealth owned by 1% of population
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html

-----

On a related question, here's some info on Kevin Cahill's "Who Owns the World," the successor book to "Who Owns Britian?"

-----

The largest landowner on earth is revealed in Mainstream's new book Who Owns the World, published this week.

Queen Elizabeth 11, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth's non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made - Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

Value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx)

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way to easily value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of :Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen's land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000, 000,000 trillion pounds) Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns.. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/10/367571.shtml
and the Wiki for this author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cahill_(author)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the reason why is simple: (With some notable exceptions that prove the rule)

The wealthy (and their community) teach their children how to make money.

The middle class (and their community) teach their children how to get a good job.

The poor (and their community) teach their children how to get by. (in various manners from hard work to illegal activities)

This is not to say that people from any of the communities mentioned cant also learn the lessons the other communities value, just that in general they do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold
If you took all the wealth on the planet and distributed it evenly among every single human on the planet....within 5 years 50% of the money would be in the hands of 25% of the population.

Within 10, 60% would be in the hands of 15% of the population...and within 20 years it'd be exactly where it is today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre
It's amazing how generous people can be when it isn't coming out of their pocket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku

quote:

Please feel free to point out any fallacies in my observations.
thompson

Most of your "observations" are empty or assumptions. How do you know that their knowledge of Russia or China only comes from "biased" periodicals and stores? What does it matter how many on the boards make 50 million a year or in a lifetime?
Perhaps you should address yourself to what I actually posted instead of what you want to think I said.


What are you using as an efficiency measure when you say that the TVA or the space program was more efficient that private enterprise? Since we haven't had a private attempt at a moon landing (to my knowledge), what are you using as your basis for comparison?
Again I would suggest that you read what I actually said.  Then compare private enterprise at its largest scale against the federal government in these projects and tell me if the levels of incompetency are comparable.
 
How do you define "uber rich"? So what if they don't work? Do you have verifiable numbers for the percentage of welfare that goes to corporations vs. citizens? When does economic stimulus become corporate welfare?
I would contend that happens when the courts start putting the bastards in jail.  You will note that ADM currently has three of their corporate leaders in prison with indictments by the pile for many more.

For outright being wrong;

Increased demand will cause prices to increase if there isn't supply to match the demand. There isn't a limitless supply of goods, nor unlimited production capacity. Even assuming unlimited supply of raw materials; Just as there are economies of scale, there are also dis economies of scale. Once an organization has grown beyond a certain size, it actually starts getting less efficient.
Had you actually taken the time to read your own link it starts out with the disclaimer that it may be inaccurate.  It then goes on to explain how economies of scale may be subverted and how to avoid them.

Stating opinions in a hostile condescending tone does constitute good debating, but an attempt to bully others into agreeing with you.
CM has graciously provided a block function for those who do not wish to avail themselves of my knowledge and charm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the reason why is simple: (With some notable exceptions that prove the rule)

The wealthy (and their community) teach their children how to make money.

The middle class (and their community) teach their children how to get a good job.

The poor (and their community) teach their children how to get by. (in various manners from hard work to illegal activities)

This is not to say that people from any of the communities mentioned cant also learn the lessons the other communities value, just that in general they do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold
If you took all the wealth on the planet and distributed it evenly among every single human on the planet....within 5 years 50% of the money would be in the hands of 25% of the population.

Within 10, 60% would be in the hands of 15% of the population...and within 20 years it'd be exactly where it is today.

Griswold:
Is this simply your opinion or is it somehow verifiable?
If it is verifiable what do you consider would be the cause of it?  Would it be related to the level of rapaciousness or are the rich just inherently smarter than the rest of humanity and thus deserving of having more than they could ever use in a million lifetimes to the detriment of those who don't?
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the reason why is simple: (With some notable exceptions that prove the rule)

The wealthy (and their community) teach their children how to make money.

The middle class (and their community) teach their children how to get a good job.

The poor (and their community) teach their children how to get by. (in various manners from hard work to illegal activities)

This is not to say that people from any of the communities mentioned cant also learn the lessons the other communities value, just that in general they do not.

 
Archer:
All three of your statements are semantically equivalent.  The only difference I see is quantitative and not qualitative.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold
If you took all the wealth on the planet and distributed it evenly among every single human on the planet....within 5 years 50% of the money would be in the hands of 25% of the population.

Within 10, 60% would be in the hands of 15% of the population...and within 20 years it'd be exactly where it is today.

Griswold:
Is this simply your opinion or is it somehow verifiable?
If it is verifiable what do you consider would be the cause of it?  Would it be related to the level of rapaciousness or are the rich just inherently smarter than the rest of humanity and thus deserving of having more than they could ever use in a million lifetimes to the detriment of those who don't?
thompson

The reason why is immaterial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the reason why is simple: (With some notable exceptions that prove the rule)

The wealthy (and their community) teach their children how to make money.

The middle class (and their community) teach their children how to get a good job.

The poor (and their community) teach their children how to get by. (in various manners from hard work to illegal activities)

This is not to say that people from any of the communities mentioned cant also learn the lessons the other communities value, just that in general they do not.

 
Archer:
All three of your statements are semantically equivalent.  The only difference I see is quantitative and not qualitative.
thompson

Well can't argue with what you see in the sentances can only argue that how you dont see a qualitative aspect considering the topic is how wealth is concentrated eludes me. Wealth is concentrated because the goals of people are different.
When you have different input into the values system and the educational direction, then you will have a qualitative difference in outcome.

Archer:
The goals of all three groups you mention are the same,all that differs is the magnitude.
I do find it instructive that you think only poor people resort to illegal methods to reach their goals.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia

no, but taxes should

They are.