FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It seems that most here are in favour of some kind of wealth distribution system that will aim to redress the gross inequalities of wealth in our societies.
Even a dyed-in-the-wool Right winger like Firm accepts the principle of social control over wealth distribution to eliminate the twin excesses of extreme wealth and poverty:
"It is the middle ground which gives us a system which overall increases "wealth" for everyone, and allows the greatest increase and distribution of wealth."
Well done Firm, that's the most sensible point I can recall you making on these boards.
Ahh, thank you tweak, for being able to effectively read what I said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If most of us agree that the production of wealth is not an end in itself, but a means to generate a reasonable minimum standard of living for all, as well as a way of rewarding hard work and enterprise, then the question might then becomes:
What measures might be adopted in order to achieve this goal?
Pretty much accurate. We can debate some of the nuances, though.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
One area we might examine here is removing the conflict of interest between the great majority of us who all contribute in our various ways towards producing the wealth and the far smaller numbers who currently control the distribution of wealth and enjoy its benefits.
Those who produce the wealth an enterprise generates - the managers and staff - and the local community that facilitates the enterprise (enabling its wealth production activities to occur) ought to be among the beneficiaries of the wealth generates. Currently only the owners of the enterprise gain directly through dividends and stock holdings.
Some points:
1. The "far smaller numbers who currently control the distribution of wealth and enjoy its benefits" will never "go away", and is an integral part of the process. Failure to nurture the ability of new entrants to that class will result in the failure of any system which does so in an attempt to "be fair" to everyone.
2. I'm not sure we quite agree on who "generates" the wealth, or at least who is primarily responsible for setting up the conditions for others (managers and staff) to create wealth.
3. Part of my basic disagreement with government redistributionists in the "social" aspect that you mention above. While government can certainly play a (small, but critical) part in setting the conditions for greater "social involvement" or "social payback", the blatant use of the government monopoly of force or threat of force in order to achieve a "greater good" in this area is generally counter-productive in our society.
4. I disagree with the concept that "only current owners" benefit, regardless. If this were true, then no business would be providing any product or service.
5. Stocks (ownership) of any publicly traded company may be purchased by anyone, including their employees. Basically, this makes the owners who "gain directly through dividends and stock holdings" effectively anyone who wishes for it to be.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
What quicker way would there be to eliminate outsourcing of jobs overseas than remedying this obvious flaw in current arrangements? Is there a more efficient way of eliminating the conflicts between labour and corporations than to create a structure where both have similar economic interests while retaining incentives and rewards for innovation and enterprise?
Certainly. How do you do this?
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Yet .....ANOTHER....study regarding the wealthy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread