A taxation concept for my political career!
-
that way leads to a serious WTF moment. Try relating the income of a CEO and a cleaner in some of the multinationals, the multiples are just insane!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
I'd noticed. A cleaner in the old folks home where my wife works earns minimum wage, plus 2p per hour - that's £6.10 per hour, for cleaning "human waste material" out of carpets, curtains, and off walls for 6 hours a day, under threat of physical violence from some of the Alzheimers patients on the locked-in ward. I don't think the MD gets quite that little - but the home could live without the MD for quite a while (indeed, he is only physically there about twice a year). Without the cleaners, they would have to close in less than a week...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
For every company we find the lowest salary per hour (including contracted cleaner and such) and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that (by taxing them 100% of any salary beyond that (or maybe 90%?)) That will promote higher wage for everyone and reduce inequality! :) (And penalize only the 1% super rich) Now I just need to come up with another taxation or such concept that promote holiday and I should write a book or go into politics! :P
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Super Lloyd wrote:
For every company we find the lowest salary per hour (including contracted cleaner and such) and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that (by taxing them 100% of any salary beyond that (or maybe 90%?))
That will promote higher wage for everyone and reduce inequality! :)
(And penalize only the 1% super rich)Ahhh... No it won't. Maybe you stated this incorrectly but,
Super Lloyd wrote:
and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that
So everyone right. So say company "A" has the lowest salary per hour (Hmmm I am thinking Walmart), but also pays their executives top dollar (Hmmm.. Also thinking Walmart). We double their salaries. Now we have even more of a divide. Congrats! You just figured out why there is such a divide in wealth.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
For every company we find the lowest salary per hour (including contracted cleaner and such) and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that (by taxing them 100% of any salary beyond that (or maybe 90%?))
That will promote higher wage for everyone and reduce inequality! :)
(And penalize only the 1% super rich)Ahhh... No it won't. Maybe you stated this incorrectly but,
Super Lloyd wrote:
and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that
So everyone right. So say company "A" has the lowest salary per hour (Hmmm I am thinking Walmart), but also pays their executives top dollar (Hmmm.. Also thinking Walmart). We double their salaries. Now we have even more of a divide. Congrats! You just figured out why there is such a divide in wealth.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
I don't quite understand you... So I'll just explain myself... This won't affect most of medium and small company. But big company, where CEO (and managers, I suppose) can get 300 time the medium salary will be forced to increased wage or see their salary disappear in tax. Ex: random number from random hat. Say big company A pay employees 22k$/year and the CEO 22M$/year, it will see everything above 2M$/y disappear in tax! Only option increase minimum salary, but maximum salary wouldn't be able to escape big tax with such disparity.. (this is not particularly the objective, which is to redistribute wealth through the market, so as to increase consumption, so that economy works better for everyone...)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
I don't quite understand you... So I'll just explain myself... This won't affect most of medium and small company. But big company, where CEO (and managers, I suppose) can get 300 time the medium salary will be forced to increased wage or see their salary disappear in tax. Ex: random number from random hat. Say big company A pay employees 22k$/year and the CEO 22M$/year, it will see everything above 2M$/y disappear in tax! Only option increase minimum salary, but maximum salary wouldn't be able to escape big tax with such disparity.. (this is not particularly the objective, which is to redistribute wealth through the market, so as to increase consumption, so that economy works better for everyone...)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Super Lloyd wrote:
Say big company A pay employees 22k$/year and the CEO 22M$/year, it will see everything above 2M$/y disappear in tax!
Only option increase minimum salary, but maximum salary wouldn't be able to escape big tax with such disparity.. (this is not particularly the objective, which is to redistribute wealth through the market, so as to increase consumption, so that economy works better for everyone...)OK I am maybe getting it but that won't work either. Taking your example you are assuming that those making over (your example) $2m/yr can handle the overhead of being taxed to all oblivion. The fact is that as people make more money they spend more money and create additional overhead. For example a rich tycoon likely has a transportation fleet at their disposal. You know a yacht, plane, limos in various cities etc. There are 2 huge details to consider here. Number one, they will no longer be able to afford them as they are now "capped" (this is what I am understanding you to be proposing. A cap and the rest is "taxed"). The second item is that the overhead is now dismantled causing massive job losses. It of course would not just be their "fleets" but any overhead over the say "$2M" (which is less than 10% that they were making!) So I am guessing loss of property (by by land tax), loss of services, loss of family support, MASSIVE losses in charities. The list goes on and on. It really doesn't make any sense to me, but I might still be missing something. While I think the system is messed up (the whole 1% and all) having a cap does not solve anything. It makes matters worse (in a different way).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
Say big company A pay employees 22k$/year and the CEO 22M$/year, it will see everything above 2M$/y disappear in tax!
Only option increase minimum salary, but maximum salary wouldn't be able to escape big tax with such disparity.. (this is not particularly the objective, which is to redistribute wealth through the market, so as to increase consumption, so that economy works better for everyone...)OK I am maybe getting it but that won't work either. Taking your example you are assuming that those making over (your example) $2m/yr can handle the overhead of being taxed to all oblivion. The fact is that as people make more money they spend more money and create additional overhead. For example a rich tycoon likely has a transportation fleet at their disposal. You know a yacht, plane, limos in various cities etc. There are 2 huge details to consider here. Number one, they will no longer be able to afford them as they are now "capped" (this is what I am understanding you to be proposing. A cap and the rest is "taxed"). The second item is that the overhead is now dismantled causing massive job losses. It of course would not just be their "fleets" but any overhead over the say "$2M" (which is less than 10% that they were making!) So I am guessing loss of property (by by land tax), loss of services, loss of family support, MASSIVE losses in charities. The list goes on and on. It really doesn't make any sense to me, but I might still be missing something. While I think the system is messed up (the whole 1% and all) having a cap does not solve anything. It makes matters worse (in a different way).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Just so you know, the question that started this is: How come we made so much progress in the last couple of centuries and the work is still such a dire necessity? Now for some answers: While I'm biased against the "poor" CEO who is going to lose his extra hundred million dollars, I should point out that most economist all agree that 1 person earning 10 million $ a year consume much less that 200 persons on 50 thousands a year. Consumption is what makes economy dynamic and spreading all that wealth sleeping in a bank account will give rise to many opportunities. What you might be missing is when a CEO is profitably managing a profitable company he can still increase his salary tax free by increasing all lowest salary (look, more money redistribution, more comsumption)! We can maybe base this cap on median salary (very different from average BTW) instead of lowest, might be.. more "fair" and reduce the impact that a couple of irrelevant cleaner can have... So yes, CEO will consume less, but overall consumption will increase. Hey if it's not the case I'm ok to scrap the plan! On the "fairness" side (for the poor over taxed CEO), 100 times more than the median salary is quite good and fair I believe... Lastly this is an idea to tackle the fact that despise 1 century of progress, huge technological progress, 4 times bigger GDP per inhabitant than in 1930, how is it that people work just as much and the economy seems even tougher in some way? Because the money is out of the economy from all purpose, locked in some gold chest, while everybody toils... I'm trying to bring out the good life that surely the last century of unending progress should have brought about...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
For every company we find the lowest salary per hour (including contracted cleaner and such) and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that (by taxing them 100% of any salary beyond that (or maybe 90%?)) That will promote higher wage for everyone and reduce inequality! :) (And penalize only the 1% super rich) Now I just need to come up with another taxation or such concept that promote holiday and I should write a book or go into politics! :P
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
I would just edit the income tax scales. Maybe abandon the idea of scales completely and use a continuous function - scales are just a piecewise linear function (if evaluated to the actual amount) that IIRC was invented when the calculation had to be simple by hand. Also, inb4 right whingers who will say "inequality is fair because they worked for it damn it". Also, inb4 left whingers who believe in the kind of fairness that we indoctrinate kids with (could we stop that already, please? it actively creates the culture shock that people experience when they enter the real world). Note to both: fairness is not an absolute concept.
-
Just so you know, the question that started this is: How come we made so much progress in the last couple of centuries and the work is still such a dire necessity? Now for some answers: While I'm biased against the "poor" CEO who is going to lose his extra hundred million dollars, I should point out that most economist all agree that 1 person earning 10 million $ a year consume much less that 200 persons on 50 thousands a year. Consumption is what makes economy dynamic and spreading all that wealth sleeping in a bank account will give rise to many opportunities. What you might be missing is when a CEO is profitably managing a profitable company he can still increase his salary tax free by increasing all lowest salary (look, more money redistribution, more comsumption)! We can maybe base this cap on median salary (very different from average BTW) instead of lowest, might be.. more "fair" and reduce the impact that a couple of irrelevant cleaner can have... So yes, CEO will consume less, but overall consumption will increase. Hey if it's not the case I'm ok to scrap the plan! On the "fairness" side (for the poor over taxed CEO), 100 times more than the median salary is quite good and fair I believe... Lastly this is an idea to tackle the fact that despise 1 century of progress, huge technological progress, 4 times bigger GDP per inhabitant than in 1930, how is it that people work just as much and the economy seems even tougher in some way? Because the money is out of the economy from all purpose, locked in some gold chest, while everybody toils... I'm trying to bring out the good life that surely the last century of unending progress should have brought about...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
I do agree things are out of control but a cap is not the answer. The effect of that would be devastating. While many "rich" may be hording their wealth it is not true of all the rich. In addition is it not true of all their wealth. The 2 points are critical as they create an extreme unknown of what would happen. You cannot just assume it will stabilize as there would be a massive vacuum immediately. How are you so certain the vacuum of jobs and security from the rich would return via distribution? For one your assumption is that the money will redistibute yet you also aknowledge the wealthy hoard money. If you a cap goes in place what drives them to try and make those $100s of millions they were? Why not just fold and take the money/resources to the hills and keep what they have... No more income. Therefore your assumption that the (in your example) $20 million would become straight tax is just wrong. You can't guarantee that. In fact, it is more likely that they just immediately shift headquarters of the business to a country that does not have a cap. That country would then get the tax (even though it is not the "expected" $20 mil) and the original gets nothing. But back to one of my original statements. Not all rich horde their money. http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Sergey-Brin-Is-Secretly-Buying-Up-Property-And-3827254.php[^] So if your plan went into place after a wealthy person impliments what Sergey is currently, it would collapse the city he is helping. No more children's bookstore, children's playspace, or a child-friendly coffee shop... No more what ever he decides to promote. It is total collapse. Again, I am in total agreement that something is wrong. But a cap on wealth is sooo not the answer. The rich get richer because they are motivated by money. Not everyone is motivated by money. But the rich tend to be. They want more money and more power. They in general use it to create more money and more power. In many cases this creates infrastructure and jobs. The problem of late is that more rich are finding more ways to get richer without creating infrastructure and jobs. That is the problem and that is what must be corrected.
Computers have been <
-
I would just edit the income tax scales. Maybe abandon the idea of scales completely and use a continuous function - scales are just a piecewise linear function (if evaluated to the actual amount) that IIRC was invented when the calculation had to be simple by hand. Also, inb4 right whingers who will say "inequality is fair because they worked for it damn it". Also, inb4 left whingers who believe in the kind of fairness that we indoctrinate kids with (could we stop that already, please? it actively creates the culture shock that people experience when they enter the real world). Note to both: fairness is not an absolute concept.
harold aptroot wrote:
I would just edit the income tax scales.
Many of the Ultra rich don't actually have any "income" but instead use capital gains. They are taxed entirely different. Furthermore income tax is also connected to payroll tax. So in effect those that pay most of their taxes via income are doubly taxed. This is the main argument showing why a flat tax with no deductions does not solve anything. The rich don't make anything (or much) via income. It is through asset exchange which becomes a capital gain (or loss). Granted, we could tax the bejeebiss out of that... But then most would have to kiss their retirement good-bye. This would of course devastate social welfare etc. because so many more would need assistance when retiring.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
For every company we find the lowest salary per hour (including contracted cleaner and such) and maximize the salary of anyone in the company to 100x times that (by taxing them 100% of any salary beyond that (or maybe 90%?)) That will promote higher wage for everyone and reduce inequality! :) (And penalize only the 1% super rich) Now I just need to come up with another taxation or such concept that promote holiday and I should write a book or go into politics! :P
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I would just edit the income tax scales.
Many of the Ultra rich don't actually have any "income" but instead use capital gains. They are taxed entirely different. Furthermore income tax is also connected to payroll tax. So in effect those that pay most of their taxes via income are doubly taxed. This is the main argument showing why a flat tax with no deductions does not solve anything. The rich don't make anything (or much) via income. It is through asset exchange which becomes a capital gain (or loss). Granted, we could tax the bejeebiss out of that... But then most would have to kiss their retirement good-bye. This would of course devastate social welfare etc. because so many more would need assistance when retiring.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I would just edit the income tax scales.
Many of the Ultra rich don't actually have any "income" but instead use capital gains. They are taxed entirely different. Furthermore income tax is also connected to payroll tax. So in effect those that pay most of their taxes via income are doubly taxed. This is the main argument showing why a flat tax with no deductions does not solve anything. The rich don't make anything (or much) via income. It is through asset exchange which becomes a capital gain (or loss). Granted, we could tax the bejeebiss out of that... But then most would have to kiss their retirement good-bye. This would of course devastate social welfare etc. because so many more would need assistance when retiring.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Why?
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Not really. I have had some ideas but then when I research I see how complicated of a mess it is and then I see how corruption still breeds. I think in an ideal world you don't need to fix it. It fixes it itself because people (ALL People) recognize an issue and begin to allocate resources to resolve it. Bad apples become apparent and are quickly removed. Take Sergy for example. He is using his money to help strengthen the community development around him. But not for his further betterment (atleast that we see), but for the betterment of the next generation. When we consider these events and the opposite where Madoff screws over millions out of millions it seems to be an ethics issue. Considering the ideal rich people we can see how even government funding for infrastructure is not necessarily "required". If infrastructure locally is failing it is up to the wealthy in that area to build it up. They must recognize it is critical for the continuation of that community. For with out the community to support them, their wealth is nothing. Wealth with out structured society is meaningless. So I wonder this: Is society not teaching the next generation how to keep continuing? Are we in some cases providing the wrong ideals and the wrong motivators? If this is the case then the solution is not simple nor is it quick. It begins with the active generations (i.e. Baby boomers Gen X and now the upcoming Gen Y) recognizing these issues and trying to teach the millennial children values that will help them build the future for the children and to be able to teach their children how to hand off this knowledge so society does not return to such dire times.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Of course, they cheat. Wouldn't it still help though? There are plenty of normal jobs that make way too much money.
Not really. They would just change how they are paid. For example take a CEO that has a salary of $1mil. That actually is a VERY large salary for ANY CEO standards. Because in reality he makes more from bonuses etc. Bonuses are income taxable. But Bonuses are not always what CEO's are given. They are also given stock, which is a capital gain. The motivator is obvious then for the CEO from the board. Increase its value and you get paid (and so does the board). This is often when you see huge cuts etc. across the company. It does not necessarily work for the long run of the company, but the immediate stock growth is significant enough for the CEO and the board to make their quick millions and then cash out and move on. There are still yet other ways top executives are paid. "Special benefits" such as a fully furnished mansion, cars, yachts, high end memberships etc. etc. All of these can then be sold off... And then of course taxed as... You guessed it a Capital Gain. There are even CEOs out there that literally were not paid $1 for income. I think the last google CEO had $0.01 salary. Does anyone really think he did that job for 1 penny? The really dirty tactic about this is that if the company is publicly traded then salary and bonuses become public... However "perks" are not necessarily public. So while it may seem a CEO is getting paid fair for how the company is doing, in reality the CEO may be getting compensations that are causing the company to sink. Why you ask would any board allow this to happen? Quite simple. Often the CEO is the Chairman of the board for the company. In addition they are often on the board of other companies (sometimes even competing companies). With a little "I scratch your back you scratch mine" many CEOs get massive compensation that ends up off the books. Except to the board, of whom is getting the perks because it is a circular system of who gets what depending on which company.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Not really. I have had some ideas but then when I research I see how complicated of a mess it is and then I see how corruption still breeds. I think in an ideal world you don't need to fix it. It fixes it itself because people (ALL People) recognize an issue and begin to allocate resources to resolve it. Bad apples become apparent and are quickly removed. Take Sergy for example. He is using his money to help strengthen the community development around him. But not for his further betterment (atleast that we see), but for the betterment of the next generation. When we consider these events and the opposite where Madoff screws over millions out of millions it seems to be an ethics issue. Considering the ideal rich people we can see how even government funding for infrastructure is not necessarily "required". If infrastructure locally is failing it is up to the wealthy in that area to build it up. They must recognize it is critical for the continuation of that community. For with out the community to support them, their wealth is nothing. Wealth with out structured society is meaningless. So I wonder this: Is society not teaching the next generation how to keep continuing? Are we in some cases providing the wrong ideals and the wrong motivators? If this is the case then the solution is not simple nor is it quick. It begins with the active generations (i.e. Baby boomers Gen X and now the upcoming Gen Y) recognizing these issues and trying to teach the millennial children values that will help them build the future for the children and to be able to teach their children how to hand off this knowledge so society does not return to such dire times.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
That would have worked, I think, if you could reliably reprogram everyone. But that's not going to work, some people would break free. Maybe not enough to cause a problem.. could be an interesting experiment. So if the system is "collaborate to keep society running and punish everyone who fails to do so", ways will be found to dodge the punishment. There would probably be big organized groups working towards screwing the rest at a large scale and still dodging punishment - even if that was less profitable than collaborating. That's neither rational nor ethical, but then of course, with a few exceptions, people are neither of these things.
-
That would have worked, I think, if you could reliably reprogram everyone. But that's not going to work, some people would break free. Maybe not enough to cause a problem.. could be an interesting experiment. So if the system is "collaborate to keep society running and punish everyone who fails to do so", ways will be found to dodge the punishment. There would probably be big organized groups working towards screwing the rest at a large scale and still dodging punishment - even if that was less profitable than collaborating. That's neither rational nor ethical, but then of course, with a few exceptions, people are neither of these things.
Completely agree. What I really mean is that we can not trust the system... Ever. With that when we put forced measures in place to "protect" society or individuals, someone or a group finds a way to abuse or circumvent. So again, we can not trust the system. Ever. Therefore the only thing the regulations due is implant a false sense of security. The solution is to not regulate but to correct the values. 100 years ago society believed women and some races were inferior to others. "Most" of society now recognizes that this was a misconception. This most certainly was not over night, and in fact is still not 100% accepted (maybe it will never be). I think the same is true with economic growth and understanding. Right now we can't see it because we are living in "dark" time where our beliefs in economics are simply wrong. For this reason many are raised with the incorrect beliefs and understandings and perpetuate the problem. Maybe someday (and hopefully soon) there will be a "Economic Rights" movement, much like that of the Civil Rights. It will not change everything but it will implant the seeds for growth, so that the next generations are raised equally be they rich or poor. They will understand that we all must work together to better society.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Why?
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
I have a question: Why, despite the tremendous productivity improvement of the last 2 hundred years works is such a necessity? I think increasing the fluidity of money might be a solution... (i.e. put it in the hand of spender) Because it is an agreed upon fact that 1 person earning $10 million spends less than 100 persons earning $100.000
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Completely agree. What I really mean is that we can not trust the system... Ever. With that when we put forced measures in place to "protect" society or individuals, someone or a group finds a way to abuse or circumvent. So again, we can not trust the system. Ever. Therefore the only thing the regulations due is implant a false sense of security. The solution is to not regulate but to correct the values. 100 years ago society believed women and some races were inferior to others. "Most" of society now recognizes that this was a misconception. This most certainly was not over night, and in fact is still not 100% accepted (maybe it will never be). I think the same is true with economic growth and understanding. Right now we can't see it because we are living in "dark" time where our beliefs in economics are simply wrong. For this reason many are raised with the incorrect beliefs and understandings and perpetuate the problem. Maybe someday (and hopefully soon) there will be a "Economic Rights" movement, much like that of the Civil Rights. It will not change everything but it will implant the seeds for growth, so that the next generations are raised equally be they rich or poor. They will understand that we all must work together to better society.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
I like your analysis. I wanted to plant an idea as well. Maybe I planted the wrong one.
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
I do agree things are out of control but a cap is not the answer. The effect of that would be devastating. While many "rich" may be hording their wealth it is not true of all the rich. In addition is it not true of all their wealth. The 2 points are critical as they create an extreme unknown of what would happen. You cannot just assume it will stabilize as there would be a massive vacuum immediately. How are you so certain the vacuum of jobs and security from the rich would return via distribution? For one your assumption is that the money will redistibute yet you also aknowledge the wealthy hoard money. If you a cap goes in place what drives them to try and make those $100s of millions they were? Why not just fold and take the money/resources to the hills and keep what they have... No more income. Therefore your assumption that the (in your example) $20 million would become straight tax is just wrong. You can't guarantee that. In fact, it is more likely that they just immediately shift headquarters of the business to a country that does not have a cap. That country would then get the tax (even though it is not the "expected" $20 mil) and the original gets nothing. But back to one of my original statements. Not all rich horde their money. http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Sergey-Brin-Is-Secretly-Buying-Up-Property-And-3827254.php[^] So if your plan went into place after a wealthy person impliments what Sergey is currently, it would collapse the city he is helping. No more children's bookstore, children's playspace, or a child-friendly coffee shop... No more what ever he decides to promote. It is total collapse. Again, I am in total agreement that something is wrong. But a cap on wealth is sooo not the answer. The rich get richer because they are motivated by money. Not everyone is motivated by money. But the rich tend to be. They want more money and more power. They in general use it to create more money and more power. In many cases this creates infrastructure and jobs. The problem of late is that more rich are finding more ways to get richer without creating infrastructure and jobs. That is the problem and that is what must be corrected.
Computers have been <
Valid point to think over during my upcoming trip! ;P Thanks!
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Completely agree. What I really mean is that we can not trust the system... Ever. With that when we put forced measures in place to "protect" society or individuals, someone or a group finds a way to abuse or circumvent. So again, we can not trust the system. Ever. Therefore the only thing the regulations due is implant a false sense of security. The solution is to not regulate but to correct the values. 100 years ago society believed women and some races were inferior to others. "Most" of society now recognizes that this was a misconception. This most certainly was not over night, and in fact is still not 100% accepted (maybe it will never be). I think the same is true with economic growth and understanding. Right now we can't see it because we are living in "dark" time where our beliefs in economics are simply wrong. For this reason many are raised with the incorrect beliefs and understandings and perpetuate the problem. Maybe someday (and hopefully soon) there will be a "Economic Rights" movement, much like that of the Civil Rights. It will not change everything but it will implant the seeds for growth, so that the next generations are raised equally be they rich or poor. They will understand that we all must work together to better society.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Well, not in my lifetime. I'd like to be proven wrong on that one, but I just don't see that happening. Even the Civil Rights war, which started in the 50's and is generally said to have ended in the 80's, is still ongoing - and I'm not even sure we're winning. Progress since the 50's yes, but the law still discriminates and even where it doesn't, society sometimes manages to do it outside the law - and there are organized movements to reverse some of the progress.
