What If You Could Never Be Rich, But Poverty Didn’t Exist Anymore?
Photo credit: Franco Folini
What if we could create a social system where no one is outrageously rich and no one is miserably poor?
No matter how smart or capable you were, you would not be able to accumulate more assets than a certain pre-determined amount.
No matter how bad you had it, you would always have a roof over your head, food on your table and access to basic health care.
There would still be richer and poorer people, but not the extremes that we have today.
Would you take such a deal?
I’m not asking you if such a system is POSSIBLE. This is not a discussion on why communism failed in Eastern Europe or on whether socialism is better than capitalism. I’m asking you to assume that such a system IS possible and whether you would want to live in such a world or not.
I raised this question at a recent dinner party we hosted. It’s an interesting question to ask my real-life friends, because we live in Silicon Valley, where people basically come to make a few million bucks by starting and selling, or funding, or working in high-tech companies.
My real-life friends presented two point of views:
1. Yes, of course I would want to live in such a world. It represents a just social system that preserves human dignity and prevents poverty as well as greediness.
2. No. A system like that would kill entrepreneurship. People would not have the drive to create and invent, because more often than not, that drive is NOT a drive to help the world but a personal drive to succeed.
What do you think?
Hire Me as a Blogger
Subscribe to this Blog Via Email or Reader
Filed under Causes —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
J.D. Meier responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:18 am →
i think you touch on a very fundamental question that not a lot of people can answer very crisply – “why do you do what you do?” Most people don’t know the answer when they ask themselves. The worst is to find your ladder up against the wrong wall, after a long climb to the top.
Let’s say no one was outrageously rich and no one was miserably poor. I wonder what the next big pain point would be then?
J.D. Meier’s last blog post..How To Overcome Mistrust
PeaceLoveJoyBliss responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:23 am →
A resource-based system already exists – at least in theory. It’s called The Venus Project. Although it would erase the need for money (and debt), incentives could (conceivably) still be built into the system to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, thereby giving us the best of both worlds – a system that brings abundance to everyone and a system that encourages innovation for those who wish to innovate. We just need to wake up from a very long sleep to make it happen.
Avital responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:23 am →
I am sorry but I cannot think about that question without thinking about communism or “socialism” which is even worth in my world of conceptions. IT also brings back Orwell’s 1984 to mind, which is actually a lot of exsisting regimes such as the North Korean one…
I think it isn’t a matter of not being rich so someone else would not be poor and under nourished… it’s about changing the worlds way of thinking of what a human being deserves to have. What are the most basic conditions a human being should have – no matter where he’s coming from or what he believes in – and the entire population of the world should be jointly responsible to provide.
I would eagerly transfer a part of my earnings if I knew it would provide these conditions to every human being. Somehow the systems are flawed. Priorities are corrupted and the real sufferers are still suffering, enduring the hardship of a world which turns against them…
Lance responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:32 am →
My first thought – this seems like a world worth striving for. For no one to be suffering because of poverty. But then, do we bring it on ourselves? Through addictions, through bad choices, through laziness, etc. How do we get beyond these issues? While this world free of poverty seems like it has many ideal qualities, I question whether it would be sustainable.
My second thought – is a world like this – where no one suffers – what we have to look forward to once our time on earth is complete? That the world we go to after this (heaven, the afterlife, whatever you call it) – is a world where everything is “right”. I hold onto this thought as being very real for me. That our life, after death, is one that will be marked with much goodness…
Lance’s last blog post..Poverty Close to Home – Blog Action Day 2008
Eoin responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 4:19 am →
It’s an admirable idea, but there will always be people who will do nothing to further their condition, and come to think of it, if I was guaranteed a certain standard no matter what I did I think I might just decide to do nothing.
The fact of the matter is that no man should ever be enslaved so that another man can have his rights, then you have just transferred the problem from the person not willing to do anything for their condition to the people who will naturally always try to improve their condition and in effect you will enslave all in the end.
Cath Lawson responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 4:33 am →
H Vered – it sounds like communism. And communism does have it’s good points in theory. Trouble is, as long as there’s folk who will exploit the system for their own benefits, it would never work in practise.
Another thing I find difficult to swallow when it comes to communism, is that there’s so many folk who don’t want to work hard and at very best – they’ll just turn up, do as little as possible, then go home and sit in front of the TV all night. I would have a hard time accepting the fact that the limits to the rewards I could achieve through hard work, would be the same as my lazy neighbour’s limits.
However – I do wish governments in third world countries would set minimum wages that folk could actually live on, to stop businesses from our countries exploiting them. That would help to reduce poverty.
Chase March responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 5:16 am →
This would be wonderful. I think a lot of middle class, and lower class people would have less health problems if they weren’t so stressed out over how to make ends meet.
I don’t need a lot of things in my life. I have pretty much what I want. I reflected on how thankful I am in yesterday’s post. The problem is that I have a lot of debt.
Money shouldn’t be what life is about. There are way more important things than accumulating wealth.
I don’t think people with a lot of money would consider giving it all up to erase poverty. But I would give up quite a few things that I already have or am working for to make this work. I’m not sure this is feasible but it’s a great idea.
Chase March’s last blog post..Poverty in Schools
shunha7878 responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 5:47 am →
If we had this system, I would quit work and live off everyone else. Stupid working people. What, so would everybody else? Well, who is going to take care of me? Oh, I would be forced to work. oh, Yea, that’s a system I would want. I might work but I would do no more then I had to to stay alive. Once again, so would everybody else. So, to make everybody else work harder, a few (million) would be killed. ???
Hold it, never mind. I think I will work hard and make a lot of money.
This has been tried many times in history (even though you don’t want to discuss that) and it only results in poverty and misery.
Max Forlani responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 6:10 am →
Hi Vered,
However well-meant your system is, I just don’t think it’s feasable because of one simple reason: greed! It has always been around, and I don’t see why or how it would suddenly disappear.
But this of course doesn’t mean that we should reach out to the people in need!
Kind regards,
Max
Max Forlani’s last blog post..Weekend Completely Gone Wrong – Part 1
YOU Have Never Been More Powerful | Catherine Lawson responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am →
[...] Around The World – You Tube Video Help Fight Against Sexual Exploitation & Human Trafficking What If You Could Never Be Rich, But Poverty Didn’t Exist Anymore? Social Media, “Time Poor”Thinking, and Blog Action Day [?] Share [...]
Dot responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 6:51 am →
Leaving aside people’s fear of communism, which doesn’t have to be the way it works, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to wipe out greed and lust for power, which in my opinion are the problem. We, who are not rich (I imagine), can only do so much for the poor unless the money can be removed from the hands of the fabulously wealthy. Perhaps we can start by making wealth and power less attractive?
Dot’s last blog post..Weeping Willow
Scott McIntyre responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 7:10 am →
A though provoking article, Vered.
I don’t see why the two viewpoints you highlight can’t be reconciled in this ideal system.
Not everyone who is an entrepreneur is motivated by money.
Very often, their motivation is to constantly be developing new ideas, taking risks etc.
Of course, when they venture into the business world, entrepreneurs tend to be amazingly successful. This in turn generates cash.
But, I believe that those with an entrepreneurial spirit would still express it- regardless of whether the money they earned was capped.
Take away all of an entrepreneur’s money and they would simply start again.
So, I don’t believe that entrepreneurship is as closely correlated with the drive to succeed for personal gain as in point 2.
A further argument is that the greatest entrepreneurs are usually also the greatest philanthropists e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and two Scots- Andrew Carnegie and Tom Hunter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hunter)
So, I personally believe the two points are reconcilable Vered.
Kim Woodbridge responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 7:44 am →
I find it frustrating that people often attribute poverty to lack of motivation, laziness or addictions. I think it’s an excuse we use to allow it to exist, at least in this country. Quite a few of the homeless in Philadelphia are older Vietnam War veterans who are frequently suffering from mental illness. Perhaps they are addicts but how many of their problems can be attributed to being a part of that war (and most of them were drafted) and then had veteran benefits and mental health care taken away from them? Are we going to see the same think with our current vets in 30 years?
When I was a kid we learned in Social Studies that there were three basic human necessities; food, clothing and shelter. If not all people have these three things then goods are not being distributed equitably. I’m not sure if everyone be cared for would destroy innovation but how worthy is any innovation when we live in a world where there is plenty of food but yet children are allowed to die of starvation? I think it is the luck of the draw that allowed me to be born in such a wealthy nation – I could have been born anywhere. And, I firmly believe that many of our policies have oppressed and taken resources away from those in less fortunate nations.
So, yes, I would rather there be no rich and have everyone in the world provided with basic necessities. I would gladly have money from my income taken to support people rather than being taxed for bombs and war. Maybe I am an idealist. Maybe it wouldn’t work. But I don’t think that means that we shouldn’t try.
BC Doan responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am →
What a great question: “What if we could create a social system where no one is outrageously rich and no one is miserably poor?”
I often wonder about this, too. If we could have a world where no one is outrageously rich, or miserable poor, it would be perfect…but can we really apply this into society? A provoking thought for the day..
Ellen Wilson responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am →
Vered,
I don’t really know how I feel about this. I think it is a problem of human nature and it cannot be eradicated by social programs.
I understand exactly how Cath Lawson feels. Who wants to work your butt off when your neighbor is getting the same benefits? So this is a philosophical problem.
Humans are cultivated animals with the ability to think about the past and the future. Humans think they are very intelligent beings but look at the state of the world. This somehow does not seem very intelligent. Intelligence is relative to the organism and humans it seems are delusional about putting themselves at the top of the intelligence hierachy.
I think we use our reason and intellect to the detriment of our feelings. We are capable of great beauty and compassion and we start horrible wars and starve and kill eachother. What can we do?
Even this whole “bring awareness to poverty day” makes me wonder about human nature. I think people do this to make themselves feel good about themselves. But then, even the Dalai Lama said that compassion can be cultivated for selfish reasons. You WILL feel good when doing good deeds.
Your dinner party guests bring up an interesting division. They are either for it or against it. This simple dualism is inherent in everything in the world.
Therefore, I truly believe that the only wise source of intelligence is love. If ideas and action are not rooted in love they will not work. So it all comes down to the individual and their basic ethical and moral philosophy. I’m not talking about religion because you don’t need relgion to be a moral and ethical being.
One more thing, a lot of homeless people, who would arguably be at the bottom of the food chain in human terms, have a lot of problems with mental illness. Because of federal and state funding cuts they were unceremoniously dumped out of psychiatric hospitals because these hospitals were closed. So they wander the streets. A wise way of spending this poverty money would be advocating for the opening of state funded institutions.
All of this is interconnected and the only way we can do anything about helping others, alleviating problems like this, is to educate ourselves and take appropriate action.
I should be writing my novel and I just started an essay on your blog. Oh well, I will consider it my writing warm up exercise. I just had a great post idea! I think I’m going through blog withdrawal. Already.
Ellen Wilson’s last blog post..Retreat
Marelisa responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am →
Vered: I think that the situation you pose here is looking at life like a limited pie where someone has to be poor in order for someone else to be rich. But life is not a zero-sum game and you don’t have to take things away from one group and give to the other. I’ve read that if you take the world’s riches and split them so that everyone on earth ends up with the same amount, within five years all of the money would be accumulated once again in the hands of the same people who hold the money today. I think it’s about education and giving people the opportunity–through microloans and such–to create their own little businesses. But we should all be allowed to go as high as we can.
Marelisa’s last blog post..Eradicating Poverty Through Human Ingenuity – Blog Action Day 2008
Tammy Warren responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am →
What a great question. There is a homeless man that I actually posted about once (long ago) that brought me to this same thought process. I see this homeless man each day. At the post office or at the store, or just simply walking. My youngest son asked me to stop and help him. I told him that I had offered to help him many times and he just told me that he was “happy” and thanked me. I know many of us would try and try again to help the world situation. The reality, it would never be 100% fixed. More need to step up and try to make a difference and it would help some. We live in a country that everything cannot be divided equally because there will always be those that won’t help themselves first. Many because they can’t and others because they are “happy” right where they are.
SpaceAgeSage -- Lori responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am →
It’s not about systems, ideas, politics, money, or programs — it is about human hearts becoming willing to lend a helping hand to needier people — “Be The Change …”
Lori
zoe responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am →
Why would anyone ever want to work hard and take risks to build a buisness if they were limited by an income cap? That is not to say that I am not disgusted by the current gap between the haves and have nots, but there has to be some sort of insentive to work long hard hours and take financial risks.
Wendi Kelly-Life's Little Inspirations responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:03 am →
Hello Vered, I think the problem with the question is that poverty isn’t a financial problem, its an attitude problem. We haven’t run out of money, we have run out of heart. So , no, I don’t want to cut the money off the top, I want to bring those without it up from the bottem. IF those with abundance started to act as if their cups were running over and living with an attitude of grattitude and giving back and helping others, this problem would end. We can fix poverty.
Wendi Kelly-Life’s Little Inspirations’s last blog post..October Tomatoes
MommyNamedApril responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am →
Off topic – I love that you refer to yourself as a recovering lawyer. What a great way to put it. I too, am a recovering lawyer. It’s been two years and I still think of things in billable increments of time.
MommyNamedApril’s last blog post..Trotwood Park
Bamboo Forest responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:16 am →
First of all, I love that you posed this highly thought provoking, and somewhat controversial question. Really fun. Sets you apart.
“2. No. A system like that would kill entrepreneurship. People would not have the drive to create and invent, because more often than not, that drive is NOT a drive to help the world but a personal drive to succeed.”
From what I’ve seen, much (or some) of the poverty in the world is because of corrupt leaderships. For example, aid will be given to a Nation, and it stays with the leaders and does not get distributed. So, poverty is a much more complicated issue, than it seems.
Secondly, yes, I can’t see how your number 2 wouldn’t be true. I think medicine, and general advancements for all of humanity would be severely compromised, if such a system was instituted.
Further, if such a system was possible it would mean that our personal freedoms would be taken away. How can you have freedom if some government somewhere, is making certain that there is no possibility that you can advance?
Lastly, if a leadership did have such power… And considering power corrupts… I think we’d all be in trouble.
Bamboo Forest’s last blog post..Cultivating Awareness: The Sure Path to Reaching The Top
Suzie responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am →
Im all for it. Poeple will awlays feel the need to work and create its part of the human experience at least for me.
Suzie’s last blog post..And the Goldfish Will Die Too
Alison responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am →
I think a system that equalizes income disparity can and does work. My country, Canada, does this (to a small degree), as do many European democracies. People still want to be doctors in England, even though they will not earn as much as a doctor in the US.
And this last bit is speculation, but perhaps more people would be willing and able to explore entrepreneurship if they felt secure that their families would not suffer as a result. Think of all the creative people who would thus be willing to quit good paying but uninspiring jobs!
Bamboo Forest responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am →
I’d also add… That though there are some people who would continue to strive to invent for the betterment of humanity regardless of a money incentive; there are many who would not. So, there would be a loss in this category. How large, is what’s debatable. That’s my humble opinion.
Also, I don’t think both are mutually exclusive. Many do strive to invent for the betterment of humanity, but in addition do it for the monetary incentive. In short: they do it for both.
However, if you take part of the equation away, which is making more money – they may not push themselves like they did, or they may engage a different line of work.
Either way, I think we can all agree that poverty is absolutely horrible, and each and everyone of us should make it our responsibility to help those suffering from it.
Bamboo Forest’s last blog post..Cultivating Awareness: The Sure Path to Reaching The Top
Writer Dad responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am →
I promise I’m not trying to wiggle out of this, but both points are totally valid. Yes, I would take that deal, but it would dim innovation if not kill it entirely. If we look through history, innovation has mostly been motivated by profit. That’s a part of human nature as embedded as our DNA.
shunha7878 responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am →
Kim Woodbridge claims “Quite a few of the homeless in Philadelphia are older Vietnam War veterans” Yea? How do you know. I have never meet a bum(homeless person) that was not a veteran, but just for fun, act like you are also a veteran and start asking them a few question about the military and if their answer is “I don’t want to talk about it.” they are just bums, not a veteran. And yes, I am a veteran.
MizFit responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am →
Id say yes I would be in and disagree with the drive to create and invent as, IMO, people who live their life on those paths do it out of an internal motivation…need to create.
MizFit’s last blog post..Once upon a time. In the land where Miz was OprahForADay…
bah responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am →
People who say they need massive financial rewards in order to invent probably aren’t inventing anything cool. Cool inventions are unstoppable. Just try to go back in time to stop Bill Gates from creating Windows. You can’t do it, not least because nobody’s invented a time machine. But you bet people are trying, because a time machine would be awesome, not because they think they’ll get rich. The people who want massive financial rewards are leeches sucking off true inventors who do it for love.
Chris responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am →
Carnegie, Rockefeller, Pullman, Gates, Buffet, why did it take them so long to give their money away to help the world? Why did they have to become so powerfully rich first, be ruthless, and then be philanthropic. Easy. Human nature.
To solve poverty or suffering, we must change our nature. Unfortunately, we just can’t. Yes, there are some out there who are completely selfless, but there are more who are selfish and self-centered.
Chris’s last blog post..My Back
Kim Woodbridge responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am →
@shunha7878 The fact that you refer to homeless people as bums makes it clear that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this issue. This comes from an article in USA Today from November 2007.
“The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education non-profit, based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,254 homeless people out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.”
Based on these statistics 25% of all homeless people are veterans where veterans only make up 11% of the population. So, perhaps 3 out of 4 are lying to me but I tend to assume that people are telling me the truth. I also see no shame in being made a fool of in the name of charity.
Here’s a little bit of personal information: My husband is mentally ill although not a veteran. Last fall he decided to leave. I lost half of my income and almost all of my savings have gone to fighting him on custody and divorce issues. If I were to lose my job, there is a very good chance that my daughter and I would suddenly be homeless. If you were to encounter us on the street, would you think I was a bum or a drug addict or would you have the compassion to think that maybe there was a a true story behind my situation?
Kim Woodbridge’s last blog post..Stuff This in Your RSS – 10/14/08 – Popular Links on Delicious
Andrea's Sweet Life responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am →
Very interesting question. I think, no, I would not take the deal. But I do think there is room for a happy medium, where people are allowed to succeed (the sky is the limit) but never allowed fall TOO far (as in – no one falls in the gutter).
I think, in this country, we try to do that, with aid being available to people. But, having never been on aid myself, I don’t know what kind of red-tape is involved there. And, let’s face it, some people just have no clue how to handle money. So, even if you gave them all the money they needed to survive, they’d still end up penniless.
So, what’s the answer? More financial education in schools? Better preparation for the “real world”? Inserting a compassion chip into the brains of millionaires? I don’t know.
Thanks for stopping by Sweet Life! And yes, 4:30 am IS hard! Hence the need for coffee!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am →
@ J.D.: There are many big pain points in addition to poverty. Cancer, crime, discrimination and pollution to name a few.
@ PeaceLoveJoyBliss: I had to look it up. “The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits.” Interesting on a theoretical level, but much like my own suggestion – one could argue that it goes against human nature and thus could never work in real life.
@ Avital: I think you’re right. It’s not necessarily a question of limiting wealth, but of transferring some of that wealth to ensure dignity for each human being.
@ Lance: The idea of heaven, or afterlife, is a comforting one. Unfortunately for me, I am unable to believe in it. Despite growing up in a religious home, I now pretty much believe that death is the end of everything.
@ Eoin: I agree that there will always be those who would take advantage of such a system.
@ Cath: I like the idea of enforcing a minimum wage in third world countries.
@ Chase: This is exactly where it started for me. I looked around me: in third world standards I’m surrounded by luxury. I thought to myself that I would be willing to give some of it up if I knew that it would save someone’s dignity, someone’s life. My own way of doing it is donating annually to poverty-related charities and to local homeless shelters and food banks. But what if EVERYONE who earns over a certain amount HAD to give some of it away?
@ shunha7878: “This has been tried many times in history (even though you don’t want to discuss that) and it only results in poverty and misery.” I can’t argue with that.
Re homeless people, while I agree that some have brought it on themselves, I’m sure most have some kind of personal problem behind their situation. Being a homeless is such a rough, miserable existence – no one could possibly choose to live like that.
@ Max: I agree that one of the main drawbacks of this idea is that it goes against human nature.
@ Dot: “Perhaps we can start by making wealth and power less attractive?” – I can’t imagine a world where those would not be attractive!
@ Scott: You’re making an interesting argument – but I’m not convinced.
I do believe that MOST entrepreneurs are driven by money.
@ Kim: “we live in a world where there is plenty of food but yet children are allowed to die of starvation” – this is exactly what bothers me. Whenever I throw away leftover food, I cringe.
Thank you so much for sharing your own personal story, Kim. I think we need to be very careful before we decide that all homeless people are responsible for their situation.
@ BC Doan: Glad I made you think.
@ Ellen: Well, I loved reading your comment-essay.
“Even this whole “bring awareness to poverty day” makes me wonder about human nature. I think people do this to make themselves feel good about themselves.” – I suspect this is very true. I also wonder if anything concrete can come out of this. When I tried to decide what to write for this day, at first I wanted to just explain poverty, give statistics, add a few photos and list charities that I personally give to. But instead I chose to raise a philosophical question. I’m not sure which approach has more impact, and I’m not sure if any of them has any real impact at all.
@ Marelisa: “But life is not a zero-sum game and you don’t have to take things away from one group and give to the other.” You’re making a good point. Maybe there’s no need to cap wealth, but surely there would be a need – under such a system – to take some of that wealth and redistribute it? I guess that’s just higher taxes – but how do we make sure those taxes actually go to those in dire need?
@ Tammy: I agree that people need to want to help themselves first. I do believe that many homeless people suffer from mental problems and that explains their “happiness”. They can’t possibly be truly happy about the way they live.
@ Lori: Perhaps. But my family has an annual giving budget, which includes poverty- related charities. We give every year, as I’m sure many others do. And yet, poverty statistics are not getting any better and there’s still hunger in third world countries.
@ zoe: I agree. Such a system would likely kill entrepreneurship. This to me is the biggest drawback to this system. This also relates to the argument that such a system simply goes against human nature.
@ Wendi: I wonder… if all the fabulously wealthy would start giving generously – would it have the power to end poverty.
@ MommyNamedApril: “It’s been two years and I still think of things in billable increments of time.” Haha being a lawyer sucks, doesn’t it.
@ Bamboo Forest: “aid will be given to a Nation, and it stays with the leaders and does not get distributed. So, poverty is a much more complicated issue, than it seems.” – EXACYLY. Maybe the real challenge is to find a way to get the help to the people themselves, not to their so-called leaders.
Generally, and as much as I’m unhappy about it, I agree with all your points. It’s one of those ideas that sound good in theory, but in reality would likely cause misery and corruption. I also agree that the best we can do right now is to set an annual giving budget and to make sure we give to highly efficient charities that manage to spend very little on administrative expenses. Charitynavigator.org is a great source for finding worthy charities, by the way.
@ Suzie: This is exactly what I’m unsure about. I suspect that if you take away the financial incentive, many people would not have the drive to create or even simply to work.
@ Alison: You’re making an interesting argument. It’s true that Canada and Europe have a far more developed social system than the United States. But I’ve read that the health system in Canada creates a situation where the truly wealthy simply fly to the U.S. to get fast, private, top-level care. And isn’t labor productivity in Europe very low compared with the United States?
@ Writer Dad: I believe you… I see the validity in both positions too.
@ MizFit: I guess that’s the big question – is it a need to create or a drive to succeed.
@ bah: As I said above, this is a big question. Looking around me, here in Silicon Valley, money plays a big part of it. But perhaps those are not the truly great inventions.
@ Chris: I agree with the human nature argument.
@ Andrea: I agree that education is a big part of it. Re aid, I’m not sure it’s so readily available. I believe food is, perhaps clothing too, but shelter and health care – not so much.
Nurit responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am →
Very complex to answer that question. I was just thinking about it this morning. I also live in a place where very very rich people live in small palaces and multi-million mega homes (not us, though…), Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing and others are located here.
I really don’t know… I believe all people want to help to eliminate suffering, hunger and poverty. If people are willing to give up some of their assets and how much is a different question.
But I do know this – I see my 8 months old baby. She can’t speak or talk yet, but she WANTS, things she has and things she doesn’t have (like a toy outside her reach), and that is what is driving her physical, emotional, and spiritual development. She has the opportunity and free choice to work hard, which in this age means move her bottom or learn to crawl to get what she wants. And I think this is a natural instinct or primal force we are all born with.
But what happens later in our lives to block that access to good life thru hard work? The way our parents raised us, our teachers educates us, our peers related to us, our own choices, social structures and policies…???
I think most people share with others thru donating our time, money, skills, food, goods, etc, at the level we are comfortable with. Maybe we can do more. I help others in general, but I prefer to help the people I know personally, a relative, friend, neighbor who needs help. So maybe what I am saying is yes to number 1, but with a limit to people who are closer to me in the circle of life?
Nurit’s last blog post..Weekly meal plan – October 14th
John Doe responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am →
No. There is no freedom if not the freedom to fail.
Bucky responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am →
Tough one to answer… What if to qualify for having that system there had to be a period of volunteerism? I think the system would work because people have to do something or improve on something else. Even if we had our most basic needs taken care of things would still progress and people would strive for improvements in other aspects of life, be it for health, beauty, education, entertainment. . . Besides, we will get used to “economic equality” and find other ways to judge and categorize ourselves and others; racism will not need the economic generalizations and delve deep into the heart of our hatred. We would have time/resources to focus on any of our twisted dreams; to get more wealth we’d pool together in small tight-knit groups, solidifying our biases and strengthening our taboos about others. It can’t ever be a perfect world, but at least we’d have a place to sleep and something in our stomachs without sacrificing ours lives.
Bucky’s last blog post..Videos I Found
Matthew E. K. responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am →
I believe that the answer lies in a resource based economy, which was commented on earlier. A resource based economy is not something that is easily achieved though, it involves more than a presidential or congressional decision, it is a decision, a life re-direction that needs to take place in the minds of every man and woman in this country and on this planet ultimately.
There is very interesting information on this that everyone should look into.
Zeitgeist Movie -This link provides information through 2 movies. The first is Zeitgeist which details the relationships between religion, politics, and money and their negative effects on our society and the world as a whole. The second is Zeitgeist:Addendum which goes into further detail on the monetary system in our country and its’ inherent negative effects on human life, as well as information on The Venus Project and resource based economy.
The Zeitgeist Movement -This is a link to the site where people who are interested in the topics from either film can come to go further into the conversation and hopefully take action. (the site is still under construction in some areas)
Dave Jones, CPA responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am →
An excellent thought provoking question. I am not so inclined to give a blanket yes or no to this question without discussing capitalism. There are a lot more freedoms and opportunities that are currently available under the current system that I may not be so inclined to give up.
Dave Jones, CPA’s last blog post..Be an Optimist!
Jason Gignac responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 12:14 pm →
Yes, I would definitely prefer a system where wealth was more evenly distributed. Most of the reasons I would say yes have already been mentioned, or are self-evident. But a few points I’d rebut
1) “In a society without wealth, noone would innovate” – I disagree. In fact, while some of the everyday innovations are motivated by greed (I mean, they weren’t developing Viagra out of a sense of caring and love, per se), many if not most of the great discoveries have not been motivated by greed at all.
Just an example – the internet. The initial funding for the internet, or for the Unix OS, say, that the infrastructure was largely built on, may have come from the military or business, but the people who were doing the actual innovation, more or less, wanted enough to love, and to continue to do what they loved. And it has, largely continued that way – Business has made some of the day to day, humdrum innovations, but the real exciting, fundamental changes to the internet have been largely open-source, dare I say, hobbyist innovations. This isn’t to say greed CAN’T inspire innovation, but the two are not inextricably linked.
Einstein was a HORRIBLE businessman, and again, would not have probably been defining his success by his wealth. Respect, appreciation, internal passion, these are all far more powerful than the drive to get rich.
2) “We’ve tried socialism, and look what happened” – OK, simple answer to that one – would you tell me that no capitalist state has ever failed? America nearly died in the 30’s, and it’s worth noting that a combination of Socialism and, sadly, World War II, essentially saved it.
I don’t think socialism is the end all answer to human improvement, but I don’t believe captilism is either. Like in religion, all the great ones have wisdom to offer, goes for Marx as much as it does for Smith.
Jason Gignac’s last blog post..Moby Dick, by Herman Melville
Uncle B responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm →
When the first immigrants came to North America, they wished to achieve just such a society, did so for the bigger part, got bored and went on to walk on the moon. Only human beings with large amounts of lead in their blood can stand such Utopian lifestyles for very long. We are an animal of unusual tolerance to suffering and strife as much as we are easily bored and want to change things. Desire for the Exploration of the unknown and a refusal to accept the status quo are our strongest characteristics. We were designed to go about the universe, probably have done so before and will not rest. Ever. Not even when each one of us has his own star! Welcome to the human condition.
Janice Cartier responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm →
Vered- I’m in the second group. Interesting question. Human nature is organic not linear. We would not fit in that utopian box…in fact it makes me claustrophobic.
Janice Cartier’s last blog post..Primary Colors Put To Work
RunTime responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm →
I feel that the most inspirational and revolutionary ideas have come from people self driven by knowledge and success. Perhaps you can legislate morals and put limitations on ones “greed”.
Although I would like to point out as example my 100k dollars is worth less if everyone else has 100k dollars so the range at which you consider “poor” and “rich” still need to have significant distance. I am just tired of hearing about people with hundreds of millions of dollars.
Dieing rich is a sin.
nATURAL responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm →
sure i would rather there be no poverty. the world we live in now is “me first”…our priorties are all wrong. we care about the wrong things and people are suffering. if there were any such solution by man to take care of basic human needs, they could have accomplished that already. nope. too busy going into outerspace to care about the people on earth.
sure little things are done regarding poverty on a small scale, people are helping people, but i’m thinking worldwide. what man can bring about a worldwide end to poverty. not a one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it bugs me to death that we have to go door to door asking for donations and being kind to one another around thanksgiving or being more aware of these issues only a few times a month. poverty doesn’t come and go for poor people, they live it everyday.
the people in charge are oppressing the people and the people are doing making bad choices trying to eek out a living. the rich get richer through golden parachutes, bribes and corruption and the poor suffer. there is NO JUSTICE – just us.
nATURAL’s last blog post..Why Poverty?
Eric Hamm responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm →
I think in a perfect world, something like this may have a chance. But this world is FAR from perfect.
We see every day how the Welfare system is abused to no end. Many people are proud of the way they’ve ‘played the system’ so they can sit at home and do nothing. And this is a system that has at least SOME hoops to jump through; no guarantees. So to have a system which GUARANTEES someone’s basic needs seems like a disaster waiting to happen. And as many others have pointed out, restricting someone in their pursuit for success so others can get a free ride defies the laws of freedom and independence. Eric.
Eric Hamm’s last blog post..Creating Comment Abundance: Writer Dad Style
Maya responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm →
I would have to say Yes. I will take a system where there are no poor.
I disagree that this will prevent innovation …. there are plenty of factors that drive innovation. We would still have plenty to worry about and people would have plenty to work on and invent.
Maya’s last blog post..What’s RIGHT with your life?
Davina responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm →
Hi Vered. This is really interesting question and conversation.
Lance’s comment got me to thinking about how in some cases we bring poverty on ourselves, but then again sometimes “crappy luck” happens. Then I thought, so the rich “shouldn’t” have to be responsible for other people’s losses; they worked hard (in most cases)to get where they are and they are reaping the rewards. Who says there’s a limit to how rich a person can be?
So after first answering yes, and then no, I reread your post and still like the idea of having less extremes between rich and poor. As for how or if it could work I dunno.
Howie responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm →
i haven’t read the whole discussion, but would it really kill entrepeneurship? What I mean is that people do things, because they are interesting, not to make more money, for we already have our friends, our music and the things we want. However, i didnt grew up with the American Dream either.
Interesting point tho. To implement such a system in practice is another discussion.
Still interesting tho
Will Holcomb responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm →
One of the interesting things in the discussion is the apparent lack of awareness of most people just how small a percentage of the wealth they control. We literally live in a world with unprecedented economic disparity. We could take 95% of the wealth of the top 1% and they would still be the top 1%.
Our society currently, through various methods, has a sort of soft bottom limit. Relatively few Americans are in serious danger of starving to death. The question is how to raise that bottom limit up and ideally extend the same expectation to the rest of the world.
I’ve actually got some ideas on the matter. ☺ To some extent I think that part of the reason that many previous solutions have failed is that they are generally almost wholly systematic. They focus on people in the abstract and expect the system to be good enough to get people to conform to it. What if the solution lies not in changing the system, but in changing people?
There’s some work by developmental ethicists (Kohlberg, Perry, Gilligan, etc.) that suggests there are systemic ways that people change in their perspectives on themselves and the world over time. It’s possible that research along these lines can help show how to create social institutions that address the problem of poverty through improving people’s capacity to reason ethically.
Once I get through with grad school I’m hoping to have time to see what happens if you actually try some of this stuff. Who knows what the future holds?
Will Holcomb’s last blog post..Awareness — On Wanting Happiness
Carla responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm →
Sounds like a good deal to me. I’m no Saint; I would love to be rich. OK, I said it! Not so that can hoard more stuff, I just like the idea of having (much) more than just simply getting by. I want a huge cushion. But if everyone is fed, clothed, housed, has health care, able to take advantage of higher education, choose careers that they love and care about, not just to pay the bills, etc, I would have not problem giving my wealth up for other people.
On the other hand, I have friends (not in the US) on public assistance who take full advantage of never having to work for whatever reason though they very well can work if forced to. They live decent and relatively lush lives unlike the American uninsured individuals and families who live in dangerous inner city neighborhoods where Top Ramen is cheaper than an apple.
I dont know, but that is a very good question.
Stacey / Create a Balance responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm →
In theory, I’m all for a social system where no one is outrageously rich and no one is miserably poor. Your question is referring to not being “OUTRAGEOUSLY” rich. In this kind of society, I could still strive to be somewhat rich…I’d just agree not to become “OUTRAGEOUSLY” rich.
Stacey / Create a Balance’s last blog post..Take Action! Help Children Impacted by Poverty
Greg responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm →
Absolutely not. If the lower limit would be comfortable for me, I wouldn’t need/want to get far past that. If an upper limit existed, I wouldn’t feel like respecting it. Limiting my ability to own as much as I want is unfair.
The only people that could be superior in such a society, are the criminals who would circumvent this upper limit.
Money is never the problem. It merely represents one’s contribution to society. People that produce and deliver deserve to have it. People that believe that money is “the root of all evil”, don’t. And if they do manage to get it, it won’t be theirs for long (guess where the crooks and criminals get theirs from?)
The best way to unfulfill potential is to get comfortable. The best way to limit progress is to lessen reward. Life is too boring and purposeless if you’re confined to such a “box”.
Being a person (albeit quite young) who’s family never had much money (but never was very poor, either), I know first hand what mediocrity feels like. Forcing people to be “average” is one of the worse things you can do to a society.
Overcoming Lifes Obstacles responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm →
Interesting Subject:
Some of the previous comments also interesting. Yes a lot of people do what they do because they enjoy it – I believe that more people would do nothing if they didn’t have to.
I’ve worked in welfare for over 16 years –
A majority of recipients are very grateful for the help they receive in their time of need and eventually become self-sufficient – but what drives them is to create a better life for themselves and for their children.
A lot of recipeints do nothing. They lose all self esteem and gusto to get out and do anything.
They figure –
“Why bother, I don’t have to.”
“I don’t have to go to school because the government will take care of me.”
“I don’t have to work because the government will take care of me.”
People get this mindset that their life is not in their control That it’s everyone elses responsibility to take care of them. They deserve everything and anything without having to to do or give anything in return.
There will always be a few people that invent to make their lifes better – but what would be the purpose of sharing it – if they had nothing to gain from it? And yes there would be a select few that want to be famous – but I would estimate 99.99% of people would lose their drive to do anything … and then where would we be? Scary Scary thought.
Overcoming Lifes Obstacles’s last blog post..Poverty in United States?
Patricia responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm →
Your idea and post today made me think first of my daughter’s year in Denmark and how just about everyone has their “needs” met in a respectful way and yet the entrepreneurial spirit is still alive and well and the creativity is not diminished. There are always conflicts and crisis that arise because we are human.
There are certainly people who don’t do their two years of service to the country and there are lots of emigrants creating new kinds of poverty there too! Diversity lives as to human foibles….but they have better mastery of communication and problem-solving.
How good it is to ask the question and contemplate the concept-a positive approach and dialogue always spurs some to action.
As I pay off my youngest child’s medical bills and college at the same time – I sure wish our USA health ins. covered cleft palate repairs and counted a “lesion” in the brain as a different ability….but not a one does nor does medicaid – it would have been nice to know at least we would have had basic food and shelter – good thing we found a house worth $5,000 and knew how to grow a garden and teach skills!!
Then there is poverty of the spirit to consider…and poverty of the intellect….know how is a good thing to have and not enough folks get the opportunity. So much to contemplate and so little time for action…there is something for everyone to do in this game
Patricia’s last blog post..American Ingenuity – or Crisis Intervention to Discover Success
CK Lunchbox responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm →
A very apt question given the current economic situation. Both sides have valid points of view. However, neither are feasible because they fail to address the human condition that is capable of greed and compassion. Personally, speaking I’ve been on the high end making a ridiculous salary, and now I’m laid off just scraping by. Ironically, its my current situation that’s forced me to focus on new skills, make new relationship and reach out to others where I otherwise wouldn’t. These current circumstances have been the least comfortable and yet, at the same time the most rewarding. It’s adversity that brings out the best in people. Should the world remain essentially copasetic our best might never be realized.
CK Lunchbox’s last blog post..Detour: Interview At Blogger Dad!
Evelyn Lim responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm →
I think such a system can truly exists only if we view ourselves as One. We do not see ourselves as separate from each other. There is no greed, envy, selfishness, hatred, jealousy, etc. We work for the common good. These ideas are pretty much discussed and shared in the books Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. You may be interested to read them.
Blog Action Day — 10 Years of Contemplation responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm →
[...] Today is Blog Action Day, apparently. I happened upon a post at MomGrind: [...]
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 5:50 pm →
@ Nurit: I loved your comment. I loved your observation on your baby daughter and on the way people are born to want to move ahead and get MORE. I also like the observation that we all like to help and support others – but each of us does it in their own way.
@ John Doe: This is true to some extent – but are we completely free?
@ Bucky: “Even if we had our most basic needs taken care of things would still progress and people would strive for improvements in other aspects of life” – that’s the question. Would they? I’m not so sure.
@ Matthew E. K.: A resource based economy is an interesting idea, but I don’t see it happening in our lifetime. Thank you for providing the links – interesting.
@ Dave Jones: “There are a lot more freedoms and opportunities that are currently available under the current system that I may not be so inclined to give up.” – I agree.
@ Jason Gignac: 1. This goes back to what’s been said above by @bah – that the truly great inventions are not driven by greed.
2. But, like Dave Jones said above, capitalism still ensures the most personal freedoms and opportunities. Any other system protects, or attempts to protect, the weak, but there’s always a price to pay as far as personal freedom goes.
@ Uncle B: “We are an animal of unusual tolerance to suffering and strife as much as we are easily bored and want to change things.” This is a very interesting observation.
@ Janice Cartier: So, you worry about lack of personal freedom. I do too.
@ RunTime: “I am just tired of hearing about people with hundreds of millions of dollars.” I can relate. Although I’m not sure being rich is a sin. Maybe being ultra rich and not giving to charity is a sin, or at least bad karma.
@ Natural: I agree – there is no justice – I’m just not sure it’s attainable.
@ Eric Hamm: I agree that one of the biggest problems is people exploiting such a system.
@ Maya: “there are plenty of factors that drive innovation.” – true, but isn’t the drive to succeed the biggest factor?
@ Davina: “I like the idea of having less extremes between rich and poor. As for how or if it could work I dunno.” – My sentiments exactly. I’m pretty sure it will never work, by the way. But if it COULD work – I’d like that. Except maybe not to limit wealth, but to eradicate extreme poverty. The kind that takes away people’s dignity.
@ Howie: “To implement such a system in practice is another discussion.” Yes it is, and since I tend to believe it’s impossible in practice, I tried to concentrate here on the theoretical idea.
@ Will Holcomb: “What if the solution lies not in changing the system, but in changing people?” So instead of forcing people to redistribute wealth, people will get to a point where they WANT to do it. I think this is a very interesting idea.
@ Carla: The risk of people exploiting the system is a very real one.
@ Stacey: Absolutely. My issues are with the outrageously rich.
@ Greg: “The only people that could be superior in such a society, are the criminals who would circumvent this upper limit.” Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that.
“The only people that could be superior in such a society, are the criminals who would circumvent this upper limit.” That’s another interesting thought. Thank you. I’ll need to think about it.
@ Overcoming Lifes Obstacles: “I would estimate 99.99% of people would lose their drive to do anything … and then where would we be? Scary Scary thought.” – that IS a scary thought and one of the biggest problems with my “ideal” world.
@ Patricia: Denmark is an interesting example and so are several European countries. I don’t have enough info on Denmark, but I do know that labor productivity in Europe is very low.
@ CK Lunchbox: “It’s adversity that brings out the best in people. Should the world remain essentially copasetic our best might never be realized.” One of my guests said that my “ideal world” would lead to serious stagnation in all areas.
@ Evelyn: Thank you for mentioning the book. I wonder if people are capable of that.
Kelly@SHE-POWER responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm →
Vered
I would love to give you an in depth comment about this, but I fear I will not be able to make sense because I am too pissed off after reading some of these comments, and others around the blogasphere today. Where do people get this idea that poverty and laziness are related. What utter crap! They can cross over but there is not a direct relationship. If you live in a country where funding for education and basic healthcare and social services is less of a priority than funding for wars and military technology then your government (and the people who vote for it) are ensuring that a percentage of the population live in poverty.
Children born into these families do not have equal chance of fulfilling their potential. And I cannot understand how anyone can justify that as okay. IEvery child deserves opportunity and that is why governments and citizens of the world should care about everyone having a good start in life. Food. Housing. Security. Education and Opportunity. Then once people get to adulthood there should be sustainable living wages for EVERY job.
Capitalism is its purest form is about growing profits at any price. That should not be seen as moral and acceptable in a civilized world. So the answer is not socialism or capitalism, it’s about responsible government, regulation of responsible business practices and everyone having the basics. Some of you people may talk about money for nothing. You don’t want to fund others. But that’s one price to pay. When you have poverty in your country you pay another price – higher crime and social disintegration. Moral disintegration. How can so many people talk about god and religion and then turn on their fellow human being and judge them as being less worthy than they, even thoguh they have no idea what it is to walk in those people’s shoes.
The fact is it is possible to set up a system that allows people to grow as big and as rich as they like, but also makes sure everyone has the basic health and opportunity they deserve. Long term unemployed can be trained, empowered to create their own dreams to pursue. Everyone needs to be productive to feel happy. It’s just some people see no potential in themselves and no hope for a better life so they settle for doing nothing at all. But they are a minority. Most people want a hand up, not a hand-out.
Thankfully I live in a country where I think we do this balance pretty well. Education and health do need more funding, but compared to many countries we can’t complain here in Australia. I grew up poor, and I’ve hobnobbed with the rich and I can tell you they have more in common than you think. Some are hard working, sincere, kind. Others are drug addicts. Others self absorbed bums who neglect their kids and have little moral fiber. Mostly the difference is the rich live in bigger houses and drive fancier cars.
Kelly
Kelly@SHE-POWER responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm →
Okay, I did manage an in depth comment, didn’t I?
Kelly
Kelly@SHE-POWER’s last blog post..Birthday Reflections & The Voices In My Head
Friar responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pm →
I certainly woudln’t want to live in a world where nobody would get very rich. It would would grind things to a halt.
Basic Human Nature: People are selfish hairless apes, who want to get the most, for doing the least. Or conversely, who wants to work that much harder, if you’re not going to get paid extra?
Sure, we can all be idealists, and say Oh, no, people will do whatever’s required because they like what they do. It’s not about the money. We don’t mind if someone works less, but gets the same money.
Yeahhhh…RIGHT. Be honest. How many of us truly feel that way? (What about the unfairness when women get paid less than men for equal work). Now imagine a whole society like that.
I like the fact that there is no upper limit to what I can achieve. That’s what DRIVES me.
If we had an upper limit on wealth, it would discourage entrepreneurs from making that extra effort to develop a new product or new technologies. Anyone at their maximum level of wealth would stagnate there, and not try to push themselves any further ahead.
It would end up being an average-mediocre world, and I for one, wouldn’t want to live in it.
Friar’s last blog post..Travels with the Bear: Peak Bagging in Upstate New York.
Jamie | WiredParentPad responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm →
As someone who wholly believes in the concept of personal responsibility, I have to think that without the possibility of becoming wealthy, drive and innovation would most certainly suffer. The “American Dream”, as we often call it, is what has made this country so advanced and innovative. Yeah, we’ve got our issues, as many nations do, but our overwhelming desire for more has advanced this country quite far in a relatively short period of time.
All of that being said, I also believe many of us could benefit from simpler lives. While having positive effects, that desire for more can lead to living rat race lives, deceit, and focus on material things that don’t really matter.
Jamie | WiredParentPad’s last blog post..A Fundamental Guide to Music Sharing for Today’s Parents
Barbara Swafford responds:
Posted: October 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm →
Hi Vered – I thought I had my answer all picked out until I read what your friends and the other commenters said. Now, I have no definite answer.
Barbara Swafford’s last blog post..Did You Pick Your Blog Niche Or Did It Pick You
UrbanVox responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 4:06 am →
now THAT is complicate theme…
Yes it would be GREAT to equalize things… Communism was crated to do that… but the human race wasn’t.
We always seem to think that the neighbor’s grass is greener…
It would be Utopia to live somewhere like that…
in my opinion there would be only ONE way for that Utopic world to exist… killing everyone that thinks different. But even THAT would cause even more divergence…
watch startrek??? the have some cool ways to show how it would work!
Angel Cuala responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 4:09 am →
This is a good discussion, and the question is attractive. But let me answer them with all the best I can.
I think that having a society that has no poor and no rich people will drive us to laziness. How will one strive harder if he is sure that there will be no positive in the end?
Poverty is a disease. I should know. I’ve been there. But it made me stronger and wiser. I started working at the age of 10, and I believe this experience taught me a lot.
I think poverty is good in a way but of course, we must not tolerate it.
Thanks!
Rita responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 4:26 am →
Vered,
It’s been said that such a society CAN happen, but “only if man can control nature.” This oft-forgotten concept was uttered by Karl Marx.
Rita
Rita responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 4:44 am →
Vered,
I’m a bit curious to see if the comments change a bit after last night’s American Presidential Debate. Though I know you don’t “do politics,” quite a few of your posts do, indeed, slide political and social points of view, very cleverly, into how people answer the questions or statements that you pose…I’ll be watching.
Rita
MamaMo responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 6:54 am →
I would TOTALLY take that deal!! “# 1″ all the way – and I believe humanity creativity and drive for excellence innovation is RARELY fueled by money.
MamaMo’s last blog post..The Times, They Are A-Changin’
MamaMo responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 6:55 am →
I mean “humanity’s” creativity… it’s still early for me!
Chesapeake Bay Woman responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am →
Vered – This is my first visit here, and I am so overwhelmed by how incredible it is, I am afraid I’ll have to quit my day job in order to get caught up on previous posts-and the current ones for that matter.
In response to your question, while there may be a few details I’d like to understand first, I would definitely support a system where everyone was guaranteed a certain level of essentials to live, and indeed I would not be opposed to a cap on how much someone could have. There is much open to interpretation, but I would think that if the two ends of the spectrum were far enough apart, it might satisfy those who need basic assistance to live AND allow for those who feel the need to earn, earn, earn and have, have, have. I think both can exist, but at some point we do need to take care of other people and not be so focused on what we earn and what we have. We are all one. We are all a family, and we should not turn our backs completely on our family members in need. If one person suffers, we suffer if we do not help.
There’s my deep thought for the day. I don’t usually have more than one of those per week, so I’m all done.
Thanks again for a very thought-provoking question.
Chesapeake Bay Woman’s last blog post..Shoreline
Ellen Wilson responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 7:08 am →
@Kim Woodbridge – You a prime example of how quickly people can slip into poverty and get tossed out onto the street. My heart goes out to you. Your situation must be horribly stressful.
CharlesP responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 7:17 am →
A couple of points (and warning: I ramble… and parenthesize things… a LOT).
A) I’m OK, and more than willing, to give MY money/time/etc to poor, but I’m very much not OK with taking somebody else’s money/time/etc away from them to give to anybody else (rich or poor). The problem with imagining a society of this form, is that for a society to have these rules in place, one must have government involved in enforcing them.
I believe the govt should be limited to providing for the common defense, ensure my pursuit of happiness doesn’t impede on anybody else’s (and vice-versa), and protect children/elderly/mentally incapable from exploitation, and that’s about it.
B) I’ve often pondered how an idealized society of any of the major political theories would look (socialism, capitalism, communism, anarchism, etc). Part of the problem in imagining such a thing is that it is always predicated upon an assumption of people acting in both a rational and equitable manner. In an ideal world where all are motivated, charitable, and hard working the capitalist system wouldn’t look much different than the communist system with the same people (everybody works, everybody would have enough because everybody would value the necessary work at reasonable levels, and everybody who has made enough money to live comfortably would also be charitable and contribute to voluntary charities which support and help those with extenuating circumstances making them unable to participate at that level of society). In this idealized world of capitalism everybody volunteers their extra money to help those in need, and likewise in an idealized communist society there is no begrudging of your neighbor for the government redistributing your income to others.
The differences come much less in what the ideal society looks like, and more in how that ideal breaks down when you put real people into it. Real people are sometimes (often) greedy, and want to hoard power and wealth. This is a reasonable defense mechanism when you consider where humanity was a few thousand years ago… the people who had a genetic pre-disposition to hoard these things were the ones succeeding and procreating. Likewise there are people who chose to be lazy, people who have no choice in not being the most intellectually astute, people with no choice in ability, talent, and health, and any combination thereof in between. For the most part though, all of those people want to be free (even if they don’t necessarily want that freedom for others).
And I think freedom is where the thought experiment breaks down. Without the freedom to excel, how many would put forth that great effort? Likewise without the freedom to fail do your successes mean as much? Without the freedom to excel, would society have (or make) the resources to support art (while it’s not as obvious as it once was, it is generally the people who have excess wealth in some form or other who are able to support the arts)? Without the freedom to fail would people actually take reasonable risks? If I know I couldn’t really fail to feed, cloth, and provide medical care for my family, am I going to be willing (or likely) to take reasoned risks?
If everybody comes to the poker table with $100, and leaves with $100 no matter what, the structure of the game is going to either mean people take no risk, or unreasoned risk.
For me, I think if the society has any obligation to its members, it’s to the children. Society doesn’t owe me a hand-up or a hand-out, I’m in my 30s and better have my stuff together by now. But it’s a fair point that somebody made above that children born into poverty don’t have the same chance to succeed as those born into wealth do. As a society (though I’m not sure at the national level is the same as at a local/regional/state level) we owe it to ourselves to educate and ensure safety and health of our kids (I think we do a poor job of it because govt bureaucracies don’t do this all that well, which is why I suspect that regional handling of this issue is probably better due to the smaller bureaucratic systems). Everybody isn’t going to be on a level playing field, and I don’t buy into the govt taking somebody’s money/time to handle the mistakes and misfortunes of somebody else.
I’ll end with the following quote from Merlin Mann (he may have gotten it from somewhere else I’m not sure) and make a secondary point to his original one: “Talent is like having a nice ass, or a rich father, it will only get you so far and eventually you have to do the hard work yourself.”
Being born wealthy will only get you so far, and being born poor isn’t a sure ticket to nowhere. While I think we all SHOULD give generously to those in need, I don’t think we should be FORCED to do so by govt mandate (though guilted into it by social pressure isn’t out of the question).
So to answer the question: I would be happy to live in a society where nobody WAS wealthy or poor, but I don’t think I’d want to be in a society where nobody COULD be wealthy or poor.
Thanks for making me ponder a bit Vered.
CharlesP’s last blog post..Jerk of all trades, master of none
Urban Panther responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 7:41 am →
I used to think that the world should operate like this. But then, as I experienced life, I realized that not all people want to operate this way. There will always be people, who will do as little as possible for the most they can get. So, while most of us are contributing so that everyone has their equal share, Joe Blow is sitting on his arse with a smirk on his face, managing to not contribute.
I would like to see things become more reasonable. Why do sports players make multi-millions per season? Celine Dion is working on FIVE multi-million dollar housing projects right now, one of them just to store her clothes and memorobilia! Give me a break. Both are purely to entertain us. What about the doctors, and researchers, and teachers, and caregivers…….?
Urban Panther’s last blog post..How to drive like a native
Dave Jones, CPA responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 8:01 am →
@ Kelley – She-Power – Just a heads up, I posted an article regarding your comment. I have tried to e-mail you and let you know but I get an undeliverable message for your e-mail address. Anyway, it is only fair that you have a chance to respond.
Dave
Dave Jones, CPA’s last blog post..A Simple Thank You will Suffice
Rita responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am →
Vered,
I came back to re-read, as I usually do with your postings. Though I don’y pay attention to ads – I don’t take them or use them – you have an ad up that says it all: “I’m rich, you’re not. I’m better than you.”
Does that refect your point of view, having given the ad such prominent placement? I think not, though I’d love for the “adverstiser” to read your blog and leave a comment…
Rita
Cath Lawson responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 9:13 am →
@ Alison – I’m not sure where you get your info from but Doctor’s in the UK are far betterr paid than many other occupations over here – especially if they do private work. To suggest that we have anything like a communist system over here is ridiculous.
Perhaps in the South East, where earnings are much higher, a Doctor may not seem so well paid. But there always has been a massive difference between the wages down there than the rest of the country. But I can assure you that in the North, where I live, wages are terrible and Doctor’s get far more. So, it’s more a case of start a business, be poor, or move.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am →
@ Kelly: I agree that it’s unfair to say that all poor and homeless people are just lazy. I agree that there will always be people who exploit a generous welfare system, but that most people really do want to work and feel needed. You say “it is possible to set up a system that allows people to grow as big and as rich as they like, but also makes sure everyone has the basic health and opportunity they deserve.” I think this would be my ideal world. A modified capitalism, I guess? This is certainly not the way things are in the United States. Some European countries are closer to that, although they do seem to pay a productivity price, which is perhaps worth it.
@ Friar: “Basic Human Nature: People are selfish hairless apes, who want to get the most, for doing the least.” Haha. Well, I agree. Placing a limit on wealth would probably lead do mediocrity and stagnation.
@ Jamie: “I also believe many of us could benefit from simpler lives.” I absolutely agree.
@ Barbara: I feel the same… although I do tend to think that placing a cap on wealth would be very damaging, so that can’t be the answer.
@ UrbanVox: nah, in my perfect world we don’t kill people who disagree.
@ Angel Cuala: Perhaps the answer is what several commenters suggested – helping the poor without capping wealth.
@ Rita: In that case, it’s probably hopeless. Re politics, I’ll take the Fifth.
@ MamaMo: “humanity’s creativity and drive for excellence innovation is RARELY fueled by money.” I’m not so sure…
@ Chesapeake Bay Woman: welcome to MomGrind! I’m glad you stopped by and I’m very glad you joined the discussion.
“We are all a family, and we should not turn our backs completely on our family members in need. If one person suffers, we suffer if we do not help.” I wish more people could see that. I think a big clue is the discomfort we feel when we walk past a homeless person.
Haha @ “There’s my deep thought for the day. I don’t usually have more than one of those per week, so I’m all done.”
@ Ellen: Exactly. This CAN and does happen to ordinary, hard-working, honest people.
@ CharlesP: Gosh, it’s good to read another one of your deep, thoughtful comments! I missed you.
I agree that a big issue here is too much involvement by the government. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your observations on human nature – it never occurred to me that greediness is reasonable and that in an ideal society, all the major political theories would function the same.
“I think freedom is where the thought experiment breaks down.” – this is probably true, and takes us back to what you said about govt involvement.
“I would be happy to live in a society where nobody WAS wealthy or poor, but I don’t think I’d want to be in a society where nobody COULD be wealthy or poor.” Sigh. You said it so well. I LOVE comments that are better than the original post. THIS is why I love blogging so much. Thank you.
@ Urban Panther: “Celine Dion is working on FIVE multi-million dollar housing projects right now, one of them just to store her clothes and memorobilia! Give me a break.” I know. The idea for this post was sparked by watching extreme Beverly Hills wealth in the movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua, which my kids made me watch with them.
@ Rita: The ad is an Adsense ad, it’s not from a direct advertiser. I agree – it’s obnoxious. I’ll add it to the Adsense filter…
Dorothy Lite responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am →
I think it’s very sad that so many people here seem to think that greed is ingrained in human nature. I don’t believe this. It is certainly ingrained in the capitalist culture, but there are other cultures in the world who have completely different values. Of course, capitalism is the most widespread culture because it is also the most ruthless and greedy one. But this is not the human nature, but only one culture among many.
I also don’t think that so many people would just sit and do nothing if they were guaranteed that their basic needs are always met, no matter what they do. In Germany (where I live) people get some money to get them clothes, shelter and food if they are too poor to buy it for themseves, but none the less almost all of them WANT to work, even if that work would not provide them with more money than they would have if they didn’t work at all. I don’t know how it is in the USA. But those who don’t want to do any work are really a very tiny minority. On the contrary, I think something like your concept would give people the opportunity to do more voluntary and charitable work.
Nowadays people are always worried about money and the well-being of their families and their reputation if they have no “real” work, but if they didn’t have to worry about those things they’d have more time to take care of each other and help others. I also think that a lot of people would then be MORE motivated to start an entrepreneurship. I know that I would.
Especially in these days we all can see that capitalism has flopped. In this system those who work the most are also those who must constantly worry about money and are afraid of losing everything they have (for example by getting fired) while those who let others work are unbelievably rich. This is not fair. In addition to that the current system more and more treats everybody like a potential terrorist by observing us everywhere, lurking inside of our computers, overhear what we say to our friends on the telephone and so on. I would rather be prevented from getting too rich than live on like this because that would be by far a smaller intervention with my freedom than what’s going on nowadays.
I study anthropology (and english philology) in Berlin and there I learn a lot about other cultures. So I know that there are alternatives and that this is not the “human nature” but only one out of many options. For example there are cultures who value bravery while others think bravery is very stupid and value cowardice. There are cultures where men are more dominant and others where women take the dominant role. And there are also cultures where people want to mass riches (capitalism) and others where people think it’s a bad and stupid idea to do so.
Dorothy Lite’s last blog post..Mein Halloween-Make-Up
Alison responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am →
In reply to the following:
@ Alison: You’re making an interesting argument. It’s true that Canada and Europe have a far more developed social system than the United States. But I’ve read that the health system in Canada creates a situation where the truly wealthy simply fly to the U.S. to get fast, private, top-level care. And isn’t labor productivity in Europe very low compared with the United States?
Re: Canadian health care:
Our original medicare programs did not create the situation where the wealthy bought their services. This is a recent development, based on federal funding cuts to the provinces who run our health services. Rich people seeking services elsewhere was not nearly as common in the 70’s.
These funding cuts are arguably a result of NAFTA and it’s predecessor (my Social Work profs would argue this, as would Critical Theory, based on structural inequalities). Canadian social programs have been eroded by a loss of funding, resulting in a shift from an institutional welfare model, like European democracies, to a residual system, like our southern cousins in the US.
Re: Labour productivity in Europe compared to US:
Not being an economist, I do not know much about labour productivity. However, from the research I’ve seen, Scandinavian countries, which have the most developed social welfare states, have quite successful global economies.
While I would like to agree that Canada has a far more developed social system than the United States, sadly, this is no longer true, as we seem to be in a ‘race to the bottom’ with the US. Case in point: after signing the FTA, then PM Brian Mulroney cut our unemployment insurance to the point that approx 30% of workers were eligible, down from approx 70%. The gov then plowed the surplus $ into general revenue. Being an insurance-based program, with both employers and employees paying premiums, it is arguable that this is illegal, and that money should’ve been returned to premium payers.
What I’d really like to argue is that poverty is not at all related to laziness. This attitude is based on English Poor Laws from 2 centuries ago, which enshrined ideas about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving poor’ into the law of ‘less-entitlement,’ that those receiving public charity should get less than the lowest paid worker, so as to force them back into the labour market. (Hence the residual welfare state.) I would rather argue that capitalism demands unemployment. Thus, our economic system will never include everyone, and will continue to marginalize certain groups.
And I agree with Matthew E. K.: check out his Zeitgeist link. This movie was assigned “reading” in a class I took on Global Inequalities, and it’s excellent.
And finally, @Cath Lawson, I’ve never actually done academic research on doctor’s salaries in the UK. My info comes from undergraduate lectures by Social Work professors at my school, the University of the Fraser Valley.
I wasn’t meaning to say that the UK is a socialist country and that doctors there make the same as the rest of workers. This is also not the case in Canada, my other example. I was meaning to compare doctors in Canada and the UK with doctors in the US.
Of course doctors in Canada and the UK can work privately and earn way more money than doctors who work in public hospitals/practices. Of course doctors in Canada take jobs in the US so as to make more money. Lots of people are motivated by personal gain.
I merely meant to point out that there are people who enter typically good-paying professions for reasons other than money. Think about Doctors without Borders. Don’t those doctors volunteer their time w/out pay?
Perhaps it was a bad example of the entrepreneurial spirit remaining alive in a redistributive economic system. My apologies.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 4:37 pm →
@ Dorothy: “I know that there are alternatives and that this is not the “human nature” but only one out of many options.” You’re raising an interesting point here. I admit that I too tend to assume that greed is part of human nature. You’re saying that it’s not part of human nature, but part of capitalism. I will need to give it some thought. Thank you for your comment.
@ Alison: Thank you for the info on Canada’s health system. Obviously I’m not familiar with it.
“What I’d really like to argue is that poverty is not at all related to laziness.” I agree. I assume that a very small portion of poverty cases can be explained by laziness or by lack of drive, and those are the people who would indeed exploit a welfare system. But my assumption is that the vast majority of cases have nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with bad luck, lack of opportunity and other factors that have been mentioned here.
Rita responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm →
Vered,
Again, the ironies of life…when I came back this morning to re-read your post, I wrote a LONG comment similar to what Dorothy said above. I decided to delete it. Having signed-up to work amongst the “poor” (out of the country) they had no idea they were poor until our “corps” showed up. They had the minimal basics of life, and rituals built around their beliefs. It was the old conundrum of anthropologists everywhere: does one go in to CHANGE a society or to OBSERVE and record it? I was with people who were happy. The only unhappy ones were those in my group who couldn’t “teach” the others what we consider to be OUR way of eradicating poverty. I won’t go into the details here, but you certainly gave me a great idea to blog about.
Certainly, there is poverty. People who do not have food, clothing and/or shelter. And there are things that can be done to help these people – and SHOULD be done, particularly for children. But there are different ways to accomplish goals: if we use “Western values” to ty to address poverty, we will reach only a small proportion of ther truly poor. If we spend some time understanding the societies that are suffering, money and resources could be better served to those who truly NEED problems solved in order to survive. Coming in to flooded areas and feeding flood victims and helping them build sturdier houses is great; helping them to build dams and other water diversion methods are better.
Giving one’s time and/or money is necessary to help eradicate TRUE poverty is absolutely necessay for those who can. Taking the time to see where our time and money are going is critical. Our goals should be to leave behind a society that is self-sufficient, not to come home and feel that WE did something good, when the people we left behind will still suffer the same poverty the next time nature strikes.
Dorothy, I couldn’t agree with you more. My 6-month stint lasted 5 weeks. Showing people how to grow food in areas that are constantly subjected to flooding seemed like a very poor understanding of poverty eradication: these people knew one valuable thing…when the floods come, move to higher ground where things like citrus is plentiful. All we were doing was digging up their quickest “escape routes.”
Rita
Kikolani - Poetry | Photography | Blogging Tips responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm →
I’m not sure it would kill drive. People who have brilliant ideas want to get them out, sometimes more for the fame than the money. Maybe since I have never been extraordinarily rich, it is easy for me to say that I would rather stay middle class all my life and know that everyone else was on the same level than have the opportunity to have millions but know that there were people suffering elsewhere. Seriously though, I bet if you took a lot of the excess money that some people spend on having 6 Bentleys and 10 mansions around the world and spread it around, a lot of poverty could be helped, if not cured.
Kikolani – Poetry | Photography | Blogging Tips’s last blog post..Moon Photography
Robin responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm →
EIGHTY responses, Vered!
As much as it pains me to say so, I would have to go with response number 2 from your dinner party friends. Because I believe we all attract the prosperity or poverty we experience, and i think the fastest way we can help people who are suffering in any way is to be as magnificent as we can be ourselves (we can trust ourselves to do good).
If wealthy people are greedy or selfish over money, e.g. making money in ways that abuse vulnerable people, then they are not being very magnificent, so I don’t mean that sort of thing.
Robin’s last blog post..Galaxy For Blog Action
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm →
@ Rita: That’s fascinating. You should absolutely blog about this. I would love to know more. The most I’ve ever done is monetary donations. We have an annual giving budget. Part of it goes to poverty-related charities. We choose charities that receive high ratings at charitynavigator.org. I hope our donations help. I don’t think we are in a position to do much more than that.
@ Kikolani: “I bet if you took a lot of the excess money that some people spend on having 6 Bentleys and 10 mansions around the world and spread it around, a lot of poverty could be helped, if not cured.” Exactly. And they would still be very rich. Just not fabulously, ridiculously, outrageously so.
@ Robin: It’s been a great discussion. I’m really grateful to everyone for participating.
“the fastest way we can help people who are suffering in any way is to be as magnificent as we can be ourselves.” This is interesting. I guess of you’re very wealthy and you donate significant amounts, then you’re being magnificent. But most outrageously wealthy people don’t seem to do that.
Carla responds:
Posted: October 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm →
“I guess of you’re very wealthy and you donate significant amounts, then you’re being magnificent. But most outrageously wealthy people don’t seem to do that.”
Actually I know many wealthy people who donate oodles of money. They have it to give, of course, but they do give. I’m sure all don’t give that way, but I wouldn’t say most don’t either.
Carla’s last blog post..Paraben and Sulfate Free Body Wash
m responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2008 at 7:29 am →
We can dream…right?
m’s last blog post..Respect
Dr. J responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm →
I’d give it a go! I already live with voluntary simplicity and way below my means!
Dr. J’s last blog post..Little diet tricks can make a big difference
Seventies Fashion: Unisex | responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm →
[...] week here at MomGrind. Both of the posts I published – the one on Photoshopping and the one on Poverty – generated amazing discussions. Thank you so much for reading and for [...]
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm →
@ Carla: That’s good. I can’t see how anyone can NOT give to those who have less. In my opinion, even middle class folks (who admittedly struggle too) should still give SOMETHING to the poor.
@ Dr. J: Living below your means is rare these days. You should be proud.
Blog Comments | responds:
Posted: October 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm →
[...] very important to me to respond to comments individually, especially when the discussion becomes highly thoughtful and involved. When time permits, I also try to visit the blogs of my commenters. I can’t possibly have all [...]
Unmotivated, Unproductive, and a Ramble | (Anti) Social Development responds:
Posted: October 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 am →
[...] seems to be an attitude that the homeless are “bums” and that being poor is a state of mind. (I want to make it clear that these comments do not [...]
Evan responds:
Posted: October 28th, 2008 at 4:19 am →
Give up a few ego toys so that people didn’t die of preventable diseases? In a second!
As to entrepreneurship – these people mostly do it for the satisfaction of doing it (those who are genuinely entrepreneurial), so this wouldn’t be impeded anyway. They still get the satisfaction of starting something new/better.
Evan’s last blog post..Ending Poverty
MomGrind responds:
Posted: October 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm →
@ Evan: “Give up a few ego toys so that people didn’t die of preventable diseases? In a second!” – you put it so well. As for entrepreneurs, I wish I could agree, but I’m not completely convinced that money does not play a big role.
JH responds:
Posted: October 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pm →
Hi. NO ONE “works hard” enough to “earn” a billion dollars in a lifetime. Seriously. Do the math.
If you worked 24 hours a day for 50 years, you would STILL need to be getting paid $2,281.59/hr to ‘earn’ that money.
Put that into more realistic terms, say 60hrs/week for 50yrs, and you’re looking at a job paying $6,410.25/hr — FROM DAY ONE of the job. What task ‘deserves’ that sort of payment?
How about this, what if we cap lifetime earnings at $100,000,000? Would you take the deal then?
On top of all this, putting a maximum on individual income would not “kill off” innovation, as so many like to suggest, it would encourage it. Why? Because it would give more people an opportunity to get into the market and reach the maximum. If those great human assets at the top of the income chain (like Paris Hilton?) are *only* motivated by greed, well great. Let them collect their maximum and step aside to give someone else a shot. Just think of the technology we might have today if Bill Gates –after, say, Basic, MS-DOS, and MSWord– had just ’stopped’ instead of devoting his corporate resources to crushing competition and attempting to establish a monopoly…
DaveF responds:
Posted: November 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am →
I amazed at the fact that Americans are living under a sort of socialism but they convince themselves that they owe everything to capitalism. If you’ve ever got a single penny from the state (even if it’s to run the infrastructure, like bridges), you are a socialist, whether you want to be or not. Until government stops spending thing will stay the same. I was born and lived for forty years in Britain (and now 20 years in the U.S.) and socialism (as practiced in Europe) has nothing to do with communism. Britain has strong taxes on the higher-paid, but where did all those rock stars (and Richard Branson) come from? They didn’t sit around thinking, “I’ll never be able to spend what I earn, so I won’t bother.” Americans should grow up, realize that capitalism is not the sole answer, and be prepared to not be as rich as they can while others struggle.
South Pacific responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm →
Thanks for everyone’s comments (and Vered for starting the debate
), especially Will Holcomb and Kelly’s whose ideas (to me) seemed the clearest – I have a similar topic for my GCSE and the different opinions here have really made me think and sort my own out.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: November 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm →
@ JH: capping lifetime earnings at a very high amount is an interesting idea.
@ DaveF: I thought high taxes cause people to escape to lower-tax countries or to use tax shelters?
@ South Pacific: I’m glad you enjoyed the discussion. I enjoyed it too.
Only Charlie responds:
Posted: January 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm →
I could never live in such an environment. The underlying implication is a huge government making life decisions for everyone and this will never work. Reducing everyone to the lowest common detonator is bullshit.
Understand that I am not rich and will never be rich, it isn’t about money, and it’s about freedom. I know too many people who would just flat ass lie down and let big brother take care of them, breeding more of the same. This doesn’t serve anyone least of all the lazy.
If you really want reform – abolish corporations, and congress, now that’s something I could live with.
The Baldchemist responds:
Posted: May 20th, 2009 at 3:12 am →
Well, we wold all have to become true artists. I doubt whether we could survive without doing something creative that enhanced The World and the way we live.
The reason I write that is because people need incentives. We all, well most, have an inherent need to stand out amongst the crowd.
But having said that, we have been manipulated to think this way by religion, fashion, media and ignorant parents.
Free thought has never been allowed. It something that we come to realise later in life after experiencing social injustice and accepting it because we believe there is nothing we can do about it.
I am all for a more level economic playing field. We had it in Sweden during the 70s and early 80s. The problem was that the social safety net became a hammock for those without incentive to contribute.
No, I will stick with art. I do that for love and to leave something behind that hopefully will benefit the World. Money never left anything other than the corruption and desire for power it causes.
Nice article though it aroused my thoughts a little.
Take care and get as much joy as you can everyday. The Baldchemist
The Baldchemist responds:
Posted: May 20th, 2009 at 3:18 am →
Charlie, Its not reducing people to the lowest level. You are missing it my friend. Its about contributing with culture and art. The development of the World is useless without encouraging art. Its not about Government its about the freedom to make your own decisions without bring harm to others while making your place in society.
Just think how much unhappiness the uneven distribution of wealth causes and the wars that are required to maintain it.
Take care my friend.
The Baldchemist responds:
Posted: May 20th, 2009 at 3:22 am →
… and of course scientific research into the most essential. Not plastic surgery, facelifts and live longer pills. lets have longer quality of life rather than a long life of continued suffering and misery.
The Baldchemist responds:
Posted: May 20th, 2009 at 3:29 am →
just a little adendum to our friends higher up the posts who brag about the American dream. 9 months on and things have changed eh? You American dream fueled by borrowing, not working, has left america in a very precarious position that I doubt you will get out of.
Very soon you will see Loans being called in and The Yen and Euro taking over as World currencies. The dollar will HAVE to be devalued by at least 30%.
ivan responds:
Posted: May 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am →
i would accept.
a little comment on the 2nd choice (No. A system like that would kill entrepreneurship. People would not have the drive to create and invent, because more often than not, that drive is NOT a drive to help the world but a personal drive to succeed.)
it is not true: entrepreneurship will not and can not disappear. the explanation is simple: men always seek improvement. the fact that our culture binds entrepreneurship to personal success is not definible as “natual”. it is just sad.
the same thing works well for money, too. we use money for a lot of reasons, and we are used to it, but this is not the natural way of “life”. money does not represent real material since 1970, when an american idiot decided to delete the gold/dollar exchange. the coin of reality, if any, should be will.
freedom is all. freedom to do nothing but the necessary and live in boredom, or freedom to work very hard and live in boredom. the quality of our life would depend on the quality of the people. but we shouldn’t force anybody to do anything.
ivan responds:
Posted: May 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 am →
the name of the idiot is Richard Nixon. if you are interested, search wikipedia for 15 august 1971.
huckle responds:
Posted: May 25th, 2009 at 1:32 am →
I live in Britain which has the makings of this system, but nothing near as comprehensive.
This system only works if you are not basely entitled to certain amount unless you work or attempt to work. In my world, ou would not be able to earn more than 300% of the average wage, the rest being invested in startup businesses. Everyone would by default have a wage boost which was proportional to the amount they earn. As in Britain now, anyone earning less than you can actually survive on would get “topups” through a benefits system. As for normal middle class earners, their topups would depend on what else they did in their community and as entrepreneurs. As someone said before, this would help to nurture entrepreneurship and community development.
None of the topups/basic wage would be entitled. It wouldn’t be your right as a british citizen, it would be your privilege as a WORKING citizen to have some extra help when your wages are small but your job vital. Of course the mandatory investment scheme would be compulsory, but with the person who has earnt the 300% having a say where their money goes. By earning so much, they have a bigger say in where their tax £s go.
All of this would be managed through an online system – startups who receive capital from mandatory investors would be able to see exactly whose money they are receiving, and the investor would have access to data such as profit margins etc.
I’ve also thought of a “sponsor a family” kind of scheme whilst writing this – families who earn very little can anonymously ask for certain amounts of money for certain projects, eg buying all new school uniforms, Little Johnny going to summer school, etc. Those who want to give directly would be able to match their donation not just to a cause but specific cases.
All in my dreams of a socialist state which actually worked for once.
ejes responds:
Posted: June 17th, 2009 at 10:04 am →
this smells like communisim… and no, i wouldn’t take that deal