Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excess wealth is not the same as overproduction and excess inventory. In fact, excess inventory implies the production of something that is unwanted by the public. That will always be illogical.
Excess wealth is simply a MAN or a corporation that has made so much money that they don't know how to spend the extra income. Therefore, they become philanthropists or the wealth massively trickles down. The only reason we don't see more of this is because many corporations are public and the stockholders expect MAXIMUM profits at all times. That is why Wall Mart is obligated to pay very low wages.
OTOH, Alaska residents get a yearly bonus from the state because of the oil revenues and other things. Successful capitalism can benefit all! If this type of success is replicated MANY MANY times we can reach a state of excess wealth.
The laws of gravity and photosynthesis ARE successful as well, wouldn't you agree? Despite the fact that planes crash and little blades of grass die for lack of sunlight. When a plane crashes, it isn't because "gravity was unsuccessful".
In the same way, your utopic vision of "successful capitalism" is hampered only by the lack of "successful regulation and policy making by humans" making capitalism less successful. The more central control and authoritarianism is applied, the more difficult it becomes for capitalism to work sensibly. Conversely, no control or regulation at all creates many other problems hampering successful capitalism.
In North Korea, capitalism is as hamstrung by hyper-regulation as can be imagined. Essentially, the regime has made it illegal even subsist apart from government rations. Most importantly, the people are POWERLESS to have any say in their economic destiny, beyond just giving up and dying. So, capitalism isn't very successful (even though they are using many of the principles you seem to be in favor of) outside the black markets and the elites-only foreign exchange and trade system.
In Germany and Hong Kong, capitalism is successful. Prudent policies allow for a good balance between freedom of action and social responsibility. And the system allows for dissent and political change to occur, so that the people have a say in regulating their economies. Not only are people ENCOURAGED to work, but the government makes active efforts to prepare them for a career. Of course, such efforts tend to limit people in their choices, but I don't hear a lot of complaints about that. All in all, their model of capitalism works well.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 12-29-2015 at 05:13 PM..
I noticed, with some amusement, that you completely missed the primary points about Vermont, Massachusetts, et al, which were: 1) that none of them have any particular geological endowment comparable to that of Alaska in the first place, and 2) that even if they did, the populations of those states would diminish the dividend paid to each individual citizen to a comically tiny amount, where the processing cost of each transaction would exceed the actual payment.
I did not ignore that point. No point in counteracting a statement that is correct. Those states do not have assets. But, lets look at this issue from another point of view: Did you know the world wealth is on the rise; even in places like Sub Sahara Africa? Check out the graph!
There are ups and downs but the graph has a positive slope. Now take a look at a country like Norway, they are striving for redundant wealth.
Quote:
As a counterpoint, I trust that you are aware that State of Texas also has a Permanent University Fund, formed from the financial proceeds from state lands (income from oil and gas payments, grazing and farming leases, income from wind energy leases, etc.). It is comparable to the Alaska Permanent Fund, except it is dedicated in purpose. Contrary to your "assurance," the corpus of the PUF is not "donated back to the citizens," but is invested and the proceeds from that investment activity are expended for capital improvements for the University of Texas System.
While it is safe to say that the citizens of the State of Texas indirectly benefit from the improvements made possible by the PUF, which reached financial critical mass (which you apparently refer to as "redundant wealth," for some unexplained reason) long ago, the benefits derived do not take the form of checks issued to individual citizens.
Greed is always present before reaching excess wealth.
The laws of gravity and photosynthesis ARE successful as well, wouldn't you agree? Despite the fact that planes crash and little blades of grass die for lack of sunlight. When a plane crashes, it isn't because "gravity was unsuccessful".
In the same way, your utopic vision of "successful capitalism" is hampered only by the lack of "successful regulation and policy making by humans" making capitalism less successful. The more central control and authoritarianism is applied, the more difficult it becomes for capitalism to work sensibly. Conversely, no control or regulation at all creates many other problems hampering successful capitalism.
In North Korea, capitalism is as hamstrung by hyper-regulation as can be imagined. Essentially, the regime has made it illegal even subsist apart from government rations. Most importantly, the people are POWERLESS to have any say in their economic destiny, beyond just giving up and dying. So, capitalism isn't very successful (even though they are using many of the principles you seem to be in favor of) outside the black markets and the elites-only foreign exchange and trade system.
In Germany and Hong Kong, capitalism is successful. Prudent policies allow for a good balance between freedom of action and social responsibility. And the system allows for dissent and political change to occur, so that the people have a say in regulating their economies. Not only are people ENCOURAGED to work, but the government makes active efforts to prepare them for a career. Of course, such efforts tend to limit people in their choices, but I don't hear a lot of complaints about that. All in all, their model of capitalism works well.
Obviously we are discussing theoretical physics and I think it can be mathematically proven that redundant wealth is achievable. The flaws of men do get in the way, I agree with that.
Obviously we are discussing theoretical physics and I think it can be mathematically proven that redundant wealth is achievable. The flaws of men do get in the way, I agree with that.
The idea of "redundant" wealth is a purely ideological or philosophical concept. But as a measure of quantity or amount, it's meaningless. Like saying "redundant oxygen" or "redundant combustion".
Redundant is a word that implies needless duplication or a necessary duplicate backup.
I can take my pile of wealth and cut it in half and call one half the "redundant wealth". But it's meaningless. Really, it's all the same pile
I think what you're REALLY getting at again is "income redistribution", with or without the voluntary aspect. And I think its odd that you seem to imply philanthropy is a waste of money... as if what you are proposing isn't ultimately philanthropy anyway. It's almost as if you want to say that the rich can't really decide what best to do with their money - but some all-knowing elitist can better use their money than they can. And of course... with no temptations or bad motives involved.
The idea of "redundant" wealth is a purely ideological or philosophical concept. But as a measure of quantity or amount, it's meaningless. Like saying "redundant oxygen" or "redundant combustion".
Redundant is a word that implies needless duplication or a necessary duplicate backup.
I can take my pile of wealth and cut it in half and call one half the "redundant wealth". But it's meaningless. Really, it's all the same pile
I think what you're REALLY getting at again is "income redistribution", with or without the voluntary aspect. And I think its odd that you seem to imply philanthropy is a waste of money... as if what you are proposing isn't ultimately philanthropy anyway. It's almost as if you want to say that the rich can't really decide what best to do with their money - but some all-knowing elitist can better use their money than they can. And of course... with no temptations or bad motives involved.
I agree, perhaps the word redundant is not the correct descriptive term to use for a person or entity that has excess wealth.
But, you are incorrect in implying redundancy is similar to term infinite.
No, I do not advocate income redistribution because it does not work. However, I am simply stating that when capitalism is done correctly it raises the standard of living for ALL. However, this is even greater when those at the top have excess wealth. On a practical level excess wealth becomes useless to the owner of such wealth and hence it must be used for the benefit of others rather than the owner. It must be said that crony capitalism is excluded as this simply moves money from place to place to place with no wealth creation.
Greed is always present before reaching excess wealth.
"Greed," as you rather clumsily phrase it, has nothing to do with the dedication of the Permanent University Fund for the support of eligible institutions of higher learning in the State of Texas. Rather, it represents the fulfillment of an obligation imposed by the provisions of Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
It's quite clear from your response, such as it was, that your understanding of public trust funds and the administration thereof is appallingly meager.
"Greed," as you rather clumsily phrase it, has nothing to do with the dedication of the Permanent University Fund for the support of eligible institutions of higher learning in the State of Texas. Rather, it represents the fulfillment of an obligation imposed by the provisions of Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution of the State of Texas.
It's quite clear from your response, such as it was, that your understanding of public trust funds and the administration thereof is appallingly meager.
But thanks for playing anyway.
I know nothing about Texas and I will be happy to hear why Texas is doing the above. What is the reasoning behind that maneuver?
However, I am simply stating that when capitalism is done correctly it raises the standard of living for ALL
I'm not implying "redundant" means "infinite". I'm implying your use of the word is meaningless in the context you use it.
When you say capitalism "done correctly".... "raises the standard of living for all" implies.... what? Magic and rainbows? Done correctly by whom? Individuals based on their nature, initiative and talents used as they see fit? Or in some sort of regimented society where only perfect people get to exist? Like in Star Trek or something.
Capitalism is regulated correctly or incorrectly on a day by day basis within any economic sphere of control. Anybody can practice capitalism correctly or incorrectly. A little girl with a lemonade stand, a captain of industry.... even a communist central planning committee. Capitalism is regulated by government or social agreement, to whatever extent it is. For better or worse.
Castro is a billionaire. There are lots of billionaires in Hong Kong. And only one in Cuba. No problem understanding why. Apparently Castro is good at capitalism as a business man. But not good at capitalism on a national scale.
I'm not implying "redundant" means "infinite". I'm implying your use of the word is meaningless in the context you use it.
When you say capitalism "done correctly".... "raises the standard of living for all" implies.... what? Magic and rainbows? Done correctly by whom? Individuals based on their nature, initiative and talents used as they see fit? Or in some sort of regimented society where only perfect people get to exist? Like in Star Trek or something.
Capitalism is regulated correctly or incorrectly on a day by day basis within any economic sphere of control. Anybody can practice capitalism correctly or incorrectly. A little girl with a lemonade stand, a captain of industry.... even a communist central planning committee. Capitalism is regulated by government or social agreement, to whatever extent it is. For better or worse.
Castro is a billionaire. There are lots of billionaires in Hong Kong. And only one in Cuba. No problem understanding why. Apparently Castro is good at capitalism as a business man. But not good at capitalism on a national scale.
I don't disagree with your post, but you have not been able to refute the premise of the thread:
World wealth in increasing! The number of billionaires as well as global wealth is on the rise.
I don't disagree with your post, but you have not been able to refute the premise of the thread:
World wealth in increasing! The number of billionaires as well as global wealth is on the rise.
This wasn't the original premise of the thread. This was: Will continue technological advancement make money obsolete? Why? Technology tends to become cheap with time and often becomes free. Look at calculators:
You haven't made an effort to prove the premise as much as i have refuted it. But I have refuted it, even more than it was worth refuting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
