The rise of socialism

Toko Black

I'd say that if anyone is basing their assumptions and opinions on a 'belief system', then it's you with your unswerving loyalty to your greed is good mantra

I'm not telling anyone what their worth is or what they deserve, I am not nor would be the judge of anyone.
Just because I said 10 x times the average salary, doesn't mean that's what it should be, that's simply a suggestion to spark debate and discussion.
Clearly science, data and extensive studies would be required to identify if what I suggest in terms for optimal values for income gaps exist, and if so what those values would be.
It would be the results of that data, ie actual facts that set the values, not me or anyone else.

Maybe you should consider that your response to my suggestions is motivated by a conscious or subconscious fear that your own actual worth or accumlation of wealth might not be equal to what you believe it to be or as fair and equitable to society ?
None of us wants to be seen as greedy, selfish or that our endeavors have been unfairly rewarded - we are constantly in a dichotomy of justifying to ourselves what we have and what we need against the suffering and poverty that other human beings face.
It's a very strong psychological urge to fight against or block out any thoughts or ideas that challenge our sense of worth or guilt.

Toko Black

I'm not a communist however, communism fails in it's current implimentations and within the scope of current human development.

Consider the distant future where manual labor and the means of production are more or less completely automated, what then for humans to evaluate their worth and organise society ?

Goooner

I just cited the cure for cancer as an example as it had already been used.

You could also say a successful businessman who grows a successful company from the ground up, employs thousands, but hits the 10x limit. Where's the incentive for him not to just put his feet up, enjoy his 10x for the rest of his life?

Currently he's as likely to set up another successful business employ thousands more people. So what if he want's to spend a few million on another yacht or another fleet of cars, that's giving work to the people that make the yachts and cars. Surely that's a good thing?

Ruperts slippers

Yes but we have 'Rent seeking', the influencing of government policy, promotion of collusion, seeking of subsidies, all these actions effect the market, so in effect introducing a third party actor, which obviously distorts the market and ends up with a zero sum outcome.
Half of society thinks socialism is the answer and half wants to continue in the same manner, this has been bourn out in both elections here and across the pond, the question is what are we going to do about it?..
Does the action of being born, entitle all humans a basic level of subsistence, eg a home, food, services, utilities, education etc,etc, especially now, considering we have access to resources 24/7?..

However, my own issue with socialism is, that people tend to think their own behaviour and choices should always be shared collectively which I'm not so sure is a good idea, considering some of that behaviour is destructive to the family unit for instance.

Reading the discussion so far, many posters are mentioning 'I', the discussion is about 'WE'.

The tradesman analogy is incorrect, the trades person offers a service, they are under no obligation to offer that service to everyone, reasons will be economic and abstract, a customers motivations will be similar, but the both will have different information about market conditions which will effect the decision making process. This is why people find it difficult to find a trades person that fits with their own remit, often using terms like 'Rip off' or 'Not a fair price', on the other hand if anyone was to suggest their own market value was too high they'd be upset. When work is plentiful, prices increase and customers with expectations different from market conditions, struggle to find anyone offering a service at a price they want to pay, then people resort to scape-goating because they have incorrect information..
It's all falls under the realms of mereology, I agree with Friedman, when he stated people act out of self interest, some-where equilibrium exists, what we have now is not equilibrium.

GarryF

I think you'd rather the poor were poorer as long as the rich get less
                               
If I was on £200k and I was paying my staff £20k and you cap'd me at £100k, what's to stop me reducing the amount I work and then only paying my staff £10k, why bother finding work for them that pays well, just take the easy work and go to golf course half the week.

So if your system was implemented and you know before you do it that lower incomes will drop from £12k to £10k, but you know that no one will make more than £100k would you still go ahead with it? yes/no answer please

Bl4ckGryph0n

In theory I don't disagree with that at all. In practise I simply can't see it work as in order to achieve that then by definition someone else looses out.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Hmmm so I play along with your straw man and now it is being held against me? What a strange discussion.

There is only one measure whether my remuneration is fair or not, and that is what others are willing to pay for me. I'm quite happy with that thank you very much. I really don't care much for anyone else who have nothing to do with such transaction nor has the mental comprehension to understand the value that I create to interfere with that. That is purely between me and those that are willing to pay for my services.

Goooner

Makes sense to me

If the person concerned is not willing to pay what you ask for your services, they are free to seek a cheaper alternative. If you find nobody is willing to meet your price, you lower it accordingly until you reach compromise where both parties are happy. Can't see a lot wrong with that to be honest.

kilvil

seems to me that a lot of people are making the assumption that if the rich are paid less the money will go to the poor, when in fact its more likely the economy will just shrink, hitting the poorest hardest

r1ecn

Exactly. People treat the economy as a zero sum game.

While trickle down is probably crap, artificially capping wealth and income is likely crap too.