Do rich ppl deserve their money?

[benny]

Everyone is equal at the ballot box. If they choose not to vote that is their problem. We have a system now that is designed to minimize the power granted to people with the means to make large political donations. It is not perfect but nothing is perfect.

Get in touch with the reality of lobbying.

[Riverwind]

Whatever. I said it was not perfect. And there is nothing you could come up with that would be any better.

[benny]

Whatever. I said it was not perfect. And there is nothing you could come up with that would be any better.

Deliberative democracy is better.

[eyeball]

A camera and microphone up every lobbyist's ass would make deliberative democracy even better.

[benny]

A camera and microphone up every lobbyist's ass would make deliberative democracy even better.

Deliberative democracy creates a powerful incentive for all would-be lobbyists to wear microphones right in front of their mouths.

Edited March 28, 2009 by benny

[DarkAngel_]

i really don't see why we even allow lobbyists power! why not give every politician a set amount of money, it would show how good they are with money... also Serj Tankians idea of allowing people to look at what taxes go where and checking the box they want a majority of it going to is very American, i think lobbyist firms are a waste of time, money, and dumb half hour debates on returns that often mean a change in political agenda to benefit a single corp. or industry.

[Riverwind]

Deliberative democracy is better.

Most people not qualified to make the detailed decisions required of legislatures. And the few people who are qualified don't have the time to read and understand the details of each bill being considered.

The voters provide strategic direction to their representatives via elections. Opinions on specific issues are communicated via public opinion polls. This is sufficient for most purposes.

There is nothing wrong with lobbyists. Anyone who writes or calls their MP is a lobbyist.

Saying things like 'we should ban lobbyest' is like saying we should prohibit MPs from talking to anyone.

The problem is conflict of interest when MPs develop a too cosy relationship with specific lobbyists.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Saying things like 'we should ban lobbyest' is like saying we should prohibit MPs from talking to anyone.

No, its simply saying MP's should be prohibited from talking to anyone in private when they're discussing anything in the public's domain.

The problem is conflict of interest when MPs develop a too cosy relationship with specific lobbyists.

Duh.

[DarkAngel_]

There is nothing wrong with lobbyists. Anyone who writes or calls their MP is a lobbyist.

Saying things like 'we should ban lobbyest' is like saying we should prohibit MPs from talking to anyone.

The problem is conflict of interest when MPs develop a too cosy relationship with specific lobbyists.

you misunderstand, lobbyists based activity show a high thresh hold to greed, MP's that do, are lobbyists...

[blueblood]

You really do believe the human race can just grow without limit and things will only get better don't you? What sort of Cornucopian cult do you subscribe to anyway?

Eventually the population will level out when there isn't enough space. That means the stragelers will probably be feeling the pinch. However there are enough resources for everyone and we are finding new resources and new methods. Isn't science fun?

As for your star trek machine, which is essentially a genie, chances are I'd snap one up as well. If it makes everything I want, I'm laughing as is everyone else. But that is tinfoil hatism at its finest.

[Riverwind]

No, its simply saying MP's should be prohibited from talking to anyone in private when they're discussing anything in the public's domain.

I am ok with all meetings (time, location, adgenda) between MPs and constituents being made public record. I think it is a bit unreasonable to require that all conversations be taped. Too much potential for abuse with quotes without context. I know I would have a tough time having a conversation if I was worried that any single sentance could be quoted out of context.

[DarkAngel_]

Eventually the population will level out when there isn't enough space. That means the stragelers will probably be feeling the pinch. However there are enough resources for everyone and we are finding new resources and new methods. Isn't science fun?

As for your star trek machine, which is essentially a genie, chances are I'd snap one up as well. If it makes everything I want, I'm laughing as is everyone else. But that is tinfoil hatism at its finest.

yay! star trek! if only replicators were real, "chicken sub wrap toasted, with mustard." then boom! goodbye hunger!!!

but alas that tech is non existent right now, I'm sure there is progression to that field but hunger is an issue, and that 'pinch' is hard to get out of, more like a 'vice.'

overpopulation in relation with money? i think resource is a more viable issue, not all resources are counted by our economy because not all are found or tap-able.

[eyeball]

I am ok with all meetings (time, location, adgenda) between MPs and constituents being made public record. I think it is a bit unreasonable to require that all conversations be taped. Too much potential for abuse with quotes without context. I know I would have a tough time having a conversation if I was worried that any single sentance could be quoted out of context.

I admit the tendancy of people is to jump ten feet in the air when someone says something honest. I think we'd just have to allow for a period of time in which people would soon get over being outraged and settle down once they got used to hearing politicians speak in plain language. It is an interesting paradox that what people seem to complain the loudest about is the fact that politicians are so mealy-mouthed. At the same time there is more than a whiff of deference for truthiness as opposed to truth.

Its just so unfortunate that so much potential for transparency is being impeded by such trivial concern as a single sentance being taken out of context.

As for taping the conversations, there would be too many to broadcast to the public but they could be subject to random audits by a Secrecy Commissioner who would determine whether the nature of the discussions breached the public's trust or created a conflict of interest. This should leave enough room for truthful talk. That said, in particularily sensitive cases I think a similar commissioner should first establish whether a meeting between a lobbyist and a politician or high ranking civil servant can even proceed or if it should be held in a public venue.

[benny]

Most people not qualified to make the detailed decisions required of legislatures. And the few people who are qualified don't have the time to read and understand the details of each bill being considered.

The voters provide strategic direction to their representatives via elections. Opinions on specific issues are communicated via public opinion polls. This is sufficient for most purposes.

There is nothing wrong with lobbyists. Anyone who writes or calls their MP is a lobbyist.

Saying things like 'we should ban lobbyest' is like saying we should prohibit MPs from talking to anyone.

The problem is conflict of interest when MPs develop a too cosy relationship with specific lobbyists.

All people qualify for extended political rights. Political rights are positive rights. This means that the state owes enough expertise and leisure time to the people. Some lobbyists have undeserved corrupting money only because people are still slaves.

[jbg]

you misunderstand, lobbyists based activity show a high thresh hold to greed, MP's that do, are lobbyists...

To my mind lobbyists supply legislators with needed information on complex topics. It is up to the legislator to seek out and evaluate competing information. Lawmakers cannot be expected to bury themselves in the library studying abstract facts on each issue that comes before them.

[WIP]

There are a very wide variety of basic income schemes. Here is my favorite:

ti = k * (wm - wi)

ti: transfer to the person i

wm: mean wage in the population

wi: wage of the person i

k: an amount of hours of work (each worker gives this amount for redistribution purpose).

Well, I don't know if the time is right for a guaranteed minimum wage, but I do like the concept of a graduated approach, rather than giving a welfare cheque that penalizes people for working and encourages cheating the system by working for cash. It is better to have rungs on the ladder, so people on social assistance can see an advantage to entering the workforce, rather than losing ground with a minimum wage job with no benefits.

[benny]

Well, I don't know if the time is right for a guaranteed minimum wage, but I do like the concept of a graduated approach, rather than giving a welfare cheque that penalizes people for working and encourages cheating the system by working for cash. It is better to have rungs on the ladder, so people on social assistance can see an advantage to entering the workforce, rather than losing ground with a minimum wage job with no benefits.

Don't forget that this is a thread about the rich not deserving their money. k is a reflection of productive capacities that those people earning more than the mean wage in the population do not deserve.

If all current incomes redistributed by the Welfare states had the structure of the k equation, a k of in between 8 (for the USA) to 16 hours (for Scandinavian countries) per week would be enough, so it seems.

http://www.ehess.fr/kolm/document.php?id=67

Edited March 29, 2009 by benny

[cybercoma]

I find John Locke's idea about how much property any one person should have as interesting and perhaps appropriate here: "But how far has [God] given [all things] us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others."

The problem with Locke's analysis is that we have created a way of attaining property without having to worry about spoilage: money. It's tough to say how much is more than a person can use "to any advantage of life," when money doesn't go bad. (Not in the typical sense anyway, even though value changes.) I think it's fairly safe to assume that an executive receiving millions of dollars, after needing government assistance to keep the company from going under, probably has taken beyond his or her share. If minimum wage is around $8/hour and it's assumed that this is all that people need to live life, then it's probably fair to say that a $6,000,000/year salary, before bonuses, is probably more than a person's share. Now, I'm not saying everyone should be equal, quite the contrary actually. People are entitled to the fruits of their labour, but if they leave nothing for the others to sow, then they have taken beyond their share.

Do the rich deserve the money they have? Undoubtedly, some of it. In fact, whatever they have worked for and produced of their own labours, they absolutely deserve. When, however, they take so much that they have robbed the garden of all the food, and have way more than they could ever use, then they have taken too much and, in fact, stolen from others.

[Riverwind]

Don't forget that this is a thread about the rich not deserving their money. k is a reflection of productive capacities that those people earning more than the mean wage in the population do not deserve.

You are channeling Karl Marx again. Why don't you start by explaining why your strategy for taking money from those "undeserving" rich people will work any better than the USSR. Capitalism works because it enshrines the principal that people who work hard are entitled to the rewards. Communism enshrines the principal that a lazy slob deserved just as much as anyone else. Capitalism succeeds because it encourages people to succeed. Communism failed because it encouraged people to be lazy slobs.

[cybercoma]

Capitalism works because it enshrines the principal that people who work hard are entitled to the rewards.

Capitalism would be flawless, if it actually operated this way.

[Riverwind]

Do the rich deserve the money they have? Undoubtedly, some of it. In fact, whatever they have worked for and produced of their own labours, they absolutely deserve. When, however, they take so much that they have robbed the garden of all the food, and have way more than they could ever use, then they have taken too much and, in fact, stolen from others.

We set up rules. If the rich became wealthy by playing by the rules then they deserve it. If we later realize the rules were wrong we can change the rules but that does not mean that people who played by the rules at the time did not deserve the money they made at the time.

[cybercoma]

We set up rules. If the rich became wealthy by playing by the rules then they deserve it. If we later realize the rules were wrong we can change the rules but that does not mean that people who played by the rules at the time did not deserve the money they made at the time.

Talking about things like deserving are difficult because we're dealing with a subjective term. You say they deserve it because the rules are there. Do they deserve it if they were the ones setting up the rules in their favour? Do they deserve it if they take so much that there is not enough to go around and others must suffer as a result? Are they thus deserving and those that don't have anything undeserving?

[jbg]

Capitalism would be flawless, if it actually operated this way.

Agreed. You cannot have deregulation for when things go well, then subsidization when you hit the crapper.

[Riverwind]

Talking about things like deserving are difficult because we're dealing with a subjective term. You say they deserve it because the rules are there. Do they deserve it if they were the ones setting up the rules in their favour? Do they deserve it if they take so much that there is not enough to go around and others must suffer as a result? Are they thus deserving and those that don't have anything undeserving?

I agree that it is extremely subjective. But I would say that any individual rich person deserves their wealth even of the rules were slanted in their favour. To address the issue you raise I prefer to talk about how rich people have an obligation to the rest of society that allows them to keep their wealth by respecting the rules. This obligation would include accepting that they must share some of their wealth and accepting new rules that may not be to their advantage if that is what the larger society wants.

I see a huge difference between saying 'rich people don't deserve their wealth' and saying 'rich people deserve their weath but also have obligations to society'.

The two could result in identical tax systems but the former undermines the principals of capitalism by denigrating people who work hard and receive rewards.

[benny]

Capitalism works because it enshrines the principal that people who work hard are entitled to the rewards.

Capitalism works because it makes a non-existent necessity (hard work), the only virtue for those who owns no property (the workers).

Edited March 29, 2009 by benny