Capitalism - with $100 million networth cap off - Check it out

[superfoodist]

How's this for an awesome economic system --

Capitalism, but you can only make enough money to have $100 million dollar networth.. Meaning, EVERYTHING you own, and the money in your bank, can only equal 100 million dollars, and nothing exceeding that..

All extra money that someones corporation creates after that person hit the 100$ million profit mark will be sent to organizations of education, food, healthcare, etc..

This way, people can still prosper with a capitalism system -- while enjoying the benefits that SEEM like socialism, but they aren't.

This will prevent greed 100%.

Of course, things will need to be worked out - this is just a rough draft. For example, you would need to make sure that the organizations that the money gets sent to after the corporation owners' 100 million dollar mark, isn't somehow affiliated with that very corporation owner.

We'd also have to figure out how to prevent large families and friends from tapping in so that a small group can hold hundreds of billions by someone just passing around CEO positions in the company to get his circle of friends rich so that they can control the world.

It would take a lot of thought, but a few honest, highly skilled economists could definitely work something up.

What do you guys think?

(And please don't say that it isn't fair that they can't make over 100 million dollars. If someone is going to complain about not making MORE then 100 million dollars, and that he/she can't live on that amount, then in my opinion, that person is greedy and doesn't deserve to live at all)

[Curtis2011]

What's the point?

People who are worth billions of dollars rarely actually have billions of dollars lying around. Their net worth is tied up in assets such as a business or a bunch of investments; and these assets are usually used in one way or another to employ other people who work for those companies.

I would talk more about things like profit motive, price ceilings, net worth vs profit, etc., but this idea is so far away from making logical sense that it just isn't worth bothering over.

Finally, even if it were somehow a good idea that made sense, you'd be faced with the final real-world problem that if the US or any other country created a law like this, every individual affected by it would transfer their assets to another country before they could be seized, and every business would move their headquarters to another country as well. Basically, it would lead to a mass exodus of capital, investments, and businesses from the US, which I take it is not what you are trying to achieve with this idea.

[Andrew Gubb]

Well the only question is if people nowadays would be noncorrupt enough to pull this through without the money being sent to the wrong places.

The other thought I had was if the owner of a company wanted to expand his company. I'm sure a lot of companies want to expand for pure greed but what if it were a company that was doing a real service and the owner really wanted to keep serving the world with it?

Unless he can reinvest his profits and give out the company in the form of shares as its value expands. That might work.

[Brutha]

This way, people can still prosper with a capitalism system -- while enjoying the benefits that SEEM like socialism, but they aren't.

You miss the point. You are too much attached to label while ignore actual reality.

All extra money that someones corporation creates after that person hit the 100$ million profit mark will be sent to organizations of education, food, healthcare, etc..

If someone has a company that worth 200$ million and you force him to give you 100$ million there a good chance that it will damage the company.

You want that someone with a company worth 95$million has a incentive to grow his company. You want that he employs more people and produces valuable services to people.

[russianrocket]

No problem. I'll just set up multiple companies under a dozen umbrellas, and not one company or person will ever have more then $100,000,000.

Also, your idea is the DEFINITION of socialism. It doesn't just seem like it is, it blatantly is. In Russia we had caps too. They just weren't $100,000,000. We were forced to cut our house in half and share it with another family because it was too big. We weren't allowed to buy a car, because then we would have made more then our neighbors, as our neighbors couldn't afford to buy a car.

Your idea, is about as horrible as ideas get. That's the plain honest truth. Greed will always exist. You are just setting an arbitrary cap, based on an arbitrary idea of what constitutes greed.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

No problem. I'll just set up multiple companies under a dozen umbrellas, and not one company or person will ever have more then $100,000,000.

Also, your idea is the DEFINITION of socialism. It doesn't just seem like it is, it blatantly is. In Russia we had caps too. They just weren't $100,000,000. We were forced to cut our house in half and share it with another family because it was too big. We weren't allowed to buy a car, because then we would have made more then our neighbors, as our neighbors couldn't afford to buy a car.

Your idea, is about as horrible as ideas get. That's the plain honest truth. Greed will always exist. You are just setting an arbitrary cap, based on an arbitrary idea of what constitutes greed.

How can Greed be curbed I wonder? If it will always exist, and I agree it will as long as humans are humans, because it is a human trait after all regardless of how many people would like to pretend they don't have greed in them. The idea of socialism all sounded good in theory until they tried it out and it failed dismally...why, because people are people, and there will always be one person in the clan who wants more and will sit on the throne and indulge on the fruits of everyone elses labors. Human Ego doesn't mesh well with concepts like socialism...so how then can greed be balanced, if you will?

I would say it's a matter of people becoming more self-aware and conscious for starters,and becoming more balanced will help with being able to see when they are getting out of hand with how much they want, which will always be more once money starts coming in. I think also that a person needs good, trusted friends who will tell them to their face that they are getting out of balance and being too greedy, in case they cannot see it themselves, which they rarely can.

Do you have any thoughts on this rr?

[scorpio1980]

I don't like your idea. Socialism doesn't work. I think people should have the right to become as rich as they like, that is a part of freedom. If you don't have the drive, intelligence, work ethic, street smarts, inginuity, etc that some other guy does, don't blame him. (Not saying anyone in particular when I say you, just a generalization) If someone has those qualities and builds a great empire for himself, and you choose to instead work for him, don't blame him. Don't try to change the world through changing others, change yourself, make a good example and others will follow.

[Cochonette]

I think it's a good idea. However, the world is run by the multimillionaires, so chances of putting such a cap seem pretty dismal.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

How can Greed be curbed I wonder? If it will always exist, and I agree it will as long as humans are humans, because it is a human trait after all regardless of how many people would like to pretend they don't have greed in them. The idea of socialism all sounded good in theory until they tried it out and it failed dismally...why, because people are people, and there will always be one person in the clan who wants more and will sit on the throne and indulge on the fruits of everyone elses labors. Human Ego doesn't mesh well with concepts like socialism...so how then can greed be balanced, if you will?

I would say it's a matter of people becoming more self-aware and conscious for starters,and becoming more balanced will help with being able to see when they are getting out of hand with how much they want, which will always be more once money starts coming in. I think also that a person needs good, trusted friends who will tell them to their face that they are getting out of balance and being too greedy, in case they cannot see it themselves, which they rarely can.

Do you have any thoughts on this rr?

Greed can be curbed, but people will always be in charge. The entire world will have to become more self-aware. I don't know if we are becoming more aware or less away, but something is happening. Maybe all the internet and able to connect to everyone. People want to help everyone, but don't understand the negatives behind it yet. Seems like people want to help more and more.

What is greed tho? Is it greedy to want to get as much money as you can get? What if you donate a lot in the process? is Steve Jobs greedy to make money on the back of Chinese kids? Is it greedy to want business to not make as much money, because you feel it's not fair?

The idea of socialism, was only supposed to last for so long. The government takes over, and takes everything from the people until everything is even, and then the government goes away. Socialism is like raising a child called communism. The parents have to do everything for them because they aren't capable of doing it themselves, until they grow up and become adults. Then they go off on their own, and parents stop doing anything, and you have communism.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I think it's a good idea. However, the world is run by the multimillionaires, so chances of putting such a cap seem pretty dismal.

what part and why?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Greed can be curbed, but people will always be in charge. The entire world will have to become more self-aware. I don't know if we are becoming more aware or less away, but something is happening. Maybe all the internet and able to connect to everyone. People want to help everyone, but don't understand the negatives behind it yet. Seems like people want to help more and more.

I think because everyone is realizing more and more that we are all in the same boat, so pooling our resources is the intelligent thing to do.

What is greed tho? Is it greedy to want to get as much money as you can get? What if you donate a lot in the process? is Steve Jobs greedy to make money on the back of Chinese kids? Is it greedy to want business to not make as much money, because you feel it's not fair?

To me, Greed is where what you have is never enough, and it becomes a compulsion to acquire more. If it can be curbed with genuinely appreciating what you have, then that compulsion may lessen...that's my theory anyway, who knows if it would really work?

Changing your mindset to one of enjoying the things that you can buy with money rather than it being this big competition to get more than everyone else so they will envy you and you will impress them and base your self-esteem on your posessions and property, then I think it's possible it can be done.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I don't like your idea. Socialism doesn't work. I think people should have the right to become as rich as they like, that is a part of freedom. If you don't have the drive, intelligence, work ethic, street smarts, inginuity, etc that some other guy does, don't blame him. (Not saying anyone in particular when I say you, just a generalization) If someone has those qualities and builds a great empire for himself, and you choose to instead work for him, don't blame him. Don't try to change the world through changing others, change yourself, make a good example and others will follow.

I agree. It's tyranny when people are forced to only have the same amount as everyone else. Tyranny disguised as equality because some people are more ambitious and are willing to put in the effort and time and energy to get what they want, where others are happy with just what they have if they don't have to work so much. Forcing those people to be just like you is not freedom.

[openeyes]

Even though I don't see myself doing what it takes to become one, I'd like to see trillionaires, people who can fund massive undertakings without waiting on the government to manage it. I don't think the total tax rate should exceed 50% for anyone.

Regarding current taxes, I think a good start would be to let the "temporary" Bush tax cuts expire and simply go back to the tax levels of the Clinton era, even if that means having to give up indefinitely extended unemployment payments. This would require no new legislation, just letting the temporary cuts die late next year (since the opportunity was missed last year), and would likely have a better effect than any tax legislation with a realistic chance of getting passed in the next few years. Had the taxes been allowed to expire last year there may have been no issue of defaulting on national debt this year.

[Orecle]

The super rich don't want the money for it's own sake. To them it's not about the cars, clothes and jewellery.

What's it about?

POWER.......
FORCE.......

saying jump and others saying how high!

Look at the ex richest Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was stripped of his fortune and thrown in jail. Why didn't he take the money and run? He has a vision for his country. For him the power of presidency is more than money. Putin is nowhere near as wealthy but holds far more


We mere working class mortals are the ones that don't get it. We still think it's the money for itself they are after.

It's not....... It's still about the power of the playground bully. It's knowing you can go anywhere in the world and do what you like. Like diplomatic immunity....... But more.

Rupert Murdoch had the British government and police eating out of his hands
We on this forum beleive 'knowledge is power' and some of us derive pleasure from knowing and debating better than others.......money is a result of and a cause of power, and the wealthy elite understand this.

some people love shaping the world in their own image. They believe they, not others know whats best for others. Power directly influences, money is the best tool for the power to influence.

Yes, Gandhi and the dalai lama influenced with words, but bankers have done it for much longer with financial power. The Chinese power over the world is about their financial power.

To me the problem is not greed for money....... The problem is greed for power. It's people treating you like a Demi god. It's everyone wanting to know you. For men (since men are far more attracted to power than women) it's being able to have the most physically attractive women on the planet. Tyra banks is dating a banker, as do many super models.

The fastest, best way to get power is lots of money. I have seen it in the uk and in nigeria. Power is very seductive. I have seen the way people treat millionaires and it's not the same as mere working class mortals.

You can never get rid of the greed for money because you can never get rid of the love of power

Below are a few quotes from powerful men that understood that

The Rothschilds

♥♥ "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

♥ "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Henry Kissingers quote "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

♥♥ "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." — President Woodrow Wilson

♥♥♥ "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison
The Money Power! It is the greatest power on earth; and it is arrayed against Labour. No other power that is or ever was can be named with it... it attacks us through the Press - a monster with a thousand lying tongues, a beast surpassing in foulness any conceived by the mythology that invented dragons, were wolves, harpies, ghouls and vampires.♥It thunders against us from innumerable platforms and ,Yes, so far as we are concerned, the headquarters of the Money Power is Britain. But the Money Power is not a British institution; it is cosmopolitan.♥It is of no nationality, but of all nationalities. It dominates the world. The Money Power has corrupted the faculties of the human soul, and tampered with the sanity of the human intellect... Editorial from 1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)
♥

...I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance.♥ It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace. World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery, degradation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal. -- Labor Minister of Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this warning.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

How's this for an awesome economic system --

Capitalism, but you can only make enough money to have $100 million dollar networth.. Meaning, EVERYTHING you own, and the money in your bank, can only equal 100 million dollars, and nothing exceeding that..

All extra money that someones corporation creates after that person hit the 100$ million profit mark will be sent to organizations of education, food, healthcare, etc..

This way, people can still prosper with a capitalism system -- while enjoying the benefits that SEEM like socialism, but they aren't.

This will prevent greed 100%.

Of course, things will need to be worked out - this is just a rough draft. For example, you would need to make sure that the organizations that the money gets sent to after the corporation owners' 100 million dollar mark, isn't somehow affiliated with that very corporation owner.

We'd also have to figure out how to prevent large families and friends from tapping in so that a small group can hold hundreds of billions by someone just passing around CEO positions in the company to get his circle of friends rich so that they can control the world.

It would take a lot of thought, but a few honest, highly skilled economists could definitely work something up.

What do you guys think?

(And please don't say that it isn't fair that they can't make over 100 million dollars. If someone is going to complain about not making MORE then 100 million dollars, and that he/she can't live on that amount, then in my opinion, that person is greedy and doesn't deserve to live at all)

This is a very ridiculous idea. It's as ridiculous as people that believe if women were covered up more men won't feel lust.

The sentence 'it will prevent greed 100%' showed your naivety. few years back someone I know sent his daughter to an all girls high school thinking it will curb her interest in boys....... Well it didn't work to well.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Greed can be curbed, but people will always be in charge. The entire world will have to become more self-aware. I don't know if we are becoming more aware or less away, but something is happening.

I think in some ways we are and in other ways we are burying our heads in the sand. Given the sheer amount of challenges going on the world right now, for example, the population issues at hand, it seems like the faster the ship sinks the faster people are rushing out to have babies left right and centre. Is this a wise thing to do given everything that is happening?

To me it isn't, but that doesn't seem to be the opinion of people everywhere you look pushing prams. It's like they all go into a form of denial or fearing impending 'apocalypse' they decide they want to be mothers before it happens, before it's "too late"...without considering if it's the best world to bring a child into right now.

I'm not saying that to condemn anyone with kids or considering having kids, and there are some really conscious people out there who are very important because they are raising kids in a more balanced, conscious way that is honoring the children, but most aren't.

So that's just one example of the latter, but many people are waking up to lots of realities, so that can only be a good thing.

What if you donate a lot in the process?

Then you can give yourself a pat on the back, and if you choose wisely where you put the money then it can be a really fulfilling thing to know you've made such a difference. Plenty of people donate large amounts and never tell anyone about it, because they are doing it for reasons other than to boost their self- image in the eyes of others.

is Steve Jobs greedy to make money on the back of Chinese kids?

It depends who you ask. As a business man it's his job to find people who are willing to make the product he wants to sell to make money...which is the point of business. The way China is geared, it is not his fault that these people cannot afford better jobs, so to him he is just making use of what is available and exchanging currency for it. In his mind I'm sure he believed he was helping them survive, which he was...it's just not up to our standards.

Not paying poor people a decent wage for making the products that make him loads of money, is obviously not a fair thing to do, and that's how business seems to work these days. Pay the workers as little as possible so there is more profit to be had for the business owners. Yes, that is the definition of greedy I'd say.

Is it greedy to want business to not make as much money, because you feel it's not fair?

I'm having trouble seeing how this could be considered greedy. If a person feels this way then it's probably best not to get into business, which is about profit after all. No one does business to not make any money and just get by.

The idea of socialism, was only supposed to last for so long. The government takes over, and takes everything from the people until everything is even, and then the government goes away. Socialism is like raising a child called communism. The parents have to do everything for them because they aren't capable of doing it themselves, until they grow up and become adults. Then they go off on their own, and parents stop doing anything, and you have communism.

I think socialism in Cuba and Chile is far different to the socialism that young people in Australia and America, who have grown up in middle class families, conceive socialism to be about. "Young college Liberals" as you put it, seem to have a very different idea of what socialism is and wear t-shirts with images of Che Gueverra without really having any idea of what went on in those times with he and Fidel Castro. They weren't even born when all that was going on for one thing.

[Andrew Gubb]

You can never get rid of the greed for money because you can never get rid of the love of power

I like this. +1

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

How's this for an awesome economic system --

Capitalism, but you can only make enough money to have $100 million dollar networth.. Meaning, EVERYTHING you own, and the money in your bank, can only equal 100 million dollars, and nothing exceeding that..

All extra money that someones corporation creates after that person hit the 100$ million profit mark will be sent to organizations of education, food, healthcare, etc..

This way, people can still prosper with a capitalism system -- while enjoying the benefits that SEEM like socialism, but they aren't.

This will prevent greed 100%.

Of course, things will need to be worked out - this is just a rough draft. For example, you would need to make sure that the organizations that the money gets sent to after the corporation owners' 100 million dollar mark, isn't somehow affiliated with that very corporation owner.

We'd also have to figure out how to prevent large families and friends from tapping in so that a small group can hold hundreds of billions by someone just passing around CEO positions in the company to get his circle of friends rich so that they can control the world.

It would take a lot of thought, but a few honest, highly skilled economists could definitely work something up.

What do you guys think?

(And please don't say that it isn't fair that they can't make over 100 million dollars. If someone is going to complain about not making MORE then 100 million dollars, and that he/she can't live on that amount, then in my opinion, that person is greedy and doesn't deserve to live at all)

I'm not sure how that ends greed at all. It actually encourages people who are super wealthy to live even more extravagent lifestyles. Why not buy the best caviar or higher the best cpa or send my favorite political party the money when I know the government will confiscate anything that is above what ever criteria you pick.

[Cochonette]

elucidate, I'm a bit confused. How is it not multinational corporations' fault for not paying their workers more in developing nations? Does China forbid them to pay their workers more?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

elucidate, I'm a bit confused. How is it not multinational corporations' fault for not paying their workers more in developing nations? Does China forbid them to pay their workers more?

I didn't say it wasn't their fault for not paying them more...I said, that it's not Steve job's fault that those people aren't able to afford better jobs and the way the system is geared in China, their options are limited. I think that maybe I misread rr's original question though, and took it a different way to how he meant it now that I look at it.

I've gone back and edited my original comment.

I have no idea whether China forbids them to pay their workers more.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I didn't say it wasn't their fault for not paying them more...I said, if you read it right, that it's not Steve job's fault that those people aren't able to afford better jobs and the way the system is geared in China, their options are limited.

Isn't that the same thing? I'm still confused. I'm also not entirely sure what it means to "afford" a better job.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I didn't say it wasn't their fault for not paying them more...I said, if you read it right, that it's not Steve job's fault that those people aren't able to afford better jobs and the way the system is geared in China, their options are limited.

I have no idea whether China forbids them to pay their workers more.

Steve Jobs goes there because he can pay their workers less, even if China happens to forbid paying them more. It's still Steve Jobs "fault" for going there. All my parts are made in America. I can easily go to China and make cheaper parts. All my competitors do it, and are able to sell things cheaper. If we are talking about greed, I'd say that Steve is right up there. Maybe for money, or power, or leaving a legacy. I dunno. He could easily make an entire factory here, and hire American workers. What really surprises me, is that Apple is targets towards the elite crowd with more money, which usually means they are more liberal then others. You'd think they of all people would care about where their products come from. Not to mention the horrible pollution that China creates due to crap regulations. Everyone wants to change America, but we are probably in the top 5% of clean countries.

Giving jobs to China doesn't necessarily make their lives better, nor does it create a sustainable future. It's all short term thinking, and it's all junk tech toys, that people replace every year. Look at the iPhone. People switch iPhones once a year. That's idiotic of us. What's wrong with us? The parts I made, will last a life time. You have the iPhones with glass screens that brake super quick, needing $100+ dollar replacements, and no ability to change the battery. Everyone loves Steve Jobs, but I see him for the person that he really is. He was no hero.

What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I'm having trouble seeing how this could be considered greedy. If a person feels this way then it's probably best not to get into business, which is about profit after all. No one does business to not make any money and just get by.

What I meant is. Is it greedy for NON business people to want another business to not make as much money or to have their money taken away, because they don't see it as fair. And they don't see it as fair, because they themselves don't have what that person has.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Isn't that the same thing? I'm still confused. I'm also not entirely sure what it means to "afford" a better job.

I re-edited my original post, and the last one as well, as I realized I hadn't taken rr's question the way I think he meant it. I read it a different way, so, I've gone back and changed it if you want to have a read.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What I meant is. Is it greedy for NON business people to want another business to not make as much money or to have their money taken away, because they don't see it as fair. And they don't see it as fair, because they themselves don't have what that person has.

Ah, ok...that's not how it read to me, but anyway.

Hmmm, I don't know if that is greed, or just envy? Maybe envy and greed are closely related in this context?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What I meant is. Is it greedy for NON business people to want another business to not make as much money or to have their money taken away, because they don't see it as fair. And they don't see it as fair, because they themselves don't have what that person has.

That's not greed, rr, that's envy, a completely different cardinal sin.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Isn't that the same thing? I'm still confused. I'm also not entirely sure what it means to "afford" a better job.

I think by 'afford better jobs' I mean they weren't able to get a decent education because their parents couldn't afford it, so they aren't eligible to go to university and study so they can find a better position in life. I probably didn't word it very well, It's 2a.m here and I'm about ready for bed.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

That's not greed, rr, that's envy, a completely different cardinal sin.

But isn't envy for what someone else has the same as meaning the person is greedy to have what they have, and if they can't have it then the other people shouldn't be allowed to either?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What Everyone Is Too Polite to Say About Steve Jobs

That's certainly a damning link.

It's always good to have a more balanced view of things, and no one is ever all nice and wonderful, at least not all the time.

It would not surprise me if this was all true. Many people in business behave this way. My brother behaves this way, and he's no CEO. Stress that comes with business and long hours can cause people to take their ♥♥♥♥ out on the people around them. It's no excuse, but it happens.

There is always a public image for high profile people to maintain, and it's rarely everything it seems.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

That's certainly a damning link.

It's always good to have a more balanced view of things, and no one is ever all nice and wonderful, at least not all the time.

It would not surprise me if this was all true. Many people in business behave this way. My brother behaves this way, and he's no CEO. Stress that comes with business and long hours can cause people to take their ♥♥♥♥ out on the people around them. It's no excuse, but it happens.

I'm sure it's not all true. As you said, balanced view. Take a little from both camps.