Husseinisdoingfine

Conscious capitalism and third world exploitation?

64 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, aurum said:

I would agree. What are the actual structural problems inherent to capitalism that lead to exploitation? It's not an easy question.

I wouldn't say this is something inherent in capitalism. It looks to me like its something inherent in human nature. Capitalism just allows it to flourish.

In a way you have to place limits upon capitalism so this nature wont go far. Where to place the limits.. well that's a though question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that capitalism leads to lots of wealth, but this wealth gets funneled up into the hands of very few people who end up dominating the field and having so much power and leverage that everyone else become enslaved to their agenda and whims.

So the solution is to have a system where the wealth is more evenly distributed and is not allowed to be amassed at the very top in obscene quantities.

A very simple solution might be to implement a wealth cap of let's say $10 million per person max worldwide. It's a crude solution but it shows you what might be possible and how simply some of these problems might be dealt with. Sometimes a very simple law or rule is enough to dramatically reduce a problem.

The problem, though, would be how to implement this simple rule in a system where people already have billions and will refuse to surrender their luxury.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Yog said:

I wouldn't say this is something inherent in capitalism. It looks to me like its something inherent in human nature. Capitalism just allows it to flourish.

In a way you have to place limits upon capitalism so this nature wont go far. Where to place the limits.. well that's a though question.

Okay I'm so glad you brought that up. Because to me, this is like the question of questions when it comes to all this. About to go on a huge rant right now.

What does it inherently mean to be human?

Is it to be selfish? To dominate and control? To lie and to steal?  To defend your individual self from outside forces?

Because for a long time, that's the story we've been telling ourselves about ourselves. Humans are individual, selfish survival machines that need to be kept in check, so to speak.

You can see it in our theories about biology (survival of the fittest, selfish genes seeking replication) and in our economic theories (homo economicus, individual economic agents seeking maximum utility).

From those stories give birth to systems, such as capitalism. Capitalism says, "you are an independent economic agent in competition everyone around you. Even if you cooperate occasionally with other individual agents, that is only to enhance your own agenda".

This is how we see ourselves.

But what's interesting is that these stories and the systems born from them play a little trick. The trick is called "a loop".

Because as exist in this system, the story becomes reality. It reflects and reinforces the beliefs that we've been saying.

If you look out into the world, doesn't it really feel that way?

Like you really are a separate survival machine fighting against others?

It should because that's the world we've created.

But what if all that wasn't true?

What if all the greed and the fighting were just behaviors based on an illusion?

And what is the illusion? The illusion is the old story we've been telling ourselves. That separation is real, that scarcity is real.

But they're not real. We've only created an illusory experience of them.

And we can tell a different story now. In fact, it's only by telling a different story that we'll see a different world.

As we do that, we'll build systems that reflect that new collective belief. And those systems will then reflect and reinforce that belief.

So what do we believe about ourselves?

Who are we really?

Who do you really feel yourself to be in your heart of hearts?

Are you love or are you fear?

Because we're creating our own reality. What we say about ourselves will become true.

So what do we choose?


Loving a new world into being.

Energy healing, music making, tree hugging, sacred being.

YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/k_gzVJIeTlI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A very simple solution might be to implement a wealth cap of let's say $10 million per person max worldwide

That's actually a VERY radical proposal.

People like Bezos would have to giveaway at least 99% of their stocks to the workers their company hires or the government. They wouldn't be able to sell it, because who would buy it when everyone with capital is already capped and even if they did it then all that money from selling would be taxed anyways.

Such policy would make keeping a single-person command of any company with hundreds of workers impossible, beacuase you can't hold that much power and wealth in your hands. If it was your private company, you owned it and it was valued over $10 million, you would have to give part of ownership to someone, so your wealth gets lowered.

Edited by Girzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, aurum said:

Is it to be selfish?

YES

;)


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Girzo said:

That's actually a VERY radical proposal.

I said it was simple. I said nothing about it being non-radical.

Of course relative to today's neoliberal capitalist culture what I said is akin to treason. Which just goes to show how backwards our current culture is.

We could grandfather it in. So anyone who already has billions gets to keep it. But once they die no more than $10 mil goes to their children and no one else born in the future can have more than $10 mil.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course relative to today's neoliberal capitalist attitude what I said is akin to treason.

What is the equivalent of storming the Capital for billionaires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Girzo said:

That's actually a VERY radical proposal.

People like Bezos would have to giveaway at least 99% of their stocks to the workers their company hires or the government. They wouldn't be able to sell it, because who would buy it when everyone with capital is already capped and even if they did it then all that money from selling would be taxed anyways.

Such policy would make keeping a single-person command of any company with hundreds of workers impossible, beacuase you can't hold that much power and wealth in your hands. If it was your private company, you owned it and it was valued over $10 million, you would have to give part of ownership to someone, so your wealth gets lowered.

Why not just set a really high marginal tax for income over a certain amount? A proposal like that could really fuck up the economy if implemented.  Some actual study of economics is important if we want to advocate for smart solutions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Picketty in his Magnus opus on income inequality, advocates for a global wealth tax of 2% and marginal tax rates up to 80% for the super wealthy.

The basic idea is that return on capital r > g (economic growth), therefore inequality will continue to rise indefinitely into the hands of the major capital owners. 

https://www.amazon.com.au/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/0674979850

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I said it was simple. I said nothing about it being non-radical.

Of course relative to today's neoliberal capitalist culture what I said is akin to treason. Which just goes to show how backwards our current culture is.

We could grandfather it in. So anyone who already has billions gets to keep it. But once they die no more than $10 mil goes to their children and no one else born in the future can have more than $10 mil.

I would say cap at 100 mil. Capitalism sucks but the winners of capitalism win big, this also goes for innovative technologies which are 'good for the world'. so capping at 10 mil would demotivate people to create huge projects.

The inherit idea is good. I just found out my country (Netherlands) has the most disproportional wealth gap even though income is extremely taxed in my country. This means a lot of people with old money are not being taxed even though income is taxed 49% after 60k euros. imagine that.

IMO high income tax is a scam when there is so much wealth to be taxed. But the ppl with wealth are of course making those laws.

Edited by North Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, North Sea said:

so capping at 10 mil would demotivate people to create huge projects.

No it wouldn't.

It would motivate millions of other people to have capital enough to be creative rather than locked in wage slavery.

For every 1 person with $100 million, 1,000 people are locked into wage slavery.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No it wouldn't.

It would motivate millions of other people to have capital enough to be creative rather than locked in wage slavery.

For every 1 person with $100 million, 1,000 people are locked into wage slavery.

Yeah but regardless the majority of people need to be doing menial work in order for society to function. It's a bit of a fantasy that everyone can be engaged in something super lofty and creative, as society requires the foundation of menial work for people to even have the luxury of doing other stuff. Why would other people being less wealthy necessarily translate to other people being more innovative? Wealth isn't a fixed pie. 

There would also be shitloads of homes around the world alone that are worth >$10m, so would they all need to be demolished? 

Edited by Joel3102

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joel3102 Here's a crazy idea: pay those people who do menial labor a high salary. You are the one discounting menial labor.

How about we pay a trash collector $100k/yr? We could do that if we stop giving Wall Street assholes $100 mil and 10 houses on the golf course.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura I have no problem with that in principle. Of course more of the money should be reallocated from the owners to the working class. Just do that through higher taxes and a better minimum wage. The biggest innovators in the world would hit $10m net worth pretty easily so what happens then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

@Leo Gura I have no problem with that in principle.

And I have a problem in principle with Wall Street assholes making millions without doing real work while school teachers live in poverty. This is horse shit.

Quote

The biggest innovators in the world would hit $10m net worth pretty easily so what happens then.

Then you work in service of mankind, like any decent person would do.

Nobody needs more than $10 million of personal wealth. The money is completely meaningless after that point. In fact, it corrupts you and your children.

Real creativity is not driven by money and anyone who says it is doesn't understand human motivation.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The issue is that capitalism leads to lots of wealth, but this wealth gets funneled up into the hands of very few people who end up dominating the field and having so much power and leverage that everyone else become enslaved to their agenda and whims.

So the solution is to have a system where the wealth is more evenly distributed and is not allowed to be amassed at the very top in obscene quantities.

A very simple solution might be to implement a wealth cap of let's say $10 million per person max worldwide. It's a crude solution but it shows you what might be possible and how simply some of these problems might be dealt with. Sometimes a very simple law or rule is enough to dramatically reduce a problem.

The problem, though, would be how to implement this simple rule in a system where people already have billions and will refuse to surrender their luxury.

Sounds like a good proposal. In this system, big projects (like space programs) would need the collaboration of hundreds and thousands of people who have 10 million dollars and would reflect a vision of the larger group than projects of Musk's and Bezos's. On the other hand this could also lead to people not agreeing enough on the scope of the project so that private endeavors like SpaceX  would never take place. Perhaps governments would again take a major role in space programs. And maybe people would see that making social and political systems on earth work through collaboration is more important than space programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo-hoo, a few billionaires will no longer be able to self-fund their pet projects.

But millions of school teachers, garbage collectors, and retailer workers will be able to live in peace without fear of their children dying from medical bills.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And I have a problem in principle with Wall Street assholes making millions without doing real work while school teachers live in poverty. This is horse shit.

Then you work in service of mankind, like any decent person would do.

Nobody needs more than $10 million of personal wealth. The money is completely meaningless after that point. In fact, it corrupts you and your children.

Real creativity is not driven by money and anyone who says it is doesn't understand human motivation.

You think that the government's power should trump the wealthy business owner's power. The problem is the perception of power and overvaluing it. You're only shuffling the power to government rather than seeing through the root cause, the total illusion of power. When people rid themselves of the fear of survival then money is only a tool for creating with, and all you're doing here is limiting creation. 

10 million is a biased number you chose based on your own perspective. For example Stephen King paid for my school to hire their first ever art teacher. He is someone who has spent his life creating and used his money to help other people create. Would you really cap Stephen King at 10 million? 


My Youtube Channel- Light on Earth “We dance round in a ring and suppose, but the Secret sits in the middle and knows.”― Robert Frost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

You think that the government's power should trump the wealthy business owner's power.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

Government is democratically accountable. Businesses and corporations are not.

Government has a responsibility to look out for the health and well-being of its citizens. Corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits.

You are making a case for oligarchy vs democracy.

What is stopping a businessman from earning $10 billion dollars, hiring his own scientists to build nuclear weapons, nuking the headquarters of all his competitors, nuking Washington DC, and making his company the entire country of America, enslaved under his absolute rule?

You think this won't happen? This is the entire history of mankind. The nukes are just a modern wrinkle.

Quote

When people rid themselves of the fear of survival then money is only a tool for creating with, and all you're doing here is limiting creation. 

Reductionist nonsense

What truly limits creation is grossly imbalanced wealth distribution and capitalist greed that puts the majority of mankind into life-long wage slavery.

Think of how many thousands of artists are not able to do their art because they will spend their entire lives working for pennies at Walmart just to feed their family.

Quote

10 million is a biased number you chose based on your own perspective.

Of course it's an arbitrary number. We can democratically agree on what number is reasonable and appropriate. We can make it even lower. Let's cap it at $1 million to keep people on their toes. ;)

Quote

For example Stephen King paid for my school to hire their first ever art teacher. He is someone who has spent his life creating and used his money to help other people create.

You make my point for me. In a properly structured society you would not need to rely on a billionaire to personally fund one art teacher at a time at his whim.

When wealth is properly taxed it will be used to hire millions of teachers and pay them good salaries. That art teacher Stephen King so graciously paid for is barely able to feed her children while Stephen King floats around in a yacht.

10,000 art teachers are not earning a proper salary just so Stephen King can have nine figures in his bank account collecting interest.

Quote

Would you really cap Stephen King at 10 million? 

Yes

If you understood Stephen King, you would understand that he would still continue to write even if his income was capped at $10 mil. You turn Stephen King into a whore when you suggest he writes for the money.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now