(03-28-2023, 08:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: At the very root of our widespread prosperity, the driving force that gives us all the neat stuff we have, from cell phones to pro football franchises, is the desire for money and power.  So sometimes rich people have it better than poor people.  That's why people want to get rich.  And people wanting to get rich is why we have the level of prosperity that we have.   

You can't get money out of politics, anyway.  We have free speech.  Any rich person can buy a newspaper or TV station and say whatever they want.  Unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

Let's never change, then. This system is broken and getting worse. Sure, at one point, before the elites completely captured our government, this system was prosperous, now it's smoke and mirrors. You want to ride this train to the last stop, even though it's starting to come off the rails. Ayn Rand's "greed is good" only works in any system until the greedy figure out how to exploit it. We hit that point in the 80's, and it's been a slow march towards the death of capitalism ever since. 

EVEN WORSE, you bury your head in the sand as the capitalists TELL YOU they are changing capitalism. They tell you they are buying governments. They tell you they are using them to shape the society how they want. And they are telling you it's going to benefit you. What's the result? We're losing our rights and our prosperity to stakeholder "capitalism." Who are the stakeholders? Why is that even a thing?

---

(03-28-2023, 09:22 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-28-2023, 07:20 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I've said what I think. Personally, I think the easiest way is to tether the top. Then they don't have the money to do these things.

Your plan is a very blunt instrument to say the least, but who does it really target?  It seems to target guys like Bezos, forcing them to share more of their earnings with workers and slowing down their accumulation of wealth.  But Bezos is probably not the archetype of an unaccountable elite.  Here in Florida, the archetype in the past would have been Ed Ball.  Today, it might be the Fanjul Brothers or Norm Braman.  These are not the wealthiest people in FL, but they are the ones who make themselves the loudest politically,  with the particular goal of making their streams of income unaccountable to the people.  No one likes overpriced and environmentally destructive sugar, and no one likes car dealers.  Yet we can never find a politician who doesnt like their money.  
You propose that we should force such men to distribute more of their income to their workers, and that would fix things.  Would it really?

It targets the "stakeholders." It still allows for people to be rich, but it removes the ability for them to exploit it. Yes, I do think it would fix it without removing the most important parts of capitalism. I don't think it's foolproof. I think I'd like this to be discussed more in the general public about how it could be exploited, but I think it is the only way to save capitalism.

---