NOTES <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QQXwLJa0HFyTlNWgAi6cwbKoy3rJzte2RK_2vcJ4Xpk/edit?usp=sharing> on the last statements: (just REread 4 “other way to be”)
> tie silly thy into nail “control objective? <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H_9hAew5JdheSbLLv4xH3K6lK3kEFSmdaiBnJIrNp4Q/edit?usp=sharing> ” > by any destruction of others & way sly same sin the eventual“final solution! <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCpzBpGoe3t_Uj8K67a0vS1LQfbVirbiLj4DJQAZ3H0/edit?usp=sharing> ” 4 ?qi! <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kPXax2-ZIiCK22HLxgQ55RJMMQuxxUSaNjzhyjy7_0M/edit?usp=sharing> people, only the ONE word BALANCE <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFyG5EbyPJr-X-DMnMUx2xEjOwllDndWRjwcWO7jAak/edit?usp=sharing> needed to explain the whole thing, but… =================================================================================================== hard<?q>easy<i!>answer: survival of the fittest?? <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kPXax2-ZIiCK22HLxgQ55RJMMQuxxUSaNjzhyjy7_0M/edit?usp=sharing> hints: the ONE command <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfhL85oTVR1RRcEUIDu0Nl_8lGyir8IXVzPwvEclX78/edit?usp=sharing>, tic-tac-toe, game theory of LIFE <https://www.google.com/search?q=game+theory+of+life&rlz=1CARGUX_enCA814&oq=%22game+theory%22+of+life&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.23332j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> On Friday, March 8, 2013 at 1:44:10 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth > concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. (Justice > Louis Brandeis) > The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are > materially independent so long as their property rights remain > recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves, that is by > buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for them. But > this power of command also generates a social distance from society > that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since they don't > depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example, few of them > have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in general > about whether they deserve goodwill. > That means that the rich don't have the same political interests as > the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated > communities come with private security) or the quality of public > education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can buy) or > affordable accessible health care, job security, public parks, gas > prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues that the > rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about > politically since they are outside of our individual powers to fix. > The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the provision of > public goods, but in furthering their private interests, whether their > personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This is why > Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their self- > serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264). > It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the flourishing > of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth than they > need for their own consumption it is their investment of capital that > makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim that > there is a trade-off between democracy and material prosperity. But > that ‘job creator’ thesis is out of date and back to front. > First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that > economic development required capitalists to reinvest their profits > this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days the > economies of democratic societies are characterized by a broad middle- > class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business > development and expansion (such as through the share-ownership of our > pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits). > > Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may expect the > economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers as well > as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are overwhelmingly > transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that they > don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since 1979 all > the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to the richest > 1%.) The implications are, first, that economic growth does not > increase national prosperity because it does not increase the economic > command of ordinary people to satisfy our wants (which is how Smith > defined the wealth of nations). And, second, economic growth itself > will eventually suffer since high inequality limits the extent of the > market (fewer customers) and thus the scope for innovation. > Hence my modest proposal. We should first identify with some precision > the category of what it seems reasonable to call the rich i.e. those > people whose capabilities for independence from and command over the > rest of us crosses the threshold between enviable affluence and > aristocratic privilege. Then, when anyone in our society lands in the > category of the problematic rich we should say, as at the end of a > cheesy TV game show, "Congratulations, you won the economy game! Well > done." And then we should offer them a choice: give it away (hold a > potlatch, give it to Oxfam, their favourite art museum foundation, or > whatever) or cash out their winnings and depart our society forever, > leaving their citizenship at the door on their way out. Since the rich > are, um, rich, they have all the means they need to make a new life > for themselves elsewhere, and perhaps even inveigle their way into > citizenship in a country that is less picky than we are. So I'm sure > they'll do just fine. Still, we can let them back in to visit family > and friends a few days a year - there's no need to be vindictive. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
