Looking for an answer to this as well [...] but if it has a chance of making a difference. Just not sure what to do.
I think there is many, many people thinking the same thing. People not afraid to act, but uncertain as to it's efficacy. I'd love to hear from anybody who has something to say.
Thank you advancedpotionmaking and oktux for your responses (is there a proper way to reference users?).
Lol, my inner voice exactly
Shit, is it stay golden? I've been saying stay gold
We should subsidized that shit
How is it not a poll tax?
That's like an allergen for ADHD
Forgot about that! Who's got it?
Didn't see your post before mine, but yeah, you covered it well.
So capitalism is okay because the non-capitalist things are supposed to keep it in check?
Yeah if you talk to this reaganbot for a while or starts to offload responsibilities upon the institutions the ultra wealthy commandeer. Is happening in real time in the US.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It's not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it's power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it's far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don't act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I'm convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
I'll listen. You mind spoon feeding me a little? Who is [the guy you mentioned, sorry, my client is no good for referencing a post midreply]? What's this battalion?