I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place? I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett actually wanting to keep people from resources or excess wealth if they had no use for it. Especially if it was just idling there doing nothing for anyone (themselves included). It just seems like that our situation is one born out of the interplay between institutions that have long since lost significance like a vestigial organ that only exists because the evolutionary cost to 'remove' it is greater than it is to keep it. But in this case, I think we can overcome these institutions it's just a matter of how.
" I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett actually wanting to keep people from resources or excess wealth if they had no use for it."
1. Na, some wealthy people would totally do that. It's their hard earned money and they're entitled to spend it however they want, after all. Get a job and stop looking for handouts!
2. Who says they even have excess wealth to begin with? I may make a billion dollars a year, but I'm living in this cramped mansion, and I've still got payments on my super-yacht. Living this lavish lifestyle is expensive!
I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place?
It's because there's excess surplus from productivity gains. If you work 1 hour a day you can be far more productive than just a few years ago. Either wages should increase to match that gain or hours should decrease to match that gain. In both cases, wealth would be unlocked.
If you work fewer hours you get more time for hobbies and side projects and other wealth-creation ideas.
If you work the same amount of hours but for a higher salary, you get money to shift into investments or to be able to take time off to invest in yourself and your family.
The current surplus wealth goes to the top and to the company itself.
It reminds me of what Ivan Illich (sp?) pointed out about over adoption of any specific technology. That we'll keep using it to such excess even if it harms us. I think if we use that truism as a guide on social norms with regard to economics then I think we've adopted the concept of private ownership to such excess that it harms the process of private ownership itself. I think it's time to go back towards a Lockean approach to the problem (if your actions harm others in their pursuits in common then it should be curtailed to ensure equal opportunity for all).
Comments
I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place? I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett actually wanting to keep people from resources or excess wealth if they had no use for it. Especially if it was just idling there doing nothing for anyone (themselves included). It just seems like that our situation is one born out of the interplay between institutions that have long since lost significance like a vestigial organ that only exists because the evolutionary cost to 'remove' it is greater than it is to keep it. But in this case, I think we can overcome these institutions it's just a matter of how.
" I can't imagine someone like Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett actually wanting to keep people from resources or excess wealth if they had no use for it."
1. Na, some wealthy people would totally do that. It's their hard earned money and they're entitled to spend it however they want, after all. Get a job and stop looking for handouts!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-c...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/17/ro...
2. Who says they even have excess wealth to begin with? I may make a billion dollars a year, but I'm living in this cramped mansion, and I've still got payments on my super-yacht. Living this lavish lifestyle is expensive!
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...
I think the other side of that argument is why the capital gets locked up in the first place?
It's because there's excess surplus from productivity gains. If you work 1 hour a day you can be far more productive than just a few years ago. Either wages should increase to match that gain or hours should decrease to match that gain. In both cases, wealth would be unlocked.
If you work fewer hours you get more time for hobbies and side projects and other wealth-creation ideas.
If you work the same amount of hours but for a higher salary, you get money to shift into investments or to be able to take time off to invest in yourself and your family.
The current surplus wealth goes to the top and to the company itself.
It reminds me of what Ivan Illich (sp?) pointed out about over adoption of any specific technology. That we'll keep using it to such excess even if it harms us. I think if we use that truism as a guide on social norms with regard to economics then I think we've adopted the concept of private ownership to such excess that it harms the process of private ownership itself. I think it's time to go back towards a Lockean approach to the problem (if your actions harm others in their pursuits in common then it should be curtailed to ensure equal opportunity for all).