People who have maximum/minimum pay will still pollute but now they may even pollute more because everything is free including the inputs (gas/oil/carbon) that turn into smog, C02,etc.Spartan_Warrior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:59 pm
Capitalism is useful in lifting up the standard of living through the industrial and technological revolutions. But is it still the most useful system? Is it still increasing the standard of living for the majority or is it now standing in the way and posing more harm than good through factors like pollution? What happens when we run out of nations of poor people with cheap labor to exploit to keep the whole thing running?
People already have the freedom to decide what they want to work on - Open Developer Mode wouldn't be providing anything new in this regard.People decide what they want to work on and work on it.
I've managed people - its a lot harder than it looks. I took a cut in pay because the headaches of management wasn't worth the increase in money. And others may take the job because of the power it gives them over people. Different system, same problems.Perhaps something like worker-elected councils of peers could run the business. Or they could have business managers who run things, they just don't get paid disproportionately more for the work, because the work of managers doesn't contribute disproportionately more.
And we're free to spam our ideas as much as we want because Jacob isn't charging us anything to do it - imagine if you had to pay a dollar per word - would you post as much? Now extrapolate that thought to finite resources and free money.We're on an ERE forum, for crying out loud. Is payment the only motivation to do something? Look how much effort I'm putting forward in something I chose to put it into. Something meaningful to me. I assure you I'm not being paid for this...
You seem to be arguing also that capitalism is more efficient in producing better products. I don't see how it is inherently so. OTOH, capitalism leads to tremendous waste in resources with two or more competing firms developing nearly identical products, oftentimes leading to one company going under and all their products filling a landmine anyway.
I'm not arguing that its the most efficient but rather the least inefficient. Of course there is waste because us humans are imperfect therefore we're incapable of being 100% efficient regardless the underlying economic system - capitalism just happens to be the best model AT THE MOMENT because of the inherent checks of the market. Two business can create the same product because there is a market for it otherwise it would never happen. The market (a.k.a. the people) decided that two business are needed because they are spending money on the product - it's democracy in action - exchanging your labor (a.k.a. money) on something you deem worthy.
What risk? Is that like the risk the Wall Street banks took in the 2008 crash? Or the risk the auto company execs took when they got bailed out? Or the risks Donald Trump took when all his businesses crashed and burned and he still walked away with billions?
Again, when you make the rules, you don't have risks.
Most business in the USA are small business and can hardly afford to buy politicians therefore they don't make the rules. So yes - most business are taking risks so they deserve a greater reward to incentivize them to start business so they can employ more people. As long as there is government (a necessary evil) there will always be those who benefit to a greater degree via quid-pro-quo deals to corrupt politicians. So the best solution, since Government has no competitors, is to limit the size of government to limit the amount of cronyism that can exist.
Most businesses are started with borrowed money which requires someone with extra cash to hand it out (someone who has more money than he needs). The business owner put himself at risk by borrowing the money needed to start the business and he is on the hook to repay that money regardless of success or failure therefore he deserves to be compensated for this extra risk.If only they all had the capital to do so.
People aren't starving now (at least in the USA with the 1.3 trillion spent on social welfare) but yet here we are listening to people rant about the white boogie-man and the unfair distribution of wealth. Do you really think that the lack-lust developer is going to be happy when he sees the other guy living a better life because he happens to be more skillful? Envy is the greatest evil on this planet and will not disappear just because we switch to "Open Developer Mode"."Open Developer mode will be more of the same - some guys will rock on Open Developer mode and others wouldn't know what to do with it."
Certainly, but it would also be fair, and the ones who don't rock wouldn't necessarily have to starve.