Socialistic Capitalism
I was originally going to respond to Joseph's blog comment, but I ended up coming up with way too much for just a response, so I'm just making this one a blog. I used to believe in the Steve Forbes flat tax, but then I went to Norway and I learned about how Socialism works in a functional society. Because our main examples of "socialism" were actually dicatorships using the concept of "socialism" to gain support from the masses even when the authorities aren't acting in their best interests. When we think of "socialism" we are reminded of Cuba, China and the USSR, and we tend to forget Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland. The latter 4 are perfect examples of why socialism is not the failure that we're taught to think it is.
Though Norway has basically an identical per capita income as we do, it's Gini index (Income inequality metrics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality ) ranks 6th behind Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic. All of those nations are prosperous, educated and peaceful societies. Their crime rates are miniscule and opportunities great. Compare that to the US (92nd place, behind Cameroon, China, Bolivia and Costa Rica and just ahead of The Dominican Republic, Madagascar and Venezuela) where people can make 10% of what their superior makes for nearly the same work. The fact that we're so rich should mean that would would be easier for us than anyone else in history to socialize.
Would it really hurt Alex Rodriguez to make "just" $5,000,000 this year? Because if we had 80% taxes, that's what he'd make. But that $20,000,000 that was taken from him could easily pay for new schools, medical benefits or even infrastructure. He'd still be a rich bastard, getting paid millions to play a game, but he'd actually be benefiting society more just by simply earning his keep. Since so many people make just $20,000 or so, I would set a income basement of $10,000 to ensure everyone is able to live even without the redistribution of wealth. Bill Gates would have just $10,000,000,000 to his name and the other $40,000,000,000 would be used to pay for schools and the other societal necessities. Once again, he'd still be a rich bastard, able to live like a king off of interest, but he'd be less rich and everyone else better off.
In the future, the only companies able to compete will be major corporations or the high-end ones that cater to the rich. How many computer stores or video stores can you think of that are not chains? Now go back to 1995 and ask the same question. For us to combat companies like Wal-Mart from taking over the world, we need to make the move now before it's too hard. Bentonville, Arkansas is the home to the world's largest retailer, yet 10% of the population is living in poverty. How could company where the top 6 people are worth a combined $100,000,000,000 or so be based in a town where the economy is so downtrodden? Imagine if the Waltons were required to give back a portion of their profits to the people who made them those profits, wouldn't Bentonville be better off?
The fundamental flaw of Capitalism is the prevalence and acceptance of greed. People are encouraged in this country to strive to be the next Donald Trump or Michael Dell, but not the next (my HS freshman year history teacher) Mr Gehre or (my Bantam hockey coach) Coach Nader. We are so focused on wealth that we have completely lost focus on what greed really is. Isn't wanting more than what others have being greedy? I certainly think so, and even though I want more like everyone else, I still consider that being greedy. We talk so much about being a nation and protecting our borders, yet we don't actually want to be a nation. We just want to be individuals living for ourselves and not for the greater good. While it would be fine for us to want everyone to be prosperous, it's just greedy to want that even just for your family.
In our nation people are lead to believe that if you work really hard, you'll earn that million and retire in luxury. Unfortunately that's a lie. Some people work pretty hard through their lives, and some people don't and their prosperity has little to do with ethic. Opportunity is all that really matters. The best pitcher who ever lived may be playing his HS ball in some rural town in South Dakota, but that decent player from San Diego is going to get more scholarship offers because he's had exposure. The same goes for education. The smartest student at a school in Kansas will likely end up at KU an okay state school, but the worst student at Exeter will get a scholarship (wonder who this is supposed to represent...) to Tulane in addition to acceptances at other desirable schools. If this is a land of "equal opportunity" where is it? Because if it really was, Paris Hilton wouldn't have made $7,000,000 last year from partying, blowing guys and being ignorant...she'd be living in a group rehab center for recovering crack whores. I'd much rather be in a world where Paris was a crack whore (well, and not an heirress at the same time) instead of someone who makes 200 times what the average American will make in the next year. If nothing else, wouldn't you like to take $5,600,000
Though Norway has basically an identical per capita income as we do, it's Gini index (Income inequality metrics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality ) ranks 6th behind Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic. All of those nations are prosperous, educated and peaceful societies. Their crime rates are miniscule and opportunities great. Compare that to the US (92nd place, behind Cameroon, China, Bolivia and Costa Rica and just ahead of The Dominican Republic, Madagascar and Venezuela) where people can make 10% of what their superior makes for nearly the same work. The fact that we're so rich should mean that would would be easier for us than anyone else in history to socialize.
Would it really hurt Alex Rodriguez to make "just" $5,000,000 this year? Because if we had 80% taxes, that's what he'd make. But that $20,000,000 that was taken from him could easily pay for new schools, medical benefits or even infrastructure. He'd still be a rich bastard, getting paid millions to play a game, but he'd actually be benefiting society more just by simply earning his keep. Since so many people make just $20,000 or so, I would set a income basement of $10,000 to ensure everyone is able to live even without the redistribution of wealth. Bill Gates would have just $10,000,000,000 to his name and the other $40,000,000,000 would be used to pay for schools and the other societal necessities. Once again, he'd still be a rich bastard, able to live like a king off of interest, but he'd be less rich and everyone else better off.
In the future, the only companies able to compete will be major corporations or the high-end ones that cater to the rich. How many computer stores or video stores can you think of that are not chains? Now go back to 1995 and ask the same question. For us to combat companies like Wal-Mart from taking over the world, we need to make the move now before it's too hard. Bentonville, Arkansas is the home to the world's largest retailer, yet 10% of the population is living in poverty. How could company where the top 6 people are worth a combined $100,000,000,000 or so be based in a town where the economy is so downtrodden? Imagine if the Waltons were required to give back a portion of their profits to the people who made them those profits, wouldn't Bentonville be better off?
The fundamental flaw of Capitalism is the prevalence and acceptance of greed. People are encouraged in this country to strive to be the next Donald Trump or Michael Dell, but not the next (my HS freshman year history teacher) Mr Gehre or (my Bantam hockey coach) Coach Nader. We are so focused on wealth that we have completely lost focus on what greed really is. Isn't wanting more than what others have being greedy? I certainly think so, and even though I want more like everyone else, I still consider that being greedy. We talk so much about being a nation and protecting our borders, yet we don't actually want to be a nation. We just want to be individuals living for ourselves and not for the greater good. While it would be fine for us to want everyone to be prosperous, it's just greedy to want that even just for your family.
In our nation people are lead to believe that if you work really hard, you'll earn that million and retire in luxury. Unfortunately that's a lie. Some people work pretty hard through their lives, and some people don't and their prosperity has little to do with ethic. Opportunity is all that really matters. The best pitcher who ever lived may be playing his HS ball in some rural town in South Dakota, but that decent player from San Diego is going to get more scholarship offers because he's had exposure. The same goes for education. The smartest student at a school in Kansas will likely end up at KU an okay state school, but the worst student at Exeter will get a scholarship (wonder who this is supposed to represent...) to Tulane in addition to acceptances at other desirable schools. If this is a land of "equal opportunity" where is it? Because if it really was, Paris Hilton wouldn't have made $7,000,000 last year from partying, blowing guys and being ignorant...she'd be living in a group rehab center for recovering crack whores. I'd much rather be in a world where Paris was a crack whore (well, and not an heirress at the same time) instead of someone who makes 200 times what the average American will make in the next year. If nothing else, wouldn't you like to take $5,600,000
posted by Dan Pasternack at 5:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home