Helium wrote:Interesting thread.
I would envision a better system being a huge middle class with a much, much smaller class of poor people, I guess that's pretty obvious. HOw to get there? Hmmm. This would actually make the problem of income disparity a moot point. Look at it this way, if the so called 99 per cent were mostly farely comfortable, we wouldn't care how rich the 1 per cent were. That's the way I look it.
Yeah, I agree. The rich-poor gap is not in and of itself an important factor as long as the poor are relatively well off. The problems arise when the rich figure out ways to increase their wealth at the expense of the poor which I believe is something our current form of capitalism allows for.
I got a good guitar, cupla good books, decent house, my family and Iget along well, I don't covet mansions or car-filled garages.
I am at the low end of the middle class and I have no aspirations for wealth to be honest. I just need enough to be able to comfortably meet my needs and have a bit left over for entertaining myself while I'm not on here trying to find ways to save the world from both the capitalists and the socialists.
In a sense what you're proposing is to shove more people from poor into middle class. Sorry I'm late on this thread so I'll have to mull it over a bit, but one obvious solution is jobs for everyone. But the economy is designed to produce profits for shareholders; not jobs. In fact, as you note, shareholders have shifted a lot of the jobs off shore to where there's cheap labour and no environmental or labour legislation. I'll have to think about your worker-owned solution
Mainly, I am proposing a system which ,at least seemingly, would strip the corporations of the ridiculously high amount of influence that they have over society and over politics. My worker owned solution does not stem from a belief that the existence of different economic classes is inherently exploitative or wrong . (And, yes the government and not just the corporations could become the ruling classes once again under the "right" conditions) It stems from my belief that the general population would be a lot better off under an economy dominated by small businesses and under a government which has nobody to satisfy but the voters. I don't know if this worker owned system would "shove more people from poor to middle class" or develop an economy "designed to produce jobs" as you mentioned, but if there weren't a small amount of people hording ridiculous amounts of wealth the rest of us might get to see some of it. So I guess, less poverty and a bigger, wealthier middle class might be a "side effect" of this system.