> Who are you to say what is productive, and what is not? When someone buys a building to lease out flats, is that not productive?
In theory there is a powerful argument here, but in practice I am suspicious because when people attempt to start settling trades in, say, gold the police will soon get involved.
If we're appealing to principles of freedom of opinion, there has to be a really good justification for why we all have to agree with the bank's opinions on who is creditworthy? I think somewhere in the mess I'm being robbed, and everyone being forced to participate in the system is not allaying my suspicions.
It is the old argument against socialism - while there is often not a good argument against the individual parts; it is the communists building the wall to keep people in. Looks kinda suspicious and the people controlling the monetary system see little reason to compromise or allow people to choose the best personal options.
>> socialism - while there is often not a good argument against the individual parts; it is the communists building the wall
Communism and socialism are distinct. The confusion arises because Marx (& Engels) used the terms interchangeably but that was a long time ago and a lot has changed in the interim (as has just about every other discipline in the world) and now these terms refer to distinct ideas.
Within socialism, there’s a few major branches. The one of most interest to western countries would be democratic socialism.
Just to help cement the idea that there’s fundamental differences, here’s some ideas from socialism that might be surprising if you equate socialism with communism:
They’re against redistributive taxes because they’re heavy in administrative overhead and can reduce the desire to work. Instead they prefer the idea that income distributions are maintained fairly. E.g. for one example, the board can award the CEO any amount they desire limited only by the available money to the company - however, the lowest paid employee, regardless of role within the firm, must not earn less than 0.X times the remuneration of the CEO. Where X is set such that the lowest and highest paid workers dont diverge by excessive amounts.
Socialists believe in individual creativity - they strive to provide freedom to be creative to all individuals.
While ultimately they’re against the waste of capitalism (e.g. a sweeping simplification but advertising driven consumption - consumption not based on need but based on wants) socialists do seek to beat production of the capitalist approach where communism has no interest in this.
> regardless of role within the firm, must not earn less than 0.X times the remuneration of the CEO
So penalizing companies in low margin sectors and depriving them of top tier leadership talent while favoring companies in high margin industries seems reasonable to them? e.g. Amazon would have a much lower cap on CEO remuneration mainly because they are in retail and distribution (not implying that warehouse workers are not treated poorly) than Google for instance just because they employee less software engineers etc. proportionally?
You’re trying to add apples and bricks and getting fishing hooks as an answer.
The concept of a CEO is quite radically different when there’s collective ownership of the means of production.
Going back to the grandparents point - it’s often healthy and useful to disagree, often the root of progress but we can’t skip the necessary first step of learning first. An opinion built from a misunderstanding of what’s being discussed is not useful.
> You’re trying to add apples and bricks and getting fishing hooks as an answer.
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what are you trying to say.
> The concept of a CEO is quite radically
Perhaps. My point was that tying minimum pay to CEO salary/remuneration doesn't really make sense. Nothing else.
> An opinion built from a misunderstanding of what’s being discussed is not useful
You mean like my opinion? Why? I mean your comment is very vague and unspecific. You didn't say anything besides that I don't understand what I'm talking about with no explanation or arguments.. (which sort of illustrates my implicit point that idealistic socialists tend to ignore most of the hard issues and mainly focus on gaslighting their 'ideological opponents' instead of offering actual solutions)
In theory there is a powerful argument here, but in practice I am suspicious because when people attempt to start settling trades in, say, gold the police will soon get involved.
If we're appealing to principles of freedom of opinion, there has to be a really good justification for why we all have to agree with the bank's opinions on who is creditworthy? I think somewhere in the mess I'm being robbed, and everyone being forced to participate in the system is not allaying my suspicions.
It is the old argument against socialism - while there is often not a good argument against the individual parts; it is the communists building the wall to keep people in. Looks kinda suspicious and the people controlling the monetary system see little reason to compromise or allow people to choose the best personal options.