Author Topic: Maximum Assets per Person  (Read 832 times)

Someone

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 801
Re: Maximum Assets per Person
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2017, 09:23:58 AM »
Greetings and Peace all  :group:

There is nothing wrong with exploring ideas. I don't agree with this MAP idea for the reasons below, but it is certainly correct to discuss ideas. The greatest changes in human history have not been through things, but through ideas. Truly something from nothing.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, even concentrated wealth. It is one of the reasons why people strive and take calculated risks. A person who struggles to start a business and puts in the work and as a result becomes wealthy, why should they be punished? If I risk my assets and put in 100 hours a week for years on end in order to launch a business and make it succeed, why should my rewards be limited? Keep in mind that business blesses employees and the public and continues the primary function of money--circulation.

Peace Abdul-Hadi,

Thank you for your comments.

Similarly to adopting a minimal wage level in most countries because it is considered immoral to hire someone with under such level of salary, it can also be considered immoral to own more than the MAP while others are lacking the basic requirements for living with dignity.

I don't see anything wrong with wealth or getting the fruit of one's own efforts, to the contrary I am all for it and for all the people if possible; Unfortunately, as per the statistics, only less than 1% of the adult population is able to achieve such a level of wealth. It doesn't mean that the 99% remaining are not working hard enough or are not smart enough... it just means that the current distribution of wealth is out of balance and some new paradigm needs to be adopted.

Quote
Further, much more than five million dollars is required for certain projects; to limit individuals to an arbitrary amount would necessarily limit progress--not all companies are suitable for pooling of resources for startup. Riskier or less politically correct businesses should not automatically no longer be possible--something that a MAP could inadvertently create. For me to start up a business extracting rare earth elements from fly ash or building a propane-powered-appliance factory in Afghanistan or any other number of projects, these projects carry risks and would require personal liquidity of more than five million US dollars to be successful. These projects would also be beneficial--too bad that they would not be possible under the proposed plan.

What do you think it costs to start a pharmaceutical company? What do you think it would cost to develop and market a transdermal IV patch that high risk individuals could wear that, when needed, would directly put IV fluid through leaky one-way valves into the interstitial fluid? What if I told you that it would probably be a billion dollars. That means that if a MAP was 5M, it would take over 200 people putting ALL of their assets together and leaving no other assets for a risky but beneficial venture. It would likely never happen. Too bad for all the people that could benefit, the firefighters, law enforcement professionals, people with small or damaged blood vessels, and military...

Similarly to the current system, shareholders may participate in such large scale companies. With the MAP, the only difference would be that you will get so many small shareholders, no big ones; I think that the businesses will be more transparent as the risk, effort and interests are equally shared.

With the MAP and the excess wealth redistributed, only the specialists in a discipline will mostly dare to invest in it, not any joe with big wallet. Like in pharmaceutical field, most probably only pharmacologists will organize themselves to make the necessary researches for new treatments because only them can estimate the risk and efforts, and they would have the means to do it if they are in large numbers, without needing any external funds or investments.   

Such a model will force people to participate and share the responsibilities, efforts, investment, income and power. The decision making process will not be in the hands of only a few elite. 

Quote
If everyone started out with an equal amount, in a short period of time the money would still be as it is today. Not everyone is good with money. The guy selling candy bars would make money, and the people buying candy bars would eat their candy bars and complain about being broke. It is human nature.

You are right about this. But if you have a close look to the graphic in the original post, you will see that the wealthiest (A) 0.7% owns 116 trillions$, while the poorest (B) 73% owns only 6 trillions. If you take only 10% from group A (11,6 tr$) and give it to group (B), then it will literally triple (x3) the wealth of group B with a total of 17,6 tr$; This will dramatically impact the lives of group B, but it will almost have no effect on the quality of living of group A. 

Quote
What happens when land values rise and land (such as a farm) has to be sold off to limit the MAP? Where does the "excess" go anyway? Money is fiat and it doesn't benefit the government to get it back.

Small land owners can get the excess land from the big owners, and run bigger farms.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with wealth legitimately gained through ability, talent, or hard work. A better plan is to make it more possible for people to thrive when they provide either ability, talent, or hard work. The answer is not to provide obstacles for the lawful accumulation of wealth, but to remove obstacles for people to succeed.

Communism didn't work and fascism didn't work and democracy, even with its flaws, seems to be the most viable economic system.

The MAP will enforce democracy because power(read money) will be shared. And this is not communism nor fascism, it can be implemented in a liberal system to make it more moral than the current system in which only less than 1% can get wealthy.

Quote
Any place that instituted this MAP idea would see both wealth and talent leave for elsewhere. New businesses would be few and far between, and people would hoard assets (maybe precious metal coins with a face value, for instance).

Yes that's a potential risk, but it is the same trick for avoiding taxes in current systems so same control methods can be used.

Quote
Personally, I'm concerned about when nanomachines become mainstream. When buildings and other structures can be built in minutes from the earth, when people live hundreds of years because of nanomachines in their bloodstream, and when food can be produced and manufactured goods can be created cheaply with the aid of nanomachines, the human population will explode. There won't be many jobs, except in art and service industry. If money doesn't exist, there is the strong possibility that human technology will plateau and stagnate--who is going to do cutting edge research without motivation?

By the way, I figured out how to power nanomachines.  :) Much better for everyone to get the benefits, because the only alternative is to only have the military application...  :'(

If such nano machines are invented in the current system by some big company, then be sure that only the group A (0.7%) above will take benefit from it (as only them can afford it) to get even more wealth and abuse even more the rest of the population.

If it is invented in a MAP configuration, then the company will be owned by a large number of shareholders, and so the information and knowledge is wide spread about it, then no one can use it to abuse others, not even militarily.

Anyway, good luck in your researches on powering nanomachines. I am curious to know more about it if you are comfortable with sharing it...   

Quote
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.

 :peace:

~Abdul-Hadi

Peace

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
  • Gender: Male
Re: Maximum Assets per Person
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2017, 05:55:55 PM »
Maybe the chinese government should just give the apartments for free to the people in need (or with minimal rent), then the ghost cities will get some life... and businesses will start.... and other bigger companies will follow because there is some labour in that area...

They did...
But who wanted to live in a 'free apartment' in middle of nowhere without any prospect?
With exception of "ghulag", "labor camp" / "forced labor".

It's an example where supply doesn't meet demand a.k.a building / supplying / providing something which nobody ever wanted or need... A 'waste' from economy perspective.

And an evidence that even the government cannot truly control or manipulate the market demand.

Value, in economics term, can only be generated if a party fulfill the need of another party..
In another lingo, this is called "Helping others"...

"Money" is merely a token which act as a 'stimulus' to make such process happened..
Money is not 'wealth'.... it's merely a token..
There is no need to limit the ownership of such token...
As the token can be easily generated at will by the token issuer...


Quote
Isn't china communist anymore?  ;D  :hmm
It's the same as "Isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran a Muslim Country"?

It depends... ideology and identity and also religion is a political construct, it was invented with grabbing power as it's ultimate goal... In the case of PRC, it was used by Mao et. al. to make people willing to sacrifice
 their life for his cause to become the new 'emperor' of China.

People Republics of China are 'communist' for the sake of (only) ideology, identity and religious sake...



amin

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 363
  • Gender: Male
Re: Maximum Assets per Person
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2017, 09:22:45 PM »
The world will be diverse as ever, try making it even overnight with some govt policies will not be natural or helpfull.  Its best to give time for things to solve, also money is not the only requirement for an individual. If people do not fall into dogmatic ideas and start questioning everything without blind belief  on Religion, Creed, Nationality, Color, language etc things can become better for everyone. These differences can be used by some for their own benefits to cheat others Keeping a watch on those and maintaining a balance in our requirements will help.

Abdun Nur

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 831
Re: Maximum Assets per Person
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2017, 05:13:12 AM »
You cannot impose on others, there is no compulsion, to advocate a system of compulsion is then wrong therefore you cannot dictate what assetts anyone has, its none of your business, the money masters however do impose their riba (usury) model through the hierarchical structures of government, which they control, the solution is not to act like those who cause the problems, it is to establish an alternative, when an alternative is created the problem will resolve itself.

I did create an alternative model, but sadly the riba lovers were not interested in a riba free model.

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
  • Gender: Male
Re: Maximum Assets per Person
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2017, 11:43:46 AM »
the solution is not to act like those who cause the problems, it is to establish an alternative, when an alternative is created the problem will resolve itself.
Agree on this one..

Quote
I did create an alternative model, but sadly the riba lovers were not interested in a riba free model.

Then it's an evidence that your 'model' is NOT better...
No need for 'cursing'...


My prophecy: Government of the (near) future will not even be in control of 'money'..

A Japanese 'kufr' has created a brilliant alternative where he created, I quote " a form of digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses distributed cryptography to control its creation and management, rather than relying on central authorities.".

Central bank authorities worldwide considered this new form of 'money' as a 'threat to their very existence'.. as it's better in many aspect compared to their form of currency.
If this new form of money gain worldwide adoption then central bank will lose it's relevance and became extinct... following the law of evolution (or should I say the law of God?).. survival of the better...