h a l f b a k e r yExtruded? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
While it is often said that so-and-so is penniless, it is
generally true that most people own something, even if
it
is just the clothes being worn. Logically, it would be
possible for everyone to have and maintain a list of
owned
stuff, generically called "capital".
Now consider inflation
which can make it difficult to
compare capital at different times in history. Logically,
the way to do it is to compare the total capital of the
very
wealthy to the total capital of the very poor. We now
consider doing that on a logarithmic scale.
We can now define a group of folks that have 1 unit of
capital, and another group that has 10 units of capital,
and
another group that has 100 units of capital, and so on,
such
that the very wealthiest might have a billion times as
much
capital as the very poorest. Inflation cannot seriously
affect this type of comparison, because inflation
generally
affects most types of capital fairly equally.
Now for the politics. Imagine everyone potentially
having
10 votes each to cast, when some particular thing is put
up
to a nationwide referendum. However, since this Idea is
about Inverse-Capital Vote-Weighting, only the very
poorest get 10 votes each. Those with 10 times the
capital
get 9 votes each; those with 100 times the capital get 8
votes each, and so on, such that those with a billion
times
the capital only get 1 vote each, to apply to the
referendum.
Should it happen that someone has 10 billion times the
capital of the poorest person, then we simply adjust
things
so that almost everyone gets one extra vote (the poorest
get 11
votes each and the richest get 1 vote each).
Should it happen that someone has 100 billion times the
capital of the poorest person, then we simply adjust
things
so that almost everyone gets another extra vote (the
poorest get
12 votes each and the richest get 1 vote each).
And so on. In the USA at the time of this writing there is
an important vote regarding "Net Neutrality" which has
been badly influenced by the oligarchs, for their own
benefit and to the detriment of the masses. I'm pretty
sure such a vote would never yield such unfairness if the
poor could influence things as well as the rich.
A Solution to Lobbying
A_20Solution_20to_20Lobbying
[Skewed, Dec 10 2017]
[link]
|
| |
1. wealth is so heavily weighted in society in the
first place (the old 8% have 90% of the wealth bit, or
whatever it was (or is) right now (it may have shifted since I
read it, or not been accurate when I did, or I
may have remembered it wrong) ... but none of that really
matters, the point is it's a really big disparity). |
|
| |
2. democracy already follows the 1 person 1 vote rule. |
|
| |
The idea would seem defunct as the poor already outvote
the wealthy, a lot. |
|
| |
This would accentuate the existing voting
balance in favor of the poor even more though. |
|
| |
[Skewed], if what you wrote was correct, then the oligarchs
in the USA would not have the political power they are
proven to have. There is a classic version of the "golden
rule" that goes, "he who has the gold makes the rules", and
every time something happens that benefits the wealthy
over the poor, the rule-variant gains evidence of validity.
This Idea is intended to defeat that phenomenon. |
|
| |
The pro Net Neutrality campaign is a perfect example of
ignorant, socialist thinking fueled by one set of oligarchs
versus another. Or did you think that the people running
Netflix or Facebook or Google are less oligarchy than the
people running Comcast or Cablevision? Check out some
stock charts. Haven't noticed the owner's of Comcast
building spaceships to go to Mars -- but the owner of
Amazon is. |
|
| |
In reality, while the benefits of the Internet may have
taken longer to develop, half the problems of the
Internet, from spam to trolling to identity theft, would
never have even occurred if you had to pay per byte. |
|
| |
Starting to treat it as a necessary utility now is a sure
way to cement the status quo -- as already evidenced by
the deterioration in Quality of Service of the telecom
network over the last few years. Who is going invest
billions for the next gen system when you cannot
guarantee that you will make money because you have a
better system. |
|
| |
As Skewed points out, wealth compensates, in some
small way, versus the tyranny of the unwealthy majority.
The last 3 Presidential elections were clearly not
decided by money. |
|
| |
The net neutrality decision is being made not because of
corporate lobbying, but because the chief commissioner
has a strong, Ayn Randian belief in continuing to develop
the net -- he had this belief before current Net
Neutrality was shoved down industry's throat, and he
maintains it now, and elections have consequences. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], you are ignoring the fact that the major
internet service providers are already profitable. That
means they already have the means to put funds into new
technologies. Making greater profits *might* allow them to
do it faster, but what actually happens is, they just direct
most of the extra profits into the pockets of the
shareholders. "Trickle-down" really means, "you get a
trickle and I get all the rest". |
|
| |
// if what you wrote was correct // |
|
| |
Let me restate it (different words might
illustrate my point better). |
|
| |
1. There are a lot more poor (or low paid) people than rich
people ... true. |
|
| |
2. In (our current) democracy we get one vote each
regardless of wealth
... also true. |
|
| |
If then (as you assert) there appears to be a problem
whereby the rich somehow circumvent the democratic
system to disproportionately effect politics it would seem
unlikely that the problem lies in the number of votes
available to the poor as a class. |
|
| |
If the rich are successfully circumventing their lower
number of votes to get their way then giving the poor more
(votes) won't help will it, you're just giving them more of
something that has already been demonstrated to be
irrelevant. |
|
| |
You may need to reconsider what the perceived problem
actually is before trying to fix it. |
|
| |
[Skewed], the current system in the USA involves
representatives placed in-between the voters and the
rules that are made. The real problem is that the number
of representatives (including Senators) is fixed, while
population grows, making it more difficult for an
individual voice to get the attention of a representative.
However, since it is well known that "money talks", that's
why the oligarchs have so much influence. |
|
| |
At the individual-state level (especially in California)
there is a trend toward getting the public more directly
involved in specifying the rules (via referendums). To the
extent that this can be reliably workable (can't neglect
chance of voting systems getting hacked), more states
might follow, and in the end the Federal system might
get changed, too. We are certainly going to need some
sort of change for the long run (see last part of this
anno). |
|
| |
But you can bet the oligarchs are not going to let that
happen without a lot of legal fighting. So it is really a
good thing that the Constitution allows citizens to bypass
their own state legislatures with respect to Constitutional
Amendments.... |
|
| |
This Idea cannot be inserted into an existing system; it
needs to be part of a new system, one intended to
prevent oligarchs from controlling a country. Which is
what happened to ancient Rome, leading to its downfall. |
|
| |
What does are already profitable mean? Money seeks a
higher return commensurate with the risk taken. |
|
| |
Shareholders are taking a risk as well. |
|
| |
Any doubt in your mind that Google is already profitable.
Look at the list of companies supporting net neutrality and
their combined worth. |
|
| |
I'm pointing out that the premise, that it's the masses
against the oligarchs, is fundamentally flawed. Is simply
one set of beneficiaries versus another. You're likely to pay
more for content over time regardless at least until AI can
produce content. And you actually fix a lot of distortions by
charging for the percentage of pipe used |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], I picked the net neutrality thing as one
example where the oligarchs are getting their way in spite
of the negative effects on the rest of the population. It is
by far not the only way oligarchs have done that, and this
Idea is about preventing it. Money may be power, but that
doesn't mean it should also be votes. |
|
| |
// the current system in the USA involves representatives
placed in-between the voters and the rules that are made
// |
|
| |
Pretty much as it is here (your parliamentary representative
is your member of parliament). |
|
| |
So (unless I'm
misunderstanding you) you're issue is essentially lobbying by
rich contributors yes? |
|
| |
It sounds like what you really want might be a more direct
involvement (of voters), direct referendums
perhaps, to hamstring the ability of wealthy "contributors"
to influence your representatives decisions with
blandishments of money (by taking those decisions away
from them). |
|
| |
Might that have
the effect you want without weighing of voting rights in
favor of the lower
paid? |
|
| |
It would be a lot tidier & is certainly a (reasonably cheap)
possibility these days (with computers & the internet), of
course that probably ends up with Russia running the
US (through online voting) if recent allegations are anything
to go by. |
|
| |
Or ... just limit party donations to a very small
amount (index linked to the lower incomes) & ban all
contributions from anyone (or thing) that doesn't have the
right to vote (so, limiting it to real people, no NGO,
corporate or foreign donations), & make any contributions
exceeding that amount &
(professional) lobbying both criminal offences with a
penalty of a (very)
long jail term & confiscation of all assets if caught. |
|
| |
What we want are shorter elections. |
|
| |
Yes, I have that //Elections lasting longer than 4 hours// thing
somewhere. |
|
| |
I really don't think it does. |
|
| |
If I'm not mistaken what Vernon is trying to
address is the influence of the rich on political decisions
(through party donations & lobbying)? |
|
| |
Which can be done as easily after your representative has
been elected as it can before & has nothing to do with
votes anyway. |
|
| |
So adjusting voting powers really is an irrelevant red
herring, it won't have any effect on that at all. |
|
| |