[extropy-chat] Bush wants another $75 billion for wars

[Rik van Riel]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Sean Diggins  wrote:

> But yes, I am guilty in this respect of one thing - when corporations
> and/or individuals amass HUGE fortunes, there are always sources for
> those fortunes. Winners, losers. It is not an endless, infinite bucket
> of money/resources. I ask "how much is enough?"

Wealth is not a zero sum game, there is some room for
upward growth of the total amount of wealth on this planet.
The sky's the limit; and Richard Branson seems determined to
break this limit. ;)

Having said that, I regard the "race to the bottom", that
some large companies seem to be holding, to be a danger to
the world economy.

The reason for this is that irresponsible exploitation and
huge inequality inevitably leads to social and political
tensions.  Tensions that lead to crime, violence, destruction
and, as an extreme, protectionism and even revolution and/or
war.

Unsurmountable inequality is a problem.  The only good
inequality is one that can be overcome by individuals that
simply outperform others.  IMHO inequality should act as
a motivation for people to do their very best; the moment
inequality becomes so big it demotivates people we have a
problem.

> Should there be requirements to return such wealth beyond a certain
> point?

IMHO, the sharing of wealth should be done only up to the
point where it helps to give everybody the opportunity to
be successful.  I believe this includes things like basic
healthcare, education and safety.

Too much more than that, and people might lose the motivation
to be productive.  Too much less than that, and you reduce
the ability of people to be productive.

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan