so if you marry a rich guy you nag him to give away everything extra?

i'd still be a baller

Success in such an economic paradigm would not be gauged according to how many cars, boats, or vacation homes one had; it would not be gauged according to how much fruit of one's labor a person were to store, nor by how much fruit they could boast to have contributed to a group venture, nor by how 'much' they could say they had 'accomplished' as a group or individual, in any way shape or form.

Instead, success would be gauged according to how little work they had to do as an individual or group; instead of boasting about how hard they worked, they would boast about how much leisure time they had at their disposal.  It would be such a society where they could boast that there wasn't any need to do any work, because, (and here is the point) there wasn't ANY PROBLEM requiring their effort to solve.

Within the new economic paradigm, as much as possible, human effort would be devoted to education, leisure, skills training, and, hopefully, only the occasional problem solving venture.  Humans effort would also be devoted to innovation towards further, self-regulating, self-correcting systems designed to replace current human labor devoted to said problems; all basic human needs would be easily fulfilled by these self-regulating systems.

Of course those who might want MORE than the fulfillment of their basic needs could get them by 'working' more.  There would be no encumbrance on one's opportunity to pursue such; but their motivation to do so, if it were viewed as simply a desired to 'get more than the joneses', would be considered highly suspect.  Instead, those who produced innovations which created automated, self-regulating, self-correcting systems which solved social problems would be celebrated.  And because those who would be motivated to innovate to solve problems facing humanity would do so from a motivation simply to help humanity, their solutions would be viable; their solutions certainly would NOT be techno-fixes designed so they could derive profits from the perpetuation of social problems.  No, their motivation would stem from the understanding that resources are limited, and that one's excess comes at the expense of the fulfillment of the basic necessities of others', and such a person wouldn't expect material rewards for their contribution.  They wouldn't expect any reward or recognition at all.  And yet, although unknown they might be, they would be celebrated by billions, hundreds of billions  In such a paradigm, anyone seeking even status recognition would be regarded with suspicion.

This is a far-cry from our celebration of those who profit from the perpetuation of social problems of our current economic paradigm.  Our current economic paradigm is one where we celebrate and espouse to be like those who control and manipulate the scarcity of resources to pursue their own self-interests; where we espouse absurd amounts of wealth which we all know we ourselves would probably use to perpetuate such an inherently unjust economic paradigm in our own further self-interest. 

It is a system in which people who are complicit, complacent, uncritical of such a paradigm gain the opportunity to fulfill their basic needs / share in the profits of activities which are plaguing humanity and our world today; and lust for more and more and more and more and more, rather than being motivated to improve any situation of others'; and we do so at the expense of the opportunity of the majority of our species to fulfill their basic human needs.  It is absolutely insane how we do things, and it must change, or we are doomed as a species.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> "there would be shame and negative stigma attached to acquiring excess"

ie success. You would shame success, innovation, and productivity.

Good plan. Well thought out. I'll bet it'd lead to great standards of living for all!

You bet it would.

If you want to argue something, argue this:

Is it true that one's excess comes at the expense of another's shortage?

"You would shame success, innovation, and productivity."

Success would be redefined as stated above in the new paradigm; innovation would actually be transformational innovation rather than the false, or fools'innovation we currently experience.  Productivity would be associated with maintaining self-perpetuating, self-regulating systems.  In short, the terms you describe would be redefined in the new economic paradigm.

I suggest you read "Wiseguy: A Life in a Mafia Family" by Nicholas Pileggi.  It was closely followed for the movie "Goodfellas".

There's a part in there where Henry Hill mentions most hijackings out of the airport were to order.  This was because having buyers negotiate a price in advance was most profitable.  Some guys just stole whatever and tried to sell it in the basement of Robert's Lounge, but Hill said "that wasn't cooking on all burners".

At one point Hill was stealing cars and selling them in Haiti, running guns out of Rockport Federal Arsenal, hijacking trucks, doing bookmaking, running a bar, and setting up crooked card games out of it, using the bar for stolen credit cards, counterfeiting, and smuggling cigarettes, all at the same time.

People like that are going to work to get an edge, no matter what you say, because they enjoy work and they enjoy doing something unique.  How will you channel their energies? Learning Farsi and barbecue?

Hahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaahahhahahahahaha

The problem is that some such similarly delusional women exist. And there's a chance, however small, that they'll pass on their DNA together.

The next generation, too, will demand that we build interstellar spaceships, despite the fact that no technology remotely capable of this feat exists or may even be possible.

...What debate?

"This debate hinges on the issue as to whether or not the family in rural Rwanda has better opportunity to fulfill their basic needs due to the Wall street trader's purchase of a second new Ferarri for his third mistress."

No, it hinges on the _fact_ that a family in rural Rwanda does _not_ have less opportunity because someone else is successful. This is basic economics which you refuse to learn anything about. It's not opinion. One person being productive and reaping the rewards of this productivity does not hurt anyone else; to the contrary, it helps others by reducing prices via competition in the free market.

"Your reluctance to address this issue is clear enough by your having to resort to ridiculing my ideas and insulting me."

You're not even framing the issue in a logical way, let alone making a reasonable argument. The fact that a Ferarri purchase doesn't help a beggar in Singapore doesn't equate to that Ferarri purchase hurting that beggar. You're speaking as if it does. It's irrational and pointless.

"I just take your ridicule and insults as an indication of you admitting I am right...."

Except we address all of your ignorant ideas and correct you. You ignore all of these corrections, even when they're not opinion. You have no interest in debating or discussing anything, so we make jokes because there's literally nothing else to talk about. You don't even present arguments.

"Prove that everyone, including the rural family in Rwanda, is better off due to the excesses of Wall street.  Prove that your 'free' market functions freely as Adam Smith might have envisioned it would."

As I said above, you're framing the argument irrationally. That free markets don't produce cheese on Mars doesn't change the fact that they benefit everyone in them. Does Rwanda have free markets? Hell if I care. Do they have any intrinsic connection with American markets? No. Does it mean anything if American markets do or do not directly effect Rwanda's standard of living? No. You're ranting about something with absolutely no bearing on the topic. Your Rwanda reference is a huge red herring.

Nobody has claimed that free markets in America benefit poor people in authoritarian/statist/communist/whatever foreign nations. Nobody here has said anything implying that free markets in one nation would directly benefit the poor of Rwanda. Free markets do help everyone on the globe insofar as they reduce prices, but if the people of Rwanda can't even afford transport costs, this doesn't help them. That's a problem with their governments, not the free market. Free markets still provide for the availability of better products at lower prices, but they don't magically increase the purchasing power of people outside of those free markets.

"I have provided evidence that supports the opposite...."

...No, you haven't.

"I'd be very happy if you could change my mind; very happy if you could prove me wrong."

This is a lie. You've made it very clear that you refuse to learn how free markets function to benefit members of societies with them.

"Evidence to the contrary, however, abounds..."

Maybe, one day, you'd be so kind as to share it with us. Fallacious references to Rwandan families, absent of any argument whatsoever, do not provide any such evidence.

"No, it hinges on the _fact_ that a family in rural Rwanda does _not_ have less opportunity because someone else is successful. This is basic economics which you refuse to learn anything about."

Why don't you teach me, then, Spock.  Show me a source that deals with this?

I'm simply stating the obvious. Free markets in America have nothing to do with Rwanda.

You've provided absolutely no argument otherwise.

Furthermore, you ignored my question begging you to provide an argument. I asked you how Henry Ford harmed any third world nation by getting rich producing automobiles in America. You never answered.

This is a really stupid exchange. If you're not going to provide an argument, there's no reason to troll.

If I fart it's not going to hurt a Rwandan either. Asking for sources of such an obvious logical fact is just stupid.

Accepting the premise that "excess" wealth can be "distributed" creates an authority to determine and enforce definitions of "excess" and oversee distribution. 

You claim this can be done by the "free market" without any examples of how somebody who accumulates wealth through voluntary commerce is going to end up no better off than people who just want to take language courses and eat and watch television.  You engage in sexual fantasies whereby the entire human race changes how it finds sexual partners. 

Your plans for integrated, centralized, coordination of sex, economics and politics offends every person who thinks sex and money should be free of politics, and every person who thinks money and politics have nothing to do with sex, and those hippies who want sexy politics without being tied to material possessions.

He refuses to address any of these obvious questions. If you repeat them, he might get upset and the forum will disappear again.