Slashdot Mirror
Linux As a Model For a New Government?
An anonymous reader writes "The hedge fund investor who prided himself on achieving 1000% returns, Andrew Lahde, wrote a goodbye letter to mark his departure from the financial world. In it, he suggests people think about building a new government model, and his suggestion is to have someone like George Soros fund a new government that brings together the best and brightest minds in a manner where they're not tempted by bribery. In doing so, he refers to how Linux grows and competes with Microsoft. An open source government. How would such a system work, and could it succeed? How long before it became corrupt? Would it need a benevolent dictator (Linus vs. Soros)?"
As a Mac user, you sound like a delusional idiot.
Two points:
I don't give a damn who the fruits of my labor is going to if it's not going to me. I work for me, not for anyone else.
Then why do you let the rich underpay you?
How? You need to understand that value!=money!=resources these things merely approximate each other. If we took money from rich people and gave it to poor people it would do little to improve their situation because the resources and the value aren't really there.
Actually, money doesn't get devalued by being taken from the rich and given to the poor, it gets devalued when more of it is created without also increasing the value it represents. You don't even need to give the money to the poor, just take it from the rich and destroy it. That alone will increase the value of the money remaining in the system. If the money is an (approximate) representation of the value of a nation's labour and capital, then moving that money from one place to another doesn't devalue it. Any discrepancy between money/value/labour is due to the monetary system that allows money to be created based on money itself, and not based on the value of capital/labour.
Also, don't forget, I'm not necessarily talking about giving money to the poor, I'm talking about raising the poor's wages, and giving them jobs where they don't already have them. If the money that's currently being hoarded was brought back into the economy (through purchasing, investing in infrastructure, whatever) then there would be more demand for goods and more supply of those goods, for better wages. Whenever something bad happens, what do the leaders say? Spend more money. Why? Because it gives the economy a boost. The problem with the rich is that they don't spend enough on real stuff, they hoard value. (Whether or not it's a good idea to base the economy on consumption is an argument for another day.)
In the end, any benefit to the poor would come at the expense of the middle class (by raising their costs).
Except that if the middle class were getting paid what their labour was worth, they'd have more money to compensate for the rising costs.
In the long term, it would hurt everybody, because some of the money you took from the rich was going to be used for new capital investment (to increase available resources in the future and thereby further enrich the wealthy) and now it won't be.
Shenanigans. You're making my arguments for me. The problem is that they hoard their wealth now. Rich people don't invest in new capital unless they are sure they'll get more money to hoard out of that investment. There's nothing wrong with taking profits as a return on your investment, but the game is rigged so that they take more profits than they could ever need. They do this at YOUR expense.
You may be able to balance the equation merely by making money not inheritable. Want to pass on your millions to your kids? Buy them houses, jets and jewelry and pass that along, not your money. This would have the advantage of at least turning all that money back into capital. (Don't attack me on this one please, as I'm not sure at all it would work, I'm still only toying with the idea)
you can't make a poor person wealthy simply by giving them money.
I'm not talking about making a poor person wealthy, I'm talking about making a poor person not starving or malnourished. Making sure poor people are reasonably healthy and have a roof over their heads. Making sure poor people have an education. It doesn't take all that much to make sure everyone has a minimum standard of living. I'm not saying everyone should make the same wage, just that there be a minimum (that supports a decent life) and a maximum (I'm thinking a few hundreds of thousands a year, just not in the millions/year range), and between those two points you're free to compete with your peers. Currently, this isn't possible. Or rather, for the middle class it i
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.