You are here

interesting comment

*this isnt my writing, just a well written, rant if you will*

The problem with this is that it isn't your average Joe that makes society work.

That of course is a demonstrable falsity, promulgated by our would-be "betters" since times immemorial. It wasn't the peons that made empires and kingdoms "work", it were the "nobility", right? Starting with examples such as an idiot named Cheops who made thousands of men align stones on top of each other so that his "glorious" and "totally above average" ass can ascend to Heaven as a bigger yet king. No one remembers those "averages" who actually built the thing, never you mind those who fed the empire and its oh-so-superior parasites.

And so human societies were always constructed on the basis of this fundamental idiocy, that "special" people, who are "naturally" (or who in some very rare cases ascend the social strata) born to rule the rest of us mucky-mucks whose destiny is to make sure golden crappers of our "betters" run properly and that the exotic lobster is delivered on time. Anything else would be "class warfare" and frowned upon ... by the said betters and their sycophants.

On the contrary, the people that produce and that create jobs are a small exceptional group that often get the short end of the stick in a democratic system.

Total bullshit. The core of any economy are tradesmen (such as the majority of Slashdot readership), very small and small businesses, many millions of which operate in every country. Their owners are no more "special" then their employees and usually work hands-on in their chosen trade, as opposed to "managing" things or "investing" as is the case in larger operations. In most sane countries these owners also earn no more then double (after expenses and taxes) of what their employees make. In places such as Japan, even the CEOs of very large corporations make only about 10 times (on average) more then their workers. In neo-feudal nations, such as USA, that ratio is exceeding 500 and is on the way up.

The rarefied club of "exceptional betters", without whom we would surely not know how to tie our shoe-laces, is actually shrinking (as a percentage of total number of humans on Earth) and now less then 2% of humanity owns more then 50% of its private property (not income - assets!). Those numbers are worsening every year. If the trend continues, less then 0.5% will own 90% of Earth's assets in just few decades.

The would-be corporate royalty and the multi-mega-billionaires add nothing to the society as their activities are confined to "owning" land, machinery and people, people who in turn employ others who in turn do something actually useful. A process which would have gone on just as lively if the mega-billionaires were removed from the picture. Far more efficiently actually as a large number of small businesses competing in a marketplace is far more society-friendly then a few mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic fiefdoms.

I'm not sure what would constitute a better system, but what we have right now certainly isn't it.

Whatever it is, neo-feudalism (this time with hereditary "business" royalty) isn't it.

Great food for thought.

I was shocked when we were in Peru at the diversity between the capital's economy and that in the provinces.  Peru is a third world country... in the provinces, prices reflect that.  In Lima, where over 1/3 the population is nearly homeless (dwelling in the peripheral shanty-town "Pueblas Nuevas" without services or adequate construction-- even by Peruvian standards), prices can be near-U.S. or even surpassing U.S. prices in many sectors (of course, in the provinces some of these sectors are pricey... housewares cost the earth, but eating is cheap.)

I'd love to see a "sane country" as the article mentions... don't think there are any out there.  Grim.

0 likes
Log in or register to post comments