' tolstoy, yes the disconnect between justice and legality as an open chasam. I suppose that the least we can do is be aware of this and laugh in their faces when thay talk about 'the rule of law'.

My point is that the control of this system is so pernicious that the only way to throw it off, rather than simply change its name (again we need evolution not révolution), is indeed by sticking to our principles. Compromising your principles is code by being co-opted by elites, or cooperating with them. Do you suppose Lenin stuck to his principles? Obama?

I am not everyone, but I am one, so I will fight my fight as long as I'm here. You can help, or not, but I'm not sure what the alternative is? Nothing? What's the point of doing nothing in the one life you get? See if society can be transformed by experiment, don't preclude based on theoretical principle.

I am with Thucy......when I was younger I was cynical that one man could make a difference (like bo?). Now that I am a bit longer in the tooth I realise that this is not so, an individual can indeed make a difference.

http://www.pinetum.org/GionoUK.htm, Fiction I know but full of cynacism-busting ammunition..

Code for*

I think Thucy is at times a bit too naive or optimistic (no offense, thucy) but being cynical and pessimistic all the time doesn't really help anyone either on a personal or societal level. One person can make a difference but sometimes that difference is just a drop in the stream; it's a minor perturbation that would be literally washed away a few moments later. I think of Asimov's psychohistory in these instances. The momentum of the stream is already set so minor perturbations are meaningless in the long runs, so "real" lasting changes have to come from society as a whole or at least a rather sizable portion.

The stream is composed of drops.

@ zultar I guess that we must agree to differ about the human condition, but more importantly the human potential. Carpe diem is a toughie to live by, but if we keep reminding ourselves of that we will likely indeed make a difference. A difference founded on many small increments which may well grow into a large whole.
The alternative is a resignation to the bleak prospect of ''being an animal like any other''.

The first step toward bringing back parity is to consider capital gains as normal income and tax both at the same rate. Even Ronald Reagan said it was immoral not to. If people who earn money with money (capital) are taxed at a lower rate than people who earn money with time (labor), then there is absolutely no way for the workers to even come close to parity. You can't reinvest time to earn more time.

@fulhamish: Nice story. We've got Johnny Appleseed in the states who is similar. Not everyone can afford to be as freely giving however.

I kept thinking about the backside of that story. You may know the one. People start cutting down trees to make thneeds because thneeds are a thing that everyone needs and then soon enough the entire forest is about to get cut down except for this one guy called the Lorax.

If only live resources could be well-managed. Tragic.

Actually I don't know how far apart we are, fulhamish. I am pretty optimistic about the human potential and our capacity to correct course, but I am fairly realistic in terms of what I can do personally. I do what I can everyday, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that it may have some sort of societal impact that I wish it could. Nevertheless, I do it because it's the right thing to do. I do think what could be changed or nudged has to be based on a lot of actions though, not just talk.
When a person has shown to have done a lot of positive work tells me that "hey we can do XYZ together and it may change ABC," I'm more inclined to believe. I'm not inclined to believe in fanciful statements that do not have evidence to support it. Philosophically and scientifically speaking, it's the evidence that counts, not the mere theoretical musings.

It's true that, politically, no person can really do anything - but that's why the most important work for anyone who wants to change something is to talk to others about it. Most things important to care about are important enough for a lot of people to care about, and a lot of the time even 'common sense' things aren't really what everyone believes but what everyone things everyone else believes.

Every person wants some change or another; the best way to bring about anything but a very specific one is to try to bring back the culture of struggle and political involvement in general - sure, some dickheads or causes we disagree with will get involved, but most people I've have something they'd fight for, and an awful lot of those are good ones IMO.

Unions worked in the US because 20% of the population, more not counting farmers, was ready to strike against anyone who opposed them; mass involvement has never been a myth.

Good point zultar. However, have you noticed for example that people who adopt a pleasant demeanor invariably provoke one in the other? Even mundane things like buying lunch or a train ticket or speaking to a Dr's receptionist.
And then there is our work, the same rules apply but with the addition of the creativity we bring. A constant slow progress of application mounts up often to something worthwhile or at the very least something we can learn from. I am sure that is (can be) the case in most jobs.

Quantitative evidence is of course a great measure. But, as you well know, statistics is at its heart an inferential discipline. The numbers themselves have to be processed and interpreted and then an educated guess based on probability made. Again the human spirit trumps it over abstract numbers. In my mystical moments I like to think of it as a constant process of creation................stop laughing at the back of the class :-)

Yes Jeff I know the story. As with trees so with our relationships?

"You cannot tax the rich into not being rich. Never going to happen. But you can cut a few rungs out of the ladder towards the top and make it pretty damned difficult for everyone else to get ahead."

Unless you agree to do so on a global scale.
Pretty easy if you insist on corporate tax rates based on the country they are operating in (ie not where the corporation is registered)

lol Moron Orathaic is demanding a global, Authoritarian Global dictatorship! lol

Good lord, do the blessings of Libtardism never fail???

Fuck of Orath. PLAY A FUCKING GAME YOU USELESS TWAT.

@ORATH - PLAY A GAME. THIS IS A DIPLOMACY ***GAMING SITE*** Not your personal political platform.

PLAY A GAME
PLAY A GAME
PLAY A GAME

You CLEARLY have enough time to vomit your authoritarian bullshit upon all of us. SO PLAY A FUCKING GAME.

Uh, it's not like world governments don't already cooperate on trade stuff.

World governement's are mostly fucking useless, you moron. lol If I have to explain to you WHY, then you are just another fucking sheep.

How many attempted genocides do I need to point out?
How many beheadings?
How many starving nations?
etc etc etc...


What a fucking jackass sheep you are...

The Krellin Corollary to Godwin's law: As soon as krellin comments on a thread, all hope of that thread actual providing intelligible conversation is lost.

Jballs - prove me wrong, asshole. Libtards Law: as soon as krellin makes an argument you can't counter, throw insults and make the discussion about how off krellin is.

Assclowns will be asaclowns. You are, by definition...

Governments are necessary. When there is a monopoly on deadly force with weapons of mass destruction, I much prefer it to be controlled by an entity in which I have some semblance of representation rather than one which is run for profit.

I think that most conspiracies these days are educated guesses. Which sucks.

I'm still sure that the aliens who abducted Draugnar two days before the illuminati assassinated JFK with Emmanuel Heskey's shooting % were involved with Area 51 attack on Godzilla's lair beneath the World Trade Center in the 90s.

THAT'S a conspiracy theory

@ful ... who said anything about trickle down economics? I didn't. My point is that the way to decrease the wage gap is not to unilaterally attack a specific group of people. The maximum wage you propose does that. It does not benefit the poor, who need the help, in any way; it simply hurts those whose lives are adjusted around their inflated and probably massive incomes. Raise the minimum wage instead, or abolish the minimum wage and expect that people aren't dumb enough to work for a price that won't sustain them.

Bo you miss my point if the cake is only so big then it should be reportioned with the elite taking less.

Why do you necessarily equate minimum wage with being 'dumb'. Might some other factors be at work? I mean was george bush on minimum wage?

Problems with a maximum wage include corporations getting around it with 'expenses' and benefit-in-kind.

So you drive a company car, live in a company house, and eat company food from the company delivery van... You go on corporate holidays with your family - because the company needs to make sure you get a good break, so you can come back fresh.. Basically your wage doesn't even come into it.

Too many ways around a maximum wage.

It is better/easier to tax high wages and redistribute the wealth.

This is probably more interesting than maximum income:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Also the proposed Buffett Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule

Ora are you suggesting a 90 plus percent highest income tax band coupled with a more rigorous capital gains regime? Surely a maximum wage by any other name?

I'm not even suggesting a 90% tax rate.

But we know that money can decrease unhappiness, up to the point where you don't have to worry about food or water or shelter; (and maybe health care) we furher know that extra money on top of that doesn't increase happiness anywhere near as much.

We have actual evidence of this.

Further, we know that money earned beyond your needs is less likely to be spent, which means it doesn't go back into the system - and can become tied up - effectively meaning it doesn't do it's one job - ie facilitating trade.

There is no question that giving $1,000 to the 10 million poorest americans would result in that money going straight into services and jobs ( ie other people's pockets) whereas giving $1,000 million to the 10 richest americans wouldn't really make them do much - they're more worried about investments and keeping the wealth/power that they have.

This kind of wealth redsitribution choice is one which any society can and should make.

Some people probably get more worried about money the more they have - they fear losing it, and get distracted from actually living a good life.

However i don't know what the best mechanism for addressing this is. Taxation and capital controls are tools, but may not get the desired results.

There are cultures where tipping is considered rude, where doing a good job is it's own reward. And to expect a monetrary reward for being a good waiter or whatever is seen as misguided. You are proud that you are good at your job, because you feel satisfied by knowing you are good. Not because of some external reward system.

We need to break the school system which doesn't teach children to be proud of their hard work and recognise when they are talented and instead focuses on results and external rewards. I actually work with kids helping them do their homework, and all they seem to care about is getting the answers as fast as possible - not learning how to solve the puzzle... It is rather sad, though i do my best to be a positive influence.

tipping in the USA is a real foreign country for us Brits. Yes we need to break the prejudice against tradesmen, engineers etc. German furnishes us with a good example of the way to go. In this respect the UK is even worse than the USA. Our new science minister has a history degree I believe and the PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) graduates from Oxford (mostly from a private school intake) still rule the roost in our civil service.