Will lack of equity in distributing capitalism's profits eventually kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Question

TWH 08282006

I mean equity in senses 1&2

equity [ek-wi-tee]
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.
2. something that is fair and just.
3. Law. a. the application of the dictates of conscience or the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.
b. a system of jurisprudence or a body of doctrines and rules developed in England and followed in the U.S., serving to supplement and remedy the limitations and the inflexibility of the common law.
c. an equitable right or claim.
d. an equity of redemption.

from wikipedia

Answer 1

Lack of equity will not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The goose is killed daily by changing demands of consumers and the goose is re-invented every day to meet that demand. That is the central issue of free-enterprise the catering to the demands of people.

People do not get frustrated with the lack of equity enough to give up the dream to get some for themselves. People don't end up with nothing while others have everything. That is a gross over-simplification and exaggeration of reality. In reality, those that take the best calculated risk and work the hardest are rewarded the most. They end up with a lion's share of profits. Those that fall short of that end up with some profit, but only enough to keep them going and striving for more. You get enough to keep you going, but not enough to make you stop and say, I have enough.

It is a delicate balance and it creates a very productive paradigm

Answer 2

Lack of equity is what provides the incentive in a capitalist economy, and that incentive is arguably the lifeblood of capitalism. Think of it as a carrot-on-a-stick system. It sounds cruel in those terms, but if equity were ever achieved, the system would collapse. No one would have any reason to work any harder or develop any innovations.

I can see where this question might be slanted from the mindset that assumes one would grow frustrated at the lack of equity, or at least the lack of what one feels would be a fair return. However, it's important to keep in mind that most people don't work towards the goal of controlling a significant portion of the world's wealth. In fact, most people's needs and true wants can be satisfied on smaller returns. It is the superficial wants that drive some to seek more.

Answer 3

AHHH, The Ultimate Question
Yes, the system will eventually destroy itself. Concentration of wealth ultimately will cause revolution. Maybe not soon, but eventually. Some might argue that there is equity in the system ... I don't agree. A CEO making 100x the money because he is more educated is absurd. (BTW, he went to Princeton and his daddy knew the guy who gave him his job out of school) The rich will forever get richer. And we don't even know how to tax the wealthy. The poor pay about a billion times higher % (AS A % of NET WORTH) than the wealthy.

John Maynard Keynes said it would end one day. I think he said 70 years till too much is actually too much. It's going to be more than that, but eventually ...

But here's the rub ...
It (Capitalism) is by far the best we've got. Socialism and communism do NOT work. Competition and getting an advantage are ingrained in human nature. It has proven itself multiple times in economies around the world.

But capitalism can just be the economic society in which we live. It doesn't have to be who we are. Look out for your fellow man. Give a buck to that homeless guy. And while you're at it, give ten to your local drug rehabilitation center or the red cross.

They say a conservative is just a liberal who has been robbed. While I've been robbed, I am a Capitalist, I am an entreprenuer, and I've got a bit of money. And every check I write to the IRS makes me groan too. But I've got a heart and in the end, you get measured by how many you helped, not how much you've got.

I admire the hell out of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. All those billions given away to useful causes.

So back to the original question - do we go down because of inequality. ...If we let yourselves.

Answer 4

Is there lack of equity (meaning fairness)? People make capital available to business and those who pick successful businesses earn a share of the profits. What's unfair about that?

What IS relevant is that in this world there is a hidden spiritual law that the gains achieved by greed and pride don't last. Companies that make profits by making false claims about their goods/services will falter and suffer unforeseen problems later. Whereas those that are honest and morally clean (without being naive and worldly-stupid) will prosper.

Answer 5

Talking about some inherent unfairness in capitalism is like talking about some inherent unfairness in integral calculus.....it is what it is.

That said, I think that capitalism may have self-destructive properties because people who are risk-adverse or lazy will miss out. And jealousy is a human emotion.

It would be a shame because the "poor' in the United States live better than the rich do in over half of the planet.

Answer 6

<> in basic terms because something it legal does not advise that's excellent. <> there's a reason you won't be able to spell 'assume' devoid of '***'. those who assume too a lot finally end up making asses of themselves. <> would not make experience, does it - and yet, there you're advocating human beings in simple terms assume the authorities is sweet! <> incorrect! <> ad hominem attacks harm your credibility. perhaps Marc, like me, would not see too a lot in the way of credibility even as examining your question. <> The time period "fetus" actually skill "the more youthful in the womb". The fetus IS a residing man or woman. existence starts off at theory, not beginning nor some arbitrary aspect in between. therefore, each abortion constitutes the homicide of an unborn man or woman. <> notwithstanding the fetus IS human. therefore, abortion IS homicide. <> what's so slender minded about acknowledging the unborn for the residing human beings they are? because you're unable to attempt this, would not that advise your concepts is in reality more beneficial slender than mine? <> That in basic terms is going to reveal how schizophrenic human establishments must be - and also you want to imagine the form of company (the authorities) is sweet.

Answer 7

yes equity is somthing desired, that is what keeps your business going> Interest is what it is. lack of it will kill the one bearing the money... to keep the business going. if no one profits its a dead dog rite! if your not making money then somebody " the goverment" isn't either.

Answer 8

No. History shows that concentration of wealth does not remain constant. One thing that is particularly effective in eroding wealth concentration is inflation.

Answer 9

THAT IS MICROSOFT COMPANY AND IIT COMPANY