Patrickov wrote:By considering the "cost" of a revolution, you have well demonstrated that it is (modern) human nature to make most, if not all, decisions and calculations based on cost and effect. IMHO this fundamentally means everyone goes for the most profitable least disruptive way of living, and that inevitably leads to the inequalities as you all know, just like how matters in the Universe tend to aggregate along filaments of galaxies.
In other words, it seems the Law of Jungle could never been overrided, we can just tame them as much as we could.
Meanwhile, I have a thought that, before deciding what to do, we probably should define a line beyond which the assets of a rich or better-off is considered excessive, and (in theory) should be put back into circulation.
Then the problem will be down to how to implement it and how to assess and adjust if necessary.
The market place is the 'law of the jungle', it operates on the basic laws of 'supply vs demand & the price mechanism'.
That law is always operated on by the rich or middle class that pull the levers, if you maintain the cost of production, which includes labour, materials,transport, overheads etc at the minimal level consistent with the ability to generate turnover in the market place at that price level, then you effectively, as a class, control consumer activity.
Once that efficiency is achieved, as proven by turnover, which increases profitability, then market share increases exponentially,mitigated only mimimally by competition, the point is reached whereby a monopoly is achieved, sustainable, only by that demand, when that falls, the whole edifice changes the dynamic radically, which happens frequently because market taste changes often.
In the U.K, we jokingly have 'regulators' that 'regulate' the utilities, that are private monopolies, which operate as cartels, annually increasing prices no matter what, at the slightest motivation, even when raw material cost fall globally on world markets.
When efficiencies have long been achieved, along with excessive, unearned profits, the conspiracy between those businesses & government allows the latter to impose stealth taxes on them as a way of 'skimming' off some of that profit, that tax is then recouped back from their customers by further price increases.
Against that background of gaming the system of conspiracy against the people, it's pretty obvious that only the naive think they are improving their lot in that game of monopoly.
Within the capitalist market paradigm, labour,as a commodity, is unlimited, therefore cheap as chips, only by occupying a niche within the labour market by pocessing necessary technical or vocational skills, can a worker obtain the just reward of the fruits of his\her labour.
The state is a major player in keeping the workers poor, both by taxing them at high levels on lower incomes, reducing benefits, deregulating markets, increasing the supply of local labour by unfettered migration at public cost, are all elements of the cards stacked against workers by the boss-political system, nauseatingly called, 'democracy'.
The whole system is macro-managed from top-=down by your political 'masters' & the capitalist no matter what flavour of government you elect.
In the U.K we have a government, like the last Labour government, which is completely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich, capping that attitude with cutting income taxes for those 'filthy rich' rich people, so, whether under Labour or Tory government's.
Both conspire against people on low or average incomes & Jeremy CORBYN's possibility of tenureship in Downing Street, will not alter that situation one jot, because Labour's 'anti-austerity' stance is a fraud against those whom it is intended to garner votes from in the next election.
Some 40% of pensioners on the 'old' basic state pension are in the two lowest income quintile groups, yet, Labour have never,ever uttered one single word railing against that situation, in which there are now two state pension systems,where one discriminates against the other, so much for Labour's 'anti-discrimination' policies where pensioners are never mentioned.