Ya know, I always found this to be the bizarre thing about the rich and powerful. They try to hold onto their wealth and power that it inevitably will start to seep from between their fingers like sand. If one wants to hold wealth and power the most effective way much like sand is to hold it gently and evenly.
There’s an expression in Japan (I think): “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The rich could get EVEN RICHER if they helped people out of poverty, who would then likely buy more of whatever it is the rich sell to get rich. But that’s long term thinking…
The problem with that sense of Trickle Down Economics is that these better Capitalists that pay more cannot do so when in competition. Similarly, raising minimum wage, while massively helpful for humanity, lowers the rate of exploitation and thus lowers the rate of profits for business owners.
This is the key of why Capitalists cannot be convinced to do better, it will always hurt them.
Armchair theory: this is the fundamental difference between liberals and leftists. Liberals will assume that if you change the economic incentives, business owners will respond accordingly.
That runs smack into things like work from home or 4 day work weeks. We have evidence that workers will be as much or more productive doing things this way. Why are they opposing it, anyway? Power fits the explanation better than money. Perhaps there is a third option, but until someone comes up with a convincing one, I’ll go with power.
Money is only a path to power. In a conflict between power and money, they will choose power.
It’s not about the money, it’s about control over your life.
Ya know, I always found this to be the bizarre thing about the rich and powerful. They try to hold onto their wealth and power that it inevitably will start to seep from between their fingers like sand. If one wants to hold wealth and power the most effective way much like sand is to hold it gently and evenly.
There’s an expression in Japan (I think): “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The rich could get EVEN RICHER if they helped people out of poverty, who would then likely buy more of whatever it is the rich sell to get rich. But that’s long term thinking…
This one originates from the United States, popularized by Kennedy.
The problem with that sense of Trickle Down Economics is that these better Capitalists that pay more cannot do so when in competition. Similarly, raising minimum wage, while massively helpful for humanity, lowers the rate of exploitation and thus lowers the rate of profits for business owners.
This is the key of why Capitalists cannot be convinced to do better, it will always hurt them.
Armchair theory: this is the fundamental difference between liberals and leftists. Liberals will assume that if you change the economic incentives, business owners will respond accordingly.
That runs smack into things like work from home or 4 day work weeks. We have evidence that workers will be as much or more productive doing things this way. Why are they opposing it, anyway? Power fits the explanation better than money. Perhaps there is a third option, but until someone comes up with a convincing one, I’ll go with power.
Money is only a path to power. In a conflict between power and money, they will choose power.
See: Utopianism vs Scientific Socialism, or Idealism vs Materialism.
The ruling class cannot simply be convinced to give up power, even if it is more productive or moral.