: Considering that all wealth creation is necessarilly a social act, a collective effort, we are collectively responsible for what happens with that wealth.
If I make legs and you make the flat bits then we can see who made what in a chair. Division of labor.
: Yes, but if a man has a million dollars he has a million choices, if a woman has 1 dollar, she has one choice. the money allowed the rich man to hire hitmen, that the poor could not hire- the rich have all the power. Actually a lot of leftist want to arm the working class, but usually they mean collective, militias and the like (like spain). I just want to stop people being able to make my choices for me.
I think we must have a different idea of choice. If a millionaire buys all the bananas in my local shop I dont consider him to have made my choices for me. Choices are not everything or nothing, they mean acting free from coercion. My inability to buy bananas wasnt the result of somoene mugging me. In situation where the outcome (no bananas) look the same, the cause can be coercion (mugger) or non coercion (bananaman).
: Being able to decide what I want to do with my life, my work, decide how to live with my fellows, rather than be a slave to someone else.
All of which is fine except it doesnt free you from the need for food. If you are blameless for growing up without fields to grow on, then so are those who have those fields (ie 'social' inheritance in westerners), if you meet an opportunity to gain food and dont take it and another person takes it, it isnt his 'fault' that you dont have it. When you want to decide how to live with your fellows, you need to accept that they might be deciding how to live with you too.
: No, I mean potential, I couldn't go out now and get a house with a fifty hectare garden, a very rich man could, I lack potential. And equality of start proposition is also a necessity.
Now, is the key word in your statement. the potential means future, it doesnt mean now.
: What about the vast armies of techies, inventors who don't own the copyright, because their employer does, they get a wage, and we see teh difference- them as owned the property earned off the property, them as are waged only get the same as the rest of us- one man cannot make a million pounds. Even Eddison required other peopel to make his money for him.
Inventors generally get copyrights themselves, or should do so, techies can start their own businesses if they do not want to be salaried, but its very difficult. That people interact to create wealth does not diminish the role of the Edisons in the process.
: The wealth creators are the workers. The power of wealth is entirely negative- we cannot begin to make things without their permission.
Like the inventor of that dyson vacuum? He denied us the opportunity of making dyson vacuums until he designed it? Henry Ford denied us the opportunity of making cheap cars until he designed auto assembly lines? Permission?
: If Eddison had been waged he would have had enough money to live comfortably, and create ideas for his employer, who would have got very very rich.
Then you will not be suprised that such people tend to start their own companies (eg dyson vacuums), or enter into % contracts (eg the millionaire software writers at microsoft, or innovators at 3M)
: I suspect that figures for Idonesia or the Phillipines aren't as good, you're pointing to rich countries there.
Who were very poor, thats the point.
: Tell that to most investors- they want security.
Thats why there are various analysts, to describe the risks and pick out better investments (supposedly).
: many more manufacturing jobs go down the wanny, banks call in debts, investors get nervous, the economy slows until the markets empty out once more.
Still not a cataclysm. Shrinkng industries dont spell the end of an economy, other indusustries are growing, their knock on effects are positive. The growth of global output, by various measures, is a steady increase ove the long term.
: Well, no, because it slows growth, the usual way out is to cut back on wages as far as possible (but this cuts overall demand, and thus slows the economy further) or to have a war....(US military spending off-sets the declining rate of profit through giving high-tech goods free of charge to manufacturers.)
The usual way is to cut costs, which often means employing more efficient machinery and more efficient people. Wage decreases and increases are prevalent in many industries simoultaneously because of this pressure. Investment cycles speed up in competitive markets, as opposed to 'comfy' market who dont need it.
: They get wages, perhaps the odd bonus, but the fruits of their labour goes to their employer.
Hence they tend to start their own companies (eg dyson vacuums), or enter into % contracts (eg the millionaire software writers at microsoft, or innovtors at 3M) if they have sufficient 'fruit' to trade.
: Well, its bad also in that for no readilly apparent reason these people have more power, sorry, choice, than the rest of us.
Janitor gets more choice, billionaire son gets load more choice, gain for both. It may seem unfair, but that opinion is, an opinion. The Janitor is not losing choice.