TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.

Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 3 2013: Seems to me you're agreeing that under capitalism everything finds its own natural balance on its own, whereas socialists don't trust the laws of nature, and seek to place statutory regulations on wages. After seventy five years of Soviet socialism, haven't see seen that centralized control of the economy doesn't work?
    • Apr 3 2013: I agree completely. I honestly don't know the answer, but why is socialism all that appealing? I'm motivated when I think that if I work harder I can do better. There's no motivation if I think that working harder will yield the same status in life. So naturally socialism doesn't make sense, and historically it doesn't make sense.

      What is the motivation for 'leaders' to keep pursuing it?

      "Equality" has a place for sure, but instead of being mandated, could the good socialist ideals be simulated through crowdsourcing? If you had to force people to work on open source projects, certainly there would be little motivation. But by making it opensource, people are intrinsically motivated to help out. (IE think about the 'charity' of giving money back through taxes. Not motivating, so the rich try and avoid it. But many rich people donate to charities when not forced)
    • Apr 7 2013: The Soviets weren't Socialists, they were Communists. Very different political systems. And we don't have anything resembling simple Capitalism. We have giant companies that control huge sectors of markets.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.