Christopher Oliver <oliver at fritz.traverse.net> wrote:
> You're not thinking.  A grossly inequitable distribution of the wealth
> which is finite where those with power have little or no concern for
> the rest of (growing) humanity nearly assures poverty. Does it really
> matter whether it's the crown or a high level executive? 

Here's something to think about:

Suppose we had an economic system where reward was somehow matched 
perfectly with contribution/productivity. Such a system would not support
the barron's of today's industry and it would be difficult to be poor 
unless you where a middle manager. It's ethical, and it's capitalism.
Maybe the problem with our system is that is that too many people are
getting something for nothing, instead of too few.

Why is Gates so rich? 
 Because alot of companies by his software.

Why do they buy it? 
 Because the people that control spending don't know better.

How did these people get in charge of company $? 
 Because in our commune/companies, advancement/reward is not related 
 to producivity.

The best idea I've heard of so far for improving the system of reward is
to make a law restricting the size of companies to a max of a few dozen people.
Large "companies" would have to be bands of cooperating small ones.

Steve