Quality of life is what concerns me I suppose. I'm reading through my other posts atm.

Let me think about it for a bit. I wouldn't like the loss of biodiversity either. I'll come back to this after a break. Anyone else feel free to step in and add to the debate as well

Have you noticed that the higher the average income is for a country, the lower it's population growth? In fact even the US doesn't have very high population growth if you don't count the dozens of millions of immigrants that come here every year. If anything, making people rich will make them stop having kids. Japan is officially shrinking in population. Many European, especially the northern ones, are also shrinking in population. Even economic powerhouses like GB, France, and Germany are roughly level or expected to be level within a generation when you subtract growth from immigration. Russia leads the way in population decline in spite of economic decline at the same time. Not sure that's a good thing at all, to be honest. China and India have rapidly growing population and surprise, surprise, very low average income as well. So a certain extent, money is what stops population growth.

That's the main reason I didn't want to call population a problem since population itself is not the problem. China has 1.3 billion humans to the USA's 300 million yet the USA uses some 3 times as much oil as China, so if the goal was reduction of CO2 for greenhouse gas purposes, we have evidence that population does not equal CO2 production.

I just saw your other post saying the goal is general quality of life. That's a tough one since it means something different to everyone. I'm sure many would say my plan for every house and office being a basement, or subterrainian in some way would be considered an unacceptable quality of life. To all those people in China and India living in mud huts, a nice climate-controlled, 1500 square foot home that happens to be underground is a HUGE improvement in quality of life and totally great!

Some would say that just making sure they can watch Monday Night Football and have a beer is all that matters for their quality of life. Others would want to burn 10,000 gallons of gas per year driving an RV to be happy. Obviously the RV lifestyle has a far greater environmental impact than sitting at home watching football. That's a tough one to answer since happiness means different things to different people once you've covered the basics such as food, shelter, and medicine.

That's already been brought up, here I replied to it. Just the first part and the paragraph in the wikipedia article.

quality of life - If some people want to turn the US into India (crowded), then I say move there. I suppose we could continue to evolve along with our changing environment... Eventually new races of man might adapt to living underground, on the moon, ocean etc. but a world full of people everywhere sounds aweful to me.

disconnect - My disconnect was this: 1. I was in SPCR for a break and ran into a complex problem 2. We are discussing a problem in the abstract not applied.

Rather than prevent such problems, we ought to react as they arise.

Immigration is far and away the cause of US population growth. Eliminate immigration and the problem is solved.

Next, abortion is an abomination. Murder is always wrong. Abolish abortion in the US except under cases of rape, and then see what problems arise.

If population begins to expand, then a correction should be made. If it does not expand, then it should be understood that overpopulation will probably become a problem in the future.

Likewise, if genetic weakness become a serious problem, then a reaction should be made.

OK, I knew the US government is quite dumb in its present stance about this, but I didn't know they had erased all knowledge about this subject "over there".

Try reading up on: condoms, the pill, vasectomy, "having your tubes tied".

That are all methods people can employ themselves. If you are relying on abortion for birth control, then you are doing something seriously wrong. (B.T.W. I'm not against abortion per se.)

I've read claims that birth control merely leads to increased promiscuity with the same amount of pregnancies. Not... that birth control ought to be illegal.

Vasectomy and tubal ligation work.

We Americans aren't educated or taught to think for ourselves, but we do receive a healthy dose of sex ed. along with victimology.

EDIT: I guess after an x number of children a woman could pay a child tax not to have her tubes tied. Ability to acquire money would become the fitness test. Women could also pay to have their tubes untied at a later date.

That sounds much better than not helping the needy, haha!

While I'm somewhat of a populist, I can foresee benefits of making a large family a sign of wealth. Pride in one's family and kin should increase, and the pursuit of wealth would not be entirely selfish.

One caveat might be the creation of doctors who undo these surgeries illegally.

Another might be men who roam from woman to woman. I believe vasectomies are far easier to reverse, and men seem more inclined towards polygamy. Also whether the child count is applied to the woman only or to both the man and the woman, situations would arise where a married couple has differing numbers of strikes. Well in the case of the woman only, a man would always have no strikes and would be encouraged to cheat on a now barren woman if he wanted more children.

It might be more practical to fix a woman when she comes in to deliver since the man might be long gone.

A third would be "illegal" children who feel unwanted. This could invite government intrusion into privacy: a new War on Illegal Births (US government has declared a never ending War on Drugs and War on Terror )

A fourth that one man might have children with more than one woman at once before his are snipped.

Fifth caveat that a woman might have paid her child tax, but her go-ahead is caught up in beauracracy. I'm pretty sure tubal ligation is not easily reversible, but I'll have to look into that later on.

EDIT2: I'm not sure why I wasn't considering tying tubes earlier. If I saw a reason why they wouldn't work, it has escaped me now. Anyway, I've made good contributions earlier so I'm not feeling too stupid.

Yes, I've read that argument too. It is usually used by right wing christians in the US who think that telling teenagers not to have sex before mariage actually works. As if modern teenagers ever listen to adults.

It's just that I live in Europe, I can look around and see that wide availlability of, and education about birth control does not work the way the right wing christians portrait it. The number of teenage pregnancies in the Netherlands is about a quarter of that of the US. That is caused by good information about safe sex. In the fifties, when the only form of birth control that was available was abstinence, the number of teenage pregnancies was about twice as high as it is now.

If you look at the background of young women here who still have to resort to abortion to "prevent" teenage pregnancies, you'll see they mostly come from a background were culture forbids the use of birth control. If you look at the background of the young woman who just get children at that age, you'll see a combination of culture and religion. (Mainly 18 year old brides imported from their husbands parents home country.)

If people get older than teens, economic reasons cause people not to have many kids. (At least in western countries.) There is no reason to regulate that strictly (with permits). But removal of the bonus on large families, that is still in place in most western countries, is a good idea.

On top of all that I don't see why increased promiscuity is a problem, at least when it is not done in public. The fact that "they" think it is a sin to have fun, shouldn't influence what somebody else is doing in his/her bedroom. (The land of the free, remember.)
_______

Vasectomy and tubal ligation are of course more usefull after somebody thinks he/she has enough kids. That's why I mentioned the other (non-permanent) methods too.


And on a lighter note:
When I was a teenager, I had a biology teacher who told us:
If you think periodic abstinence works, forget it. My brother still thinks that. He has six kids and none were planned.

Well, getting back to the original topic and debate...



How about the children of these hard working men? People that have grown up filthy rich, and never learnt the value of money. People that know they don't need to work because they know their parents will pay their way through school and university, and then find them a nice, well-payed "job". Add a couple generations of this together and you get worthless idiots that are more interested in what the colour of their next bentley is going to be rather than what's happening in the world around them. Not to mention that once you have a considerable amount of money, you can "make money with money" and sit on your ass all day. Now just think: in the capitalist society, money is power, and these are the types of people that have it.... *

Now about capitalism and selfishness. Human beings, like any animal, do their best for survival. This is why humans want: food, protection from the environment, and reproduction. So, yes, humans are selfish. The question is, what's in your best interest? Humans are societal creatures, we depend on the other humans for our own survival. So it's in the best interests for you to make sure all the other humans around you live well.

I think capitalism is short-sighted, promoting individuals at the cost of society might nice for a few, and make a nice dream for the rest, but if you really think about yourself, you'd think about the survival of the human race, and that means everybody, even the poor dude sweeping the streets.

More down to earth: I don't know about you, but I don't like it when I see people living in the street eating my rubbish, I don't like it when I see desperately poor people turn to religious extremism, I don't like to hear that every day x people in africa die because they don't even have drinkable water and I don't like violence and crime. All of this is created largely because of an unequal distribution of wealth, and a short sighted vision of the people that hold the wealth (think: dark-blue bentley )

I believe that natural selection will take care (as in get rid of) of the human race, unless the human race learns to take care (as in look after) of itself.

*) I have some friends that are from very rich families that are really nice and intelligent people, but in my personal experience, they are rare gems.

Correlation vs. Causality

[quote]Have you noticed that the higher the average income is for a country, the lower it's population growth?[/quote]

Perhaps this statement should be reworded to state, "the higher the population growth of a country, the lower the average income." Arguably, we see the Tragedy of The Commons at work, replacing cows with people and The Commons with a country.

Tibors, though I'm not particularly religious I read those right wing Christians a good bit A small group of them is surprisingly intelligent though a good bit of the "Christian Right" scares me, i.e. the ones calling for nuking the MidEast.

You might be correct that birth control does work. People since Aristotle have pointed out that sex is a need (I would say almost a need).

I still say the tragedy of the commons argument is worth considering when applied to population growth and strength, though I think you're absolutely correct that it's not necessary to apply involuntary means of control in Western states atm.

BigA, each would affect the other - that's a great point. The IQ of a population, stability, amount of capital, resources, infrastructure, familiarity with English, tax rate, location, morality, and quality of education ought to affect it as well.

Heh, this thread did get way off topic, but it's been kinda interesting too.

capitalism is most certainly short sighted. Ideally morality and government regulations ought to keep capitalism in control I think though I'm open to alternatives to capitalism just as with anything else.

The human race is too large and diverse to do much for. We can't know what to do to help far off strangers and have our own to worry about. It makes me sick when my church sends its money overseas when my own area is very poor and has greater potential for actually improving. In SC chuches are a significant source of charity. The US at least has a great many problems caused from our looking to Iraq rather than to our own people. Also, we blindly follow our leaders and have taken up an absurd ideology as if it was a religion. America is like the Catholic Church denying the sun is the center of the galaxy. EDIT: solar system

Anyway, much of the wrongs of history have been done in large efforts to help or by leaders who feign to help. Positive intentions do not necessarily lead to positive results, and power attracts the corrupt like flies to a... Besides, civilisation is an organic creation. If we enter into failed states and rebuild them in our image, we risk severing the roots of that people's culture.

Take Iraq or Zimbabwe or most any other problem state, what's to be done? If we send in food, it is often given to the supporters of the man in power at the expense of his opponents. If we send in weapons, well... If we put troops in and subsequently must withdraw, our former supporters are slaughtered. If we cure disease even, some problems result as with food: overpopulation and dependence.

The best we can do perhaps is to teach whom we can to produce food and how to use technology. Education of the smartest of a state is fine if we ensure those we educate actually return home. We benefit no one by draining impoverished states' brains. Well, the education is fine provided we don't attempt to brainwash our foreign students with our ideas. We can broker peace and allow low trade barriers with the states we are trying to help. Free trade is probably the best form of wealth redistribution, though it's largely responsible for undermining US power and creating such a huge wealth gap in the US (I don't like free trade in general.)

One problem I mentioned before with a global economy is the poor of the world might be seeing themselves as exploited. Anytime there's a problem, it's easiest to blame the foreigners, or some other group that is different, and to blame the successful.

First I want to say that the United states may be the best country in the world. But the government and system in general is *&(^ed up.
Is it right for 80% of the wealth to be owned by 20% of the people. Easy answer, NO.
But you say these people worked hard, and they are smarter than the poor folks. But I say why should been afleck have four mansions and 15 cars (which is just wasteful because several houses and cars are just sitting there at all times) while someone that is working 60+ hours a week in a factory loosing fingers, and wearing the joints in their back down can barely survive. That is BS. I am working two jobs right now. 25-30 hours a week at a movie theater and 25 hours a week at Coke-cola. And I still have to live in a freakin shed in back of my girlfriends families house, and I cant afford to get my back looked at (which is fucked up from working my ass off stocking at coke). Plus my car is breaking down and I have to choose to either not eat, or not pay rent and maybe get thrown out, becuae I have to have a running car to make money. And on top of this Im going to college 15 hours. And aparently Im making too much money so they took my pell grant away! How is 7000 a year too much money!
Then if I do get a degree, I still have to figure out where im going to get money to start a business (im a business major). Maybe they could put in a maximum wage. No one needs over 2 million anyways. Items that serve no purpose other than to be flashy shouldnt even be produced. Like 100,000 diamond necklaces, and lexuses ect. You are not better than someone because you have a car that costs more then some peoples houses!

There is a huge disconnect in the US over "jobs Americans don't want to do."

The reality is Americans do them and now have to compete with illegals, temporary workers, and slave labour in foreign states.

If your back hurts, you might want to search for a white colar job. I worked for H & R Block in school some. If you take a course during the fall, you can work there in the Spring and make decent money. You're still a slave at H & R, but at least you have AC and fewer back troubles.

Also, you might study some of those computer certifications, e.g. Cisco.

Anyway, I highly recommend pursuing accounting. It's not all that fun, but there are jobs atm. Nursing is also good; the health care growth in the US lately has been the economic growth (as well as the growth in government). The rest of the private sector has shrunken slightly.

Temporary employment agencies hire work occasionally. I almost did a PowerPoint project for a local company one weekend though the employment agency messed everything up.

Your statement would indicate that everyone, by nature, has an extremely high income and that it goes down as the population growth increases. Please show me any country that was super-rich and yet became a third world nation by means of having too many babies. No such thing exists. Countries go from third world through developing nation to what we call developed nation. In the transition wealth increases and population growth decreases.

This is known as the demographic transition, like I mentioned earlier in the thread. Average income is a proxy metric for the level of development a country has reached, and therefore you can deduce infant mortality rates, standard of healthcare, etc from that.

Poor countries have high birth rates because they generally have high rates of infant mortality, low rates of female education, high levels of poverty and low average adult life expectancy. The human urge is to pass on your genes, if you expect that maybe 25% of your children will die before the age of 5, you will have lots of them to ensure some survive, this is the numbers game that we see in nature all the time. Also, children can be put to work to help bring money in and help to grow food; they are a ready-made labour force.

In rich countries having children can be expensive (take the US for example; work out how much it will cost to put a child through private school and college, can add up to several million dollars) and for women there are also costs like not being able to develop their careers etc. Also rates of infant mortality in developed countries are very low, so no need to produce lots of babies to ensure survival.

stage 4 hasn't existed long enough to declare the transition to be such a certainty. It's simply a trend we see right now. Reduce standard of living and you can afford to raise more kids. Or... allow the kids to be put to work somehow.

I wrote some other stuff, but I guess I've already said it all before.

Nice that demographic transition. Now try to imagine all those people using the same amount of natural resources that the average European citizen (or worse an average US citizen) uses. Because that's what is needed for it to actually occur.

I myself also admit to be somewhat hostile towards liberalism, free trade and globalisation, but: If there are no trade barriers whatsoever, if there are no immigration barriers whatsoever and if we erase the debt of poor countries that have already payed back their debt twice, I'm sure that poorer countries would do better, but rich countries would become (much) poorer. You don't get nothing for nothing.

I think that much of the problems in the world come from Europeans (and, more recently, Americans) messing with other people's affairs. Colonisation in Africa, S.America (N.America seems to not have had the same problems ?) and parts of Asia: when we left we often drew arbitrary borders, with random leaders, not to mention separating parts of the populations artificially (like the Tutsi's in Rwanda). More recently it has been the Americans in their fight for democracy and their fight for the controll of oil that has been meddling in mainly middle-eastern affairs. I don't know what the world would be like if colonisation never happened, but I do get the feeling that much of the mess today is our ("western society") fault and it will take decades (possibly centuries) for parts of the world to become politically stable in order to progress.

Basically, you might be right that we can't be sure how to help people, but the least we can do is to not opress countries that are coming right (the debt in Brazill, bombing Lebanon "back to the stone age", etc...).



Right on! For those that are interested to see how many biologically productive earths we would need if everybody was to live like you do you can download a flash progam that tells you here: http://www.agir21.org/EN_OKempreinte.zip or else, if you can read french, it is available on-line here: http://www.agir21.org/flash/empreinteecoweb/loadcheckplugin.html.

I think that human beings will naturally learn that they need to consume less as more people's living standards rise. Look at what's happening now: China is using more and more oil, and as a consequence the prices go up, and we use less. It would be smarter, on the other hand, and anticipate this change, but in our short-sighted capitalist society, planning ahead isn't part of our agenda

I totally agree. I'm not opposed to helping; I'm just wary of most attempts.

US Conquest

We have conquered other territories: Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii come to mind. We looked at Canada at one time and might have to give part of Mexico back if it continues to colonise our South West with people who want reconquista.

Ability to Transform Nations by Force

In Japan and Germany red Russia was seen as the alternative to our presence. We were able to transform them because of that fear; also Germany had a tradition of democracy already and Japan retained its oligarchy and emperor. Last but not least, we killed millions and used many more troops than are in Iraq today. Not that you believe in transforming the world with force, but many Americans do atm. Hell, I'm not even a fan of mass democracy. I'd prefer the best educated and most moral to vote, though perhaps there's hope for the US democracy if transparency is improved (eliminate voter fraud and pork), IRV instituted (third parties), rule of law returned (not rule by men), and term limits set for US senators (fewer career politicians).

US debt

It's interesting you mention debt because the US has an enormous debt to pay now. We're also more dependent on non oil imports now than oil imports. But of course as the "greatest nation on Earth" we'll find an easy solution... We just need to have faith the freedom fairy will pull us out

Getting Off Topic

I can't resist.

So you are saying that some people's opinions are worth more than others. That's a dangerous path to walk... How do you judge who's more moral? Do you think the educated people will vote for the good of the whole country, or since they have been put on a pedestal already (by being allowed to vote) would they, despite being well educated, think of themselves only? Remember kings were always well educated, that didn't stop many of them from being self-centered tyrants.

I think that democracy works better on a small scale. If voting is a big logistical operation, it is less tempting to get the people to vote on something. On the other hand people, being selfish in nature, are more interested in affairs that affect them more directly, so a small community can not only vote more frequently, but also have more participation by the people. Also in a more "fine grained" democracy, the representatives you vote for are often aquantances, or at least you have a friend who knows them personally so there's less of the "nice suit and white teeth" effect.

This might explain why democracy doesn't really work that well in the states: it's a huge country with lots of people with radically different ideas. Perhaps another critique is that you only have two major political parties

This forum is called "Off Topic" for a reason

Of course. In democracies the people just vote for more wealth redistribution. Also, we seem more inclined to war (provided no draft) and party loyalty. The masses are fickle and easily fooled, and in the US at least we've learned a horrible lesson that dumbing down speeches and debates is a winning strategy.

I think Jefferson recommended that only college educated men should be allowed to vote, and the US didn't originate with universal sufferage so there is a tradition of, err, selection. With today's education system, I would lean towards a test similar to professional exams given today, e.g. bar, cpa, mcat, etc. Logic wouldn't need to be tested, just basic knowledge. This testing was abused in the past, but I'd like to think it could be done today without such unfair discrimination.

One caveat: the educated are more inclined to ideology at the expense of common sense. They are similarly inclined to being disconnected from reality somewhat. Have you had more nutty professors or down to earth ones?

Another caveat: I tend to agree with the masses atm more than the elite. The elite does not have our interests at heart in the least.

However, I'd again like to think the test wouldn't become too much of "a big logistical operation." It ideally would make voting more of an honor or the right to vote a rite of passage (improving the sense of duty) and would improve voter awareness and understanding. I'd like to weed out the blind masses whom I perceive as the foundation of the current elite and improve those who pass. Employees of the government and of large corporations also tend to support the current elite though so it's not entirely a problem of rule by the lessors.

I'm not sure. Convicts aren't allowed to vote here. A higher age limit could help perhaps. A requirement that a voter must have roots, e.g. has a family in the state, has held a job in the state for x years, or owns land or a house, etc. This is something that ought to be experimented with on a small scale first. In the US the states used to be free to set their own requirements, but I believe that's no longer an option. The actual Constitution would need to be reamended which would be nearly impossible for such a reform.

I'd have to really study this for a decent opinion. Atm, I'm just disillusioned. The ideal is for the best to decide matters, but that might be like the communist ideal: impossible. The present system works at least, so perhaps I should be content with that.

Small and decentralised is better.

That'd be a risk for sure. Actually, it would be expected that they would put their interests above others. Perhaps the high representation of teachers would lead to their voting higher salaries for example. Also, there'd be a risk if the tests were too bothersome, an extremist group might gain far greater representation than would be reflected in the general population.

Also, a segment of the population could attempt to block another segment after taking control of the testing apparatus. Additionally, certain segments aren't going to be as equally represented as others so perceived discrimination will arise. Any perceived discrimination could lead to energy normally absorbed in election competitions being released through violence.

I have studied this question a little. I think taxes would come down, and there would be some net gains from a more efficient distribution of people of different stata of society. Rich people would become richer, poor people from rich countries would become poorer (since now they gain from citizenship of a rich country with redistribution) and poor people in poor countries would do much better.

But don't blame colonization, when you have argued that decolonization has caused the problems! (And "we"? What colonies has switzerland had? Or do you include us Brits in your "we"? How... friendly I suppose!)

The popular religion / ideology of the globalists is that open borders and free trade would do as you say, but the reality would be a nightmare as I see it.

I haven't studied the issue, but it's pretty obvious that lower trade barriers (even to the point where the US is at a disadvantage) and immigration have decreased wages in the US among some while others have benefitted (those whose jobs are relatively safe from competition). A large income gap has emerged and jobs have been going overseas as would be expected. Job growth has been in health care and government

If we entered into such a world where there was no community or place I belonged, I'd be doing one of two things: trying to get what I want any way possible (immoral, upon what basis?) or trying to secede. I suspect many others would be attempting the same. People just aren't as fluid as capital. We aren't equal or rational beings let alone individuals but members of diverse cultures, nations, families, etc. The foundation of economics is upon absurd presuppositions.

We of the west also have this arrogant belief that somehow everyone else wants to be just like us. "Progress" towards some utopia isn't what's needed. Each nation must improve itself as it sees fit or perhaps move in ways that don't change much so as to preserve traditions that provide value and order to our lives (we have to move though). If others "progress" ahead of those who move more slowly (that is if the rate of change doesn't get out of hand), who cares? Just where are they going anyway?

Again, it just seems obvious to me that there is only so much money to go around, basic economics. So much emphasis placed on well, this rat race to get ahead in life, and again to pull as much weight as I am having to pull each day at this job, it just shouldn't be allowed, not just for me, but for anyone. I could certainly try to go after a white-collar job, but I am not so sure at this point that I would be looked at, acknowledged with the same respect. And, I mean, really is anyone anyways?

Well, not if you are judging a person by their background or economic status. Infact, some of the world's best known & beloved peace-makers have come from much more deprived backgrounds, and so there is this common understanding. I think that it is much harder to recognize these things for those who have never experienced them.

I think that background and conditioning is a very hard thing to live up to, once there is one who possibly, well desires more than maybe their parents as they were coming up. I just know that I can not work these jobs forever, but gaining the respect, the acknowledgement of myself, as a person is what is so hard for me. I am very ambitious.

I do believe there should be a maximum wage, now I know many people do not like to hear this, well there are those who have worked hard to get to where they are, and then again there are "heirs" so to speak. I believe we should all work for what we have attained. Some people work in factories their whole lives, not because they have chosen to, but because they do not know anything other than. Many welders die young, because they are not aware that they are poisoning their lungs, and then what have they really achieved? An early death? Now should it be the wife's responsibility, on her shoulders, to provide for that family?

And again, I should say that no man is a God, no diamonds worth what would be a month's rent to me. My grant has been cut, merely for working at Coke 3 days a week! It is like, you can't win for losing. I don't think that honestly there is anyone who could deny this, these are just the facts of life, and yet, it shouldn't have to be. I'd rather stick with my Malibu and the hopes of someday being able to afford a house for myself, my wife, and the children that I would like to have; and to me that would be worth more than the esteem of sporting any BMW. That money could have been someone's home... period.

By the way, I am considering management, just 1 more year till I have my buisness degree; and after that, planning on opening my own buisness. Looking towards management beforehand, because now instead of a grant, I have a $6,000 loan that I am supposed to repay. God, what would this be(?), with my rent etc., possibly looking at another 5 to 6 years off my life; just seems like some far away dream.

The size of some CEO paychecks does seem wrong, but their abilities are as rare and as beneficial as NBA stars. Also, great amounts of capital are needed for the economies of scale we enjoy. Ideally, they'd be rewarded in nonmonetary ways. Perhaps they'd just be honored and respected and paid well but not insanely well. I'm not sure how such a system could work though.

A maximum wage isn't feasible in our system, small businesses would be eradicated, but I share your sentiment at least. Also, there's the sense of a reward for taking a risk.

There's some famous quote about how the strong are lucky, but I can't find it atm. If you work hard, you'll probably do alright. Just focus on your dreams and not on your troubles. If your back is bothering you, perhaps the strong / lucky thing to do is to stretch it, look around for a posture thing lifters wear on their backs, and work on improving your posture when lifting. I like the strong make their own luck concept because it encourages me to overcome problems, but I guess everyone has their little motivators.

Can you explain the logic behind this statement? It looks a bit like a non-sequitur at the moment.



Maybe you are thinking of Gary Player's quote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Player

Actually, I guess a maximum wage could work in a sense if personal use of profits were limited to a certain amount, and losses from one year were carried over to other years to allow income lost in one year to be made up in the next so that if 2mil was the personal use limit and 0 was made one year, 4mil could be made the next year.

Corporations are free to make what they will, and proprietorships ought to be free to do so as well provided there is a limit to personal spending I suppose.

Like so much else I'd have to look at it more closely. This is something I've never considered. Reading Wikipedia article atm

The quote you give has the same meaning, but is not the specific one I was thinking of. All that matters is the concept though, so it's just as good.

Maximum wage (== 100% tax above a certain point) will result in:
less work done by those currently earning above it
reduction in tax revenue

Not everyone will lose out. The work done by former high earners will go up in value which will benefit some.
The poor will lose from the reduction in tax revenue.
A very inefficient tax. Economic theory on efficient tax recommends a marginal rate that goes to 0 eventually. So a tax that is 100% eventually is inefficient. Efficiency is to do with benefiting all people economically.

I just don't buy the claim that man pursues money only. Nor do I believe efficiency or utilitarianism is the highest good. If you have people at the top working as whores willing to do anything for money, it seems like they'd be rather immoral. I can't say I have a complete alternative yet, but the concept of greed is good sickens me.

I have been taught and understand the economic principles you're using, but I think there's far more to economics than the school currently acknowledges. The people will just vote welfare benefits, the wealthy will just bribe congress for their own benefits, divisions among the various uprooted groups of "individuals" will arise leading to demands for their own benefits, and the whole system will just fall as it is designed to.

Global capitalism has become the new Marxism. It's as antithetical to small, decentralised government conservatism as was Marx who happened to favour free trade as a means to his globalist end. I know the Catholic Church, right wing populist Patrick Buchanan, and others have said the same that both Capitalism and Socialism are wrong, but I haven't seen a reasonable third way just yet.

My comment was entirely empirical; I didn't make any comment about highest goods. By benefit I meant what each person wants economically not what is actually good. I should have made that clear. It may be better for some people to be poorer in which case efficiency is not a criterion of what is good.
I mainly wanted to point out that the poor will become poorer under such a policy, ceteris paribus.

Sorry, there is no way you could know this but while I am located in Switzerland (and nearly have a swiss passport), I am from quite an international background: my mother's mother was born in Indonesia, but from dutch parents; my mother's father is dutch; my father's mother is scottish; my father's father is english; both my parents were born in South Africa, and I was born in the Netherlands. Some of the problems I mentioned happened during colonisation, and if colonisation never happened, decolonisation wouldn't have happened either.

My comments on global liberalisation of economic and labour markets might have been a bit rash: I'm just pissed off at the recent paranoia of immigrants from africa in europe, you might have read in your newspaper that just this last sunday, one of the harshest immigration policies in europe has been voted in in Switzerland, amongst other things, political assylum seekers without passports will be kicked out of the country in 48h if they don't present their passports.

Back to the main debate: I think it wouldn't be all that bad to put a hard cap on salaries: if a company spends less money on it's executive's salaries it will spend it elsewhere: hopefully in expanding it's operations and thus creating more jobs for normal people. The only problem would be that if only a couple of countries in the world didn't do this, many corporate headquarters would simply move to these countries. I think Switzerland would be the kind of country to do this (heck, we already have degressive tax schemes in certain parts ).