RE: 1% own half the world's wealth

RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/27/2015 2:59:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But to answer your question, yes, there were capitalists in the North. But it was the Abolitionists who pressed the issue more than the capitalists. Northern capitalists were hardly anyone's idea of "heroes" or "humanitarians." That much is certain. This was especially true during the Postbellum period when the issues of child labor and general working conditions in Northern factories, mines, and railroads gained more attention. It was yet another example of capitalists fighting tooth and nail against any kind of reforms. I don't divorce Capitalism from social progression and don't really understand the idea that at all times the two are polar opposites in competition with one another. I would say that the experience of history tells us they go hand in hand. In England, yes, there was a time where children as young as 8 and 9 worked in factories and down mines, but no system ever started with a series of benefits for all and the balance was soon addressed. In terms of who dictated this change, there certainly were industrialists who wanted to maintain the status quo, as there were politicians; but on the other hand industrialists played a charitable role in sanitation schemes and the like just as liberal politicians did. My limited understanding of the US civil war is that the North tended to be republican, magnified by a lot of migrants arriving from places such as Germany, and this meant a tendency to want the govermment to expand its role; unlike democrats who tended towards a "leave me alone to live my life" attitude. In terms of how this played out with the US civil war, this meant Northern republicans, including capitalists, wanted the Southern economy to modernise in line with its own economy and by extension this meant smashing the slave-based part of the Southern economy which restricted the productivity of labour and business. This doesn't necessarily mean that industrialists focused on slavery as a cause to their hearts, but I suppose the very nature of Capitalism means that business is constantly evolving to increase competition, such as arriving at the conclusion that your employees are one of your most valuable assets (and managing them accordingly).

mnottertail -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/27/2015 6:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, the US consumers aren't benefiting from goods that cost less? Do tell. What man, who has lost his arm would chortle, "Nevertheless, I buy my shirts at 40% off." ? (Paraphrased from Friedrich List).

Politesub53 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/27/2015 11:34:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, the US consumers aren't benefiting from goods that cost less? Do tell. What man, who has lost his arm would chortle, "Nevertheless, I buy my shirts at 40% off." ? (Paraphrased from Friedrich List). Laughable stuff from DS when the very same consumers would fare better if industry had been kept in the US. It is hard to be a cosumer at all, when you dont have a decent paying job. I am sure he will get back to me and explain where and when all the firms that ordered goods made abroad had sat down and discussed how the move would make US consumers better off. I am guessing any such talks were based more on profit margins.

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/28/2015 7:22:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That would bring us back to my question above: Why didn't they do it before it had to be forced upon them, either through government action or through labor unrest or through consumer pressure? It hadn't yet been seen to be a benefit for the business. They could get all the employees at the quality level needed to get the job done and make money doing it. As soon as some employer couldn't fill its vacancies, then you would have seen things start to move in the right direction. The problem with the Market, is that sometimes it moves very, very slowly, when we'd much rather it move quickly. The point, though, is that in the situations noted above, the market did not move at all without government intervention. That's the bottom line. I would also suggest that the market moves slowly because of the aforementioned stubbornness of many capitalists who benefited from the situation and tried to take steps to ensure the market didn't move at all. The main difference between our viewpoints is that you argue from the standpoint of what "should have" or "would have" happened based on the specious abstract theories you're espousing. I'm arguing from the standpoint of what actually did happen based on the historical record. quote: Yep, but immigration is a Constitutionally authorized power of the Federal Government, isn't it? Yes, just as they have the power and responsibility to ensure justice, equality, and domestic tranquility. If capitalists operate in such a way as to undermine domestic tranquility, then the government has every right and responsibility to take action. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's how it works. Government intrusion will bring about the same changes faster, but that's not always the best idea. Overall, I think that things have worked reasonably well in this country by having a mixed system involving some government control of the private sector, but not total government control. I think that we can find a certain happy medium in that regard, as long as the overall well-being of the country as a whole is agreed upon as the central goal - even if opposing sides may have different ideas as to how to reach that goal. You've just made a statement that is a more specific paraphrasing of a general statement I've made many times. Both sides of the aisle pretty much want the same end games, but they differ on the means to get there. We can find a happy medium. I sure hope we even will. You'll probably disagree (and so will many on here, maybe even the majority), but I think government has gone too far. And, that, is why both sides of the aisle will be hard pressed to find that middle ground. Actually, I would agree that the government has gone too far in some ways, although I think that whenever conservative economists and capitalists talk about alleged "government intrusion in the free market," I think they overstate their case. In fact, this points up one of the main flaws in the overall conservative/capitalist position. On the one hand, they crow about how great our system is and how they've done well for themselves and made a lot of money. But almost in the same breath, they talk about how "socialism" is ruining this country and the economy, with their criticisms going all the way back to FDR. That's what might be a key problem here, since they attempt to hold contradictory views about America at the same time. This may be part of the reason why it's been difficult to find any kind of middle ground, since those who have reaped the greatest benefits from this system have shown themselves to be brazenly ungrateful. quote: quote: And it's not just about rewarding laziness or giving slackers a free ride, as several posters have suggested in this thread. Some of it also has to do with national stability and our standing in the world. It would not be a good thing for America if we regressed to that of a second-rate power lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world. I disagree that we'd regress to being a second-rate power. I have a bit more positive belief in the American people. It's not a question having a positive or a negative belief in the American people, although I would suggest that we shouldn't let positive belief degenerate into arrogant overconfidence or allow us to simply rest on our laurels. That's part of the main problem that we're facing today, too much complacency. Too many people oppose progress and refuse to adapt to a changing world situation. This has happened with every major empire which has existed throughout history, no matter how great the people might have been or how deeply people believed in it. We're still all only human, after all. However, I would agree that America's future rests within its people, and that's why I believe it's better for us in the long run to support policies which are more people-oriented and focus upon the well-being of the people, rather than excessive devotion to a "system" for its own sake. That's where I strongly disagree with conservatives, since they believe in the "system" more than they believe in the actual people, who are viewed merely as incidental components. Their methods of argumentation imply a belief that humans have always been the same the world over and that the only difference between a great power and a failed power all rests in what kind of "system" they have.

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/28/2015 10:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But to answer your question, yes, there were capitalists in the North. But it was the Abolitionists who pressed the issue more than the capitalists. Northern capitalists were hardly anyone's idea of "heroes" or "humanitarians." That much is certain. This was especially true during the Postbellum period when the issues of child labor and general working conditions in Northern factories, mines, and railroads gained more attention. It was yet another example of capitalists fighting tooth and nail against any kind of reforms. I don't divorce Capitalism from social progression and don't really understand the idea that at all times the two are polar opposites in competition with one another. I would say that the experience of history tells us they go hand in hand. I think it can be said that they've operated parallel to each other, but not necessarily hand in hand. There may have been competing interests involved, but under the basic principles of democratic fairness, all of these competing interests had a right to be heard. In addition to capitalism and socialism, nationalism was also a big hit with a lot of people and governments in the 19th and 20th centuries, and this likely influenced and perhaps divided capitalists and socialists within their own factions, which were never really all of one like mind to begin with. There have been times when capitalists and socialists might have found themselves in the same camp when there was a "common enemy" to deal with. So, they're not automatic adversaries, nor are they automatic allies. quote: In England, yes, there was a time where children as young as 8 and 9 worked in factories and down mines, but no system ever started with a series of benefits for all and the balance was soon addressed. In terms of who dictated this change, there certainly were industrialists who wanted to maintain the status quo, as there were politicians; but on the other hand industrialists played a charitable role in sanitation schemes and the like just as liberal politicians did. Some capitalists also must have clearly realized that there was a certain practical benefit in supporting greater social equity and justice in society, especially after seeing so many real world examples of riots, insurrections, revolts, and the rise of extremist governments as a result of wanton disparities and inequities in society. They might have taken heed from that and became more flexible and willing to compromise. By the same token, Western liberals, labor leaders, and socialists were also willing to negotiate and compromise, and that may be how we found a happy medium in both the US and UK. Whether it was addressed "soon" enough might be a matter of interpretation, although I agree that eventually, such practices were done away with in both of our countries. This is to our credit as enlightened, civilized nations - something we in the West have developed a strong sense of pride about in recent times. The main problem nowadays is that more and more capitalists seem to be discarding that previous flexibility and willingness to compromise with other classes and factions. Regarding all the advancements and progress we've made in our society, it's the capitalists who raising the loudest voice of opposition against it, as many of them have been doing all along. They seem to want to reverse all this progress and get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of workplace safety rules and rules regarding environmental protection, consumer protection, etc. They ostensibly want things to turn into one big free-for-all, and that may be why so many liberals and leftists get so cranky about what the capitalists are doing these days. They see the capitalists as wanting to move society backward, not forward. Part of this is due to fallout with capitalists being too closely associated with social conservatives and other traditionalists in society who look back on the 19th century with a certain degree of sentimentality and charm. It makes devotion to capitalism seem more emotionally-based, and not really all that logical. It doesn't mean that capitalism can't be beneficial when practiced benignly and moderated by other ideals which make up a society and social system. But it can't operate in some kind of vacuum, which is what many free-market ideologues seem to want to reduce it to. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. quote: My limited understanding of the US civil war is that the North tended to be republican, magnified by a lot of migrants arriving from places such as Germany, and this meant a tendency to want the govermment to expand its role; unlike democrats who tended towards a "leave me alone to live my life" attitude. In terms of how this played out with the US civil war, this meant Northern republicans, including capitalists, wanted the Southern economy to modernise in line with its own economy and by extension this meant smashing the slave-based part of the Southern economy which restricted the productivity of labour and business. Yes, to a large extent, this is correct. The political attitudes of North and South differed from the very beginning, although the Republican Party had only been founded just a few years before the Civil War. Lincoln, for example, was a member of the Whig Party prior to joining the Republicans. But there were also Abolitionists who had strong religious convictions driving their opposition to slavery. They were certainly amenable to the idea of leaving people alone to live their lives, but in their eyes, that also included the lives of slaves, the very people who were not being left alone to live their lives. Another key issue was in the expansionism of the country, which was supported by both Northern and Southern politicians, yet they were divided on the issue of whether newly acquired territories should allow slavery or not. They had to keep compromising and admitting one free state with every slave state, so that there would remain a balance in the Senate between free states and slave states. It was eventually going to come to a head sooner or later. The issue between States' Rights and expanded Federal power would not necessarily coincide with more libertarian principles of "leave me alone to live my life," since that was never the case for the common man even under governments which strongly advocated for States' Rights. The advocates for States' Rights support the rights of State governments, but not the actual people who live under those State governments. The reality is that the average citizen has to endure far more interference in their daily lives from State and local governments than they ever have to deal with the Federal government. So, perhaps when State and local governments agree to start leaving people alone to live their lives, then maybe the Federal government can back off and lighten up a bit. quote: This doesn't necessarily mean that industrialists focused on slavery as a cause to their hearts, but I suppose the very nature of Capitalism means that business is constantly evolving to increase competition, such as arriving at the conclusion that your employees are one of your most valuable assets (and managing them accordingly). I think the industrialists at the time didn't really consider opposition to slavery as anything that would affect them directly, although they may have been practical enough to see the direction public opinion in the North was going and saw that the wise choice was to support the Union cause. They may have been thinking more in global terms, as we were already making inroads into the Pacific Rim and East Asia, wanting to gain more territory and open up further markets. The main problem in the North was that they probably thought the Civil War would only last a few months and that the Southern politicians would come to their senses and give up, but that didn't happen as soon as anyone would have liked. The irony is that they made the job of ending slavery far easier by seceding than it would have been had they stayed in the Union and retained the ability to tie up any legislation or amendments which could have ended slavery. They actually hastened the end of slavery by their mad obsession to keep it as long as possible.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/28/2015 11:41:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That would bring us back to my question above: Why didn't they do it before it had to be forced upon them, either through government action or through labor unrest or through consumer pressure? It hadn't yet been seen to be a benefit for the business. They could get all the employees at the quality level needed to get the job done and make money doing it. As soon as some employer couldn't fill its vacancies, then you would have seen things start to move in the right direction. The problem with the Market, is that sometimes it moves very, very slowly, when we'd much rather it move quickly. The point, though, is that in the situations noted above, the market did not move at all without government intervention. That's the bottom line. I would also suggest that the market moves slowly because of the aforementioned stubbornness of many capitalists who benefited from the situation and tried to take steps to ensure the market didn't move at all. The main difference between our viewpoints is that you argue from the standpoint of what "should have" or "would have" happened based on the specious abstract theories you're espousing. I'm arguing from the standpoint of what actually did happen based on the historical record. You can't state that the Market wouldn't have changed, though. It just hadn't changed to that point. quote: quote: Yep, but immigration is a Constitutionally authorized power of the Federal Government, isn't it? Yes, just as they have the power and responsibility to ensure justice, equality, and domestic tranquility. If capitalists operate in such a way as to undermine domestic tranquility, then the government has every right and responsibility to take action. Interesting viewpoint. The reason we have a Constitution, though, is to limit the authorities and powers of the Federal Government. It gives the framework and (is supposed to) sets the boundaries the Federal government can operate within. Would there be more tranquility if government gave everyone a car? A house? Food? Utilities? The Federal government was set up as a compact between the people and the states. It was supposed to deal with issues that were external to the US, and to mediate in issues between or among states. The States were to deal with issues within their borders. If the tranquility is in jeopardy, there are two sides to it. There is the side that is claiming victimhood, and the side that is being claimed as the aggressor. Government can choose to squash one, the other, or both in it's aim to insure domestic tranquility (which is only in the preamble, holds no force of law, but puts it out there as a goal of the Federal Government). If the reason for the break up of tranquility does not fall within the boundaries of the Federal government, as set forth by the US Constitution, it isn't supposed to act. quote: quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's how it works. Government intrusion will bring about the same changes faster, but that's not always the best idea. Overall, I think that things have worked reasonably well in this country by having a mixed system involving some government control of the private sector, but not total government control. I think that we can find a certain happy medium in that regard, as long as the overall well-being of the country as a whole is agreed upon as the central goal - even if opposing sides may have different ideas as to how to reach that goal. You've just made a statement that is a more specific paraphrasing of a general statement I've made many times. Both sides of the aisle pretty much want the same end games, but they differ on the means to get there. We can find a happy medium. I sure hope we even will. You'll probably disagree (and so will many on here, maybe even the majority), but I think government has gone too far. And, that, is why both sides of the aisle will be hard pressed to find that middle ground. Actually, I would agree that the government has gone too far in some ways, although I think that whenever conservative economists and capitalists talk about alleged "government intrusion in the free market," I think they overstate their case. In fact, this points up one of the main flaws in the overall conservative/capitalist position. On the one hand, they crow about how great our system is and how they've done well for themselves and made a lot of money. But almost in the same breath, they talk about how "socialism" is ruining this country and the economy, with their criticisms going all the way back to FDR. That's what might be a key problem here, since they attempt to hold contradictory views about America at the same time. This may be part of the reason why it's been difficult to find any kind of middle ground, since those who have reaped the greatest benefits from this system have shown themselves to be brazenly ungrateful. Most of those that have "benefited most" have also worked their asses off and/or risked their livelihoods so they could benefit, too. That doesn't happen nearly as much anymore. Our system, imo, IS great, and can benefit as many as are willing to work for it. You want to talk about contradictions? How about the President and First Lady talking about their lives' struggles and how difficult things were? They credited their struggles and what they overcame for who and where they are today, but they are also working to make things easier for people like them (the "not well off"; this is not a racial thing). They credit their struggles for making them who they are, but don't want others to have to struggle like they did. Isn't that a bit contradictory? quote: quote: quote: And it's not just about rewarding laziness or giving slackers a free ride, as several posters have suggested in this thread. Some of it also has to do with national stability and our standing in the world. It would not be a good thing for America if we regressed to that of a second-rate power lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world. I disagree that we'd regress to being a second-rate power. I have a bit more positive belief in the American people. It's not a question having a positive or a negative belief in the American people, although I would suggest that we shouldn't let positive belief degenerate into arrogant overconfidence or allow us to simply rest on our laurels. That's part of the main problem that we're facing today, too much complacency. Too many people oppose progress and refuse to adapt to a changing world situation. This has happened with every major empire which has existed throughout history, no matter how great the people might have been or how deeply people believed in it. We're still all only human, after all. However, I would agree that America's future rests within its people, and that's why I believe it's better for us in the long run to support policies which are more people-oriented and focus upon the well-being of the people, rather than excessive devotion to a "system" for its own sake. That's where I strongly disagree with conservatives, since they believe in the "system" more than they believe in the actual people, who are viewed merely as incidental components. Their methods of argumentation imply a belief that humans have always been the same the world over and that the only difference between a great power and a failed power all rests in what kind of "system" they have. The system will work for any person willing to put in the time and effort. The further we get from the Free Market, the more difficult that gets. If it's too far towards holding businesses back, it's bad for the overall population. If it's too far towards protecting businesses (which happens all to frequently), it ruins competition, which is bad for the overall population.

mnottertail -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/28/2015 12:16:38 PM)
The reason we have a constitution is not to limit the powers of the federal government, there are a whole host of other reasons that we have a constitution, and one of those reasons (and a major one) is to invest powers in a federal government. You maybe should pick up some history books on the thing, and disabuse yourself of some of this buncombe.

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/28/2015 8:12:22 PM)
I'm not quoting the whole thing, just the quotes from your most recent post. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can't state that the Market wouldn't have changed, though. It just hadn't changed to that point. Well, it's all supposition and "what if" when we're talking about what would or wouldn't have happened. Neither of us actually know; all we really know is what did happen based on the historical record. quote: Interesting viewpoint. The reason we have a Constitution, though, is to limit the authorities and powers of the Federal Government. It gives the framework and (is supposed to) sets the boundaries the Federal government can operate within. Would there be more tranquility if government gave everyone a car? A house? Food? Utilities? Well, there's nothing in the Constitution which actually prohibits the government from giving people these things. I think that the fact that our government has provided aid to those who need it, particularly in the area of housing, utilities, and food, has most likely contributed to domestic tranquility. (Maybe not cars, although the government does provide low-cost public transportation and transportation services for the disabled when they need it.) The bottom line is, if too many people are left out in the cold for too long, then it would likely have a detrimental effect on the domestic tranquility within society. I know some people rail against social welfare programs because they see it as "rewarding laziness," although I submit that such a view is based on subjective morality and emotionalism, not on practical logic. quote: The Federal government was set up as a compact between the people and the states. It was supposed to deal with issues that were external to the US, and to mediate in issues between or among states. The States were to deal with issues within their borders. The Constitution was established because the Articles of Confederation weren't working out too well. But as you well know, there were serious disagreements between the States regarding how much power should be vested in the Federal government versus how much power the State governments should have - not to mention which rights the People had (and which had to be added later in the first ten Amendments, aka the Bill of Rights). Obviously, it was an imperfect document and called a "bundle of compromises." (I've also read that they were all drinking very heavily while deliberating...) It would take further compromises to hold the Union together, but the issue finally had to be settled with the Civil War. quote: If the tranquility is in jeopardy, there are two sides to it. There is the side that is claiming victimhood, and the side that is being claimed as the aggressor. Government can choose to squash one, the other, or both in it's aim to insure domestic tranquility (which is only in the preamble, holds no force of law, but puts it out there as a goal of the Federal Government). If the reason for the break up of tranquility does not fall within the boundaries of the Federal government, as set forth by the US Constitution, it isn't supposed to act. Well, the government might have to act just the same, even if every possible contingency isn't outlined in the Constitution. That's why the First Amendment doesn't allow me to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does the Second Amendment allow me to own nuclear weapons - even though it doesn't specifically say that in the Constitution. The government also has to work for the benefit of the entire society and consider our own nation's ability to compete with other nations, which also involves working for the common defense. There's nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have a country full of illiterate peasants and widespread poverty, but that doesn't mean that wise governments should allow that to happen. Governments have to be practical, not merely ideological. quote: Most of those that have "benefited most" have also worked their asses off and/or risked their livelihoods so they could benefit, too. That doesn't happen nearly as much anymore. Our system, imo, IS great, and can benefit as many as are willing to work for it. Maybe they worked their asses off, maybe they didn't, but it's also clear that they benefited from the opportunities this country and its fortunate position had to offer them. To suggest that our system is great and can benefit those who are willing to work for it is a platitude which can be said about any system. I'm sure there are wealthy people in Nigeria who probably believe that their system is the greatest in the world since they're reaping so much benefit from it - and they'd also probably say they worked their asses off. But in order to measure the true merits of any system, one has to look at the overall situation of the entire country. quote: You want to talk about contradictions? How about the President and First Lady talking about their lives' struggles and how difficult things were? They credited their struggles and what they overcame for who and where they are today, but they are also working to make things easier for people like them (the "not well off"; this is not a racial thing). They credit their struggles for making them who they are, but don't want others to have to struggle like they did. Isn't that a bit contradictory? Perhaps it might be contradictory to some extent, although just because some people struggle, it doesn't mean they wish that struggling upon other people. Some people endure and overcome their struggles and hardships, while other people can't. Some people may just be weaker than others, and maybe they might need some help now and again, as much as it may offend the Darwinian sensibilities of some people. Some of it may also be a matter of learning from past mistakes. Some people who lived through World War II would say that it was an enormous struggle, but that doesn't mean that those who overcame that struggle would want the next generation to have to go through it again. I don't think that would be contradictory at all. quote: The system will work for any person willing to put in the time and effort. The further we get from the Free Market, the more difficult that gets. If it's too far towards holding businesses back, it's bad for the overall population. If it's too far towards protecting businesses (which happens all to frequently), it ruins competition, which is bad for the overall population. As long as the focus is on what's good for the overall population - as opposed to what's good for an ideology or what's good for just a few people at the top, then it might work out okay. A system also has to have a certain level of flexibility, too, in order to give the country the ability to adapt to a changing world.

thezigg -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 5:30:55 AM)
I bet if you look into it you would find that you have more wealth than half the world population combined. By you I mean anyone that is reading this post.

Sanity -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 5:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezigg I bet if you look into it you would find that you have more wealth than half the world population combined. By you I mean anyone that is reading this post. I feel so guilty too My government should make me as poor as everyone else so its all fair Okay, my little liberal moment is over, I am better now.

Musicmystery -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 5:43:12 AM)
There are no solutions to problems, because all solutions are moronically simple. If there's no moronically simple solution, there is no problem. And if I think of a moronic solution, it will work by magic, ignoring all aspects of reality. Okay, my little rignt-winger moment is over . . .

thishereboi -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 6:27:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezigg I bet if you look into it you would find that you have more wealth than half the world population combined. By you I mean anyone that is reading this post. Ill take that bet. I could use some easy cash right about now.

Sanity -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 6:30:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery There are no solutions to problems, because all solutions are moronically simple. If there's no moronically simple solution, there is no problem. And if I think of a moronic solution, it will work by magic, ignoring all aspects of reality. Okay, my little rignt-winger moment is over . . . Global warming tax anyone (Is this your daddy by any chance) [img]http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/frozenkerry/1344098-1-eng-GB/FrozenKerry.jpg[/img]

mnottertail -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 6:39:23 AM)
A striking resemblance to your picture, Tommie.

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 8:52:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezigg I bet if you look into it you would find that you have more wealth than half the world population combined. By you I mean anyone that is reading this post. I'm not sure if doing the math would hold up here, although it might be a fair point to say that the poor and working classes in the West are far better off than their counterparts in the developing world. Of course, this was largely due to long, arduous effort and political activism which culminated in various reforms in our system to improve the well-being and quality of life for the lower classes. Some people may want to extend this idea on a global basis, so that everyone can enjoy a first-class quality standard of living, regardless of their station in life.

Musicmystery -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 3:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail A striking resemblance to your picture, Tommie. More like this one... [image]http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/angry-squirrel-noppawat-charoensinphon.jpg[/image] Now, what was meta-troll saying about addressing topics?

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/29/2015 6:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I'm not quoting the whole thing, just the quotes from your most recent post. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can't state that the Market wouldn't have changed, though. It just hadn't changed to that point. Well, it's all supposition and "what if" when we're talking about what would or wouldn't have happened. Neither of us actually know; all we really know is what did happen based on the historical record. Exactly. So, that the businessmen of the day hadn't yet adopted things they were forced to adopt by government doesn't mean they wouldn't have. quote: quote: Interesting viewpoint. The reason we have a Constitution, though, is to limit the authorities and powers of the Federal Government. It gives the framework and (is supposed to) sets the boundaries the Federal government can operate within. Would there be more tranquility if government gave everyone a car? A house? Food? Utilities? Well, there's nothing in the Constitution which actually prohibits the government from giving people these things. I think that the fact that our government has provided aid to those who need it, particularly in the area of housing, utilities, and food, has most likely contributed to domestic tranquility. (Maybe not cars, although the government does provide low-cost public transportation and transportation services for the disabled when they need it.) The bottom line is, if too many people are left out in the cold for too long, then it would likely have a detrimental effect on the domestic tranquility within society. The Constitution doesn't have to prohibit the government from doing anything. It is only to authorize the government to do something. That's part of the problem. The US Government now assumes that it can do anything it wants unless specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. That is, the US Government assumes it has all the authority unless it's prohibited, rather than the people having all the authority unless they grant it to government. quote: I know some people rail against social welfare programs because they see it as "rewarding laziness," although I submit that such a view is based on subjective morality and emotionalism, not on practical logic. The sad thing is, there are people who game the system and are rewarded for not actually working. There are also people who can not provide for themselves. The latter are the ones who are "truly needy" and the ones I mention in my signature lines. quote: quote: The Federal government was set up as a compact between the people and the states. It was supposed to deal with issues that were external to the US, and to mediate in issues between or among states. The States were to deal with issues within their borders. The Constitution was established because the Articles of Confederation weren't working out too well. But as you well know, there were serious disagreements between the States regarding how much power should be vested in the Federal government versus how much power the State governments should have - not to mention which rights the People had (and which had to be added later in the first ten Amendments, aka the Bill of Rights). Obviously, it was an imperfect document and called a "bundle of compromises." (I've also read that they were all drinking very heavily while deliberating...) It would take further compromises to hold the Union together, but the issue finally had to be settled with the Civil War. The Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights be added. I think it was Monroe that said the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't grant government the authority to do any of those things, so there wasn't a need to specifically prohibit them. quote: quote: If the tranquility is in jeopardy, there are two sides to it. There is the side that is claiming victimhood, and the side that is being claimed as the aggressor. Government can choose to squash one, the other, or both in it's aim to insure domestic tranquility (which is only in the preamble, holds no force of law, but puts it out there as a goal of the Federal Government). If the reason for the break up of tranquility does not fall within the boundaries of the Federal government, as set forth by the US Constitution, it isn't supposed to act. Well, the government might have to act just the same, even if every possible contingency isn't outlined in the Constitution. That's why the First Amendment doesn't allow me to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does the Second Amendment allow me to own nuclear weapons - even though it doesn't specifically say that in the Constitution. The government also has to work for the benefit of the entire society and consider our own nation's ability to compete with other nations, which also involves working for the common defense. There's nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have a country full of illiterate peasants and widespread poverty, but that doesn't mean that wise governments should allow that to happen. Governments have to be practical, not merely ideological. I would say we don't have a country full of illiterate peasants and widespread poverty isn't because of government, but because of who we are as a people. The "rules" for State and Local governments are different than they are for the Federal government, too. quote: quote: Most of those that have "benefited most" have also worked their asses off and/or risked their livelihoods so they could benefit, too. That doesn't happen nearly as much anymore. Our system, imo, IS great, and can benefit as many as are willing to work for it. Maybe they worked their asses off, maybe they didn't, but it's also clear that they benefited from the opportunities this country and its fortunate position had to offer them. To suggest that our system is great and can benefit those who are willing to work for it is a platitude which can be said about any system. I'm sure there are wealthy people in Nigeria who probably believe that their system is the greatest in the world since they're reaping so much benefit from it - and they'd also probably say they worked their asses off. But in order to measure the true merits of any system, one has to look at the overall situation of the entire country. Go for it. Who shall we compare the US to? Which citizenry has more "stuff" than the US citizenry? Let's compare the poor in the US to the poor anywhere else. We have a much higher standard of living than most places. quote: quote: You want to talk about contradictions? How about the President and First Lady talking about their lives' struggles and how difficult things were? They credited their struggles and what they overcame for who and where they are today, but they are also working to make things easier for people like them (the "not well off"; this is not a racial thing). They credit their struggles for making them who they are, but don't want others to have to struggle like they did. Isn't that a bit contradictory? Perhaps it might be contradictory to some extent, although just because some people struggle, it doesn't mean they wish that struggling upon other people. Some people endure and overcome their struggles and hardships, while other people can't. Some people may just be weaker than others, and maybe they might need some help now and again, as much as it may offend the Darwinian sensibilities of some people. Some of it may also be a matter of learning from past mistakes. Some people who lived through World War II would say that it was an enormous struggle, but that doesn't mean that those who overcame that struggle would want the next generation to have to go through it again. I don't think that would be contradictory at all. How can they be better people because of the struggles they had to work through, yet expect others to be better people without having to go through those same struggles? The idea that we learn from out past is more about not repeating our past mistakes and building on the "right" things we did. I can't build upon the "right" choices and toils the President and First Lady went through. It doesn't work that way. quote: quote: The system will work for any person willing to put in the time and effort. The further we get from the Free Market, the more difficult that gets. If it's too far towards holding businesses back, it's bad for the overall population. If it's too far towards protecting businesses (which happens all to frequently), it ruins competition, which is bad for the overall population. As long as the focus is on what's good for the overall population - as opposed to what's good for an ideology or what's good for just a few people at the top, then it might work out okay. A system also has to have a certain level of flexibility, too, in order to give the country the ability to adapt to a changing world. I'm all for divorcing money from government, Zonie. There is too much influence by those that have great wealth. The solution isn't to take that wealth and spread it around, but to stop the wealthy from having influence. The coalition we have between Wall Street and DC is terrible, and isn't going to really help the country, as a whole. Neither will spreading the wealth.

tweakabelle -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/30/2015 1:44:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm all for divorcing money from government, Zonie. There is too much influence by those that have great wealth. The solution isn't to take that wealth and spread it around, but to stop the wealthy from having influence. The coalition we have between Wall Street and DC is terrible, and isn't going to really help the country, as a whole. Neither will spreading the wealth. Sorry DS you have lost me completely here. In the world we inhabit, wealth is power. Always has been and always will be. I have no idea how any one would go about separating the two but would like to hear any ideas you may have. I'm all for separating the coalition between the financial and political elites but I don't see any effective way of doing that without regulating to one extent or another the operations of markets.' Some form of wealth spreading will always be needed to prevent it being concentrated in the hands of a few. The dangers of wealth being monopolised in a few hands are almost as grave as the dangers of political power being monopolised by the few, or for that matter, by any one sector of society. I hope we agree that monopolies are undesirable. Please note I said "the operations of markets" not "the role of the 'free market'" as I am unaware of the existence of a genuinely 'free' market anywhere. I don't believe they can exist. Markets exist within a social framework - for example, a free market is simply pie in the sky unless there is a functioning legal system to enforce contracts, a service provided from outside of the market system. So the idea that markets operate freely in isolation from the social context in which they exist is invalid, IMHO. Economic/financial power and political power will always exist and operate in close proximity to each other.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/30/2015 3:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm all for divorcing money from government, Zonie. There is too much influence by those that have great wealth. The solution isn't to take that wealth and spread it around, but to stop the wealthy from having influence. The coalition we have between Wall Street and DC is terrible, and isn't going to really help the country, as a whole. Neither will spreading the wealth. Sorry DS you have lost me completely here. In the world we inhabit, wealth is power. Always has been and always will be. I have no idea how any one would go about separating the two but would like to hear any ideas you may have. I'm all for separating the coalition between the financial and political elites but I don't see any effective way of doing that without regulating to one extent or another the operations of markets.' Some form of wealth spreading will always be needed to prevent it being concentrated in the hands of a few. The dangers of wealth being monopolised in a few hands are almost as grave as the dangers of political power being monopolised by the few, or for that matter, by any one sector of society. I hope we agree that monopolies are undesirable. Please note I said "the operations of markets" not "the role of the 'free market'" as I am unaware of the existence of a genuinely 'free' market anywhere. I don't believe they can exist. Markets exist within a social framework - for example, a free market is simply pie in the sky unless there is a functioning legal system to enforce contracts, a service provided from outside of the market system. So the idea that markets operate freely in isolation from the social context in which they exist is invalid, IMHO. Economic/financial power and political power will always exist and operate in close proximity to each other. We have to start by being better people, and electing better people. We have to have leaders who will do the right thing, no matter how much money is thrown at them to do something else. Does Bill Gates being worth $75B or so have anything to do with my station in life? Does Warren Buffet's billions mean I have less? Warren Buffet says that "the rich" need to be taxed more, but he is 1) not voluntarily paying more personal taxes, and 2) fighting with the IRS for his company to pay as little as it can. If a CEO is paid less, there is nothing showing that the hourly workers will make any more than they already do, is there? The reason a CEO is paid more, is because a CEO is deemed more valuable than a lineworker. I don't understand how anyone could be worth multiple millions of dollars a year (Max Scherzer (Pitcher) just signed a 7 year $210M contract with the Washington Nationals; $105M is deferred, making his contract 14 years long, so he's getting paid $15M a year for the last 7 years of his contract when he'll likely not even be playing much, if at all - WTF?!?!?). Elected politicians are beholden to money because it helps them get re-elected and sets them up for post-service life. That's an abuse of their position, imo. Those are the politicians we need to get rid of. I'd love to see a Constitutional Amendment that set term limits for politicians, capped the amount of money that could be spent on a campaign, and have all National campaigns be paid by the Party. Keep in place the rules against coordinating ad campaigns between private companies and a candidate's campaign. Ban politicians from going to work for companies that lobby Congress, and crank up the penalties for those caught taking bribes, "gifts" or other pay offs from companies that they are making laws for/against. I'm sure there's more.

mnottertail -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/30/2015 7:35:34 AM)
Your volunteerism statement although somewhat anecdotal is surely a synecdoche and should, by dint of reality disabuse you of the claptrap of freemarkets, laissez faire capitalism, and other 'conservative' asswipe spewed so freely.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625