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

kdsub -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 7:17:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR In cases where poverty and substance abuse overlap, I wonder how often the abuse is a response to poverty rather than the cause of it. Just an opinion of course but I believe people turn to drugs for many different reasons but one prominent reason would be to escape from a mental anguish that is out of the abusers control. Poverty is certainly beyond the control of most suffering from it. They have little money to purchase the drugs for their escape so the only alternative way to supply their habit is through crime. I believe drug addiction is the biggest reason for crime in low economic neighborhoods. They must commit crime to get drugs... or the suppliers must fight to keep territory and supplies. But I also believe there are many other reasons for drug addiction outside of poverty but even then most supplies of drugs are distributed from low income neighborhoods perpetuating violence and crime in those areas. Butch

CreativeDominant -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 8:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, if you read my post on the first page, you'd know better. But then jumping to conclusions is easier than reading. You would know, given what you did with me on this same thread. Well. Now that that's all established . . . So what DO you think? And did you ever bother to read the first page now? Maybe we might have an actual discussion. From my post #26: As for what I think, I've stated before that falling into a dependance on intoxicants doesn't help anyone's productivity...well-to-do or poor. And while rehabilitation is a good start, there has to be a more effective, helpful way to ensure that it sticks. To which I add: too many rehab. programs don't seem to have an effective follow-through...staying with someone after they're released to ensure that their changes hold through a tougher existence than that found in rehab. In rehab., you're with other addicts and while some may and try to sabotage you for their own reasons, most try to support you because they need your support too. But once you're out, you're on your own. One thing I think A.A. does well is the "sponsor" idea. I think every program should follow that model. That's a start...

NorthernGent -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 3:06:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not to worry though......... We have been told it will all trickle down the line and reach the poor...... fuck knows when though. [8\|] Except that history proves the opposite, PS. Take me: one hundred years ago I'd have had no choice but to work down a mine, and some of my colleagues would have been 10 year old children. I may have been killed from an explosion, and in the event I managed to make it to the ripe old age of 45 I would probably have had some chest and respiratory problems. These days, I'm just short of being a billionaire and I managed to get to university and have read a wide range of mind-opening books. I'm comfortable in life and want for nothing really. I don't think it's fair to say that Capitalism is some destructive philosophy which has led to widespread misery. It's not perfect by any means, but then which principle/philosophy/system is?

tweakabelle -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 3:46:06 AM)
Firstly thank you for a (as always) thoughtful and considered response to the OP. Broadly I am sympathetic to your analysis and ideas. As you point out, the question is not a lack of resources or wealth but how they ought to be distributed in order to maximise general well being without hampering innovation or individual enterprise. Answers need to take into account not only the internal situation in individual Western countries but also a global perspective, where the gap between the richer nations of the West and less affluent areas of Africa, Asia and South America needs to be addressed. One area where we can perhaps find solutions is putting the vast amounts of wealth hidden away in offshore tax havens to productive use. I've seen reports that suggest that if these funds were put to productive use, the interest alone would be enough to abolish world poverty. So this is a massive resource that is currently massively under-utilised. Achieving this entails international co-operation in both identifying and deploying these resources. To undertake this task we need to re-imagine the role of international financial institution like the World Bank(WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Currently these institutions operate as little more than the 'repo' heavies of the international banking system enforcing rapacious policies on financially weak Third World countries in order to guarantee repayment of loans to major banks. Already the BRICS* countries have taken steps to set up an alternative system outside the WB/IMF duopoly. Re-orienting the WB/IMF to manage the underemployed funds currently residing in tax havens and re-organising those institutions to make them more responsive to Third Word needs may be a step well worth considering. Inside the West we are beginning to see large scale popular resistance to austerity economics in Europe, where the imposition of free market-ideology driven austerity policies have caused widespread falls in living standards without any discernible improvements in the economies. So it seems to me that developing alternatives to austerity economics is part of the solution. Will a failure to reorganise financial systems both internally and internationally lead to revolutions? I think this is inevitable but equally I see this response as being limited to a few minor countries with minimal international consequences, mainly for the reasons outlined in your post. Welfare systems, political apathy and insulation from the more desperate conditions the poor face in the Third World will combine to eliminate revolution as an alternative in the West. That is not to say that there will no major social upheavals or dislocation. The cost of avoiding revolution will be a more democratic distribution of wealth and resources which will be effected politically. The first step will be the abandonment of austerity economics and eventually the discourse of free market economics that spawned austerity policies. Whether this can be achieved without massive social dislocation is yet to be determined. * Brazil Russia India China and South Africa the larger economies of emerging Third World countries

PeonForHer -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 6:02:06 AM)
quote: Inside the West we are beginning to see large scale popular resistance to austerity economics in Europe, where the imposition of free market-ideology driven austerity policies have caused widespread falls in living standards without any discernible improvements in the economies. So it seems to me that developing alternatives to austerity economics is part of the solution. Developing alternatives is one thing: and, lord knows, there's grounds for hope, there. Greece looks like the country where this could explode first: the anti-austerity alliance of Marxists, socialists, Maoists, Trotskyists and greens in the Syriza party is now ahead in the polls. But, for one thing, no one knows what could happen next. It's uncharted territory. And for another - the resistance against anti-austerity politics is so formidable. At bottom we're talking about the combined vested interests of world capitalism, after all .... Feck knows, though: change might occur, and it might be good change, at that.

Sanity -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 6:07:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Inside the West we are beginning to see large scale popular resistance to austerity economics in Europe, where the imposition of free market-ideology driven austerity policies have caused widespread falls in living standards without any discernible improvements in the economies. So it seems to me that developing alternatives to austerity economics is part of the solution. Developing alternatives is one thing: and, lord knows, there's grounds for hope, there. Greece looks like the country where this could explode first: the anti-austerity alliance of Marxists, socialists, Maoists, Trotskyists and greens in the Syriza party is now ahead in the polls. But, for one thing, no one knows what could happen next. It's uncharted territory. And for another - the resistance against anti-austerity politics is so formidable. At bottom we're talking about the combined vested interests of world capitalism, after all .... Feck knows, though: change might occur, and it might be good change, at that. Greece is a great poster child for socialism running amok As is Venezuela

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 6:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Firstly thank you for a (as always) thoughtful and considered response to the OP. Broadly I am sympathetic to your analysis and ideas. As you point out, the question is not a lack of resources or wealth but how they ought to be distributed in order to maximise general well being without hampering innovation or individual enterprise. Answers need to take into account not only the internal situation in individual Western countries but also a global perspective, where the gap between the richer nations of the West and less affluent areas of Africa, Asia and South America needs to be addressed. One area where we can perhaps find solutions is putting the vast amounts of wealth hidden away in offshore tax havens to productive use. I've seen reports that suggest that if these funds were put to productive use, the interest alone would be enough to abolish world poverty. So this is a massive resource that is currently massively under-utilised. Achieving this entails international co-operation in both identifying and deploying these resources. To undertake this task we need to re-imagine the role of international financial institution like the World Bank(WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Currently these institutions operate as little more than the 'repo' heavies of the international banking system enforcing rapacious policies on financially weak Third World countries in order to guarantee repayment of loans to major banks. Already the BRICS* countries have taken steps to set up an alternative system outside the WB/IMF duopoly. Re-orienting the WB/IMF to manage the underemployed funds currently residing in tax havens and re-organising those institutions to make them more responsive to Third Word needs may be a step well worth considering. I agree with these proposals, although the key thing is getting international cooperation, as well as the cooperation of the banks and private industry. Ideally, they should see that it's in their best interests to improve the overall global situation on their own before it comes to a head. There are two ways the West could go about it - we could take the peaceful, cooperative approach, or we can turn our countries into fortresses, hide in bunkers, and guard our wealth to the very last. (Of course, if the wealth is mostly in other countries, then that could be a problem if some other regional power decides to invade one of those countries.) quote: Inside the West we are beginning to see large scale popular resistance to austerity economics in Europe, where the imposition of free market-ideology driven austerity policies have caused widespread falls in living standards without any discernible improvements in the economies. So it seems to me that developing alternatives to austerity economics is part of the solution. Again, I agree. I think that most people can get the idea that when times are tough, everyone has to tighten their belts, but I think that people have a right to ask that it be done fairly, not just impose more hardships on those who have been living a lifetime of austerity. Austerity needs to be imposed at the top, not at the bottom. quote: Will a failure to reorganise financial systems both internally and internationally lead to revolutions? I think this is inevitable but equally I see this response as being limited to a few minor countries with minimal international consequences, mainly for the reasons outlined in your post. Welfare systems, political apathy and insulation from the more desperate conditions the poor face in the Third World will combine to eliminate revolution as an alternative in the West. That is not to say that there will no major social upheavals or dislocation. The cost of avoiding revolution will be a more democratic distribution of wealth and resources which will be effected politically. The first step will be the abandonment of austerity economics and eventually the discourse of free market economics that spawned austerity policies. Whether this can be achieved without massive social dislocation is yet to be determined. * Brazil Russia India China and South Africa the larger economies of emerging Third World countries What seems to be happening is a slow, gradual breakdown and deterioration of a system that has seen better times.

PeonForHer -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 7:18:25 AM)
quote: Greece is a great poster child for socialism running amok As is Venezuela Greece's economy and society has been running amok for some while, now. It isn't a surprise that the Greeks would imagine that a radical solution is required to fix a radical problem.

Staleek -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 10:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 here is my view and comment: everyplace in the world that has seriously tried socialism/communism to the extent you seem to be advocating, ends in the devastation of the lives you purport to care about. the Winston Churchill quote is applicable. "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Yes, ok. But why then are you advocating socialism for the rich? If socialism is such a failed system, then why do we allow private welfare to exist to the extent that it does? The "Free-Market", unregulated with people able to buy and sell shares in companies and make investments with returns, is exactly that. Let me explain this.... A guy goes to work at a car factory. Every working day of the year he helps to produce a car. His labour amounts to a value of $100,000 for the year. Yet his take home pay is merely 30,000.... let's analyse this... He will pay a good chunk in taxes. The lions share of those taxes will go to support the very thing he relies upon, hospitals and medicine incase he falls ill, police and fire service for emergencies, roads to drive on, local tax for street lighting and trash removal etc. A chunk of the money will go on marketing the cars he has produced, adverts for the new MX-5 or whatever it is he makes. A chunk of the money will go towards procuring raw materials, such as the steel and aluminium in the cars, the cloth for the carpets, the plastic for the dashboard. Another load of money will go towards the manufacture of the materials needed which the car plant doesn't produce, such as wiring, tyres, light bulbs, screws, nuts and bolts. Some of the money will go towards the plant infrastructure, the lighting and energy needed to drive the plant, as well as the tools and other equipment needed to build the cars. But do you know where most of his labour will go? It will go to the shareholders. It will go to the capital firms who have bought stock in the company. It will go to financial companies, the employees and beneficiaries of which have done nothing to help build the cars sold. They've simply used money they already had to expand their own money supply, by buying into the labor of someone else who is actually doing the work. Capitalism rewards money, not success. If you already have money you can use it to maintain your position, at the expense and hard work of others. If you don't you have to go and work. It effectively enslaves people who don't have a good start in life, and frees those who happen to be wealthy.

Kirata -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 11:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek But do you know where most of his labour will go? You're just making shit up. After salaries, health insurance, retirement plans, materials, marketing, energy costs, taxes, etc., most of the return on his labor has been spent. http://csimarket.com/Industry/industry_ManagementEffectiveness.php?ind=404 http://csimarket.com/Industry/Industry_Profitability.php?ind=404 K.

Politesub53 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 4:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not to worry though......... We have been told it will all trickle down the line and reach the poor...... fuck knows when though. [8\|] Except that history proves the opposite, PS. Take me: one hundred years ago I'd have had no choice but to work down a mine, and some of my colleagues would have been 10 year old children. I may have been killed from an explosion, and in the event I managed to make it to the ripe old age of 45 I would probably have had some chest and respiratory problems. These days, I'm just short of being a billionaire and I managed to get to university and have read a wide range of mind-opening books. I'm comfortable in life and want for nothing really. I don't think it's fair to say that Capitalism is some destructive philosophy which has led to widespread misery. It's not perfect by any means, but then which principle/philosophy/system is? Recent figures since the 2007 Wall Street debacle, the only people to have benefitted from injection of quantitive easing have been those with the most money in the first place. I am not against capitalism per se, just the bullshit notion that it trickles down. I recall once saying we need a capitalist based economy but with social values attached. If we had had such a system one hundred years ago, my great grandfather wouldnt have needed to have had ten kids, just to ensure at least some of them survived. You know only to well that I voted for thatcher, I cant bring myself to vote Tory again next may, but Labour hardly looks like a decent alternative.

PeonForHer -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 4:54:31 PM)
quote: You know only to well that I voted for thatcher, I cant bring myself to vote Tory again next may, but Labour hardly looks like a decent alternative. Vote Green old chap. That's looking like a viable alternative. ;-)

Politesub53 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 5:04:19 PM)
Not my colour, blue suits me so much better. Tis why I would support Rovers and not City. [;)] For every good policy the greens announce, they then bring in five bad ones. I would actually start supporting any party that broadly stuck to their Election Manifesto. Not that thats likely to happen anytime soon.

MrRodgers -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 5:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether So what is your definition of the word 'Socialism'? More to the point given the content of your post, what the fuck is yours? socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. K. As Oxford NOW says, the definition of socialism (very much suiting the capitalist ) is anything that compels the investor class or the economy from which their investments benefit, by govt. dictate, to benefit society at large...is socialism. (....and is nothing at all like communism) Convenient to this definition is for example the idea that for govt, to force society to insure retail bank deposits (FDIC) agriculture (FCIP) private [sic] investments overseas (OPIC) is defined as a necessary form of state command capitalism (also very conveniently allowing the insured to escape the risks of a true free market while profiting thereby) whereas by direct comparison, for govt. to force society to insure the health care of ALL society...is of course a form of socialism and is to be avoided at all costs even when the result is you pay twice as much for your healthcare and die 3-4 years younger. Such is the resulting moral superiority of the strict 'private' profit motive. So the purported modern definition of socialism presents as the immorality of redistribution of such risks to that society while forcing upon society...protection of a profit, of banking of military adventurism, the damages of massive fraud and also debt...i.e., 97% of all money.

Kirata -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 5:35:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. As Oxford NOW says, the definition of socialism (very much suiting the capitalist ) is anything that compels the investor class or the economy from which their investments benefit, by govt. dictate, to benefit society at large...is socialism. (....and is nothing at all like communism) 1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. 1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. 1.2 (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/socialism http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism Thanks for playing. K.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 7:08:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The bank bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, and the big business bailouts ARE counter-productive, even though he may not have been talking about those things. The worst thing that happens is blaming that shit on Capitalism. 'Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor', as they say. [;)] Which isn't Capitalism...

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 7:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's just it, Gauge. The bank bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, and the big business bailouts ARE counter-productive, even though he may not have been talking about those things. The worst thing that happens is blaming that shit on Capitalism. Those bailouts aren't pillars of Capitalism. Loss IS a pillar and is about as important as profits. You take either one out, and you no longer have Capitalism. I think you indirectly answered this point with what you said in your previous post: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I think you can trust every politician to do what's best for him/herself and for future elections. I think the same could be said for every capitalist, in that they'll support whatever is best for him/herself and their company, even if what they support doesn't coincide with the ideological tenets of capitalism. Capitalism's only real principle is to make more money; it doesn't matter how. Capitalists have no principles, no morals, no sense of right and wrong whatsoever. Not much different from politicians, actually, except that politicians still have to answer to the people every few years, whereas capitalists do not. We disagree that Capitalists have no principles, morals or sense of right and wrong. And, Capitalists tend to have to "answer to the people" (consumers) every day.

GoddessManko -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 7:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The bank bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, and the big business bailouts ARE counter-productive, even though he may not have been talking about those things. The worst thing that happens is blaming that shit on Capitalism. 'Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor', as they say. [;)] Which isn't Capitalism... I concur.

MrRodgers -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 7:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. As Oxford NOW says, the definition of socialism (very much suiting the capitalist ) is anything that compels the investor class or the economy from which their investments benefit, by govt. dictate, to benefit society at large...is socialism. (....and is nothing at all like communism) 1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. 1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. 1.2 (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/socialism http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism Thanks for playing. K. But that's my point, socialism not a political/economic theory at all. It is a well defined absolute economic demarcation of the govt, ownership of the means of production which does not even require that govt. own the controlling seat(s) or interest (shares) in those means. The 'policy or practice' of so-called socialized medicine is semantic legerdemain as opposed to in fact the socialization of risk in banking, investments and agriculture especially given that none of the above in any way involves ownership of production. It is govt. collectively taking the financial risks. Furthermore, socialism still allowing for much of business to be privately owned and there being NO private property under communism...socialism is nothing like let alone a pathway to [it.] Socialism thus becomes merely a termed used to denigrate at one's choosing...how society deals with those markets that profit through production or through transfers of financial risk. Also, the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism need not in any way...require socialism.

Kirata -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/22/2015 8:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. As Oxford NOW says, the definition of socialism (very much suiting the capitalist ) is anything that compels the investor class or the economy from which their investments benefit, by govt. dictate, to benefit society at large...is socialism. (....and is nothing at all like communism) 1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. 1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. 1.2 (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/socialism http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism Thanks for playing. But that's my point, socialism not a political/economic theory at all... Well then you're making up your own language. Some people seem to think that "socialism" just refers to a warm and snuggly sense of social responsibility. It doesn't. That's bullshit. K.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875