Wealth and inequality today

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Enki »

Simple Minded wrote:Alex,

The more fascinating aspect to me is when does "wealth inequality" becomes a chic concern for the "compassionate" and when it is ignored. During bull markets inequality increases and during bear markets inequality decreases.
It's the opposite. In Bear markets the price of equities decreases and those with the liquid capital to buy snatch them up.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Charity & the Taxman.....

Post by manolo »

monster_gardener wrote: Congratulations for being such a good capitalist! ;)
monster,

It's simple commerce. Make a fair deal with value added for the buyer and something for my skill and effort. Both parties are happy and it's good to keep the bikes on the road. :)

What's not to like?

Alex.
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:Manolo... forget it. Simple Minded is a Fundamental Relativist. Even if his own stomach is screaming for food he will tell it to shut up because all is relative and nothing is forever. In philosophy there never is a real famine. Maybe a Philoso-famine :shock:
:D There you go again with the labels........ what the hell is it with "you people" and yer labels....? ;)
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

The Taxman, Charity & Your Duty to Give to Burglars.

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:
monster_gardener wrote: Congratulations for being such a good capitalist! ;)
monster,

It's simple commerce. Make a fair deal with value added for the buyer and something for my skill and effort. Both parties are happy and it's good to keep the bikes on the road. :)

What's not to like?

Alex.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo Ethinker.

Might depend on how bad you get Beatled up ;) oops I mean beat up by the Taxman ;) :twisted: :lol: :roll:

And if someone less fortunate or greedier than you decides take what if anything remains in your hand after the Taxman is through....

You did collect taxes on the sale of the bike and pay taxes on your profit therefrom, didn't you? ;)
value added
If not, the Taxman may throw you in the vat ;) oops sorry I mean the prison, VAT is the 17.5% Value Added Tax :twisted:

Or if you don't declare the profit & pay, I would estimate for you, the ~40% or more income tax (correct me if I am wrong)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i ... Income_tax

I hope you are not a Darth ;) tax eVader :twisted: looking to cut taxes with a light saber and be a parasite on the Socialist State that gave you so much..... :roll:

And you did give a lot of what was left to charity?

Right?

Probably best to do that because in England, if some unfortunate or greedy person invades your home to take what is left of any profit in your hands :twisted:, you can get in trouble if you fight back instead of backing off and leting him or her take what he or she wants...

Otherwise you may end up in prison and sued by the poor dear :roll: home invader/burglar....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

OTOH if you don't have something to give the poor dears :roll: home invader/burglar/mugger, maybe they will kill or harm you for not being ready to give them what they want.....

IMHO, not much to like about this....
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

monster,

What's wrong with free enterprise?

Alex.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Considering Moving to England to Get Free Degrees.....

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:monster,

What's wrong with free enterprise?

Alex.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo Ethinker.
What's wrong with free enterprise?
Nothing in itself..... ;)

But when the Taxman beats the profit out of you or your boss after the BureacRAT has regulated & exacted his or her fees and waste of time and then multiple Charities make their heart rending appeals for what is left to reduce income inequality.....

One can begin to get the idea that maybe one should give up the Dirty Down in the Black Gang job that helps keep society going and see if one can become a parasite & live off the Dole....

Maybe see if one can emigrate to England and get 3 free degrees in say Art, Astronomy & Horticulture.... ;) :twisted: :lol:

And maybe practice Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance & Tax Avoidance.... ;)

You still haven't said whether you collected & remitted the Bat ;) oops I mean VAT tax on the sale of the bike and whether you declared the profit for the Income tax and how much if any you gave to charity to reduce wealth inequality :roll:

But I wish you well.....

Hope no muggers or home invaders come to take your wealth out of your hands where it is ;)
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Considering Moving to England to Get Free Degrees.....

Post by manolo »

monster_gardener wrote:
But I wish you well.....
You too, monster. :)

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

manolo wrote:Folks,

In the world today, the richest 85 people own the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the entire world’s population. That is “85” people as against “3.5 billion people”.
It's interesting why people never look into why that is.
This was discussed on the beeb world service last night and I was interested and amused by a contributor (former Bush admin advisor) saying that “inequality is not the problem”. She trotted out the familiar right wing argument: Capitalism can make everyone wealthy.
Yup.
This argument relies on a false premise:
Nope.
that there is no upper limit to the world’s wealth and it is there for the taking if we only work hard enough. On this false premise the 85 richest people have no negative affect on 3.5 billion as there is always more wealth available for capitalism to unlock for the poor.
And it's true. Nothing false about it.
There are some problems with this view.

1. We have capitalism
No, we don't.
and it hasn’t happened. Inequality in wealth is getting rapidly greater in recent decades.
The natural result of obama Democrat policy. Everything is going according to plan. obama's voters like it so much they re-elected him.
2. The world’s wealth is not limitless. Based as it is on land and property ownership, production from the biosphere and mineral resources, the ground of wealth is limited on this planet.
In the short term there are real limits on the world's wealth. In the long term there is no known or determinable limit, as labor and capital productivity never seem to go down (without respect to gov't interference).
Where I would agree with the contributor is that wealth is there for the taking; it can be found in the hands of those who already have it.

Alex.
If only someone had tried that before. If only there was a way to see if that worked by some past examples.

Image



http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world[/quote]
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

The top 85 are largely leftists and Democrats.

Why don't they give their money away ethinker?
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Here's why they don't do it.

To be a leftist these days, the prereq seems to be innumeracy.

Lets be generous and say the top 85 are worth 10 billion each. That would be 850 billion dollars to steal and redistribute.

850 billion dollars divided by 3.5 billion people= $243 a person.

One time.

That's why nobody does anything this way.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Stripping Back the Veil on Redistribution.....

Post by monster_gardener »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Here's why they don't do it.

To be a leftist these days, the prereq seems to be innumeracy.

Lets be generous and say the top 85 are worth 10 billion each. That would be 850 billion dollars to steal and redistribute.

850 billion dollars divided by 3.5 billion people= $243 a person.

One time.

That's why nobody does anything this way.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

That's why nobody does anything this way.
But sometimes they try......

Remembering Government Get Back on Your Feet After The Hurricane Debit Cards that got used in Strip Clubs... ;)

And IIRC for Breast Augmentation Surgery :lol:

Wonder if there was a connection.... :lol: :roll:
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote: In the short term there are real limits on the world's wealth. In the long term there is no known or determinable limit, as labor and capital productivity never seem to go down .....
Mr P,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_curve

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Good point. The only limits appear to be hypothetical.
Censorship isn't necessary
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Good point. The only limits appear to be hypothetical.
Mr P,

I agree with you that any predictions about the future are hypothetical. It is not impossible that a new energy source will be discovered which is unlimited (at least in our forseeable timescale). In the meantime we have fracking and the polar icecaps. :)

Drill baby, drill!

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

I think that is the Palin policy adopted by obama and the Democrats now as policy, after their policies failed.

She was always a forward thinker. I think the two of you have some things in common.

Some predictions about the future are more hypothetical than others. When I was kid they said we would be out of oil by some 10-20 years ago. That obviously was way wrong, as they say now we are at the peak. Which means we have probably 100 years to go. Plenty of time for alternatives. Moral of the story, don't listen to people who make predictions about oil.

OTOH, if we are almost out, that means no need to worry about MMGW. In fact, the faster we get rid of it the better.

Looks like we all win.
Censorship isn't necessary
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:I think that is the Palin policy adopted by obama and the Democrats now as policy, after their policies failed.

She was always a forward thinker. I think the two of you have some things in common.

Some predictions about the future are more hypothetical than others. When I was kid they said we would be out of oil by some 10-20 years ago. That obviously was way wrong, as they say now we are at the peak. Which means we have probably 100 years to go. Plenty of time for alternatives. Moral of the story, don't listen to people who make predictions about oil.

OTOH, if we are almost out, that means no need to worry about MMGW. In fact, the faster we get rid of it the better.

Looks like we all win.
Mr P,

Over the years (since 1973 anyway) I have been watching the price of petrol at the pumps and comparing it to some other prices that interest me, such as the price of beer. There has been a remarkable correlation all along, indicating a possible connection between oil prices and other consumer prices in the short and long term. I suspect that the oil price is a driver of other consumer prices more deeply than we like to admit.

I'm sure you know that 'peak oil' isn't about running out, it's about the shock that will hit economies when large oil price spikes kick in. I remember 1973, because I sold a good car that year. I needed to go from 16mpg to 35mpg double quick! That's how it will be.

George Bush wasn't the brightest kid on the block, but he said one thing: "America is addicted to oil." Fracking proves him right.

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It used to be said among the CNBC types that if oil went over $20 per barrel we would go into a recession. Of course under obama we average about 5 times that amount. One wonders what "expensive oil" means anymore.

What we know is $4 per gallon gas with a GOP President would be instant impeachment over failed energy policy. It really helps when the MSM lives to serve and service you, Monica Lewinsky style.

GWB certainly became more liberal as time went on.

But the overall point is predictions about oil are comic material. My prediction is as good as the top people in the field.

Anyway, if liberals had any alternative ideas they would have implemented them when obama had 60% of congress and near record popularity while spending record amount of dollars.

Seeing that leftists have no ideas on the subject it is time for them to capitulate and remove themselves from the discussion.
Censorship isn't necessary
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:

There has been a remarkable correlation all along, indicating a possible connection between oil prices and other consumer prices in the short and long term. I suspect that the oil price is a driver of other consumer prices more deeply than we like to admit.

Alex.
Alex,

Good point.

Some conspiracy theorists would claim that energy is used in the manufacture and/or delivery of all goods & services.

In the US, we call them Flat Earthers!

OTOH, we have the rocket scientists who have all the solutions. They claim "We're not taxing the poor! We're taxing Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, GM, Coca-Cola, etc."

In the US, we call them politicians!

IMSMO, the Flat Earthers have more credibility......
Last edited by Simple Minded on Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
It used to be said among the CNBC types that if oil went over $20 per barrel we would go into a recession. Of course under obama we average about 5 times that amount. One wonders what "expensive oil" means anymore.
Remember when gasoline was 25-35 cents a gallon? I remember local motorcycle dealers running newspaper (remember those) ads that asked:

"What will you do when gasoline is $1.00 a gallon?"


People will do as they have always done, adapt.
'
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

George Bush wasn't the brightest kid on the block, but he said one thing: "America is addicted to oil." Fracking proves him right.
Yup. Fracking is like the meth addict scrabbling around on their hands and knees desperately scouring the carpet for residue.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote: Seeing that leftists have no ideas on the subject ....
Mr P,

I'm happy to listen to any ideas on the subject. OK, we are seeing a few electric cars round here, but where is the charging current coming from? The science is that oil was/is the greatest free lunch the world has ever seen. Before oil, we were scratching round for bird droppings to get some fertiliser into the fields. We were draining latex out of trees.

Oil was the step change that nuclear never was, and there is nothing that I can see on the horizon that will propel me and my Alfa Romeo to la playa for £4 return. I'm going there now! 8-)

Alex.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Sports Car Socialists-Champagne, Chardonnay & Gucci Ones too

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote: Seeing that leftists have no ideas on the subject ....
Mr P,

I'm happy to listen to any ideas on the subject. OK, we are seeing a few electric cars round here, but where is the charging current coming from? The science is that oil was/is the greatest free lunch the world has ever seen. Before oil, we were scratching round for bird droppings to get some fertiliser into the fields. We were draining latex out of trees.

Oil was the step change that nuclear never was, and there is nothing that I can see on the horizon that will propel me and my Alfa Romeo to la playa for £4 return. I'm going there now! 8-)

Alex.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo eThinker...

I've heard of Limousine Liberals*.... :twisted:

Now Sports Car Socialists.... ;) :twisted: :lol: :roll:

And wait a minute.....

Remembering another one.....

That Scottish Socialist Science Fiction Anarchist guy who died recently.....
In 1998 Banks had been in a near-fatal accident when his car rolled off the road.[5] In February 2007, Banks sold his extensive car collection, including a 3.2 litre Porsche Boxster, a Porsche 911 Turbo, a 3.8 litre Jaguar Mark II, a 5 litre BMW M5 and a daily use diesel Land Rover Defender whose power he had boosted by about 50%. Banks exchanged all of the vehicles for a Lexus RX 400h hybrid – later replaced by a diesel Toyota Yaris – and said in the future he would fly only in emergencies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks

Seems he got Religion before he died ;)

Gaia Earth Mother Religion..... ;)

I'm happy to listen to any ideas on the subject. OK, we are seeing a few electric cars round here, but where is the charging current coming from?
Maybe Thorium Nuke Plants like CANDU or newer designs....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

Maybe Solar Power Satellites....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite


la playa for £4 return. I'm going there now! 8-)
Sur La Playa = On the Beach....

When humanity goes down the Shute.... ;) :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_%28novel%29

Need to Get Sustainable Colonies in Space..... Soon......



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal
Limousine liberal is a pejorative American political term used to illustrate hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status; including calls for the use of mass transit while frequently using limousines or private jets,[1] claiming environmental consciousness but driving low MPG sports cars or SUVs, or ostensibly supporting public education while actually sending their children to private schools.[2]

Contents

1 Formation and early use
1.1 Procaccino Campaign
2 Later use
3 See also
4 References

Formation and early use
Procaccino Campaign

Democratic New York City mayoral hopeful Mario Procaccino coined the term "limousine liberal" to describe incumbent Republican Mayor John Lindsay and his wealthy Manhattan backers during a heated 1969 campaign.

It was a populist/producerist epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it described were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs purported to benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would be borne in the main by working class or lower middle class people who were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves. In particular, Procaccino criticized Lindsay for favoring unemployed blacks over working-class ethnic whites.[3]

One Procaccino campaign memo attacked "rich super-assimilated people who live on Fifth Avenue and maintain some choice mansions outside the city and have no feeling for the small middle class shopkeeper, home owner, etc. They preach the politics of confrontation and condone violent upheaval in society because they are not touched by it and are protected by their courtiers".[4] The Independent later stated that "Lindsay came across as all style and no substance, a 'limousine liberal' who knew nothing of the concerns of the same 'Silent Majority' that was carrying Richard Nixon to the White House at the very same time."[5]
Later use

In the 1970s, the term was applied to wealthy liberal supporters of open-housing and forced school busing who didn't make use of public schooling.[6] In Boston, Massachusetts, supporters of busing, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, sent their children to private schools or lived in affluent suburbs. To some South Boston residents, Kennedy's support of a plan that "integrated" their children with blacks and his apparent unwillingness to do the same with his own children, was hypocrisy.[7]

By the late 1990s and early 21st century, the term has also come to be applied to those who support environmentalist or "green" goals, such as mass transit, yet drive large SUVs or literally have a limousine and driver. The Weekly Standard applied the term to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX 18) for being "routinely chauffeured the one short block to work--in a government car, by a member of her staff, at the taxpayers' expense."[8] The term was also used disparagingly in a 2004 episode of Law & Order by Fred Thompson's character, Arthur Branch, to belittle his more liberal colleague, Serena Southerlyn. South Park's creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone poked fun at the tendency of some liberals to be more concerned with image than actually helping the earth in the episode "Smug Alert!"

The New York Observer applied the term to 2008 Democratic candidate John Edwards for paying $400 for a haircut and, according to the newspaper, "lectures about poverty while living in gated opulence".[9]

In 2009, the term was applied by many commentators to former Senate Majority Leader and then-Obama cabinet appointee Tom Daschle for failing to pay back taxes and interest on the use of a limousine service.[10][11][12]

The term has often been applied to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore over the years by both critics on the left and right due to his habit of traveling around New York City in a limousine.[13][14][15]

Al Gore is often called a limousine liberal by his critics for his use of private jet planes[16] and SUVs,[17] while giving speeches calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.[18] In the May 16, 2007 edition of TIME magazine, the term was used in the allegation that that "His (Gore's) Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home"[19]
Also.......
Champagne socialist, the British Version.....

Champagne socialist is a political term originating in the United Kingdom.[1][2] The phrase is used to describe self-identified socialists whose comfortable upper middle class lifestyles are perceived to be incompatible with their professed political convictions. The term is used by opposing politicians to portray and ridicule their opponents as hypocritical.[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist

And......Suspect Noddy has Knocked Heads with these.... ;)
Chardonnay socialist

Chardonnay socialist is a derogatory Australasian term for those on the political left with comfortable middle or upper-class incomes, tertiary education, and a penchant for the finer things in life, Chardonnay being a form of white wine for example.

It is similar in thrust to the North American term limousine liberal, though without quite the same taint of great wealth attached to it.[citation needed] The term was modelled on the British term: Champagne socialist.[1] When the term was coined around 1989,[1][2] Chardonnay was seen as a drink of affluent people.[3] It became a popular drink during the next decade[3] and hence the term has lost some of its sting.

The term "chardonnay socialist" is regularly used by people from throughout the political spectrum to criticise opponents. For example, Australian left-wing "true believers" levelled it at supporters of the failed republic referendum of 1999 (where the vote was split not along conventional party lines but very much along socio-economic divides, with the rich overwhelmingly supporting the change while the less well-off were opposed – a superficially bizarre pattern for a non-economic issue). Staunch Australian right-wingers, on the other hand, level it at those who support such things as government funding for the arts, free tertiary education, and the ABC – all causes which are described by critics as "middle-class welfare."

[4]

The older term for this or a similar kind of person was "salon communist."

Other similar terms are the "chattering classes" (coined in England in the 1980s) and "latte liberal".[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardonnay_socialist


Also....
Gucci socialist is an American political epithet similar to Champagne socialist or Limousine liberal that is used to describe people who claim to support left-of-centre policy or theory, including various forms of soft socialism and liberalism, but have an undeniably capitalist, bourgeoisie lifestyle. Gucci refers to the haute couture created at the Italian fashion house which bears the name. This term is used largely pejoratively. Phil Allt, a New Democratic Party of Canada member extended the use of the Gucci prefix in conjunction with another ideology when he accused the Green Party of Canada of including "Gucci environmentalists." [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gucci_socialist
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Sports Car Socialists-Champagne, Chardonnay & Gucci Ones

Post by manolo »

monster_gardener wrote:
Sur La Playa = On the Beach....

When humanity goes down the Shute.... ;) :roll:
monster,

I didn't think you'd spot that.

Alex.
Post Reply