Wealth and inequality today

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

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”.

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.

This argument relies on a false premise: 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.

There are some problems with this view.

1. We have capitalism and it hasn’t happened. Inequality in wealth is getting rapidly greater in recent decades.

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.

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.



http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

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.

When does the threat of wealth inequality capture the public's attention more than the threat of DDT, AIDS, The Coming Ice Age, Population Time Bomb, Y2K, MMGW, Fukushima, or the Extinction Level Event asteroid? What changes in the public's imagination? Or is it merely whatever cause du jour the MSM (or now the internet) hawk the most?

Another fascinating aspect is when the concept of let's liposuction the fat man to feed the poor becomes "acceptable" to individuals or society.

One would expect the person who digs ditches for a living and who uses a shovel to be more productive and have more customers than the person who is digging ditches with a spoon. As soon as Fred can afford the hydraulic excavator, Fred is going to blow the guys digging with a hand shovel right out of the market.

The other fascinating aspect is when does one the "feel" wealthy, and our inherent habit of comparing ourselves to others. In my experience, those who feel wealthiest, are those who refuse to compare themselves with others. Not surprisingly, they are much more charitable individuals (regardless of their income) than those who are richer and concerned with their relative wealth. But that is a personal discipline that can't be implemented with angelic administration.

The guy making $5/hour may view the guy making $20 as rich, selfish, or greedy, but does he consider himself rich and become more charitable with his donations when his wage increases to $20/hour, or does he merely start purchasing more high status stuff?
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

Alex,

Another thought. Forgive me for breaking out of my Simple Minded mode and getting all intellectual-like in my previous post. I’m back now.

I suspect that wealth inequality exists because the concept of equality (fairness, justice, etc.) is a social abstract while wealth (or the cost of implementation of ideology) is very personal. Warren Buffet, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, and lots of rich people have proclaimed that the rich should pay their “fair share” and do more to help the poor, while hiring lawyers and accountants to reduce their own tax burdens, and of course not donating “more.”

As best as I can tell, none have given away sufficient quantities of their wealth to reduce their net worth to even median first world level.

On a personal level, based on what you have posted, you seem to have a net worth higher than median in England, and certainly higher than the world median. In other words, you are “rich” compared to most of the people in England and certainly the rest of the world. Have you given away sufficient wealth to reduce your net worth to the median world level?

If not, ask yourself, “Why have I not given away my wealth?” I suspect those who are rich relative to you or I have the same answer.

“No one needs a million or a billion dollars!” sounds every bit as reasonable to the person who is not a millionaire or a billionaire, as “No one needs a motorcycle or air conditioning or a smart phone!” sounds to the person who has none of those things.

Selling that YZF would probably fetch a sum that would buy a few thousand meals to feed the hungry children of the world. I wonder if any who post here would give up AC or their smart phones and donate the money currently spent on those items and services?

Lets face it, all of us who post here are rich! Not to mention that we all exhale CO2.....Ritual seppuku?
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote:Alex,

If not, ask yourself, “Why have I not given away my wealth?” I suspect those who are rich relative to you or I have the same answer.
SM,

You have raised a common attack used in these issues. I usually hear it as follows "You are a socialist? Then why haven't you given away all your money?" - or - "You are a Christian? Then why haven't you given away all your money?" "You are an existentialist? Then why haven't you committed suicide? You are a capitalist? Then why haven't you sold your grandmother?

It's a good soundbite and a quick way to go ad hominem.

In the meantime, the issue remains.

Alex.
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

We have lost the idea that we are all workers in the vineyards of The Lord. This rage against inequality isn't driven so much by economics as much as it's psychological. When each of us is an inviolate and irreducible component of G_d which seems to be the end state of the Social Gospel, the table is set. There cannot be arbitrarily greater and lesser portions of G_d cobbled together in a make-do communal gathering that supposedly represents His Will. That seems absurd, and is certainly blasphemous....'>.......
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Parodite »

I don't think there is a cure against all inequality but there is one against abject poverty, hunger traps etc.
Deep down I'm very superficial
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:We have lost the idea that we are all workers in the vineyards of The Lord. This rage against inequality isn't driven so much by economics as much as it's psychological. When each of us is an inviolate and irreducible component of G_d which seems to be the end state of the Social Gospel, the table is set. There cannot be arbitrarily greater and lesser portions of G_d cobbled together in a make-do communal gathering that supposedly represents His Will. That seems absurd, and is certainly blasphemous....'>.......
FF,

Well said.

"If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

Leviticus 25:35

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

Talking Revolution: Elon Musk of SpaceX vs Socialist Thugs..

Post by monster_gardener »

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”.

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.

This argument relies on a false premise: 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.

There are some problems with this view.

1. We have capitalism and it hasn’t happened. Inequality in wealth is getting rapidly greater in recent decades.

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.

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.



http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world

Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo Ethinker
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”.
I don't carry a torch with enthusiasm for the Richest 85 and similar unless like Elon Musk* of SpaceX they are engaged in activities aimed at human survival &/or providing jobs for working stiffs....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#SpaceX

That said when I read something like this.....
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.
The Red Alert ;-) :evil: Alarm Bells go off full force.......

The Socialist Devil :evil: is in the details of how you propose to take that wealth... :idea:

If you are talking about gently persuading some of the Richest 85 & similar to go Andrew Carnegie and donate some of their money to worthy causes like Carnegie did, then have at it..... :idea:
Andrew Carnegie (/kɑrˈneɪɡi/ kar-NAY-gee, but commonly /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ KAR-nə-gee or /kɑrˈnɛɡi/ kar-NEG-ee;[1] November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist who led the enormous expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century. He was also one of the highest profile philanthropists of his era; his 1889 article proclaiming "The Gospel of Wealth" called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, and stimulated a wave of philanthropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

But if you are talking about taking it by force, then I am against that.......

Not likely to come easy.......

Might end up with another Civil or World War......

And while Down in the Black Gang Kulaks like me know not to trust the Bosses because they like us are Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys :roll: ............

We know that the Socialist/Communist/Progressives/Revolutionaries are even worse as they are Especially Depraved Egotistical Hypocritical Chaos Monkey Killer Apes & Thieves.... :evil: :evil: :evil:

That applies whether....

Talking about Revolution/Civil War where the EVIL Socialist Thugs are going to come loot & murder us after they shoot the czar like happened in the Ukraine and other places.....

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

Or 'merely' :roll: taxing the Bosses to the point that the Bosses automate even more & lay us off before finally shutting down the businesses & factories down or moving them somewhere else... :roll:

The taxing will also fall on us and we probably won't have the assets to move somewhere else in style like the bosses or have the tax lawyers to dodge the taxes if the situation doesn't go quite that far.......

With much of the tax money going to support Upper Class Lifestyles for the Socialist Government Bureaucrats & Public Employee Union Officials and the like....... :evil: :roll:

Give me a capitalist adventurer like Elon Musk any day over some Arrogant LYING Socialist Son of a Bitch Eating Community Organizer/Bureaucrat :evil: who wants to rob the rich & spread the wealth :evil: :roll:

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.
Maybe.....

But if we can get out into Space with Elon Musk & similar, perhaps it is pretty limitless for practical purposes ..... :idea:

Many worlds.......

Surface & Hollow..........

And Orbitals.......

And the energy to make better use of this world.......



AqC_Gma221M


*Musk co-founded his third company with rocket propulsion engineer Tom Mueller.[37] Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) was founded in June 2002.[38] Musk is CEO and CTO of the Hawthorne, California-based company. SpaceX develops and manufactures space launch vehicles with a focus on advancing the state of rocket technology. The company's first two launch vehicles are the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, and its first spacecraft is the Dragon.[39]
Musk and President Barack Obama at the Falcon 9 launch site in 2010

SpaceX was awarded a $1.6 billion NASA contract on December 23, 2008, for 12 flights of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station, replacing the Space Shuttle after it retired in 2011. Falcon 9/Dragon is designed to replace the cargo transport function of the Space Shuttle and astronaut transport will be handled by the Soyuz. SpaceX designed Falcon 9/Dragon with astronaut transport in mind and the Augustine commission recommended that astronaut transport be handled by commercial companies like SpaceX.[40]

Musk revealed that he was influenced by Isaac Asimov's Foundation series[41] and views space exploration as an important step in expanding—if not preserving—the consciousness of human life.[42]

Musk has said that multiplanetary life may serve as a hedge against threats to the survival of the human species. "An asteroid or a super volcano could destroy us, and we face risks the dinosaurs never saw: an engineered virus, inadvertent creation of a micro black hole, catastrophic global warming or some as-yet-unknown technology could spell the end of us. Humankind evolved over millions of years, but in the last sixty years atomic weaponry created the potential to extinguish ourselves. Sooner or later, we must expand life beyond this green and blue ball—or go extinct." His goal is to reduce the cost of human spaceflight by a factor of 10.[43] He founded SpaceX with $100 million of his early fortune. In seven years, SpaceX designed the family of Falcon launch vehicles and the Dragon multi-purpose spacecraft from the ground up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#SpaceX
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
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Alex,

If not, ask yourself, “Why have I not given away my wealth?” I suspect those who are rich relative to you or I have the same answer.
SM,

You have raised a common attack used in these issues. I usually hear it as follows "You are a socialist? Then why haven't you given away all your money?" - or - "You are a Christian? Then why haven't you given away all your money?" "You are an existentialist? Then why haven't you committed suicide? You are a capitalist? Then why haven't you sold your grandmother?

It's a good soundbite and a quick way to go ad hominem.

In the meantime, the issue remains.

Alex.
Alex my friend,

A simple question in a post in the philosophy forum is… an attack!?! Really?

Interpretation is the realm of the receiver, not the transmitter.


It is fascinating how so many (rich, first world, Westerners) want to feel/claim oppression and powerlessness, and so few want to admit they themselves are the richest population of the world and that they, personally, could be doing more to help those who are poorer than themselves.

In the US today, the "99%" are "the oppressed!" Really?

I suspect it has always been, and always will be that humans will imagine (which is free) ideological standards for the others, that they themselves are unwilling to live up to (or pay for) as individuals.

I suspect it has nothing to do with nationality, politics, economic systems, or even religion, but with “humanity” itself.

Nothing is easier or more “human” than saying someone else should be doing more, or that the world would be a better place if only the others were better (either better than they currently are, or even better yet, better than I am currently).

Someday, all human will strive to be average…….
Someday, all parents will endeavour for their children to live average lives……
Someday, people will either preach what they practice, or practice what they preach…….. maybe…

In the meantime, it makes for good discussion!
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote:
A simple question in a post in the philosophy forum is… an attack!?! Really?
SM, a misunderstanding. I was merely using a technical term left over from uni days, such as 'The materialist attack on Cartesian dualism' etc etc. Of course in the world of internet forums the word 'attack' can be a dog whistle for flaming and you are right to point that up.

Having said this, the question "Why have I not given away all my wealth?" was (IMHO) well answered in my post. I particularly liked "Why have you not sold your grandmother?" as a lighthearted riposte. :)

For a long time, those on the right have collected a small quiver of sharp one liners and they use them well. A particularly good one is "Where is the money coming from?" I used to fumble with that one, but these days I would probably just say "From taxing you."

IMHO, too many folks on the left have been wordy and ineffective in such exchanges and I would like to see a marked improvement in sound bites from our side. I think the 1% and 99% was a good start but still not neat enough as a quick 'attack'. Mitt Romney was best in the secret filming with his own goals. He was attacking his political prospects. Now that's the kind of attack I like to see.

Alex.
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

Alex,

This is exactly why I find the use of left & right, or any of the other binary terms to describe the world to be extremely amusing and silly. You can always use the terminology of the others to beat them over the head for their hypocrisy.

Fred: “It upsets me that society does not conform more to my ideals!”

Suzy: “Why do you not conform more to the ideals you profess to believe?”

Fred: “Sally has wealth that is orders of magnitude greater than my own. She should do more to help the poor!”

Suzy: “You have wealth that is orders of magnitude greater than millions of poor people. You should do more to help the poor!”

Fred: “Why do you attack my ideals rather than help me solve this problem?”

Suzy: “I thought I was agreeing with your ideals. I thought I was helping you to solve this problem!”

Use of binary terms almost guarantees a meaningless, yet amusing discussion. But in the realm of politics, you are either voting 1 or 0.

Even my hard core socialist buddy who loved to quote Marx to end our discussions went silent when I requested that each time he put his 18 month old daughter down for a nap or the night..... he should whisper in her ear "From Neve according to her abilities, to Uncle Ed according to his needs!"

Suddenly HIS ideology didn't apply to HIS reality!

In my experience, everyone loves the free market more when their vendors are knocking themselves out to gain their business, then suddenly as producers, they want protection from their harder working, smarter, more efficient competitors.

Prescribing ideology for the others is free, solutions have personal costs. Or as the ORZ saying goes: "Talk is cheap!"

But you do realize that by owning a 150 horsepower motorcycle, you are preventing 50 poor people from owning 3 horsepower mopeds..... right? ;)

And the person who is 20 pounds overweight is forcing someone else to be 20 pounds underweight...... right? ;)

Those evil bastards! :x

Well, I say...... "Screw em if they can't take a joke!" :)

when I run for office my campaign slogan is either going to be "Liposuction guns for the skinny!" or "We're all gonna get laid!" Lets see the how the Builderburgers deal with that!
Last edited by Simple Minded on Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by noddy »

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”.
meaningless numbers are meaningless, this is a projection problem of sheltered middle class westerners who are unaware that the rest of the world isnt setup the same way as the anglo west.. they dont understand not everyone lives under a system of crude money exploitation by all those around them and that house prices dont always go up (tm) (patent pending) (c)

you might be schocked to learn that most of the poor places dont have state driven socialism funded by capitalism, they have good ole racist tribal family groups and land and food are not related particularly to money for many of them - its almost impossible to put a money value on being in a tribal village and "owning" control of those resources, some of those buggers are "richer" than many in the west.

how can everything be reduced to western capitalism value systems ? isnt this a particularly crude and ugly way of looking at life ? i think it is.
manolo wrote: 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.
everyone is healther and wealthier post capitalism, end of story - population numbers due to life expectancy increases are exploding, this is a basic fact.
manolo wrote: This argument relies on a false premise: 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.
straw man is made of straw, 85 rich people aint the reason that truckloads of people are living poor, your anti false premise is falser than a false thing with falseness dripping.
manolo wrote: There are some problems with this view.
yep, its nonsense.
manolo wrote: 1. We have capitalism and it hasn’t happened. Inequality in wealth is getting rapidly greater in recent decades.
we dont have capitalism - you have spent ages arguing how wondeful our state driven socalism is, where you misleading before or are you misleading now ?

im confused.
manolo wrote: 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.
those are only aspects of wealth, their are many others and they only mean something in relation to access and the big problem with access to land is NOT 85 RICH PEOPLE
its the middle class trying to eat their own children alive to pay for an indulgent retirements.

have you even bothered to notice land ownership ratios and who owns what, is this in anyway related to reality in some fashion ?

how did not notice its the magority middle class (including government funded lefties) who are trying to make as much money as they can off their housing sales ?

how could you not know that ?
manolo wrote: 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.
damn straight, the government is taking 75%+ of my wealth, i know exactly why its hard to get out of wage slavery
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
those are only aspects of wealth, their are many others and they only mean something in relation to access and the big problem with access to land is NOT 85 RICH PEOPLE
its the middle class trying to eat their own children alive......
Amen noddy! That is why you are My Hero!

Why not vote for the dude who promises freebies to be paid for by those who are too young to vote? It is almost always a winning campaign!

When the kids get tired of getting f**ked, they will simply renege on the promises they did not make. Best of all, they won't have to break their word.

Practical always comes back into style..... eventually!
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote: Why not vote for the dude who promises freebies to be paid for by those who are too young to vote? It is almost always a winning campaign!

When the kids get tired of getting f**ked, they will simply renege on the promises they did not make. Best of all, they won't have to break their word.

Practical always comes back into style..... eventually!
yep, wont matter how many mega bucks you have when the numbers dont add up and they cancel mega bucks to replace them with mega bucks extra super plus plus.

tis going to be an interesting adjustment as the west keeps on grinding down.

how do you value a pleasant day ? priceless i say.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: Why not vote for the dude who promises freebies to be paid for by those who are too young to vote? It is almost always a winning campaign!

When the kids get tired of getting f**ked, they will simply renege on the promises they did not make. Best of all, they won't have to break their word.

Practical always comes back into style..... eventually!
yep, wont matter how many mega bucks you have when the numbers dont add up and they cancel mega bucks to replace them with mega bucks extra super plus plus.

tis going to be an interesting adjustment as the west keeps on grinding down.

how due you value a pleasant day ? priceless i say.
again, the often applicable philosophical perspective of "F**k em if they can't take a joke!" comes into play..... along with "That's why stupid is supposed to hurt!"

cheers mate!
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Parodite »

For kids: what do you need and how much of it.. really? Establish for yourself what is enough.

Is it true that people who say that money is not that important.. tend to have more of it and usually just hate taxes?

Your neighbor having a bigger car, a sexier woman, a nicer smile on his prettier face than you will ever have.. is a crime against humanity, but Jesus will come soon to set it all straight.

A multi-millionaire who still complains he doesn't have enough is probably right.
Deep down I'm very superficial
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by noddy »

this argument cant be had abstractly.

western value judgements and viewpoints on money and wealth are completely and utterly useless when it comes to all the "poor" tribal folks in south east asia, pacific, africa and much of south america.

beyond useless.

those folks dont put their kids into wage slavery to gain access to land (shock horror) and they tend to share everything with their tribes and families - they think we are repulsive for how we do it.

most of them wouldnt spend 40 hrs a week doing a crap job to keep the great big socialist machine going either, they all do the minimum each day for what their immediate friends and families need and wouldnt waste an iota of effort "on the other mobs".

they aint poor because of conspiracy, they are mostly poor because they dont have any interest in being us - (shock horror)

or we could talk about the west, the true target of the bbc progressive vanity whine.. thats more interesting, see above about eating the youth to maintain the illusions of wealth for the current middle class.

not 85 rich people, nonoononononon, its overinvestment in housing by boomers, its government policies to protect that.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

good points noddy.

The very concept of wealth is subjective, individually as well as culturally. Come to think of it, so are the concepts of justice, and fairness.

Those who are concerned with how much someone else has seem just as unhappy as those who feel they never have enough.

The one who knows enough is enough will always have enough. The others............ probably not.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote:Alex,

This is exactly why I find the use of left & right, or any of the other binary terms to describe the world to be extremely amusing and silly. You can always use the terminology of the others to beat them over the head for their hypocrisy.
SM,

I wasn't suggesting that Mitt Romney's remarks in the secret filming were hypocritical, quite the reverse. He was talking to his own and I'm sure he was being completely honest. It was the best bit of politics I've seen since Nixon. :)

Alex.
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Alex,

This is exactly why I find the use of left & right, or any of the other binary terms to describe the world to be extremely amusing and silly. You can always use the terminology of the others to beat them over the head for their hypocrisy.
SM,

I wasn't suggesting that Mitt Romney's remarks in the secret filming were hypocritical, quite the reverse. He was talking to his own and I'm sure he was being completely honest. It was the best bit of politics I've seen since Nixon. :)

Alex.
Alex,

Actually, Romney never came to mind in any of my posts in this thread. :)

Besides, why vote for Obama-lite (RACIST!!!!) when you can have the real thing? :)

That’s why interpretations fascinate me. And why the two party system seems fundamentally ineffective. Either side can always resort to “We may suck a lot, but the people on the other side are even meaner, crueler, and less competent than us.” Both sides often have very good points….. ;)

My own personal experience with binoids indicates they are emotion based creatures. By choosing to feel oppressed, hurt, offended, etc., and splitting the world into “us” and “them,” they, somehow feel superior to those whom they have labeled as “the others.”

“There’s two kinds of people, those who split the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.”

As the man said “The world is s comedy to those who (choose to) think and a tragedy to those who (choose to) feel.”

I assume you are talking about Romney’s statement (paraphrased) that “….promising income tax cuts will not appeal to the 47% of voters who do not pay income taxes.”

I thought that people getting offended by Romney's statement reflected poorly on their intelligence level. In my best politico speak, I thought they were just looking for a reason to “Mormon bash.” ;) I suspect that most of that same herd could have been turned against you with the phrase "No one NEEDS a 150 hp motorcycle! People who own 150 hp motorcycles just want to starve the poor!" Many of those who have never ridden a motorcycle would have chanted "F**k yeah! Lets get that fat-ass 1% basterd!!!"

Of course, the fact that Romney and his crew could not effectively defend that statement reflected poorly on their intelligence levels and campaign skills.

To me, Romney’s statement seemed just as reasonable as “….promising property tax cuts to those who own motorcycles will not appeal to the XX% of voters who do not own motorcycles.”

But hey, interpretation is up to the receiver, right? ;) Personal perspective is a choice, right? ;)

Prescribing how others should think and live always seems to be a losing game in both politics and religion. But what the hell, we all need hobbies, right? And telling other people how to think and live is one of the most amusing hobbies ever invented. And it don't even cost nobody nothing!!! :D

The old “attack” line of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” works in a lot of arenas.

Now back to more important matters….. “Alex, you evil rich 1%er, have you decided to stop starving the poor to death by selling your motorcycles yet?”
:) :)

If not, you can always cleanse your conscious by just selling a couple front wheels........ and if yer still FEELING guilty, a couple swing arms....... ;)
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote:
The very concept of wealth is subjective, individually as well as culturally. Come to think of it, so are the concepts of justice, and fairness.
SM,

In my (subjective) opinion your sentences above are misleading because incomplete. However, I would always defend your right to express misleading views; anything else would be unfair. :)

Alex.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by manolo »

Simple Minded wrote: If not, you can always cleanse your conscious by just selling a couple front wheels........ and if yer still FEELING guilty, a couple swing arms....... ;)
SM,

I sold an early Kawasaki just last week. I like to buy low mileage bikes which need a little tidying, do the work, ride and enjoy, then pass them on. Post classic bikes have been a rising market for a while now, although nothing like the classic car market. Replaced the Kwak with a Yamaha 1000 which needed a rare part. She looks and runs lovely now and only 10,000 miles from new.

My adage with hard goods has always been "Never buy anything that you can't sell."

Alex.
Simple Minded

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
The very concept of wealth is subjective, individually as well as culturally. Come to think of it, so are the concepts of justice, and fairness.
SM,

In my (subjective) opinion your sentences above are misleading because incomplete. However, I would always defend your right to express misleading views; anything else would be unfair. :)

Alex.
:lol: :lol:

If you say so Alex, ;)

intelligent..., stupid..., offensive..., sensible..., racist..., misogynist..., and even UNFAIR and MISLEADING...,
all are determined by the receiver....., and therefore by definition...., wait for it................... SUBJECTIVE! :lol:

Actually when you think about it, not letting the other person decide the meaning of fair or unfair is very......... UNFAIR! ;)

In fact, what could be more UNFAIR than imposing your definitions of fair or unfair on others?
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Charity & the Taxman.....

Post by monster_gardener »

manolo wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: If not, you can always cleanse your conscious by just selling a couple front wheels........ and if yer still FEELING guilty, a couple swing arms....... ;)
SM,

I sold an early Kawasaki just last week. I like to buy low mileage bikes which need a little tidying, do the work, ride and enjoy, then pass them on. Post classic bikes have been a rising market for a while now, although nothing like the classic car market. Replaced the Kwak with a Yamaha 1000 which needed a rare part. She looks and runs lovely now and only 10,000 miles from new.

My adage with hard goods has always been "Never buy anything that you can't sell."

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

Congratulations for being such a good capitalist! ;)

Not that it's much business of mine except for the fact that you brought the subject of wealth inequality up ;)

But how much of the profit did you donate to the poor.......

After paying The Taxman of course.....

YtksJEj2Keg

manolo wrote: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.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2841&p=74431#p74227

Or are you waiting for the less well off to come and take it out of your hands? ;) :twisted:
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
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Wealth and inequality today

Post by Parodite »

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:
Deep down I'm very superficial
Post Reply