![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:05:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in all those ills. Because I could use a good laugh, do feel free to explain how you're going eliminate, or even reduce, that disaprity without redistributing wealth, which is to say, put a gun to rich people's heads, take their stuff, and give it to poor people. Very high taxes on the wealthy to support public services is not wealth redistribution. Requiring corporations to maintain ratios between minimum and maximum salaries is not wealth redistribution. Taxing inheritance is not wealth redistribution. (In any case, you totally misunderstood Gary's comment and my response.) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in themselves, at the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not being poor. How can income inequality _in itself_ be a problem? Only being excessively poor is legitimately a problem; otherwise, you're legitimizing envy, it seems. John Savard |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:28:27 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
It takes poverty and a real or imagined sense of inability to get ahead. Paying people an adequate wage as Henry Ford did is indeed a good idea, but mandating wages by fiat (without producing useful goods in return) is self-defeating. It may be legitimate for a society to guarantee basic survival for those who don't work. But that can't be a moral imperative, because through much of history, people had to work twelve hour days to produce enough for their own basic survival. Today, we're wealthier than that. Beyond whatever is so cheap a society can afford to give it away, though, of course people will be expected to be productive in return for a share of what is in limited supply. I believe that some of the things essential to human contentment are in limited supply. Thus, where I see there to be something our society could perhaps do on the "social justice" front that it is not doing is... try to ensure that people have the opportunity to do productive work. An Einstein can be immensely productive with just a pencil and paper. Most of us need more than that to work with. Basically, I think that such confusing and mistaken ideas as the "labor theory of value" arose because capital is the Rodney Dangerfield of the factors of production - it gets no respect. At least from theoretical social reformers. Land, resources, machinery, and so on: if there aren't enough of those, it's harder for people to produce useful things with their work. That is the fundamental physical limitation that causes unemployment and its problems; merely economic things, like a stock market crash, can indeed be waved away by government action. John Savard |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in news ![]() On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:05:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in all those ills. Because I could use a good laugh, do feel free to explain how you're going eliminate, or even reduce, that disaprity without redistributing wealth, which is to say, put a gun to rich people's heads, take their stuff, and give it to poor people. Very high taxes on the wealthy That's redistribution of wealth, retard. to support public services is not wealth redistribution. Yes, retard, it is. Putting a gun to rich people's heads: check. Taking their stuff: check. Giving it to poor people: why, no. The money is being used for "public services", so it's going to pay police officers' salaries, teachers' salaries, to pave roads, and so on. John Savard |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Quadibloc wrote in
: On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote in news ![]() On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:05:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in all those ills. Because I could use a good laugh, do feel free to explain how you're going eliminate, or even reduce, that disaprity without redistributing wealth, which is to say, put a gun to rich people's heads, take their stuff, and give it to poor people. Very high taxes on the wealthy That's redistribution of wealth, retard. to support public services is not wealth redistribution. Yes, retard, it is. Putting a gun to rich people's heads: check. Taking their stuff: check. Giving it to poor people: why, no. The money is being used for "public services", so it's going to pay police officers' salaries, teachers' salaries, to pave roads, and so on. And without that money being paid to them, police officers, teachers, road crews, and so on would be . . . poor. Dumbass. In the original discussion of the welfare system in the US, the salaries of the government workers who would administer the program were considered welfare benefits from the system, too. Apparently, we have lost some vital element of basic human intelligence since then. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Quadibloc wrote in
: On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote: Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in themselves, at the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not being poor. How can income inequality _in itself_ be a problem? Only being excessively poor is legitimately a problem; otherwise, you're legitimizing envy, it seems. Given that he appears to be the sort of loser who can't hold down a job flipping burgers, I'd say that's *exactly* what he's doing. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:23:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote: On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote: Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in themselves, at the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not being poor. How can income inequality _in itself_ be a problem? Only being excessively poor is legitimately a problem; otherwise, you're legitimizing envy, it seems. Well, that demands a lot more space than is reasonable here. Look at the work of Wilkinson, Pickett, Stiglitz. The correlations between income, and especially wealth, inequality are strong and extend to virtually every social ill. (And it is seen over solid data extending back over 250 years.) And there is a growing body of work by social scientists and economists explaining the causative factors. And it isn't being poor. Social problems are far more severe in rich nations with large inequality than in poor ones that are more egalitarian. In the end, it probably comes down to our sense of fairness, and our sense of common identity. When disparities grow too large, we end up with class struggles and a society with subcultures where there is no common identity. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 04/03/2019 21:23, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:37:42 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote: Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in themselves, at the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not being poor. How can income inequality _in itself_ be a problem? Only being excessively poor is legitimately a problem; otherwise, you're legitimizing envy, it seems. Because the super rich can purchase the votes of politicians to rig the game in their favour and against the very poorest in society. The USA excels at this - just look at your huge election budgets. Money talks. Japan is an example of a more harmonious society where income inequality is very much less and almost everyone claims to be middle class. UK has followed the US lead where CEO's on remuneration committees award each other inflation busting pay rises every year irrespective of their companies performance. Workers get a pittance by comparison and are being left far behind after years of austerity. A few major shareholders have started to complain but their objections are only advisory. https://www.theguardian.com/business...not-going-away It is called the Dudley paradox after the chairman of BP who got a whopping 20% pay increase after presiding over their worst year ever. He hit his personal targets even though the company was up **** creek. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ge-shareholder Companies are being run to maximise the CEO's own income in the short term rather than to maximise long term growth and profitability. It is highlighted in aggressive accounting practices where targets can be artificially met to pay out the big bonuses and auditors will sign it off even when the company is about to go bust. Carillion is a prime example. I doubt if anyone will be prosecuted for it ![]() https://www.accountancyage.com/2018/...four-break-up/ UK SFO has proved singularly inept at prosecuting such cases. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:32:50 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote: Japan is an example of a more harmonious society where income inequality is very much less and almost everyone claims to be middle class. Japan is an interesting case. Most western countries combat income inequality with progressive taxes (and wealth inequality with inheritance taxes). Japan deals with income inequality by having a much flatter pay system. In most cases, a CEO doesn't make vastly more money than a janitor at the same company. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 4:07:24 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Well, that demands a lot more space than is reasonable here. Look at the work of Wilkinson, Pickett, Stiglitz. The correlations between income, and especially wealth, inequality are strong and extend to virtually every social ill. (And it is seen over solid data extending back over 250 years.) At this point, I was going to reply that a correlation, without a causative mechanism, tends to be viewed as unsatisfying. But I see this was addressed. And there is a growing body of work by social scientists and economists explaining the causative factors. And it isn't being poor. Social problems are far more severe in rich nations with large inequality than in poor ones that are more egalitarian. In the end, it probably comes down to our sense of fairness, and our sense of common identity. When disparities grow too large, we end up with class struggles and a society with subcultures where there is no common identity. Here, though, I would suggest that cause and effect are reversed. A country like Sweden can have a very robust social safety net, because, until quite recently, just about everyone there was a Swede. There wasn't some large group of people in the country who were despised for being lazy, for not having paid attention in school, and expecting the same rewards as those who are diligent. People will share with their brothers, but not with foreigners. And thus the contention of Libertarians that the Right and the Left are both the same thing, since both lead the way to more government control... among many other things. People have an idea of fairness that includes equality - but it also includes equality of effort. When you have diversity in a society, things break down. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
space video gateway | cole smith | Space Station | 0 | July 16th 06 04:37 PM |
Smart1 at gateway | Ray Vingnutte | Misc | 8 | November 17th 04 01:56 PM |
Gateway-Test-02-25a (ignore) | Don Wells | FITS | 4 | March 15th 04 04:39 PM |
Canada Joins NASA 2007 Mission to Mars/York U. celebrates "Phoenix"Mars Mission Win (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 7th 03 06:57 AM |