Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S.

[nova]

An active member of society. Come on, are you really going to argue that Oprah contributes necessary work to society???!!! :24:

I mean really, it's just common sense. Stuff that's necessary is something that society couldn't do without. Not something that I just arbitrarily decide. Does Oprah fit that bill?

See that thing that just flew by your head, that was the point and you missed it, completely.

Whether something is necessary or not has absolutely nothing to do with its value. Value is determined by each individual based on their needs and desires. People don't need 99% of the shit in their life, but they like it, they want it, so it has value to them.

What they define as value and what they assign it to is none of your business....

You said it all there. Entertainment. And for that she's a multimillionaire. Yeah, that's great. Top notch value!

No value to YOU, quite obviously there are a lot of people that do value what she does, or else she wouldn't be making millions doing it. You can piss and moan all you want, but it is what it is.

Again, you have NO PLACE to dictate to everyone else neither what they should or should not value nor how much.

That's exactly the system we have now - those at the top deciding they're contributing more and taking more out of the pot. That's exactly what I DO NOT believe in.

You just don't get it. In the free associative system that is capitalism, in a general sense, no one person or small group of people is deciding anything for society at large.

Big time CEOs and the like, the only reason they make what they make is they've found someone willing to pay a price for which they're willing to work. They don't hold a gun to anybody's head and take anything.

The same goes for anybody on down the spectrum. Personally, I get up and go to work everyday because I feel my employer is paying me at least an equal monetary value to what I value my time at. If they start paying me less, I'm going to find a new job. If they pay me more (which they do) I'm going to sit fat and happy.

There is exactly ONE single entity, that can decide it wants more and take it at gunpoint, regardless of the "value" it brings to the transaction and that is the gov't.

 

[edgray]

See that thing that just flew by your head, that was the point and you missed it, completely.

Not at all, you missed the point and are confusing a very subjective term "value" with the term "necessity".

Whether something is necessary or not has absolutely nothing to do with its value. Value is determined by each individual based on their needs and desires. People don't need 99% of the shit in their life, but they like it, they want it, so it has value to them.

What they define as value and what they assign it to is none of your business....

I agree.

No value to YOU, quite obviously there are a lot of people that do value what she does, or else she wouldn't be making millions doing it. You can piss and moan all you want, but it is what it is.

Again, you have NO PLACE to dictate to everyone else neither what they should or should not value nor how much.

I can poke as much fun at morons that watch Oprah as I like. You're always banging on about freedom so much, I'm just exercising my right of free speech. I never said she shouldn't be doing the nonsense she does.

You just don't get it. In the free associative system that is capitalism, in a general sense, no one person or small group of people is deciding anything for society at large.

Hang on, what was this thread about? Oh yeah, 42 Percent of your country's wealth in the control of 1 Percent of the population!!

No small group in control huh? One of the biggest flaws of capitalism is that the capital moves upward into ever decreasing circles. With it too goes all the power.

Big time CEOs and the like, the only reason they make what they make is they've found someone willing to pay a price for which they're willing to work. They don't hold a gun to anybody's head and take anything.

If they find someone that can pay them 10million USD for sitting on their hineys, then great, good luck to them. It's the system thats at fault - how can one person's input to society be worth that sum? What more can they possibly be doing? There are only X amount of hours in the day. They must never sleep!

The same goes for anybody on down the spectrum. Personally, I get up and go to work everyday because I feel my employer is paying me at least an equal monetary value to what I value my time at. If they start paying me less, I'm going to find a new job. If they pay me more (which they do) I'm going to sit fat and happy.

So you're happy being a wage slave then? For someone so into the idea of freedom that surprises me greatly.

There is exactly ONE single entity, that can decide it wants more and take it at gunpoint, regardless of the "value" it brings to the transaction and that is the gov't.

Back to the old blame the govt for everything. They are YOUR govt. Vote the fuckers out if you dislike them that much.

 

[darkcgi]

communication is great
one word misunderstood because a nation decides to make the word have more than one meaning

 

[nova]

Not at all, you missed the point and are confusing a very subjective term "value" with the term "necessity".

Not hardly. You're the one talking about necessity and how it applies valuation. You said and I quote

Oprah Winfrey is a good example of how the wrong people get rewarded in capitalist systems. Why should she, who doesn't contribute anything to society directly apart from pointless rhetoric, completely false psychological information and celebrity interviews.

She's obviously contributing something to society that people value or else she wouldn't make money doing it. People don't exchange money for that which they don't value regardless of necessity.

Society is individuals and individuals making decisions is what determines what society wants and values.

I can poke as much fun at morons that watch Oprah as I like. You're always banging on about freedom so much, I'm just exercising my right of free speech. I never said she shouldn't be doing the nonsense she does.

Point out where I stated you couldn't say whatever you wanted? As ridiculous as your ideas are you have a right to them along with a right to speak them freely.

Oprah is a specific example, but ultimately I'm speaking in general terms. Replace Oprah with whatever good or service that you want to claim is or is not contributing to society because like it or not. Does Google contribute to society? Or how about the NFL (or name your soccer league for those of you in the EU)? Companies that make car accessories? What exactly is your definiiton of "contribution to society" other than "things I like contribute to society" ?

I only have a problem with your implicit goal to impose your ideas of value on everyone else. Everytime you post on this stuff it seems your implicit dislike is not really with the system, but with the fact that people get to choose of their volition which path to take, that its not dictated to them.

And since I have a right to free speech as well, don't expect me to be quiet when thats the garbage you're pushing..

Hang on, what was this thread about? Oh yeah, 42 Percent of your country's wealth in the control of 1 Percent of the population!!

So FUCKING what? I don't benchmark my success based on what other people have. I live a confortable life, have a roof over my head, food in my stomach and family that loves me. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a raging success and the fact that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or whoever has $10 billion in the bank has no bearing on that whatsoever.

In any event, do you seriously think that that wealth is a stack of gold coins sitting a vault somewhere doing nothing? No indeed, its held as stocks and bonds, its lent out and provides the monetary input needed to build factories and storefronts and develop new tech, products and services, namely all the things that create better jobs and increase standards of living.

No small group in control huh? One of the biggest flaws of capitalism is that the capital moves upward into ever decreasing circles. With it too goes all the power.

Ooh, the zero sum fallacy. You're gonna hit on all the anti-capitalist myths today aren't you?

If one person is gaining wealth, that doesn't mean another person has to lose it, because our free, open and innovative society, generates wealth on a constant basis. Wealth thats amazingly spread around. Thats why even the poorest of the poor have things today that no amount of money could buy, 100, 50 or even 20 years ago.

Don't believe me? Take a drive through the housing projects and count how many satellite dishes and cell phones you see. If wealth didn't flow down to everyone, then most of us would still be farm hands working for nothing with increases to our standard of living over the last 150 years, while the super rich had all the enhancements that make life better, but amazingly thats NOT the case, we all live pretty comfortable lives comparitively.

If they find someone that can pay them 10million USD for sitting on their hineys, then great, good luck to them. It's the system thats at fault - how can one person's input to society be worth that sum? What more can they possibly be doing? There are only X amount of hours in the day. They must never sleep!

It depends again on what your definition of value is

So you're happy being a wage slave then? For someone so into the idea of freedom that surprises me greatly.

Wage slave? Put Marx down and come back to reality. What part of "I'll quit coming to work when I feel what they're paying me is worth less than my time" fits into the idea of slavery?

I CHOOSE to come in everyday and can quit at any time I please, either to get another job, start my own business or whatever suits my fancy.

Back to the old blame the govt for everything. They are YOUR govt. Vote the fuckers out if you dislike them that much.

Man you have troubles understanding simple concepts don't you?

What I outlined is not an issue of a specific gov't, its a feature of every gov't, or at least every effective gov't. Gov'ts are set up specifically with the ability to force people to do that which they don't wish to, specifically because if they don't have that power, it makes governance impossible.

Every gov't out that has the same basic underlying principles, from a direct democracy, to a constitutional republic to the nastiest dictatorship. If they tell you to do something, you will comply or they will eventually kill you.

When I decide I need money, I go to work and freely exchange my time for money. My employer and I both gain value from the transaction. When the gov't decides it needs money, it says "hand it over or else" and either have to or I forfeit my life, regardless of whatever value I get from the transaction.

 

[Nikelodeon]

Thing is, the average American is probably in the top few percent of the world in terms of global wealth. No-one ever seems to feel they are rich.

 

[Accountable]

I have faith in myself. And I also don't look at mansion and get pissed off because I don't own it. I get pissed off that anyone owns it.

Why? What possible difference does it make if it doesn't affect your success? Whose success is it prohibiting?

Oprah Winfrey is a good example of how the wrong people get rewarded in capitalist systems. Why should she, who doesn't contribute anything to society directly apart from pointless rhetoric, completely false psychological information and celebrity interviews.

Irrelevant. She has a product or service that others are willing to pay for. Simple supply and demand. It hurts no one and helps hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

 

[edgray]

Not hardly. You're the one talking about necessity and how it applies valuation. You said and I quote

No I was talking about necessity in relation to importance, not value.

She's obviously contributing something to society that people value or else she wouldn't make money doing it. People don't exchange money for that which they don't value regardless of necessity.

she's receiving a massively disproportionate amount for what she does. I'm sure there are people out there who get plenty from Oprah and her like. That really isn't in question. what is in question is the ridiculous amount that she's rewarded for the little work she does.

Society is individuals and individuals making decisions is what determines what society wants and values.

Not really, it's dictated to us through the media. Which is predominantly privately owned, by very few individuals who control what we watch. That's really what this thread is all about - the money and the power residing in the hands of the few. I find it odd how you can't see that as being a bad thing.

Point out where I stated you couldn't say whatever you wanted? As ridiculous as your ideas are you have a right to them along with a right to speak them freely.

You told me "Again, you have NO PLACE to dictate to everyone else neither what they should or should not value nor how much." I wasn't dictating, I was expressing my opinion.

Oprah is a specific example, but ultimately I'm speaking in general terms. Replace Oprah with whatever good or service that you want to claim is or is not contributing to society because like it or not. Does Google contribute to society? Or how about the NFL (or name your soccer league for those of you in the EU)? Companies that make car accessories? What exactly is your definiiton of "contribution to society" other than "things I like contribute to society" ?

The whole point is that pretty much everyone contributes to society, it's the rewards for those contributions that are totally skewed. Are you telling me she really is worth that much more than her fellow man? Or that her endeavors are worth that much more? We're talking MILLIONS here. Is that right that she should earn that? Is her input to society that much greater, that much more important, that much more needed?

I only have a problem with your implicit goal to impose your ideas of value on everyone else. Everytime you post on this stuff it seems your implicit dislike is not really with the system, but with the fact that people get to choose of their volition which path to take, that its not dictated to them.

Firstly, you'd be amazed at how many people share my values and beliefs. You talk as if I'm just one person with a grudge against everyone else which simply isn't the case. My views of anarchism are on the rise my friend, more and more people these days are moving in a more socialist direction because they see that capitalism drives inequality, capitalism quashes innovation and puts the wealth and the power in the hands of the few.

And since I have a right to free speech as well, don't expect me to be quiet when thats the garbage you're pushing..

And I won't be quiet when this is the garbage that you're pushing.

So FUCKING what? I don't benchmark my success based on what other people have. I live a confortable life, have a roof over my head, food in my stomach and family that loves me. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a raging success and the fact that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or whoever has $10 billion in the bank has no bearing on that whatsoever.

the point is that if you had worked for those people, you should have a share of that $10billion. Instead, you'd have nothing but a small wage and a pension if you're lucky.

In any event, do you seriously think that that wealth is a stack of gold coins sitting a vault somewhere doing nothing? No indeed, its held as stocks and bonds, its lent out and provides the monetary input needed to build factories and storefronts and develop new tech, products and services, namely all the things that create better jobs and increase standards of living.

For the most part money doesn't sit in a vault because essentially it's numbers in a computer.

Ooh, the zero sum fallacy. You're gonna hit on all the anti-capitalist myths today aren't you?

No myths being pushed here.

If one person is gaining wealth, that doesn't mean another person has to lose it, because our free, open and innovative society, generates wealth on a constant basis.

Look at it this way - there are FINITE resources on this planet. Not everyone can "make it" and become wealthy, sure - we could print billions in bank notes but if those notes can't buy anything because there's no resources left, then what good is it? None.

Wealth thats amazingly spread around. Thats why even the poorest of the poor have things today that no amount of money could buy, 100, 50 or even 20 years ago.

That's not down to the poor getting richer, it's down to the fact that countries like china can produce stuff so cheaply. Plus technology advances of course. It's actually the other way around. The poor actually receive less and less each year because their input is feeding the capitalist profit system.

Don't believe me? Take a drive through the housing projects and count how many satellite dishes and cell phones you see. If wealth didn't flow down to everyone, then most of us would still be farm hands working for nothing with increases to our standard of living over the last 150 years, while the super rich had all the enhancements that make life better, but amazingly thats NOT the case, we all live pretty comfortable lives comparitively.

Yes, satellite dishes are the pinnacle of equality and living well. Do me a favour! That's a prime example of the human squalor that capitalism creates - the poor are tricked, conned and bullied into focusing on having a big plasma TV and so forth and then told to be grateful for it whilst their bosses enjoy a far superior life riding off the back of their work and never questioning anything. Consume and don't question, that's what that is all about.

The fact that we're not farm hands has absolutely nothing to do with wealth "flowing down" at all. That's the weirdest piece of "logic" I've heard in quite sometime and so unbelievably wrong its hilarious!! We're no longer farm hands because we have technology that means we don't all need to be farm hands. So, to get work, people have moved into the cities and into different industries. Nothing to do with wealth flowing down at all. What you're saying is that all of us are no longer farm hands because we're rich enough not to be. Brilliant!!!

And besides, and increase in standard of living is a terribly poor justification for anything. The lives of slaves improved dramatically over time - is that a justification for slavery?! No, I don't think so either.

Wage slave? Put Marx down and come back to reality. What part of "I'll quit coming to work when I feel what they're paying me is worth less than my time" fits into the idea of slavery?

I CHOOSE to come in everyday and can quit at any time I please, either to get another job, start my own business or whatever suits my fancy.

Firstly leave Marx out of this and show some damn respect. He was smarter than you or I and his philosophies have had a massive influence over modern society. Our working conditions are considerably better thanks to people like Marx. It's because of Marx and his kind that we have workers rights, welfare systems, holidays and so forth. In the US you see less of this, but in Europe our working conditions are much better because of people like Marx. They're only held back from getting even better by the likes of you.

Man you have troubles understanding simple concepts don't you?

You always have to make personal attacks, don't you? Is it because deep down inside you know you're wrong and that your viewpoint is a dying on? More and more people are becoming disenfranchised with the capitalistic models these days. Your right-wing views are dying a death as people realise that essentially we are all born equal and this needs to be used as a basis for how we organise ourselves.

What I outlined is not an issue of a specific gov't, its a feature of every gov't, or at least every effective gov't. Gov'ts are set up specifically with the ability to force people to do that which they don't wish to, specifically because if they don't have that power, it makes governance impossible.

You know in many ways our views regarding govts aren't so dissimilar. I agree with that statement, though at this moment in time I don't think govts are always a force of evil, or at least not the ones in Europe.

 

[edgray]

Every gov't out that has the same basic underlying principles, from a direct democracy, to a constitutional republic to the nastiest dictatorship. If they tell you to do something, you will comply or they will eventually kill you.

When I decide I need money, I go to work and freely exchange my time for money. My employer and I both gain value from the transaction. When the gov't decides it needs money, it says "hand it over or else" and either have to or I forfeit my life, regardless of whatever value I get from the transaction.

Again, our views on the govt aren't so dissimilar.

If you think you gain value from your employment situation then great! But if that employer decides that they no longer need you, you're gone, and get nothing for the very hard work you've been doing, whilst the employer gets everything for the small wage he's paid you.

 

[edgray]

Why? What possible difference does it make if it doesn't affect your success? Whose success is it prohibiting?

As I explained to Nova above, there are finite resources available on this planet, if one person is hording more than their share, of course it's going to affect me, and everyone else.

Irrelevant. She has a product or service that others are willing to pay for. Simple supply and demand. It hurts no one and helps hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

She works for the media and contributes to the dumbing down of our societies - watch and consume, watch and consume, so the masses are so busy with that nonsense they have no interest in changing things. She also contributes to maintaining the status quo of inequality.

You are correct, she has a service and people pay for it. The clever thing with the media is that people don't pay for it, essentially it's free at point of use so people really think they're getting value when in fact they're being brainwashed and sedated.

 

[Accountable]

As I explained to Nova above, there are finite resources available on this planet, if one person is hording more than their share, of course it's going to affect me, and everyone else.

If the courts came in and stripped Oprah Winfrey of every dime, sold all her property real and intellectual, and left her naked homeless and destitute, how much of a paycheck would you receive as your share? She's not hoarding. She was paid of someone's free will and she spends freely and generously. She takes in more than she spends. That should be a crime? I take in more than I spend.

She works for the media and contributes to the dumbing down of our societies - watch and consume, watch and consume, so the masses are so busy with that nonsense they have no interest in changing things. She also contributes to maintaining the status quo of inequality.

So? Should she be banned? Jailed? Who should make the moral judgment of who has made enough and who contributes the proper things to society? The government politicians?

You are correct, she has a service and people pay for it. The clever thing with the media is that people don't pay for it, essentially it's free at point of use so people really think they're getting value when in fact they're being brainwashed and sedated.

The people are getting the entertainment for free; entertainment for nothing is of value. She's not getting paid for her programming. She's getting paid by advertisers who see millions of potential customers. Those same sponsors have also paid for Mr Rogers Neighborhood and Barney the Dinosaur.

 

[Accountable]

she's receiving a massively disproportionate amount for what she does.

Only the government can do that. Sponsors pay Oprah freely and would stop paying her if they thought they were not getting what they paid for.

I'm sure there are people out there who get plenty from Oprah and her like. That really isn't in question. what is in question is the ridiculous amount that she's rewarded for the little work she does.

Do you say the same about sports stars and actors?

Not really, it's dictated to us through the media. Which is predominantly privately owned, by very few individuals who control what we watch.

They control what is available to watch on the TV. There's no minimum time you have to log.

That's really what this thread is all about - the money and the power residing in the hands of the few. I find it odd how you can't see that as being a bad thing.

Again, how much is your share that they have?

Firstly, you'd be amazed at how many people share my values and beliefs. You talk as if I'm just one person with a grudge against everyone else which simply isn't the case. My views of anarchism are on the rise my friend, more and more people these days are moving in a more socialist direction because they see that capitalism drives inequality, capitalism quashes innovation and puts the wealth and the power in the hands of the few.

:24: Socialism is anarchy?? Capitalism breaks anarchist rules?? Anarchy = equality?? :24::willy_nilly::24: Capitalism quashes innovation??

OW! I got a cramp from laughing. Thanks, Ed. I can go to work with a smile on my face.

Look at it this way - there are FINITE resources on this planet. Not everyone can "make it" and become wealthy,

The word isn't "everyone", it's "anyone".

 

[edgray]

:24: Socialism is anarchy?? Capitalism breaks anarchist rules?? Anarchy = equality?? :24::willy_nilly::24: Capitalism quashes innovation??

I thought you were a teacher? (might be wrong but sure you mentioned it once?) And yet you don't know what anarchy is? That's terrible, I sincerely hope you don't teach politics.

Please read up on it, check wiki as a good place to start:

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edgray]

The word isn't "everyone", it's "anyone".

On a level playing field that would be true. It's not level though, is it? And besides, why should someone born with a talent to be on TV be rewarded so much more than someone born with a talent for being a cop or nurse? Is that fair that one person can get rewarded so much more? You haven't actually tried to answer that.

 

[edgray]

The point that I'm trying to make here is, if rewards were justified, people like Oprah, or CEOs of top companies WOULD NOT be getting such a large share.

This is one of the massive flaws in capitalism: people who are essentially the most expendable get the larger piece of the pie.

Why should Oprah get a fortune just because her chosen profession allows it? How can a cop, who's importance to society is far greater, "make it" like Oprah? He can't, because the wealth heads towards irrelevance and his industry has limited rewards. Sure, you can say it's his choice to be a cop and this is true, but what if we all wanted to "make it" and not actually get a job that contributes? Nothing would get done, nothing would get made, there would be no food, no clothes no nothing because we would all be doing jobs that aren't important and don't contribute directly to the needs of society.

TV and media is not a need, its almost an addiction, or at least a time-waster, that is used as a tool by corporations and govts to stop people realising these injustices and do something about them.

I'm not saying Oprah should be jailed, I just cannot see what exactly she does that justifies her enormous rewards. Or a CEO, or some entrepreneur, or a banker, or whoever. WHAT THEY DO DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE DRAIN THEY ARE ON SOCIETY. There is no way that a CEO, with a salary of say 2million a year does MORE WORK to justify that salary than the people that do the actual WORK in his company. I've seen CEOs, I know their workload and I know they do less than the people generating their wealth, ie, the workers.

Like it or not, in a world of finite resources, if someone takes more than their share, they are essentially taking it off their fellow man. Someone owning that big mansion you mentioned means that all that space, bricks, mortar, everything in side, are taken off someone else. Many people in fact, because you could put an entire housing estate on the plots of a large mansion. Entire communities could live in them. But no, just because Oprah pursued a selfish career in the media, she gets to take up the space of a town of people. Fuck that, she's no better or worse than the rest of us and does not deserve that, she has no more right to be such a big drain than any of us.

 

[nova]

No I was talking about necessity in relation to importance, not value.

Now you're playing semantics. There's little difference between necessity and importance especially as they both factor into forming a valuation of something. Somehow I doubt you can find me an example of something thats of little importance to you personally, yet you place a high value on it.

she's receiving a massively disproportionate amount for what she does. I'm sure there are people out there who get plenty from Oprah and her like. That really isn't in question. what is in question is the ridiculous amount that she's rewarded for the little work she does.

Its disproportionate according to YOU and YOUR value system which is entirely arbitrary, the same as anyone elses. Because people out there are getting plenty from her (ie they value entertainment) they are choosing to reward her for that. That fact that you think its excessive and ridiculous is only an opinion and is entirely subjective.

Not really, it's dictated to us through the media. Which is predominantly privately owned, by very few individuals who control what we watch. That's really what this thread is all about - the money and the power residing in the hands of the few. I find it odd how you can't see that as being a bad thing.

Uhh, nobody forces anybody to consume any media. No clockwork orange activities here.

You told me "Again, you have NO PLACE to dictate to everyone else neither what they should or should not value nor how much." I wasn't dictating, I was expressing my opinion.

Thats exactly what you're doing by dragging out this talk of "what are they really contributing." Thats the talk of people with intent to oppress.

The whole point is that pretty much everyone contributes to society, it's the rewards for those contributions that are totally skewed. Are you telling me she really is worth that much more than her fellow man? Or that her endeavors are worth that much more? We're talking MILLIONS here. Is that right that she should earn that? Is her input to society that much greater, that much more important, that much more needed?

Your ENTIRE argument boils down to "I just don't like that she makes that much." Thats the entirety of it. Your value system means you assign little or no value to what she does, while the value systems of a large number of other people assign some other greater value, allowing her to make lots of $$ and you just don't like it. You can dance around it all you want but what it boils down to is you don't like the choices your fellow human beings are making.

Firstly, you'd be amazed at how many people share my values and beliefs. You talk as if I'm just one person with a grudge against everyone else which simply isn't the case. My views of anarchism are on the rise my friend, more and more people these days are moving in a more socialist direction because they see that capitalism drives inequality, capitalism quashes innovation and puts the wealth and the power in the hands of the few.

:24: :24: :24: Anarchy, the simultaneous existence of perfect freedom and complete oppression all rolled into one. Keep believing the myth that socialism and anarchism can exist together at the same time. Keep believing that you could get everyone to play nice together without some governing order.

the point is that if you had worked for those people, you should have a share of that $10billion. Instead, you'd have nothing but a small wage and a pension if you're lucky.

Yet again, if you don't think your share is big enough, its time to move on somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to work there. My share is plenty big so I stay. The guys at the top get their share for the simple reason that they have the ideas and knowhow to the put organizations together and make them work and I don't begrudge them their share because people who can come up with those ideas and enact them, in your earlier parlance, are really rare and important.

Look at it this way - there are FINITE resources on this planet. Not everyone can "make it" and become wealthy, sure - we could print billions in bank notes but if those notes can't buy anything because there's no resources left, then what good is it? None.

If your defintion of "wealth" is physical "stuff" then you're exactly right. Thankfully we've come quite a ways in the last few hundred years, thanks to our open and innovative society, wealth can be generated on the back of the ONE resource that is most definitely infinite, namely human ingenuity and imagination.

Read this, it might prove enlightening to you if you choose not to blow it off...

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2004/12/60_second_refut.html

That's not down to the poor getting richer, it's down to the fact that countries like china can produce stuff so cheaply. Plus technology advances of course. It's actually the other way around. The poor actually receive less and less each year because their input is feeding the capitalist profit system.

If you honestly believe this, I don't know what to say. Its all a matter of semantics again. Whether I get paid $10 more or whether what I want/need is $10 less, the effect is the same.

Food used to be pretty damn expensive so people went hungry a lot. Now food is a lot cheaper and our main problem is obesity. Do you think people are effectively wealthier or poorer? That goes for anything else that people want or need. A big part of increasing "wealth" is lowering the cost to produce things that people want or need.

Yes, satellite dishes are the pinnacle of equality and living well. Do me a favour! That's a prime example of the human squalor that capitalism creates - the poor are tricked, conned and bullied into focusing on having a big plasma TV and so forth and then told to be grateful for it whilst their bosses enjoy a far superior life riding off the back of their work and never questioning anything. Consume and don't question, that's what that is all about.

Nice to know where you REALLY stand. Namely that people are too stupid to know what makes their life better and what they want out of life. Again, we come back to the fact that you just don't like the choices other people are making with their liberty....

The fact that we're not farm hands has absolutely nothing to do with wealth "flowing down" at all. That's the weirdest piece of "logic" I've heard in quite sometime and so unbelievably wrong its hilarious!! We're no longer farm hands because we have technology that means we don't all need to be farm hands. So, to get work, people have moved into the cities and into different industries. Nothing to do with wealth flowing down at all. What you're saying is that all of us are no longer farm hands because we're rich enough not to be. Brilliant!!!

Uhh no, your understanding of reality and actual economic principles is lacking. Your definition of wealth seems to stop at cold hard cash when it reality its many things....

For the vast majority of recorded history, human beings were primary engaged in the business of subsistence agriculture. You farm the land because if you don't, you don't eat.

Then we got better at it. People used their talent to grow more food (more wealth in the broadest terms) per person, allowing some people to do other things that they had talent at.

Some of those people who weren't farming then applied themselves to improving farming even further, allowing even more people to seek other endevours while at the same time providing them more endevours to engage in.

The end result was a snowball effect of people appying themselves where they were talented generating more and more wealth, creating even more non-agrictulture areas for people to apply their talents. Then end result is a general uplifting of the people involved where almost none of us are not slaves to the land, working sunup to sundown scrabbling in the dirt just to eat.

And besides, and increase in standard of living is a terribly poor justification for anything. The lives of slaves improved dramatically over time - is that a justification for slavery?! No, I don't think so either.

Yeah, because regardless of increases in standard of living, actual legal enslavement of another human being, denying them their rights to liberty is wrong.

However if you're talking about wealth and how its distributed then standard of living is a good justification for a lot of things because standard of living is a REALLY good indicator of how wealthy people are.

 

[nova]

Firstly leave Marx out of this and show some damn respect. He was smarter than you or I and his philosophies have had a massive influence over modern society. Our working conditions are considerably better thanks to people like Marx. It's because of Marx and his kind that we have workers rights, welfare systems, holidays and so forth. In the US you see less of this, but in Europe our working conditions are much better because of people like Marx. They're only held back from getting even better by the likes of you.

Firstly, piss on Marx. Smarter? Yeah the man was a genius for coming up with a social system that can never work without holding a gun to people's heads. I give him the same respect as any other "inventor" who makes shit up that won't work, namely none. Maybe next you demand respect for people hawking perpetual motion machines....

Oh Marx, Marx our saviour from the evil people with their ideas and know how that keep us noble workers from having to scrabble in the dirt subsistence farming

You always have to make personal attacks, don't you? Is it because deep down inside you know you're wrong and that your viewpoint is a dying on? More and more people are becoming disenfranchised with the capitalistic models these days. Your right-wing views are dying a death as people realise that essentially we are all born equal and this needs to be used as a basis for how we organise ourselves.

If you take me saying you don't understand something is a personal attack, then perhaps you have some paranoia complex. If I called you "a fucking idiot" or "a worthless SOB pinko commie" those would be personal attacks but I haven't done that because you're obviously not stupid, simply just misled, although "pinko commie" is probably accurate.


And no, we are not all born equal. We are born with equal rights and should be equal in the eyes of the law but we are not born equal by a long shot. Some people are smarter, stronger, faster, more talented and in some cases just more lucky.

Its also quite disturbing that you seem to take joy in the idea that my ideas of indivual liberty are "dying." I'll remember that when your socialist dictatorship has locked you up in prison for whatever reason...

You know in many ways our views regarding govts aren't so dissimilar. I agree with that statement, though at this moment in time I don't think govts are always a force of evil, or at least not the ones in Europe.

I don't belive gov't is always a force of evil either. When it sticks to protecting the fundamental rights of man, namely life, liberty and property its a pardoxical good and evil all rolled into one. Even in that base role though, the mechanism with which gov't protects the rights of individuals is through the application of force ie men with guns go kill people when they don't comply.

Again, our views on the govt aren't so dissimilar.

If you think you gain value from your employment situation then great! But if that employer decides that they no longer need you, you're gone, and get nothing for the very hard work you've been doing, whilst the employer gets everything for the small wage he's paid you.

No, I got my share in the form of my wages. That was the terms I agreed to work under. The employer gets his benefits for providing the ideas, organization and capital in order to do the work at all. If you think thats insignificant, then read this again...

Hanging out at the beach one day with a distant family member, we got into a discussion about capitalism and socialism. In particular, we were arguing about whether brute labor, as socialism teaches, is the source of all wealth (which, socialism further argues, is in turn stolen by the capitalist masters). The young woman, as were most people her age, was taught mainly by the socialists who dominate college academia nowadays. I was trying to find a way to connect with her, to get her to question her assumptions, but was struggling because she really had not been taught many of the fundamental building blocks of either philosophy or economics, but rather a mish-mash of politically correct points of view that seem to substitute nowadays for both.

I picked up a handful of sand, and said "this is almost pure silicon, virtually identical to what powers a computer. Take as much labor as you want, and build me a computer with it — the only limitation is you can only have true manual laborers – no engineers or managers or other capitalist lackeys".

She replied that my request was BS, that it took a lot of money to build an electronics plant, and her group of laborers didn’t have any and bankers would never lend them any.

I told her – assume for our discussion that I have tons of money, and I will give you and your laborers as much as you need. The only restriction I put on it is that you may only buy raw materials – steel, land, silicon – in their crudest forms. It is up to you to assemble these raw materials, with your laborers, to build the factory and make me my computer.
She thought for a few seconds, and responded "but I can’t – I don’t know how. I need someone to tell me how to do it"

​

And that is the heart of socialism’s failure. For the true source of wealth is not brute labor, or even what you might call brute capital, but the mind. The mind creates new technologies, new products, new business models, new productivity enhancements, in short, everything that creates wealth. Labor or capital without a mind behind it is useless.

​

 

[nova]

The point that I'm trying to make here is, if rewards were justified, people like Oprah, or CEOs of top companies WOULD NOT be getting such a large share.

Justified based on your entirely arbitary system of "fairness."

This is one of the massive flaws in capitalism: people who are essentially the most expendable get the larger piece of the pie.

JFC. Quite the opposite actually. I'm pretty close with our company president. I'd dare you even know the beginnings of how to do his job much less be able to do it at the quality level he does.

Yet again, the only reason they're expendible because you personally assign no value to what they do. Its your own arbitrary definition and you don't like the fact other people value their contribution more than you do.

Why should Oprah get a fortune just because her chosen profession allows it? How can a cop, who's importance to society is far greater, "make it" like Oprah? He can't, because the wealth heads towards irrelevance and his industry has limited rewards. Sure, you can say it's his choice to be a cop and this is true, but what if we all wanted to "make it" and not actually get a job that contributes? Nothing would get done, nothing would get made, there would be no food, no clothes no nothing because we would all be doing jobs that aren't important and don't contribute directly to the needs of society.

Again, what you refuse to look at, is everyone's definition of "making it" is different. I have friends who are police officers. For some of them their idea of "making it" is not being a multi-millionaire, their idea and their reward is going out and helping people. For others their idea and reward is the excitement and the interesting things they get to see and do.

I'm an engineer. I will likely NEVER be rich as an engineer and I knew that going in. I do it because I enjoy interesting techincal problems and get intangible compensation from what I do.

I'm not saying Oprah should be jailed, I just cannot see what exactly she does that justifies her enormous rewards. Or a CEO, or some entrepreneur, or a banker, or whoever. WHAT THEY DO DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE DRAIN THEY ARE ON SOCIETY.

That you can't see the value matters not one bit. Thankfully we live in a free and open society that can see the benefits of people who provide ideas and organization, manage capital, take risks and try new things, etc etc.

There is no way that a CEO, with a salary of say 2million a year does MORE WORK to justify that salary than the people that do the actual WORK in his company. I've seen CEOs, I know their workload and I know they do less than the people generating their wealth, ie, the workers.

The fallacy of socialism that the success of the world is built on the amount of work. Its not, its built on the quality and value of said work. Idea generation, organizational skills and other uncommon attributes increase the value of the work done. Its the obvious answer to why I get paid more as an engineer than the janitor does, because its hard to find people that can do my job, but not hard to find people that can push a broom.

Like it or not, in a world of finite resources, if someone takes more than their share, they are essentially taking it off their fellow man. Someone owning that big mansion you mentioned means that all that space, bricks, mortar, everything in side, are taken off someone else. Many people in fact, because you could put an entire housing estate on the plots of a large mansion. Entire communities could live in them.

:24::24:

If we were even close to being short on space or other resources, you might have a point, but since we're not, you don't. Even in that instance, the continued increases in overall wealth of the world, coupled with technological innovation are going to make more and more resources available to us. We haven't even begun to exhaust the resources of this planet and we haven't even touched the rest of the solar system.

But no, just because Oprah pursued a selfish career in the media, she gets to take up the space of a town of people. Fuck that, she's no better or worse than the rest of us and does not deserve that, she has no more right to be such a big drain than any of us.

She gets to do it because you produces a service to sell that people like and want, namely entertainment. She has every right to any property she can acquire without denying others their rights to life liberty and property ie as long as she doesn't rape, murder and pillage to get it.

The fact is "equality of outcome" will never happen without outright tyranny against the people. Some people will always be smarter, faster, more talented, better looking, etc etc and will be more successful than others and the only way to make sure everyone gets their "fair share" from those "overly successfull" people is at the point of a gun.

You might to think about that on the off chance someone making those arbitrary decisions thinks you're "too successfull."

 

[edgray]

Firstly, piss on Marx. Smarter? Yeah the man was a genius for coming up with a social system that can never work without holding a gun to people's heads. I give him the same respect as any other "inventor" who makes shit up that won't work, namely none. Maybe next you demand respect for people hawking perpetual motion machines....

Oh Marx, Marx our saviour from the evil people with their ideas and know how that keep us noble workers from having to scrabble in the dirt subsistence farming

Oh yes because it's been PROVEN not to work, right? Yes, that's what we've always been told.

Marx didn't invent anything, he was a philosopher who brought some great ideas to the table and wrote about the growing social movements, ideas that have stood the test of time. Many countries have lots of Marxist principles in action and work perfectly well, in fact the countries that top the human development index and enjoy the highest standards of living on the planet follow many of the principles he talked about.

And that second part is just tosh. Why would Marx have anything against ideas? I can honestly say I have no idea where you get that from.

If you take me saying you don't understand something is a personal attack, then perhaps you have some paranoia complex. If I called you "a fucking idiot" or "a worthless SOB pinko commie" those would be personal attacks but I haven't done that because you're obviously not stupid, simply just misled, although "pinko commie" is probably accurate.

There you go, very cleverly inserted the insults into hypothetical statements. Those are targeted insults, nothing to do with my paranoia but more to do with your inability to provide decent arguments.

And no, we are not all born equal. We are born with equal rights and should be equal in the eyes of the law but we are not born equal by a long shot. Some people are smarter, stronger, faster, more talented and in some cases just more lucky.

We are born equal, we have differences, and those differences should be celebrated. But just because so and so was born into this family, or in that area, or with that much money behind him, why should they, or anyone in fact, be entitled to more of the fruits of humanity than the next person?

Its also quite disturbing that you seem to take joy in the idea that my ideas of indivual liberty are "dying." I'll remember that when your socialist dictatorship has locked you up in prison for whatever reason...

My socialist dictatorship?!! As I've explained before I am a Libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I'd be happy being called a socialist, libertarian, libertarian socialist or anarchist. And your ideas of individual liberty are severely flawed - no man is an island.

I don't belive gov't is always a force of evil either. When it sticks to protecting the fundamental rights of man, namely life, liberty and property its a pardoxical good and evil all rolled into one. Even in that base role though, the mechanism with which gov't protects the rights of individuals is through the application of force ie men with guns go kill people when they don't comply.

Agreed.

No, I got my share in the form of my wages. That was the terms I agreed to work under. The employer gets his benefits for providing the ideas, organization and capital in order to do the work at all. If you think thats insignificant, then read this again...

Ok if you think you got your share then great! Good for you, glad you buy into that.

I love the quote you posted there - reminds me of so many great arguments I've had with people. So laughably bad too! You really don't understand socialism at all, do you? Brute labor as the source of all wealth?!! Socialism has its roots in the Enlightenment which values reason above all else. Socialist philosophy has no problem with the mind as you say, not in the slightest, socialist or at least socialistic countries invent and so forth. In fact, if we're talking about ideas and invention, a country like Britain, whilst not socialist essentially has many socialistic qualities to it's structure, is THE world leader in invention! The example you give in that quote is complete and utter nonsense. Please, read up my friend, read up.

Also, I love how you say "engineers or managers or other capitalist lackeys" as if socialists are solely brute force workers. If you're an engineer or something, you must be capitalist! Yeah yeah yeah.... rock solid argument

 

[edgray]

JFC. Quite the opposite actually. I'm pretty close with our company president. I'd dare you even know the beginnings of how to do his job much less be able to do it at the quality level he does.

How do you know my skillset? How can you presume to know what I can or can't do?

Yet again, the only reason they're expendible because you personally assign no value to what they do. Its your own arbitrary definition and you don't like the fact other people value their contribution more than you do.

And they're not expendable by your definition of value. You'd be surprised at how many people share my views.

Again, what you refuse to look at, is everyone's definition of "making it" is different. I have friends who are police officers. For some of them their idea of "making it" is not being a multi-millionaire, their idea and their reward is going out and helping people. For others their idea and reward is the excitement and the interesting things they get to see and do.

Yeah so the poor cop has to financially struggle and live a meagre (by comparison) life. You really don't see the problem with that, do you?

By having a system that allows her to take so much more is THE ONLY reason the poor cop will never make that much. Why should she get her reward in such grotesque monetary amounts whilst the cop gets a little pat on the back?

I'm an engineer. I will likely NEVER be rich as an engineer and I knew that going in. I do it because I enjoy interesting techincal problems and get intangible compensation from what I do.

I started out as a software engineer, I also love solving technical problems. Why should that mean that some arsehole who can sing or something should make millions?

The fallacy of socialism that the success of the world is built on the amount of work. Its not, its built on the quality and value of said work. Idea generation, organizational skills and other uncommon attributes increase the value of the work done. Its the obvious answer to why I get paid more as an engineer than the janitor does, because its hard to find people that can do my job, but not hard to find people that can push a broom.

No, not at all. Socialism isn't about simply the amount of work. You can't sum philosophies like socialism so simplistically. Quality and value are incredibly important. There are as many different schools of thought on work and work environment within socialist philosophy as there are elsewhere. It cannot simply be summed up in such simple terms.

If we were even close to being short on space or other resources, you might have a point, but since we're not, you don't. Even in that instance, the continued increases in overall wealth of the world, coupled with technological innovation are going to make more and more resources available to us. We haven't even begun to exhaust the resources of this planet and we haven't even touched the rest of the solar system.

And the resources it takes to create all that is consumed? Does that have no value? Could that not be better spent elsewhere? Serving a community? Rather than just a fat cat?

 

[nova]

Oh yes because it's been PROVEN not to work, right? Yes, that's what we've always been told.

Marx didn't invent anything, he was a philosopher who brought some great ideas to the table and wrote about the growing social movements, ideas that have stood the test of time. Many countries have lots of Marxist principles in action and work perfectly well, in fact the countries that top the human development index and enjoy the highest standards of living on the planet follow many of the principles he talked about.

Marx brought some really shitty ideas to the table that lead to the systematic oppression and execution of millions of innocent people in the last 150 years. Piss on Marx, socialism is and has been a disease on the face of the planet.

And that second part is just tosh. Why would Marx have anything against ideas? I can honestly say I have no idea where you get that from.

Its implicit in the works of marx. If I have an idea for some new innovative widget, start a business and hire people to produce said widget, in the eyes of marx I'm an evil capitalist exploiting the toil of my workers. Nevermind that had I not had the idea and drive to start my business, those poor oppressed workers would likely be going hungry.

If you don't understand that, you really don't understand marx.

There you go, very cleverly inserted the insults into hypothetical statements. Those are targeted insults, nothing to do with my paranoia but more to do with your inability to provide decent arguments.

Yet again, your paranoia is not my concern. I also can't help the fact you can't grasp the simple logical arguments I'm making. I promise if I wish to insult you, I won't do it in hypotheticals, I'll come right out and say whatever it is. :thumbup

We are born equal, we have differences, and those differences should be celebrated. But just because so and so was born into this family, or in that area, or with that much money behind him, why should they, or anyone in fact, be entitled to more of the fruits of humanity than the next person?

I dare you to find two people who are absolutely equal in absolutely every metric. Differences in ability lead to differences in outcome.

Socialist dictatorship?!! As I've explained before I am a Libertarian in the truest sense of the word. I'd be happy being called a socialist, libertarian, libertarian socialist or anarchist.

Then you are a walking talking paradox. Libertarianism and socialism do not fit together on a large scale because socialism requires fundamental violations of the liberty and property rights of individuals that libertarianism requires.

If you're in a village of 10 people they can mesh together because you can get small groups of people to cooperate completely of their own free will. When you're talking 10 million or 10 billion people, somebody, somewhere is not going to want to cooperate and when you force them at gunpoint to cooperate and confiscate their property, you have become oppressive, the anti-thesis to libertarianism.

I love the quote you posted there - reminds me of so many great arguments I've had with people. So laughably bad too! You really don't understand socialism at all, do you? Brute labor as the source of all wealth?!! Socialism has its roots in the Enlightenment which values reason above all else. Socialist philosophy has no problem with the mind as you say, not in the slightest, socialist or at least socialistic countries invent and so forth. In fact, if we're talking about ideas and invention, a country like Britain, whilst not socialist essentially has many socialistic qualities to it's structure, is THE world leader in invention! The example you give in that quote is complete and utter nonsense. Please, read up my friend, read up.

Also, I love how you say "engineers or managers or other capitalist lackeys" as if socialists are solely brute force workers. If you're an engineer or something, you must be capitalist! Yeah yeah yeah.... rock solid argument

Don't know much about Marx and his contributions to economics, especially the labor theory of value do you? Haven't ever heard his theories about how wealth is generated for owners via surplus value generation, position thats completely at odds with his other theories about rates of falling profit? I'll let you go look those up and get back to me...

Long story short, Karl Marx was a quack, an idiot, a fuckit who couldn't even realize the obvious that his theories were internally inconsistent. Which makes it even sadder that his "great ideas" have been used to oppress and kill more people than just about any other.