Wealth Inequality

[trainspotter]

John Paul Warren said "Cream always rises to the top...so do good leaders" and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both."

"Let them eat cake" ... Marie Antoinette (allegedly)

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any nation IMO

(All of the above is plagiarised to HELL)

 

[craft]

John Paul Warren said "Cream always rises to the top...so do good leaders" and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both."

"Let them eat cake" ... Marie Antoinette (allegedly)

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the End of any nation IMO

(All of the above is plagiarised to HELL)

The argument that inequality at the bottom end should persist because eliminating it would eliminate the incentive to be wealthy is marginal. There’s not much loss of incentive in the utility between being mega-rich and super rich.

If incentives are tweaked to get more desired outcomes – then government intervention is no longer needed, so the government redistribution arguments don’t stand.

The incentives for absolute growth and the seeds for concentration are imbedded in positive interest rates on money. Getting the incentives right for better outcomes lays somewhere within changes to the money system – possibly permanent negative interest rates – like a demurrage charge to make sure money keeps circulating through productive endeavours whilst eliminating its ability to act as an artificial storage and concentrator of wealth.

 

[Wysiwyg]

And I have read or watched plenty of documentaries on 3rd world countries and issues etc, but the impact was a million times greater when I had the opportunities to travel there and experience it in person first hand. And hence my suggestion.

Ironically, television advertisements asking for donations present time are similar to ads. I watched 30 years ago. Tribal war, dictatorship and drought are the main contributors to the ongoing (comparative to Aus.) low quality of life. As history shows, so few cause the suffering of so many.

 

[ftw129]

Maybe my 'reason' for starting the thread satisfies you 'purpose' question? I don't see reason and purpose as the same thing so may have misinterpreted your initial question.

Craft,

I wanted to know what you wanted to achieve by starting this thread.

Your original response being "I don't know" was somewhat, dare I say, disappointing?

Had you have originally just said:

My observation (and I think it's as obvious as dogs balls) is that money system is concentrating wealth at an extraordinary rate, rather then circulating benefits to where they are needed the most and more of the same isn’t going to fix that. That’s something I can’t fix personally, the best I could do was start this thread to provoke some thinking. I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a way that meets with your approval – but one thing I have learnt about forums is that I can’t please some people.

I would have most likely had no reply at all to that as that's completely reasonable. However the impression that I got from you was that perhaps you are just a **** stirrer... That's what a lot of people like to do, most of which are all talk and no action.

Maybe you don't want to answer the questions you asked of me, so are looking for an out?

No, because the actual issue of wealth inequality is not what I want to get involved in here (however I will share with you that my line of thinking is similar to that of Wisywyg. Also, Julie's "balanced" input resonates well with me).

So many people are willing to "provoke" but only a fraction actually practice what they preach. Be it any issue whether it's wealth inequality or "The Future Of Australian Property Prices" where one of the antagonists in that thread has the audacity to label residential property investors as being "no better than pimps or drug dealers" or another poster that expresses his disapproval about buying residential property as an investment but admits that he will take advantage of a housing price collapse, should it occur (at least this one's honest).

Point being, so many people are willing to state the bleeding obvious about what's wrong with the world, point fingers and blame but actions speak louder than words. If you choose to get up in front of a group of people to present them with a problem and address them with a burning issue that you feel strongly about without a purpose, aim, reason etc that makes you no better than a tabloid. I'm using the word "you" but I'm not directing this at you Craft, so please don't take this as a personal attack. I mean this to everyone who will ever read this thread. You (Craft) did eventually establish that your reason, purpose, aim was to "provoke thought" and that you feel as though there is nothing that you can personally do to help... I accept that answer (and suspected that might be the case) and were it your original one, I would have added nothing more.

I was going to leave it at that however I can't help but ask yet another bleedingly obvious question, one that I can only assume I know the answer to but you never really know until you ask...

If

That’s something I can’t fix personally

is how you feel (keeping in mind that most likely the majority of people feel the same), then what is it that you are trying to achieve by "provoking thought" in others here? What would be the end result you would like to see from your own thread?

If your answer is "nothing" OR "I don't know" OR "I haven't really thought that far ahead" OR "I've already told you, it's just to provoke thought, nothing more", then just say so.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Exactly, and that's why if we all adopt some of the many opportunities right here in Australia to address some of the disadvantage, then surely it's better than just being a critic.

Physical and mental disadvantage can be assisted if one so desires. There should be no obligation to assist these people but the majority of self reliant people do assist in some way. If they did not before well the government is going to force them to soon.

Self disadvantaged should not be assisted. The 'poor me' con and 'live off the nation's workers' attitude in Australia is not acceptable.

 

[craft]

then what is it that you are trying to achieve by "provoking thought" in others here? What would be the end result you would like to see from your own thread?

If your answer is "nothing" OR "I don't know" OR "I haven't really thought that far ahead" OR "I've already told you, it's just to provoke thought, nothing more", then just say so.

I'm going to disappoint you again because provoking thought is all I want to do on this thread But I don't think that is un-worthwhile considering the exceptional calibre of some people that may read the thread. For those that think it's **** stirring then ignore it/me.

 

[craft]

So many people are willing to "provoke" but only a fraction actually practice what they preach.

Its a big assumption to make that because somebody doesn’t lay out what they do within their personal sphere of control that they don’t practice what they preach. Must a person bare their private life to have any legitimacy to discuss issue bigger than their personal reach.

 

[CanOz]

FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.

I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.

 

[ftw129]

Its a big assumption to make that because somebody doesn’t lay out what they do within their personal sphere of control that they don’t practice what they preach. Must a person bare their private life to have any legitimacy to discuss issue bigger than their personal reach.

I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples.

FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.

Like I said, if the response to my original question was one like "just to cause discussion" I would not have made another post.

Maybe Craft is not one of them but it has been my experience that most people who bring up things like this to "discuss" or "provoke" are just purely **** stirrers that have no intention of doing anything about what it is they're on about. My closest friend since childhood is the master of stirring said **** and boy he stirs well. Pity he doesn't put his money where his mouth is.

In this case, it appears that I may be wrong but I still question that (just quietly).

Think of me as just another **** stirrer but with a grander vision.

 

[trainspotter]

Some valid points here ...

The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions. Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.

Disagree? Then read on!

Unintended Consequences of Socialist Policies
There are several reasons why socialism, and specifically wealth redistribution by means of taxing the rich, does not work. All of these reasons stem from one important fact of life:

People have a strong desire to do whatever is in their own perceived self interest!

The following are detrimental unintended consequences of socialism that stem from the above fact and undermine everything socialism is meant to accomplish:

1) Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY.
2) Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it.
3) Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself.
4) The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class.
A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich!
5) The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love.
6) High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties.
7) Social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes.
8) Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least.
9) A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor.

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

How about this for an idea? You earn it, you keep it. Distribute it where YOU want !

 

[payday]

Here is a link to a rather lengthy read on post scarcity economics Star Trek style. Thought provoking to me anyway.
https://medium.com/medium-long/29bab88d50

 

[craft]

I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples.

I haven’t said I practice what I preach – I haven’t said I don’t practice what I preach. Actually I don’t regard myself as preaching.

Like I said, if the response to my original question was one like "just to cause discussion" I would not have made another post.

Your original question was.

What is the purpose of this thread?

(This is not a rhetorical question)

I obviously misinterpreted what you were after. For I didn’t feel I, as one of many that may post on the subject had the right to define the purpose of the thread. So I said I don’t know.

If you had asked what was my purpose or reason for posting then you would have got the answer I gave once I understood it was my motivations you were after.

Maybe Craft is not one of them but it has been my experience that most people who bring up things like this to "discuss" or "provoke" are just purely **** stirrers that have no intention of doing anything about what it is they're on about. My closest friend since childhood is the master of stirring said **** and boy he stirs well. Pity he doesn't put his money where his mouth is.

In this case, it appears that I may be wrong but I still question that (just quietly).

Think of me as just another **** stirrer but with a grander vision.

What vision? I think you are just **** stirring for personal pleasure and as I’m starting to get pissed off by it, it must be time for me to take a forum rest. Hopefully this thread will achieve its purpose “whatever that isâ without me.

 

[craft]

FWIW Craft, i think its very interesting discussion and i don't think for a minute that anyone needs a purpose other than to DISCUSS it, after all this is a forum.

I think its time the entire free world start to analyse alternative forms of economy, before our traditional forms completely blow up.

It's unfortunate that discussions on some subjects on ASF are so tiring.

 

[Trembling Hand]

I hoped that I was clear (which I clearly wasn't) that most of my response was not directed at you personally. If you say you practice what you preach on a public forum but choose not to share exactly what that is, then that's your decision but your credibility is no better than Alvin Purples.



Like I said, if the response to my original question was one like "just to cause discussion" I would not have made another post.

Maybe Craft is not one of them but it has been my experience that most people who bring up things like this to "discuss" or "provoke" are just purely **** stirrers that have no intention of doing anything about what it is they're on about. My closest friend since childhood is the master of stirring said **** and boy he stirs well. Pity he doesn't put his money where his mouth is.

In this case, it appears that I may be wrong but I still question that (just quietly).

Think of me as just another **** stirrer but with a grander vision.

God! Get over it.

 

[burglar]

It's unfortunate that discussions on some subjects on ASF are so tiring.

Jack Ford set the world to rights, before he skipped off to the US of A to make his fortune.
BBC TV "When the Boat Comes in"!

Just don't see why we should emulate him.

 

[burglar]

Jack Ford set the world to rights, before he skipped off to the US of A to make his fortune.
BBC TV "When the Boat Comes in"!

Just don't see why we should emulate him.

I meant to say:

I don't see why we need to set the world to rights, before we seek our fortune.

But afterwards ... different story!

 

[coolcup]

I found most of this thread interesting to read. It was great to see people discussing about the topic rather than why the topic was put up in the first place, which to me is somewhat irrelevant.

It's kind of like enjoying a mango but then asking why it tastes so good. Understanding the why doesn't make it taste any better or worse.

 

[trainspotter]

OK .. today I have decided I feel poor. Give all your money to me and there will be no more wealth inequality

It's all a bit Robin Hoodesque if you ask me. If you work hard and become a success and accumulate your wealth (driven and committed) only to be told that you have to give it to the less fortunate (read lazy b@stards) then what is the point? So what if 2% own 50% of the wealth? They did not get into that position by handouts from the government? Except maybe if they applied for grants and stuff to further their business etc.

Example:- Warren Buffet worth 60 billion right? Let's take that off him and give ... let's say ... 1 million dollars each to nupties in the street. Like winning Lotto right?

Well check this out http://www.wastedyourtime.com/rub-off/lostwinners.htm

William "Bud" Post won $16.2 million in the Pennsylvania lottery in 1988 but now lives on his Social Security.
"I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare," says Post.
A former girlfriend successfully sued him for a share of his winnings. It wasn't his only lawsuit. A brother was arrested for hiring a hit man to kill him, hoping to inherit a share of the winnings. Other siblings pestered him until he agreed to invest in a car business and a restaurant in Sarasota, Fla., -- two ventures that brought no money back and further strained his relationship with his siblings.

Yep ... let's do this ... Rob the rich and give it to the poor.

 

[burglar]

OK .. today I have decided I feel poor. Give all your money to me and there will be no more wealth inequality

So reminiscent of nun the wiser, ... I miss him!


A lil bit!


Sometimes!



:

 

[burglar]

I found most of this thread interesting to read. It was great to see people discussing about the topic rather than why the topic was put up in the first place, which to me is somewhat irrelevant.

It's kind of like enjoying a mango but then asking why it tastes so good. Understanding the why doesn't make it taste any better or worse.

Mango flavour compounds:

mango-flavour-compounds