The shifting of wealth

Portugal?

Also various pockets of Europe during WWII (which were then handed back to the fascist-supporting factory owners by the allies).

Scandinavian countries are sort of kind of socialist, but not really.

Russia was not really socialist. China definitely isn't socialist-they're capitalist- and were never really socialist. North Korea was totalitarian, not socialist. Most of the countries that have implemented socialism have not been in a good position to do so and haven't done it right. I suspect it's damn near impossible for a revolution to bring about a successful form of socialism-it has to come through slow change and acknowledgement of the rights of workers to a reasonable wage.

Tommy the Greatiest wrote:

Point of Order:

Because you took 2-3 economics classes (maybe even 5...is that a minor), that does not qualify you to give an expert opinion on economics in any form.

True, but it does qualify me to give a vastly more informed opinion than your average conservative d-bagger that got their entire economic training from talk radio or Glenn Beck.

I didn't get a minor in Economics (or Business) although I had the credits specifically because the Bus Admin school in the 70's wouldn't allow someone to get a major in something newfangled like Computer Science major (even if you had the credits) unless you had a minor from another department so I said "f**k you" and got a history minor. That does make me immensely qualified to know a stupid justification when I see one, and to have a proven ability to call it out.

That's probably because we've never had an example of it to see it in action.

You're kidding right? You do know that the USPS is a huge money loser and will probably cease to exist or remain only as a small remnant of its former self within our lifetimes, right? And I suppose the Wright Brothers were commissioned by the government initially, eh?

So are you now saying that you support the view that there's a "Creator," that all "men," including unborn babies with beating hearts already moving and sucking their thumbs in the womb, are entitled to "life," and that people are guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness rather than just plain old happiness, which the government does its damned-est to secure for everyone?

I'm not saying that all government is bad or that we shouldn't have any regulation whatsoever, but, I mean, come on. That's a pretty sloppy post, even for a stark liberal. But it doesn't matter what you or I or others think. The "consent" of the governed majority who pay absolutely no Federal income tax whatsoever has been granted.

For all of this talk of the separation of church and state, which is really a joke, because, frankly you all know our framers adhered to certain religious views and even imbued our creating documents, currency, etc with these views, we really should be talking about separation of government and business. Let the private sector do its thing and invest capital, maximize efficient production, profits, and employment, whilst deducting no taxes from such profit or shareholder equity.

That way, we could do away with the corporate, almost fascist influence of various lobbying groups and tax-sheltering, and the government could collect its revenue going instead of coming at the level of the consumer and citizenry. Quit with the socialization and promotion of "just causes" like affordable housing for "everyone," and you couldn't possibly have created the conditions for the carnage we ultimately endured and which hasn't even completely played out.

RunningAntelope wrote:

For all of this talk of the separation of church and state, which is really a joke, because, frankly you all know our framers adhered to certain religious views and even imbued our creating documents, currency, etc with these views,

I'm pretty sure the President of the United States of America takes the oath of office with his hand on the Bible as well, not the Torah, not the Book of Mormon, not the Koran, not the Bhagavad Gita. But I'm sure the ACLU is working hard to dispel that 'ritual,' no doubt using taxpayer funds.

The government makes the rules. The players are the companies. Having the government involved in private business is like a referee jumping into a basketball game on one team and making his own rules. the game is going to collapse and the referee will be playing by himself.

i am sure that analogy breaks down somewhere.

RunningAntelope wrote:

You're kidding right? You do know that the USPS is a huge money loser and will probably cease to exist or remain only as a small remnant of its former self within our lifetimes, right? And I suppose the Wright Brothers were commissioned by the government initially, eh? .

Now everyone that's not dumb as a stump, a group you're clearly not a member of, knows the USPS isn't a huge money loser, it's just not a money maker. That's the point. It won't disappear anytime soon because there has been a need for everyone to get postal deliveries. Face the facts, private industry wouldn't have delivered mail except under specialized circumstances. Physical mail may go away but that doesn't erase in the least the fact that the postal service provided a valuable service for a couple centuries.

Also, people with functioning brains understand the difference between the invention of flight and the air transport system. I'm surprised you didn't suggest I said the government invented writing in relation to the postal service. An air transport system requires airports (government built) and a system for navigation (government built).

asdfghgfdsa wrote:

As a socialist, I can tell you Obama is far from a socialist. He is doing almost nothing to make our society more equal. First you should get rid of the notion that our society is a capitalist society and that wealth inequality is good thing. The rich should have no more than 5x the amount of wealth that the poor have.

Greed does not propel society forward, ambition does.

Assuming, for argument's sake, that this is true, how do your propose implementing that 5x deal?

Also, assuming that the poor have no wealth, isn't 5x that still zero? Or are we going to redistribute all the wealth so that everybody gets a new minimum?

Good luck with that.

One more thing--not that I don't care about the "poor" in America, but our poor are pretty well-off by the rest of the world's standards, or by historical standards in the USA. In most of the world, the poor spend half or more of their income on food and shelter, where here we have an obesity problem among the poor. Not to mention cell phones, DVRs, and cars with really big rims. So I don't see a massive upheaval by the starving masses anytime soon.

On another note, I firmly believe that if you could wave a magic wand and redistribute all the wealth in the country evenly, in a couple of generations, you would have rich and poor again, and many of them would be the same people. Yes, Paris Hilton would be homeless, as would much of the NBA. But the vast majority of people who work, budget, save, and otherwise do "rich people stuff" would be well-off again, and those who have babies without any thought about how to feed them, who buy what they cannot afford, and who believe themselves entitled to a luxurious lifestyle before they've done the work to justify it would be right back down at the bottom again.

Keith,

a) You're a homo. Big name calling on Letsrun. Tough guy.

b) How can you possibly think that my statement was "me providing a solution?" All I asked was to refute the statement. Still hasn't been done.

In detail: We should take care of the children that are here, by taking YOUR left over money, Keith. Know what? I'll pitch in too. Anything above and beyond what you live on month to month, will now go to shelters where the poor can at least have a warm place to sleep and food to eat. They cannot leave the shelter grounds though. Once they accept to live there, they're there until they decide to go live on their own and accept the consequences. They can also continue to screw and screw while living at the shelter. So the shelter - in a scaled-down parallel to the Earth's ultimate problem - will continue to get more and more crowded, and as you can imagine, issues will arise. Whatever happens from that point on, is up to the residents of the shelter. You can only do so much, right Keith?

Good thinking.

I think we should all thank the top 1/10th of one percent for owning most of the nation and crapping all over the rest of us. We need to be grateful slaves and puppets

THis is funny on a few levels.

a) so just because the majority of poor in this country (though there ARE plenty of homeless, in case you didn't notice) don't live in make-shift metal shacks on the sides of the roads with flies buzzing around them,.......then you conclude: hey, being poor in the USA is a piece of cake! This is the richest country in the history of mankind. One would HOPE our poor are a little better off than the poorest in the world, right??

b) If we didn't have all the social programs that conservatives like yourself apparently detest with a passion (well, that at least goes for many on this thread and in this country), OF COURSE things would be a lot worse for the poor. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Yes, of course there are also unintended consequences of some poor people having more kids because they figure they can maybe support them with some hand-outs, but in reality (look at africa, or india, or other poor parts of the world), uneducated poor people still have sex, and still have kids, whether they can support them or not. Welfare or no welfare, young people will screw, ESPECIALLY if they don't have anything else to do, and their parents are deadbeats. The end result will be children, and very, very, VERY poor children if there are no welfare. The kind of poor I guess you'd like to see before you start feeling any sympathy. And then you'd get your uprising. And then you better get some real security for your gated community. And then we can just throw all those poor criminals in jail, right? And pay even MORE $ to house them in jail than was being spent on them to give them a shot at breaking the cycle of poverty/stupidity? Is THAT your solution?

And for those that don't turn to crime, I guess the other options are: let them die in the street when they can't afford to feed themselves, or patch them up in the E.R. for free when they arrive there because of being sick (like we do) ? Or MAYBE....just MAYBE..... invest some tax dollars in free school lunches, free education (like they have at least until HS) and insurance discounts, so they get some treatment BEFORE they need to go to the E.R. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's better (less $ actually than sticking them in jail and treating them in the E.R.) than what conservatives propose: let them stew in their own shit, give them a pep talk, tell them to read Rand, and tell them to wait for the trickle down effect from the rich getting richer. Yeah, that will really turn things around for them.

Bad examples. NBA stars were not handed their $. They "earned" it in the capitalist society you love so much. So clearly, once the big redistribution was over, one would assume people go then go out and do what they want again? So they would play ball and make millions again. Nice try though. And Paris Hilton was handed $ of course, but she is famous for being famous. Some idiots would give her another program (watch Paris struggle!), and other idiots would watch, and she would make a lot of $ again off her name. Yes, this is the capitalist society that you think is perfect, where the "doers" make what they deserve (like Paris and NBA stars), and poor people make what they deserve.

And furthermore, these socialist strawmen that you guys are knocking down is silly. Despite all your whining, virtually no one is saying "redistribute all the wealth evenly to everyone. " Give me a beak, not even close. People are saying: the super rich don't need big tax breaks like Bush gave them, and reducing health care insurance costs for the the poor, and maybe helping them get into college, and making sure they have enough to eat is a more efficient, less costly way of dealing with them then doing nothing, hoping charity steps up, having to spend more $ on police and the costs of crime, having to lock more up in prisons, treating them in the ER when on death's doorstep, etc. etc.

And you talk about rich people doing "rich people stuff." You mean like getting trust funds? Or going to the best schools in the country? Or having connections in industry the second they step out of school? Or having been raised by two very well educated , well off parents? yeah, ALL THINGS THAT THEY HAD NO CONTROL OVER. ALL THINGS THAT ARE OPPORTUNITIES OR MATERIAL WEALTH GIVEN TO THEM.

I don't think you know a lot of rich people. I do. And most (certainly not all) had lives like I describe above.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

Hey Lance-a-lot

Let me give you a simple math problem. You and your neighbors all have various jobs with annual pay. Pick the scenario you prefer most.

A. You make $400,000, and your neighbors make $600,000.

B. You make $175,000, and your neighbors make $125,000.

C. You and your neighbors all make $60,000.

???

Carnivore-

I don't think you're going to get an answer to that question. Guys like Keith and Lance don't like to actually answer questions that points out their hypocrisy.

So long as those who have little envy those who have much, they will be prepared to listen to those who suggest that the wealth should be spread around, and there will always be those willing to suggest as much, as long as they can skim a little off the top.

I don't see what's so surprising about that.

Your entire post bases the idea of 'deserving' something on one person's needs, rather than what other people want. Merit is based on how bad others want something, regardless of whether or not they want what you think they should want. You can't regulate peoples' desires, no matter how much you wish you could.

Actually, I'm not sure they fully understand what's being asked of them.

As to the guy who claimed the wealthiest shouldn't make more than 5x what the poorest make, you really have but two choices -- a taller, skinnier pyramid, where fewer, uber-rich people reside on the top but the average standard of living is higher, or a wider, shorter pyramid, where wealth is more "equitably distributed," but there are more people toward the bottom and the average standard of living is lower. It appears that we are currently determined to secure the latter scenario and ensure elevated unemployment and underemployment for some time to come.

People who have only enjoyed the fruits of the last 30 years may have come to believe that Santa's bag is forever and always bottomless, but it's not.

As to the rich beget the rich scenarios painted above, it's complete bullshit. Two sides to every story. I grew up decidely middle-class to a liberal, Detroit-bred engineer of a father, and my wife grew up very poor to a "welfare mother" who opted not to take welfare but to work three jobs instead. We both worked hard in school (she lived at home), worked hard to get school paid for (most of it - still paying off some of the loans), and worked diligently to save and invest, despite the income being taxed multiple times over along the way.

And MOST, not all, of our friends in our upper-class neighborhood came up the very same way. They are predominantly charitable, giving people and act with their wallets (like most conservatives when you actually parse the statistics) rather than their mouths like the talking heads on here. And this, despite the fact that they are paying way more than their "fair" share of taxes already relative to what they put into the system.

All and everywhere, it's always a problem of not enough taxes isn't it? Couldn't possibly be that the government is far too bloated and acts only in its own self-interest could it be? Nah... that healthcare reform charade was one big unified, cooperative, transparent, honorable, genuine piece of legislation wasn't it? Nothing unseemly about it whatsoever. And to think that nobody knows what it really represents and that it won't even achieve its intended outcomes.

Merry Christmas everybody, even you intellectual athiests.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

Carnivore 69 wrote:

Hey Lance-a-lot

Let me give you a simple math problem. You and your neighbors all have various jobs with annual pay. Pick the scenario you prefer most.

A. You make $400,000, and your neighbors make $600,000.

B. You make $175,000, and your neighbors make $125,000.

C. You and your neighbors all make $60,000.

???

I'll answer, but given the way you framed the question I expect you won't consider my answer satisfactory.

Based on the provided parameters alone, yes, almost everyone would prefer Option A. It's an obvious instance where choosing something in one's self-interest is not only maximized but independent of another's. The catch is, life isin't this simple. Personal interests conflict all the time and sometimes, yes sometimes, people want to make decisions that are for the greater good.

Your example doesn't take a national or local tax rate into account. Depending on how taxes are framed any one of these choices could change what is most beneficial to choose. Both for society and for the individual.

Your example says nothing about external benefits; that is the external impact of choosing among these three options. A simple short-sighted obsession with income can get in the way of other important things. What are the differences in the world we live in between Options A, B, and C?

Who is my neighbor and what does he do?

Finally, implicit in this "question" is that more money is necessarily better - that $1,000,000 among everyone is better than $300,000 or $120,000 more evenly spread out. I'd like to know what are the consequences of this focus? How's it going to impact my quality of life? Will it make me happier? Will it make the world a better place?

Sagarin:

I have a question for you. We've focused on "making the pyramid higher" for a long time now but our standard of living is actually lower than some countries that focus on a "wider shorter pyramid." What gives?

In short, how do we know when to stop focusing on the gospel of growth so we can focus on making it matter more?

This isin't a hostile question, but I get sick of the business crowd *always* talking about how we need more growth. Indefinite growth may not be sustainable and the business crowd focuses on it because it's necessary make more money.

Shouldn't most people care about a healthy balance between the two?