It's just not fair...


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Secondly, thank you for your figures, which I agree with. Let's say, to round things out neatly, we are talking US$9,000.00 each, or around £5,600.00 sterling, each, if wealth were evenly distributed. This is a useful figure, to me. I can understand that figure. So, I will voluntarily be limiting my net worth to this figure, and giving any excess away. Fortunately, I don't have to do that just yet, because I am not even that wealthy. I am not persuaded that this position will make a big difference, but I think it will make some difference, and some difference is better than no difference.

That's very commendable; but what would happen if government said that no one could accrue a net value of more than $9,000? How do you incentivize a first-world worker to stay at his job once he has reached that threshold--and what happens to the economy if you can't do it?

 

I take the degree of economic equality within a society to be an indicator of, rather than a decider of, it's spiritual health.

How does putting a formerly-wealthy person in involuntary servitude create spiritual health?

Is communist China a spiritually healthy place?

Cuba?

Venezuela?

 

It may indeed be that a wealthy person forced to give up some proportion of his wealth might not benefit spiritually in that scenario quite as much as if he or she had decided, of their own volition, to give that proportion of their wealth away, and sacrifice their own consumer desires for the needs of others. Of course, much depends on their own attitude to the democratic will towards eradicating absolute poverty.

You know, two hundred years ago it was commonly argued that black slavery was actually a spiritual benefit to the individuals so subjugated--by the majority, at least.

 

But, when we are balancing wants and needs, profligacy and lives, I confess I feel no sympathy for the rich in this respect. I don't particularly care whether rich people benefit spiritually by the redistribution of wealth. It would be better if they did, and if this were all resolved voluntarily and amicably. But, this has shown no sign of happening yet, 2000 years since Christ, to the extent necessary. I weigh the very lives of the poor as more important than the ascendance of wealthy people up the spiritual ladder. If they are dead, the poor have no opportunity to gain in spiritual stature, at all.

As an American, I would reply that there are two facets to what you're saying: the domestic and international facets. Internationally: it doesn't matter how much of my income gets sent to, say, China or South Africa or the PLO, because it will wind up in the hands of those nations' corrupt political classes (which is why I said earlier that aid to such countries needs to be determined on a case-by-case scenario). And domestically: the social safety nets in this country are such that no one need starve to death IF they are aware of, and use, the resources that are already out there.

Beyond ensuring a subsistence level of food, clothing, and shelter, mere redistribution without regard to spiritual benefit of the parties concerned boils down to little more than state-sanctioned envy. And that isn't very Christian at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of us have been commanded to not Covet.

 

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” (Ex. 20:17.)

 

Timothy has told us that the Love of Money is the Root of all Evil. 

 

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

 

I suggest that anyone who engages in redistribution of wealth is not only guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments but also guilty of loving money. 

 

"We can love money just as much when we don’t have it as when we do. And evil comes into the world not only through those who have wealth and use it selfishly or dishonestly, but also through those who do not have it and yet covet it."

 

Our Prophet Gordon B Hinkley said

 

"Well has the Lord said, “Thou shalt not covet.” Let not selfishness canker our relationships. Let not covetousness destroy our happiness. Let not greed for that which we do not need and cannot get with honesty and integrity bring us down to ruin and despair.

 
The Lord has been plain with us on these matters. Our prophets through the generations have emphasized them. Those who have observed this counsel can walk with peace in their hearts and security in their homes..."

 

 

 

If you force thru your vote to take from those that have and give to those that do not, rather then giving your own substance to the poor you surely will be held just as accountable as those who acquired great possessions and did not love their neighbors. 

 

....were all basically saying the same thing over and over.

 

 

 

I take the degree of economic equality within a society to be an indicator of, rather than a decider of, it's spiritual health.

 

Then at least we can agree that socialism (secular humanism) is a religion. I would disagree that it's spiritual..but to each their own.

Edited by Windseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2ndRate - Just remembered this that I saw a while back.  Maybe it'll help ---

 

http://thecarolblog.com/wealthy-people-money/

 

 

Ha ha! Just to say, I am not jealous of wealth, and I do not envy wealthy people. To be sure, I sometimes dream of how pleasant it might be to sail a super yacht around the Med, or own a good-sized farm, or an Island in the Aegean, or drive a state of the art sports car, or employ a butler to keep my shoes polished and clothes pressed, and serve me at dinner. But, when I do so dream, I know these things are completely incompatible with my character, and they do not have real purchase on my life. Far from envying rich people, I pity them. It is much harder to give up privileges you are accustomed to, for merely moral reasons, than forego the stuff day-dreams are made of.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's just take this step by step, so no one gets left behind. The first thing to agree is that the kind of huge disparities in wealth I posted in the OP are not morally defensible. They might be economically defensible, or politically defensible, or historically defensible, but they are not morally defensible. They offend a very basic sense of justice, of fairness, of egalitarian impulse. I am not sure we have achieved consensus on this point, yet.

 

Secondly, thank you for your figures, which I agree with. Let's say, to round things out neatly, we are talking US$9,000.00 each, or around £5,600.00 sterling, each, if wealth were evenly distributed. This is a useful figure, to me. I can understand that figure. So, I will voluntarily be limiting my net worth to this figure, and giving any excess away. Fortunately, I don't have to do that just yet, because I am not even that wealthy. I am not persuaded that this position will make a big difference, but I think it will make some difference, and some difference is better than no difference.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

 

 

Your comments about the money numbers shows that you do not truly understand what they mean.  Although to be honest I keep expecting one of our numbers guys (like MOE) to come along and tell me there is more wrong with it then just being four years out of date.  Anyways that $9,000 is not your yearly wage.  It is your total wealth.  You don't have a car unless it fits within that number, you don't have a house.  Most people can't even rent a place for a year in a neighborhood that they would be comfortable living in for that.

 

Lets go further with this horror.  To get everyone their $9,000, all major corporations no longer exist.  So they no longer provide services.  All governments are gone including all their safety nets.  If you got a medical condition you are on your own.  You pay full price for treatment out of your $9,000.  Oh and in addition to paying for your food, shelter, and medical out of your $9,000 I hope you have a way of defending yourself because the police don't exist anymore.  And people are going to get desperate. Nor does the fire department exisit.  Think about that during the cold winter when hundreds will be left to their own devices to keep warm.

 

Now lets assume you are not one of the millions that will die because of this wealth re-distribution.  You survive the year until the next wealth-redistribution.  Well there is a lot less people now so your piece should be bigger, but at the same time you gutted the economic engine.  You killed the goose that laid the Golden Egg.  There isn't billions to redistribute anymore.  Chances are you get even less the second year... and again this is total wealth not a yearly wage.  If you manged to prosper during the misery of others that is gone now.

 

Now don't take the above as me being against helping the poor and needy.  I am not. Or that I don't think the wealth difference doesn't pose huge issues.  It does.  I am against being foolish about how we address it.  Now in the US I know we have safety nets.  By design no one in the US should go hungry.  Yet they do.  So do we blindly throw more money at the problem in the hope that the problem goes way?  Or do we find the holes in the net and patch them?  I am a fan of the latter. 

 

That is just us in the US, but I can't help but think that other 1st World countries have even better safety nets due to the inherently socialist nature of such.  So the 1st World should be able to take care of is own.  Then we turn to the 3rd world countries.  I know that the US has thrown a ton of money at the problem, more then just about any other country.  That didn't seem to help very much.   So do we continue to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away?   Or do we figure out why it didn't work and correct it?   Again I am a fan of the latter.  Bottom line I am not convinced that the problem of the hungry exists because we have not applied enough money to fix it yet.   (It may be true but I want to know where the billions of dollars worth of aid we already sent went to)       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Estradling75,

 

Secondly, thank you for your figures, which I agree with. Let's say, to round things out neatly, we are talking US$9,000.00 each, or around £5,600.00 sterling, each, if wealth were evenly distributed. This is a useful figure, to me. I can understand that figure. So, I will voluntarily be limiting my net worth to this figure, and giving any excess away. Fortunately, I don't have to do that just yet, because I am not even that wealthy. I am not persuaded that this position will make a big difference, but I think it will make some difference, and some difference is better than no difference.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

 

I don't see things this way.  If you limit your worth to $9,000, it doesn't make the world a better place.  It just establishes the culture that everybody is an island - seeing to their own comfort without any need nor desire for the hand of others.

 

Rather, I consider money as an enabler.  I see myself as a good person.  And as such, I want to have MORE wealth than Bill Gates, Steve Wozsniak, and the Queen of England COMBINED.  Because, serving with only a buck in my pocket is a lot harder than serving with a quadzillion dollars in my pocket.  By the grace of God, the things I can do when money is no obstacle...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 (It may be true but I want to know where the billions of dollars worth of aid we already sent went to)       

 

Like a lot of questions on this thread, the answers can be fairly complex when you look at it in more depth. But I believe much of the money donated in good faith was simply wasted. People are often happy to donate some excess wealth, but less often do we see people donating their time. Without the latter, the former is simply wasted.

 

Just as an example from personal experience: I've spent a reasonable amount of time in Western Africa, along with several members of my family. One day we visited a local hospital while helping some of the locals, and came across an expensive X-Ray machine in an empty room there, still sitting in its box, covered in dust. The hospital did not have any operating X-Ray machines, so we queried why it was sitting there serving no purpose. It turned out that a hospital in the states had donated the machine to charity, and it ended in this Western African hospital. But they had no idea how to set it up, or use it. No-one had ever showed them. The charity that gave it to them clearly didn't spend the time following up what had happened to it, so it just sat there for years, wasted.

 

Another problem that I realized through personal experience is the mindset of the very people we're trying to help. Many of them had a 'live for today' attitude, rarely considering the distant future. My grandmother made a small fortune for herself in the UK, so attempted to set up a company in West Africa, aimed at helping provide jobs and otherwise donating to the locals. After several years she gave up because of a series of issues, such as the local company partners she created stealing funds that she had provided and ran off with them, only to spend the lot on food and run out again within weeks. Also, investments that she made on their behalf, such as purchasing a car that could be used to make money in the long term, were simply sold for food, again finding themselves with nothing in a few weeks time.

 

The locals are also very naively generous - they share everything they have with their neighbours, all of whom are always in immediate need, but only to the ultimate detriment of them all. None of them allow themselves to make investments in their future, which would ultimately be to the greater good of their communities.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take the degree of economic equality within a society to be an indicator of, rather than a decider of, it's spiritual health.

 

It may indeed be that a wealthy person forced to give up some proportion of his wealth might not benefit spiritually in that scenario quite as much as if he or she had decided, of their own volition, to give that proportion of their wealth away, and sacrifice their own consumer desires for the needs of others. Of course, much depends on their own attitude to the democratic will towards eradicating absolute poverty.

 

But, when we are balancing wants and needs, profligacy and lives, I confess I feel no sympathy for the rich in this respect. I don't particularly care whether rich people benefit spiritually by the redistribution of wealth. It would be better if they did, and if this were all resolved voluntarily and amicably. But, this has shown no sign of happening yet, 2000 years since Christ, to the extent necessary. I weigh the very lives of the poor as more important than the ascendance of wealthy people up the spiritual ladder. If they are dead, the poor have no opportunity to gain in spiritual stature, at all.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I see your perspective here, but it doesn't tie in well to your earlier comment about the spiritual wellness of a nation. Which is what I was originally asking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha! Just to say, I am not jealous of wealth, and I do not envy wealthy people. To be sure, I sometimes dream of how pleasant it might be to sail a super yacht around the Med, or own a good-sized farm, or an Island in the Aegean, or drive a state of the art sports car, or employ a butler to keep my shoes polished and clothes pressed, and serve me at dinner. But, when I do so dream, I know these things are completely incompatible with my character, and they do not have real purchase on my life. Far from envying rich people, I pity them. It is much harder to give up privileges you are accustomed to, for merely moral reasons, than forego the stuff day-dreams are made of.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Umm - I only read the copy but saw the issue is about judgment, not jealousy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always baffled about why some rush to conclude that if I prefer people to voluntarily utilize private charity or personal labor to help the poor rather than coerce people to expend their wealth through the government that I am somehow umcaring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second is to ask how Mormons might view this kind of inequality.
Frankly, I want to see you guys as outraged as I am by the idea that some can't afford to heat their house in winter, or adequately feed themselves, while others are stuck over the difficult choice of which champagne to enjoy, tonight. If you aren't, you are not the spiritual home I seek.

 

May I interject something into this discussion. If I may be so bold as to suggest it, I would say that almost all of this discussion has been "political philosophy" and/or "economic philosophy". I also observe that most of the LDS posters here seem to prefer a "libertarian" or "conservative" or "capitalistic" point of view. Whether I agree with these people or not, I would like to point out that Mormons are not as one-dimensional as I believe the responses here seem to suggest (in terms of political and/or economic philosophies). I'm sure that some of my colleagues here will be a little bothered, but I would like to suggest that you also find examples of more "liberal" Mormons, because they do exist.

 

One example that comes immediately to mind as an American is US Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Here's a transcript of a speech he gave at BYU, describing, at least in some way how he is "a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it." http://archive.rgj.com/article/20071009/NEWS18/71009014/Text-Sen-Harry-Reid-s-BYU-speech

 

Another article that was published within the "bloggernacle" also talks a little about these issues from a more "liberal" perspective. http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/28/on-being-a-liberal-mormon-two-defenses-and-an-attack/

 

As I said, it isn't so much that I agree with either side of political or economic philosophies, but to demonstrate that Mormons may not be as one dimensional as it sometimes seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember my Sunday School teacher pointing this out to our class when we were in high school. He called it the Jacob 2 Principle:

 

Jacob 2:12-19

 

 12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

 13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

 14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

 15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

 16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

 17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

 18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

 19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

 

Another perspective... I started out pretty poor (compared to many of my friends) when I was first married. We worked hard, lived in a humble little house, drove old cars, shopped at Deseret Industries and clipped coupons.  Now 29 1/2 yrs later we live with abundance, have a house that's too big, can afford to help our kids with tuition and  housing in college, have way too much stuff that needs maintenance and attention- including an expensive and annoying dog. Really, we want for nothing (except new cars but my husband, bless his heart, refuses to buy new ones when the ones we have- all over 130,000 miles still run...more or less) ( sigh!)  

 

But I look back on those days of scrimping , being resourceful, stretching our pennies as happier in many ways than now.**  I felt more productive then for sure. I was stimulated by the need to survive and to keep feeding and clothing our little ones. I gained more satisfaction from small things, and I believe I was spiritually richer, too. More dependent on the Lord.

 

NO it's not fair.   Being wealthy can rob people of peace, contentment,spirituality and motivation in life.

 

**Even Bill O'Reilly backed me up just now. His Tip of the Day was: "The fewer things you want in life, the happier you'll be."

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments about the money numbers shows that you do not truly understand what they mean.  Although to be honest I keep expecting one of our numbers guys (like MOE) to come along and tell me there is more wrong with it then just being four years out of date.  Anyways that $9,000 is not your yearly wage.  It is your total wealth.  You don't have a car unless it fits within that number, you don't have a house.  Most people can't even rent a place for a year in a neighborhood that they would be comfortable living in for that.

 

Lets go further with this horror.  To get everyone their $9,000, all major corporations no longer exist.  So they no longer provide services.  All governments are gone including all their safety nets.  If you got a medical condition you are on your own.  You pay full price for treatment out of your $9,000.  Oh and in addition to paying for your food, shelter, and medical out of your $9,000 I hope you have a way of defending yourself because the police don't exist anymore.  And people are going to get desperate. Nor does the fire department exisit.  Think about that during the cold winter when hundreds will be left to their own devices to keep warm....   

 

 

So, this was a great post, Estradling75, even if a little misdirected. It really gets to the heart of the economics of this debate.

 

Let me deal with the misdirections, first. 1) I appreciate that we are talking about dividing the total wealth of the world among it's inhabitants, rather than the income of the world, among it's inhabitants. As far as income is concerned, I had already decided to limit my income to the income of the poorest in my country, the amount available to someone, like me, who relies in benefit, which is the amount the government says is the minimum one needs to live on, in my country. My calling, I begin to realise, is to speak for the poor; I do not see how I can do that, without being poor. 2) The realisation you have given to me is that I also need to limit my net worth to the amount we would all have, if all the wealth of the world were distributed justly, fairly, and equally. I thank you for that thought, most sincerely.

 

So, let's now deal with some of your horrors. Let's assume everyone in the world gets their $9000.00. Corporations would not cease to exist. Rather, they would be owned by many investors, instead of just a few. Governments are not gone; they simply need to tax more fairly, instead of favouring the wealthy, who invariably find ways of avoiding tax, to the detriment of the poor, who have to pay, even in allegedly progressive systems, a greater proportion of their wealth than the rich. Systems like insurance, especially health insurance, do not evaporate. Instead, they gain greater purchase, because no-one can afford to opt out. Houses are valued on the basis of their land, labour, bricks and mortar, instead of what the rich can afford to bid their prices up to. We all get to have one. The police are less necessary, because there is no economic inequality anymore, to feed economically acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, they are still available, along with the military, because truly democratic, legitimate government is enabled, uninfluenced by vested interests. More to the upside, millions, perhaps even billions, of good, resilient, self-reliant poor people, frustrated by their poverty, would have sufficient capital to launch micro-businesses, or educate themselves, or equip themselves for employment, in ways they currently can only dream about.  

 

I just love this vision of the future!  Thank you for helping me generate it! Let's press this reset button!

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this was a great post, Estradling75, even if a little misdirected. It really gets to the heart of the economics of this debate.

 

Let me deal with the misdirections, first. 1) I appreciate that we are talking about dividing the total wealth of the world among it's inhabitants, rather than the income of the world, among it's inhabitants. As far as income is concerned, I had already decided to limit my income to the income of the poorest in my country, the amount available to someone, like me, who relies in benefit, which is the amount the government says is the minimum one needs to live on, in my country. My calling, I begin to realise, is to speak for the poor; I do not see how I can do that, without being poor. 2) The realisation you have given to me is that I also need to limit my net worth to the amount we would all have, if all the wealth of the world were distributed justly, fairly, and equally. I thank you for that thought, most sincerely.

 

So, let's now deal with some of your horrors. Let's assume everyone in the world gets their $9000.00. Corporations would not cease to exist. Rather, they would be owned by many investors, instead of just a few. Governments are not gone; they simply need to tax more fairly, instead of favouring the wealthy, who invariably find ways of avoiding tax, to the detriment of the poor, who have to pay, even in allegedly progressive systems, a greater proportion of their wealth than the rich. Systems like insurance, especially health insurance, do not evaporate. Instead, they gain greater purchase, because no-one can afford to opt out. Houses are valued on the basis of their land, labour, bricks and mortar, instead of what the rich can afford to bid their prices up to. We all get to have one. The police are less necessary, because there is no economic inequality anymore, to feed economically acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, they are still available, along with the military, because truly democratic, legitimate government is enabled, uninfluenced by vested interests. More to the upside, millions, perhaps even billions, of good, resilient, self-reliant poor people, frustrated by their poverty, would have sufficient capital to launch micro-businesses, or educate themselves, or equip themselves for employment, in ways they currently can only dream about.  

 

I just love this vision of the future!  Thank you for helping me generate it! Let's press this reset button!

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Vision flawed.  It's really that simple.

 

A person who only has $9,000 with stage IV lung cancer is going to "die tomorrow".  If everybody only has $9,000... anybody with stage IV cancer will "die tomorrow".  My dad's chemo was $12,000.  A pop.  Infused once every 3 weeks.

 

A mother giving birth through c-section will "die tomorrow".  My 2 sons cost me $55,000.  Each.

 

Therefore, the healthy will be wealthy, the sick will be dead.

 

And that's just talking healthcare.

 

This equality business is not how God designed our mortal probation.  The earth was designed for opposition.  Every person is born on this planet with their own special, unique opposition.  It is designed to PROMOTE SERVICE.  Therefore, there is rich and poor so that one can succor the other.  There is healthy and sick, so that one can succor the other.  There is strong and weak, so that one can succor the other.  There is smart and there is dim, so that one can succor the other.

 

And one more time... Money is simply an enabler.  Smart ones know what to do with money, dim ones not so much.  Giving both of them the same amount is not going to make them equally comfortable.

 

So, to limit your income/wealth at poverty level simply means - you'd rather be helped than help.  And to say that you want to be poor so you can understand its plight is flawed.  Very healthy doctors who have not had to battle cancer are very well-equipped to treat oncology patients.

 

And, since you don't read any of my posts... that's not going to make any impact on this discussion.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how would you maintain economic equality? Those who refuse to work or otherwise contribute to society will quickly lose their money.

You have already demonstrated you are on favor of people going without Healthcare by limiting funds

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed I read your posts. And take note of them. I just don't like to criticise them, since that has led to bad feeling, in the past.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

No bad feeling here.  But if my communication style gives you bad feelings then you're right to stay away from my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this was a great post, Estradling75, even if a little misdirected. It really gets to the heart of the economics of this debate.

 

Let me deal with the misdirections, first. 1) I appreciate that we are talking about dividing the total wealth of the world among it's inhabitants, rather than the income of the world, among it's inhabitants. As far as income is concerned, I had already decided to limit my income to the income of the poorest in my country, the amount available to someone, like me, who relies in benefit, which is the amount the government says is the minimum one needs to live on, in my country. My calling, I begin to realise, is to speak for the poor; I do not see how I can do that, without being poor. 2) The realisation you have given to me is that I also need to limit my net worth to the amount we would all have, if all the wealth of the world were distributed justly, fairly, and equally. I thank you for that thought, most sincerely.

 

So, let's now deal with some of your horrors. Let's assume everyone in the world gets their $9000.00. Corporations would not cease to exist. Rather, they would be owned by many investors, instead of just a few. Governments are not gone; they simply need to tax more fairly, instead of favouring the wealthy, who invariably find ways of avoiding tax, to the detriment of the poor, who have to pay, even in allegedly progressive systems, a greater proportion of their wealth than the rich. Systems like insurance, especially health insurance, do not evaporate. Instead, they gain greater purchase, because no-one can afford to opt out. Houses are valued on the basis of their land, labour, bricks and mortar, instead of what the rich can afford to bid their prices up to. We all get to have one. The police are less necessary, because there is no economic inequality anymore, to feed economically acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, they are still available, along with the military, because truly democratic, legitimate government is enabled, uninfluenced by vested interests. More to the upside, millions, perhaps even billions, of good, resilient, self-reliant poor people, frustrated by their poverty, would have sufficient capital to launch micro-businesses, or educate themselves, or equip themselves for employment, in ways they currently can only dream about.  

 

I just love this vision of the future!  Thank you for helping me generate it! Let's press this reset button!

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

 

You love it...  Try doing the math..  Once you do the math you will find that you are loving a fantasy.  In order to get it you have to ignore simple math, human nature, and reality as we know it.  I am sorry but for me I need more then magic fairy wands and pixie dust, before I am going to get on board a plan.

 

Here is some of that math you didn't do. The 2010 US Census put the population of the US at 308,745,538.  If we give each of those people the $9,000 (rounded up) and each one of them turn around at give it to the US government.  This generates  2,778,709,842,000 or 2.7 trillion dollars.  The US government budget for 2010 was 3.55 trillion dollars.  That is a shortfall of about 771 billion dollars.

 

So under this model the people have no money and must depend on the Government for the basics to life.  The Government which had problems before now must do a whole lot more, with a whole lot less.  The people have no way to get food for themselves much less pay additional to support corporations or buisnesses.  They are wholly dependent on the government and the government can not cover it.

 

That is just the math for the US... You can do the math for your or any other first-world country... I expect it to be about the same.  When you do... ask yourself do you really still love the horror and starvation you idea would bring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just the math for the US... You can do the math for your or any other first-world country... I expect it to be about the same.  When you do... ask yourself do you really still love the horror and starvation you idea would bring?

 

The way I understand the spirit of his OP, it does seem like he prefers that everybody is starving rather than billions of people starving and a hundred thousand living like royalty.

 

It stems from the erroneous premise that giving everybody dominion over the same amount of money is going to eradicate poverty.  People of the United States of America proves - without a shadow of a doubt - that pouring money into anything only resulted in more poor people... case in point - the American Welfare System, American Education System, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Frankly, I want to see you guys as outraged as I am by the idea that some can't afford to heat their house in winter, or adequately feed themselves, while others are stuck over the difficult choice of which champagne to enjoy, tonight. If you aren't, you are not the spiritual home I seek.

 

 

Why is there an assumption that people with lesser means are somehow unhappy or feel cheated.  I've travelled all over the world and been to both rich and poor nations and neighborhoods. The happiest people are the poor. The most miserable are the rich. I wouldn't say "comfortable" is a state of mind, but it is "relative". You have having conflict because you are comparing two extremes. The answer is in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Here is some of that math you didn't do. The 2010 US Census put the population of the US at 308,745,538.  If we give each of those people the $9,000 (rounded up) and each one of them turn around at give it to the US government.  This generates  2,778,709,842,000 or 2.7 trillion dollars.  The US government budget for 2010 was 3.55 trillion dollars.  That is a shortfall of about 771 billion dollars.

 

...

 

 

Ha ha ha. We all know that the US has been living beyond it's means for decades. And all the while, still voting for lower taxes. Meanwhile, it is the nation of a million millionaires, that, to it's shame, hasn't even cured it's own poverty issues. It can, you can, we all can, I suggest, go some way towards doing that by pursuing a more egalitarian approach to wealth.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share