In summary: (a) Entitlement: The extremely wealthy are entitled to their wealth. Use of wealth and power to undermine political institutions so that governments serve the interests of economic elites is simply honest hard work leading to justified profits (except for banksters). The poor are poor because they are lazy. To question this viewpoint is like poking a hornets nest resulting in a cacophony of angry buzzing. (b) Socialists under the bed: When the middle class vote for for policies that increase the overall economic wellbeing of an entire society, it's socialism. Ethics... that's socialism. Questioning... that sounds a bit like socialism too. Reporting on policy capture... clearly socialism.
I think I'm the only one here for true economic growth. Either people don't want it because it's destroying the Earth, or people don't want it because it's clearly socialism.
It is not insulting to those that became rich through hard work. It is about those that got rich by lying, theiving and scabbing ....
Question: do people here really think everything is chugging along just fine? That the global economy is on the right path?
To those opposed to inequality of wealth, obviously it would be impossible and suicidal to redistribute the world's wealth in order to make everyone equally wealthy, so what level of inequality of wealth be satisfactory to you? Who would be responsible for this redistribution and how would you go about redistributing this wealth in order to achieve less inequality? Oxfam's solution is naturally more intrusive governments - hence why their report is labelled socialist. Unfortunately, more intrusion by governments further erodes our liberties, increasing the authoritarian nature of the societies in which we live. Essentially, those calling for the destruction of wealth inequality seem to believe that it is morally justifiable for one group of people (usually the State) to forcefully remove the wealth of one individual and redistribute it to another, naturally taking a cut for themselves in the process. Now, if one has accumulated a large amount of wealth through the forceful acquisition of another's wealth - we are probably looking at politicians and their crony capitalists here (not the Gina Reinharts of the world), then obviously we have a fundamental flaw in our economic system. And we all know the root cause of that problem and I won't harp on about it again here. So those calling for greater wealth equality have two options: 1. forced redistribution of wealth leading to greater authoritarianism and loss of liberty, or 2. Voluntarily redistributing your own wealth. I believe only a voluntary system of redistribution is morally justifiable, anything else is thieving, so my suggestion to those on this forum calling for greater wealth equality is to sell all their own assets, give away any profits from the sale to starving people at home or abroad and live off $1.25/day just as some in the world do? Or is that level of wealth equality too uncomfortable for you? :/
Again, you all say that the elite use the government to get even richer, but your solution is to give the government more power. Maybe take away government power which would lead to a more competitive market and take away the price gouging that is allowed now because of government enforced monopolies or high entry costs.
The problem is at both extremes. There are plenty of whining middle class Australians who think they are entitled to more without working for it. There are also some extremely wealthy who truly believe their actions are justified because they are better than everyone else.
Not at all, it's a real mess. I completely agree that there is a ruling elite and that they are systematically transferring vast amounts of wealth to themselves. I just can't stomach the victim mentality that some here promote (not referring to you SilverPete). I accept that as individuals that we cannot change these macro economic machinations but I object to people who run their own lives poorly and who them blame anyone other than themselves for their place in life, especially in Australia.
I don't seen anyone here suggesting that government be given more power. The entire point is that we don't have true competition due to policy capture and a subversion of governments though the concentration of wealth and power. Limit the power of government and you limit the power of the economic elites.
+1 And then they demand government compensation for the results of their poor decisions from those taxpayers who work hard and take responsibility for their own actions.
Part of the problem is the definition of "work" ... some people think sitting at a desk is hard work .... They are usually the ones with entitlement mentality and believe they deserve to be rewarded for their "superior" intellectual abilities ....
Maybe the problem is not Govt, maybe the problem is the people who just ignore Govt or try and get around the rules. As soon as someone says anything it is "victim mentality" "socialists" etc. I have family members and friends who have " good accountants and good lawyers" I have also spoken to someone in the know who has informed me of a few things people do to "get around" the rules. Saying people need to work harder or smarter is a throw away line, go back and have a look at the Robber Barrons, it is about having the will but also the means. Advantage and disadvantage. A CEO who earns 6 million a year and the company is run into the ground and then they get three million in a yearly bonus. A worker for the company works 60 hours a week and gets $40,000.00 a year and then looses their job because the CEO is a cluster Who sets the pay rates the fella on $40,000.00 a year? Advantage breeds advantage.....
exactly. The nation that built the Snowy River Scheme is now a nation of latte drinkers who blame the government for everything and who want someone else to fix their problems. We are victims of "the Elite" for no other reason than that we choose to allow ourselves to be their subjects. Many, many people have chosen not to be such victims and have pulled themselves out of the morass of daytime television and being a wage earner. They are the wealthy who came from humble beginnings and decided that being ordinary was not for them. Good on them. They did the hard yards while their friends went to the beach.
Not all hard workers are rich, and not all rich are lazy. I'm pretty sure that a many earning over 10x the average wage are not working more than 10x harder than the average Joe.
The self-made wealthy are fundamentally different than the wage-earner because they take risks. Wage earners are generally risk-adverse - they don't want to give up their sick leave and public holidays and weekends. Best description I have heard about entrepreneurs: "Entrepreneurs live for years like others will not so that they can then live like others cannot".
No issue with the self-made. Anyone got stats on the proportion of self-made to inherited / system maintained?
My world view starts and ends with me. There are richer people than me, and there are poorer people than me. My wealth is of my own doing. On a good day I may earn a little more from the richer, and then help out those a little poore. Other than the Sallies, I don't give to charity but help people on an individual basis. I am not out to solve the world's problems, just the few that I can.
