As the gap between rich and poor grows there is an increasing likelihood of a centralised regime taking hold or gaining it by default as wealth/power centres around a few individuals. If they are quasi "benevolent kings" then this disparity might be tolerable to the masses for a time. It is a despotic way for any society to exist, but yes it "works" if there is no empathy for the weak and disenfranchised. See numerous global examples.
The price we pay for the good life is public servitude. Others shouldn't be a consideration, just do the best for your fellow man.
Except this has never actually happened. It's easy to make up fairy-tales about what could be. The richest countries (lets say GDP per capita) are generally the most economically (and other) free countries in the world. This is not a coincidence. The poor of the richest countries have TVs, plenty of food, many have cars. The poor (in the west) have NEVER been better off in the history of mankind. I consider this to be a good thing. Do you agree ? How about a little less focus on the gap between rich and poor, and some more focus on what free markets, trade, division of labour and capitalism does for the poor.
Ask, for example, rioters in London; their answers will be quite telling. They will only be placated with TV and promises so long before the bubble bursts. While relative wealth is important there is an obvious issue with wealth disparity that only the disingenous can ignore. Case in point the opening of Eastern Europe to Western Europe. Previously cut-off border towns in the East are suddenly exposed to towns in the West with order of magnitude wealth disparities. What is the result? Mass criminality... cross-border organised criminal activities to take from the richer states. The rich end up in gated communities with body guards when the disparity becomes too great. The rule of law is immaterial. Is that the kind of society you want? Is that the kind of city you want to live in?
Before you mentioned me acting like a dickhead now you say if I am simply a parasite or a thief? Would you say that to me in person? I think not, very easy to say stuff on a Internet forum isn't it? Edit: the advice I would stay away from is any advice you would give me, basically I strongly disagree with what you say and your views (and I would say that to your face )
Bearing in mind that 50% of the population is below average! there will always be a disparity between rich and poor. The emphasise should be on raising the standards of the poor, not attacking the rich. It is imperative to act as an individual and do your own bit, attacking people you can't speak for is systematic of an attitude linked to the bottom half of the population.
Here we go, people like putting up links and saying read them, pay special attention to the last paragraph. http://thenextrecession.wordpress.c...nequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/
^^^^^ I don't get the point. It states more complete statistics than my 50%. Nothing said fixes the problem. Do something yourself! It's no good sitting in the stands revelling as a sports fan, yelling instructions to the field while you grow fat. Live a life and help at least one other life, this will help the situation.
What's your problem? You are running away from very simple questions and pretending that I am saying bad things about you. I didn't call you a dickhead - I said "Don't be a dick" when you deliberately suggested that someone like TheEnd couldn't find a job from that list or that people had to go to uni for 4 years or more when there clearly were a wide range of trade-based jobs on there. You deliberately created a straw man argument for the sole purpose of ignoring the other questions put to you. Would I call you a parasite and a thief to your face if you didn't believe in doing an honest day's work for a living? Of course I would. I don't know many people who wouldn't. Are you one? I don't know as you keep evading the questions and now are trying to pretend like I'm attacking you.
And yet again, you cannot comment on the distribution of wealth until you know how that wealth came into existence. Why would you expect people who are living the hunter gatherer lifestyle of their ancestors to have as much wealth the people living in societies with factories and skyscrapers? Why would you expect someone who is 17 with low skills and experience to have as much wealth as someone who is 50 with substantial skill and experience and three decades of accumulating goods? Inequality of wealth is not a bad thing per se. But even if we ignore all of that and pretend that the distribution somehow matters, then the countries with more freedom (ie less socialist or totalitarian) actually have less income inequality. This aligns with theory that more economic freedom results in more competition and less inequality. Full article
I was talking with a buddhist monk on the weekend at my place and the gist of one of the many things that we discussed was that, in his view, people should start to act more locally to achieve success. Too many NGO's and Government's are seeking to be known as the global NGO which just wastes the limited money in admin fees. If they stayed local then the money will be maximised and the poor or disadvantaged will receive the benefit. This wasn't a karma situation but how to benefit the most.
^^^^^^^^^^ I still don't get the point. What are you doing about it? You're stacking silver to get ahead in the world, give it away instead and leave other more switched on people to tackle the big issues! If the bleeding hearts spent more time worrying about the needy and less time attacking the wealthy, there would be less of a disparity.
Maybe so but what was the average wage and the cost of living? I seem to recall clearing about sixty five bucks a week in 1972.
The problem is the pie isn't big enough. And when the pie isn't big enough, some will have to be squeezed out of the pie. So let's all work together to grow that pie!
Am I parasite? You mean financially? Well in the last 30 days I would have withdrawn far more money out of MY account in cash than you would earn in the 12 months so I would say no. Am I a thief? No Stop acting like a turtle wit....... (By your logic it is fine to make statements like that) Wealth creation maybe I know a bit about the practical side of it? I would take it as an attack some of the stuff you are saying, asking if I am a parasite or a thief.
Nowhere have I ever said a hunter gatherer should have a level of wealth the same as a society with factories and skyscrapers and never have I said a 17 year old should have the same amount of wealth as a 50 year old. What I have said is there is an inequality in regards to wealth. The top 10% of the population in the US for example have 86% of the wealth, there needs to be a minimum wage if people in a western society work a 40 hour week they need to be able to afford a place to live and food. Children in Western Societies should not be going hungry and be living in sub standard conditions. The top 1% do not need billions of dollars, if the top 1% of wealth people lost a billion dollars each it would have no impact on their lifestyle but would greatly benefit thousands of others. You keep asking why I do not answer your questions? Honestly I do not have the time or inculcation - I really could not be bothered. I have better things to do with my time. I am a practical sort of a person, to achieve wealth I do not listen to "experts" or study the theory of it for years I have got out and done it myself. I have more than I need and I am not interested in creating more wealth - I do not need any more. I have no doubt you could spend days talking about capitalism and provide links etc, I see you have over 5500 posts (and people have commented in the past how they are never short posts). I have under 400 for roughly the same period of time and I think I spend to much time on here. I see it as you are either retired and have nothing else to do or you are younger and don't have a lot of other stuff to do with your life. Do you have a wife or partner? Maybe spend some time doing something with them or talking to them. For me this really is becoming a waste of my time in a big way.
"The top 1% do not need billions of dollars, if the top 1% of wealth people lost a billion dollars each it would have no impact on their lifestyle but would greatly benefit thousands of others." You keep spending other peoples' money. Spend your own!
Finally, we're getting a little bit closer to you thinking about the issues in new ways. So as are presumably a productive wealth creator in our society who is a multi-millionaire, you shouldn't have any doubts that there are always opportunities for people to get a new job, hence you should no longer need to doubt that people can still be fully employed as a result of "globalisation" and it will not leave half the country unemployed. Similarly, you should actually be able to easily answer how wealth is created. But to give you a head start, the "wealth" of an individual is their claim on the resources around us (commodities, capital equipment, time, physical labor, et cetera) that have the potential to make the individual's existence easier, more comfortable or more enjoyable (i.e. "better") than it would be in the absence of such things. Or more concisely, it is having the things that allow you to fulfill more of your desires (or wants). In a market society more wants can be met by the division of labour and trading of your production for the production of other people. Fundamentally, everything a person produces that is voluntarily traded is increasing the welfare of both people by increasing both people's ability to satisfy their wants. If you happen to produce something that is deemed highly useful or desirable by others then they will be willing to give up more of the fruits of their labours to get your product. For simplicity, the values of all of these trades are all measured through currency. People whose output helps satisfy the greatest number of desires of others will naturally accrue the greatest amount of currency. The production of goods or services that help reduce the obstacles of others (thereby directly or indirectly increasing their welfare) is what fundamentally generates "wealth". Removing more obstacles always generates more wealth than otherwise. Wealth is never smeared around by this process, it is created. Those that create the most useful things, the most helpful processes, the most desirable services to the greatest number of people (ie remove the most obstacles to other people attaining their desires) will naturally receive the most currency thereby enabling their life to be the easiest or most desirable of all. This is how - in a freely trading economy** - currency accumulates or is concentrated into the hands of the people who provide the most valuable services to others. There is nothing inherently bad or wrong in this outcome, it simply is what it is. The most "productive" people in society naturally gather the most "wealth". The least "productive" naturally gather the least "wealth", but importantly their lot has been improved by trading with others compared to if they had not participated in any trades. ** In a crony capitalist economy, currency is stolen from people and put into the hands of the few by the coercive power of the government. Understanding the difference of wealth creation and wealth redistribution by force is very important.
This is producing nothing productive at all, keep talking theory. I'll stick with the practical stuff. As for spending other people's money, if someone has a net worth of billions or even tens of million a small percentage of that would potentially change the lives of hundreds or thousands of people and the person with billions or tens of millions would not even notice the loss. When does enough become enough? Look at people who donate large percentages of there wealth to help others. They do not need it and they help others and it achieves something good. I get the impression there are people her who would take a 10 year olds savings because they are "entitled to". If someone spends $20,000.00 on a handbag and 20 meters away there is a child who has not eaten in a day. I think the person buying a $20,000.00 handbag is a pathetic individual. I am all for get off your backside and work but no matter what the circumstances if you have people who have billions and others who are starving 100 meters way there is something very, very wrong with our society. My last post on the subject.
