Fixing Inequality

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

HOW they succeed is our business?

A B and C are all filthy fucking rich.

I mean, let's assume Person A does the Gates thing and gets rich without cheating.

Let's assume Person B is a son of some industrialist and basically his job is to "clip coupons" (as though lots of people still do such a thing).

Person C steals it outright and sells boatloads of illegally imported controlled substances as a lucrative sideline to his thievery.

I am all for making C disgorge his ill-gotten "wealth."

But if we EXCLUDE the pilferers and cheaters, and the only wealthy folks we concern ourselves with are those like A who earn it themselves and persons like B who got their wealth via "inheritance" and random good luck, do any of the rest of us get to do anything about those "B" types?

Should we have any rightful claim to make against them?

I don't think so.

Gates got rich by cheating.
Use Jobs next time.

Nah. Pure deflection. Gates may very well have used some of the ideas of others (including Jobs). But that's beside the point. It's a mere deflection.

As you know.

And when I say "pure" deflection, I mean that no part of your post is actually concerned with the discussion itself. Deflection for deflection's sake.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

HOW they succeed is our business?

A B and C are all filthy fucking rich.

I mean, let's assume Person A does the Gates thing and gets rich without cheating.

Let's assume Person B is a son of some industrialist and basically his job is to "clip coupons" (as though lots of people still do such a thing).

Person C steals it outright and sells boatloads of illegally imported controlled substances as a lucrative sideline to his thievery.

I am all for making C disgorge his ill-gotten "wealth."

But if we EXCLUDE the pilferers and cheaters, and the only wealthy folks we concern ourselves with are those like A who earn it themselves and persons like B who got their wealth via "inheritance" and random good luck, do any of the rest of us get to do anything about those "B" types?

Should we have any rightful claim to make against them?

I don't think so.

Would you be able to rephrase? Not sure I fully follow.

Let me restate. I can care less if a person who provides a great service or product to society becomes wildly rich from it. That's a GOOD thing; it gives society motivation to innovate and create. However what I have a problem with is a person becoming wildly rich because they bribed a politician who created legislation that put the competition out of business - for example. Crony capitalism is at epidemic levels right now.

I'm not saying I have all the answers on how to fix that, I'm just saying it's a problem.

Also, I don't care a whole lot about criminals who get rich by importing drugs; they are simply fulfilling a demand, and I believe they deserve the money they earn. It's the swine who get rich by STEALING money or get rich by rubbing shoulders with all the right people despite having an inferior product or service.

Come on. YOU said, "However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. "

I replied with a set of rich people. Some EARN it fair and square. Some inherit it. Others acquire it illegally. (As to the latter, I don't give a shit what your views on drug laws are. The money is still earned illegally.)

That being the case, the QUESTION is: what do YOU propose to DO about the fact that people have wealth from different sources?

Do they require your permission to retain their own wealth? Do they require ANYBODY'S permission? Are there "standards" by which we may consistently assess who is to be allowed to retain their wealth and who isn't?

Put aside those who 'earn" their wealth illegally. They are a class of people who don't get the protection of this analysis. But the POINT is that YOU said, " . . . I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because . . . ."

If you are AGAINST it, then what do you propose should be DONE about it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

You don't know why unemployment and underemployment are a problem?

Ohh dear.

Epic fail #2.

I have never understood why leftists think deliberate obtuseness is an effective argument technique. I personally think "I'm too stupid to comprehend what was said, or remember the previous sentence" qualifies as an automatic loss.

English 101 time: Since the conversation in which my post appeared involved the word "inequality" and did not involve the words "unemployment" or "underemployment", what possible grammatical basis could you have for thinking my use of the pronoun "it" referred back to those words, rather than the word "inequality", or perhaps the full phrase "income inequality"?

 

[Bombur]

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

You don't know why unemployment and underemployment are a problem?

Ohh dear.

Epic fail #2.

I have never understood why leftists think deliberate obtusity is an effective argument technique. I personally think "I'm too stupid to comprehend what was said, or remember the previous sentence" qualifies as an automatic loss.

English 101 time: Since the conversation in which my post appeared involved the word "inequality" and did not involve the words "unemployment" or "underemployment", what possible grammatical basis could you have for thinking my use of the pronoun "it" referred back to those words, rather than the word "inequality", or perhaps the full phrase "income inequality"?

I am sorry I thought you were referring to my argument.

 

[KevinWestern]

Come on. YOU said, "However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. "

I replied with a set of rich people. Some EARN it fair and square. Some inherit it. Others acquire it illegally. (As to the latter, I don't give a shit what your views on drug laws are. The money is still earned illegally.)

That being the case, the QUESTION is: what do YOU propose to DO about the fact that people have wealth from different sources?

Do they require your permission to retain their own wealth? Do they require ANYBODY'S permission? Are there "standards" by which we may consistently assess who is to be allowed to retain their wealth and who isn't?

Put aside those who 'earn" their wealth illegally. They are a class of people who don't get the protection of this analysis. But the POINT is that YOU said, " . . . I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because . . . ."

If you are AGAINST it, then what do you propose should be DONE about it?

Let me try to rephrase my original statement to clarify my views.

What I'm trying to get at - whether or not I clearly communicated it - was that I am against Crony Capitalism. I am against folks who get richer simply because they were able to bribe a congressperson to tweak a law in their favor. I don't think that's right, and I think we have an epidemic of it in America.

Does that help?

I have nothing against an individual becoming wildly rich because they sold a useful product or service to society, and the free market decided they were valuable. I have no problem with people who came from rich families, or married into wealth. I have no problem with people being successful. But when they cross the line and manipulate our government in a malicious way for the sole purpose of personal gain, that is when I get upset.

Seems like most would be against that sort of thing - right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

While I'm certainly appreciative of you spending all these words to share with me what you undoubtedly consider the fascinating topic of your feelings, opinions, and viewpoints, I'm at a loss to understand why you thought I was in any way requesting those things.

Please make a note somewhere for the future that if my requests do not actually contain the words "feelings", "opinions", and "viewpoints", I am not remotely interested, and am asking for actual, verifiable fact.

And I still wait in vain for a leftist to tell me why income inequality is a problem, rather than telling me how the world just looks and feels so mean to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you denying that slavery was allowed?

Epic fail.

Let's try this again, you obtuse shitforbrains, and I wouldn't advise making me clarify your reading comprehension of your own fucking posts after this.

You said this: "How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote."

I asked you to cite the specific parts of our founding documents to which you referred. At no time was either of us discussing the very generalized concept of whether or not slavery was allowed, and for you to bring it up as though it in any way addresses my post or applies to the topic at hand is exactly the same as you saying, "Yes, I was full of shit, and you were correct when you pointed out that I was full of shit, and I can't admit how badly I've just stepped on my dick in public."

So your next post will contain citations of the specific passages of our founding documents which you referenced, or it will be an admission that you're both a liar and an ignoramus. And believe me, no matter what you say or how brilliantly you think you are covering your ass and backpedaling when you do not provide those citations, that IS what it's going to say, and everyone here will know it.

I eagerly await the waving of your white flag, pusbag, because we both know how this is going to play out, don't we?

So slavery is not allowed in our founding documents?

Did people just forget to tell the south?

Thank you. Your surrender is accepted. You may stop waving your white flag now and run along with all the other vanquished fuckstains.

Buh bye.

 

[Bombur]

And I still wait in vain for a leftist to tell me why income inequality is a problem, rather than telling me how the world just looks and feels so mean to them.

As already discussed it is as much a symptom of a problem as it is as a cause of problems.

 

[Bombur]

So slavery is not allowed in our founding documents?

Did people just forget to tell the south?

Thank you. Your surrender is accepted. You may stop waving your white flag now and run along with all the other vanquished fuckstains.

Buh bye.

I ask you a simple question and you claim victory and call me a fuckstain.

Are you trying to make yourself look stupid?

 

[KevinWestern]

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

While I'm certainly appreciative of you spending all these words to share with me what you undoubtedly consider the fascinating topic of your feelings, opinions, and viewpoints, I'm at a loss to understand why you thought I was in any way requesting those things.

Please make a note somewhere for the future that if my requests do not actually contain the words "feelings", "opinions", and "viewpoints", I am not remotely interested, and am asking for actual, verifiable fact.

And I still wait in vain for a leftist to tell me why income inequality is a problem, rather than telling me how the world just looks and feels so mean to them.

Funny, you lecture me about how you can care less about my feelings by spilling out all of your own personal feelings, opinions, and viewpoints. Ironic? I too can care less about what you feel so it's probably best to keep them locked up on your end as well.

Anyways...

A little income equality is good. Money is a motivator, and capitalism has lifted the world to a greater standard of living than ever before. However, when that inequality becomes too great eventually you're going to have a situation where people start to get angry, upset, and (ultimately) violent when they see that only a very few get to have access to "all the good stuff". I'm not going to even go into whether or not that anger is justified or moral, I'm just saying it happens. If you need examples I can provide.

In short, drastic income inequality often will create a volatile, unstable society that will lead eventually to continual upheavals of power, civil wars, etc, and it's ultimately best to be avoided if possible. Why? I think it's as simple as asking whether or not you would you rather start a business in Syria or the US.

There you go; income/wealth inequality can eventually become a problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I still wait in vain for a leftist to tell me why income inequality is a problem, rather than telling me how the world just looks and feels so mean to them.

As already discussed it is as much a symptom of a problem as it is as a cause of problems.

As already discussed, "It's a problem", "It's a problem because it will cause this", "Causing this is a bad thing, so it's a problem", is not an answer, or an explanation.

When you have something real to say, feel free to say it. Until then, please stop bothering me. That white flag you keep waving is a distraction.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can not afford to ignore the fact of these wealthy individuals, and the massive and growing inequality in the world.

The reason is, money equals power, so what this means is that a group of people with extreme power is coalescing that can easily impose their will on the rest of the population. Already our democracy is basically completely corrupted by money, but it can get a lot worse. I really don't want to find out what this class of super-wealthy has in store for us, it can't be good. Feudalism, the rule of kings, but with modern technology and surveillance? Count me out.

 

[Bombur]

tell me why income inequality is a problem....

As already discussed it is as much a symptom of a problem as it is as a cause of problems.

As already discussed, "It's a problem", "It's a problem because it will cause this", "Causing this is a bad thing, so it's a problem", is not an answer, or an explanation.

When you have something real to say, feel free to say it. Until then, please stop bothering me. That white flag you keep waving is a distraction.

So pointing out income inequality causing problems isn't an example of someone telling you why income inequality is a problem. Got it.

Are you ever going to say something worth reading?

 

[Brain357]

As already discussed it is as much a symptom of a problem as it is as a cause of problems.

As already discussed, "It's a problem", "It's a problem because it will cause this", "Causing this is a bad thing, so it's a problem", is not an answer, or an explanation.

When you have something real to say, feel free to say it. Until then, please stop bothering me. That white flag you keep waving is a distraction.

So pointing out income inequality causing problems isn't an example of someone telling you why income inequality is a problem. Got it.

Are you ever going to say something worth reading?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Fortunately new polls say 67% recognize we have a problem. She will never get it, but she is in the minority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

While I'm certainly appreciative of you spending all these words to share with me what you undoubtedly consider the fascinating topic of your feelings, opinions, and viewpoints, I'm at a loss to understand why you thought I was in any way requesting those things.

Please make a note somewhere for the future that if my requests do not actually contain the words "feelings", "opinions", and "viewpoints", I am not remotely interested, and am asking for actual, verifiable fact.

And I still wait in vain for a leftist to tell me why income inequality is a problem, rather than telling me how the world just looks and feels so mean to them.

Funny, you lecture me about how you can care less about my feelings by spilling out all of your own personal feelings, opinions, and viewpoints. Ironic? I too can care less about what you feel so it's probably best to keep them locked up on your end as well.

Sweet cheeks, aside from saying, "I'm not interested", I didn't say a word about my feelings. Interpreting my posts through your prism of "everything's about my emotions" is a waste of everyone's time.

Anyways...

A little income equality is good. Money is a motivator, and capitalism has lifted the world to a greater standard of living than ever before. However, when that inequality becomes too great eventually you're going to have a situation where people start to get angry, upset, and (ultimately) violent when they see that only a very few get to have access to "all the good stuff". I'm not going to even go into whether or not that anger is justified or moral, I'm just saying it happens. If you need examples I can provide.

No, what I was looking for was yet more blank restatements of "Income inequality is bad". Why ever would anyone think "prove it" might actually express a desire for examples? (That was sarcasm, in case you're wondering.)

Meanwhile, Chuckles, what you've just told me isn't that income inequality is bad, but that a sense of unjustified entitlement is. This is not a point I've ever argued.

In short; drastic income inequality often will create a volatile, unstable society that will lead eventually to continual upheavals of power, civil wars, etc, and it's ultimately best to be avoided if possible. Why? I think it's as simple as asking whether or not you would you rather start a business in Syria or the US.

What you just said was "In short, everyone should stop being successful lest lazy pieces of shit become violent and try to take things away from you."

And I'm still puzzling over why you seem to think the undesirability of Syria is due to income inequality, or the greater desirability of the United States is because incomes are so even and "fair" here. Do you not know much about the nation of Syria?

There you go; income/wealth inequality can eventually become a problem.

"Syria sucks; therefore, income and wealth inequality are bad things." Is that seriously the argument you want to go with?

 

[bendog]

Well, I don't think, really, anyone wants to "take" their money. However, it's not deniable that employment benefits are going down, even as worker productivity goes up, and wages are at best flat, and the top .1% has increased their wealth since the recession, while on average "middle class" wealth is still down because of real estate.

So, politically, the gop is not going to win without addressing healthcare for workers, and that doesn't mean using worker pay to pay for healthcare. Yes, obamacare is a bad deal for a lot of workers, but repealing it isn't a viable option. The kids coming out of college and tech schools have too much debt. It limits their ability to become consumers.

Yes, we have to increase gnp. But the gop's concerns are curious. Cap and trade worked fine with clean air and water. In fact, overally, they were economic successes. Is CO2 growth requiring cap and trade. I dunno. But the gop's cries over "higher taxes" and "eviro regulation" will kill biz are simply not borne out by historical evidence.

So bitch and moan over the 47% and enjoy seeing a dem in the WH.

 

[KevinWestern]

Sweet cheeks, aside from saying, "I'm not interested", I didn't say a word about my feelings. Interpreting my posts through your prism of "everything's about my emotions" is a waste of everyone's time.

Not only did you hypocritically bathe me in your own emotions after criticizing me for sharing mine, you’re now denying it ever happened. Just stop while you’re ahead. I’ll move on if you do too.

Meanwhile, Chuckles, what you've just told me isn't that income inequality is bad, but that a sense of unjustified entitlement is. This is not a point I've ever argued.

Have you ever heard the phrase “putting words in someone’s mouth”? Look it up, because that’s what you’re doing.

I simply said drastic & growing differences in wealth between rich/poor in a society often leads to instabilities. This is a historical fact, not opinion. I thought that’s what you wanted. I never said that a ‘sense of unjustified entitlement is good’, or that the protestors were morally justified for the violent upheaval. I’m just saying “this is what happens” – sort of like a journalist.

What you just said was "In short, everyone should stop being successful lest lazy pieces of shit become violent and try to take things away from you."

You wanted fact, not opinion, so I agave you fact. This is what happens when income inequality grows - people eventually start to become violent. Why is that? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. However I do know it does happen.

And I'm still puzzling over why you seem to think the undesirability of Syria is due to income inequality, or the greater desirability of the United States is because incomes are so even and "fair" here. Do you not know much about the nation of Syria?

"Syria sucks; therefore, income and wealth inequality are bad things." Is that seriously the argument you want to go with?

I said that income inequality could lead to civil war, and then went onto say that civil war is an undesirable state to be in (so I used Syria as an example). I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality, I simply was using that country as an example of why civil war might be undesirable for business, innovation, etc.

Make sense?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As already discussed it is as much a symptom of a problem as it is as a cause of problems.

As already discussed, "It's a problem", "It's a problem because it will cause this", "Causing this is a bad thing, so it's a problem", is not an answer, or an explanation.

When you have something real to say, feel free to say it. Until then, please stop bothering me. That white flag you keep waving is a distraction.

So pointing out income inequality causing problems isn't an example of someone telling you why income inequality is a problem. Got it.

Are you ever going to say something worth reading?

I'm not sure what it is you "got", but I'm sure it a) probably has a nasty rash accompanying it, and b) wasn't anything to do with the topic.

Insofar as you appear to define "worth reading" as "vague blather that says nothing but makes me feel like I sound important, and then falsely claiming to have proven points", the answer is no, I will not be saying anything that you consider worth reading.

 

[Bombur]

the answer is no, I will not be saying anything that you consider worth reading.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As already discussed, "It's a problem", "It's a problem because it will cause this", "Causing this is a bad thing, so it's a problem", is not an answer, or an explanation.

When you have something real to say, feel free to say it. Until then, please stop bothering me. That white flag you keep waving is a distraction.

So pointing out income inequality causing problems isn't an example of someone telling you why income inequality is a problem. Got it.

Are you ever going to say something worth reading?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Fortunately new polls say 67% recognize we have a problem. She will never get it, but she is in the minority.

Oh, look, the day is saved! Bombur and Brain can now go back to Mom's basement and pump each other, thus keeping them from being inutterably bored by the discussing of facts and common sense and reality, and keeping the rest of us from laughing ourselves into hernias at their empty posturing.

And leftists say there's no God.