Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i was with you on the bolded part, but after that....
not so much. i dont want a world ruled by the likes of you. i dont want competition stifled because you dont think people should work to become as rich as they want. i dont want innovation stifled for the same reason. sorry but your ideas just dont work.
as for africa, and their agricultural issues, you do realize that is a product of african governments right? back in the late 80s and early 90s, the african governments were taking farmland away from those that knew how to produce crops, just because the farmers were white, and gave that land to black people to farm, even though they had no idea what they were doing.
on top of that the african governments got greed and wanted the europeans money, so they sold the crops that were produced to the europeans rather than selling it in their own domestic markets.
Poverty indeed makes people do silly things and become egoistic. But they were poor to begin with, which of course goes back to the independence wars and that gloomy past. It is not that certain actions such as exporting crops instead of feeding the population have lead to poverty, but the other way round.
Like wealth, poverty brings out ugly traits in humans.
rubbish. the problem isnt thinner slices of pie, that is bullcrap, and based on a static economic model. tht theory is based on, if someone wins someone else has to lose, and that is rubbish. the economy is dynamic, not static. there is no finite amount of money in the economy because we are not on a particular standard, like gold for instance. if the economy were on the gold standard, then i would agree since we do have a finite amount of money to deal with.
but since our economy is expandable, then everyone that wants to can win.
but since our economy is expandable, then everyone that wants to can win.
No. Nobody wants to be poor and starve. Lots of poor people work their butts off, still they don't get anywhere. It has a lot to do with the situation you happen to be born into.
Do you know how many billions of dollars have been given to charity by these evil people?
Do you know how many millions of people have been saved by the Gates foundation's work against malaria?
Do you know how much the evil Koch brothers have donated to cancer research and other things?
Do you know how many jobs have been created by these people?
Do you know that most taxes paid by these corporations would be passed to consumers?
Why doesn't anyone deserve billions of dollars or euros?
If a billion people are using and enjoying someones product why shouldn't they be paid for it?
etc,etc
You covered it! I was thinking this by the second post I read.
If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't mind paying my taxes, however, I would rather earmark my immense wealth toward charities or private projects that do good in undeveloped countries rather than hand it over to corrupt government dictators or dump it into a black hole bureaucracy where "the powers that be" decide what to do with it. I'd rather my money go to help the truly poor than have my money paying out government pensions promised to government employees for instance.
No, I earn much less than that, not even half, and it is enough. I could work more, but I would take work away from others that way without my needing more money. It is better for two people to have humble incomes than for one to have a big income and the other none at all.
If you live in America there are unfilled jobs waiting. I would suggest taking one and finding a good charity to give all of your excess earnings to and at least saving a few lives.
They drive Civics and have iphones, PC and big TVs
Even minimum wage workers are doing so great.
That is what the Wall Street Journal once coined as the Lucky Duckies, those lucky poor people who get government assistance and don't have to pay taxes.
It is obviously nonsense; equally obviously, it was originally created in an effort to dupe people who didn't know better. It was and is what Orwell called "prolefeed," junk aimed at the ignorant masses -- the people who are ready to believe at a moment's notice that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
In Orwell's vision, however, the Party – and especially the Inner Party – wasn't supposed to consume this same tripe. It was supposed to understand the true Party agenda and vision (a boot stomping on a human face forever). So, if you believe this tripe, you aren't in the Inner Party.
Moreover, redistribution isn't new. We have been doing it for as long as there was an America. So, it isn't radical for liberals to suggest that we should continue to do what we're already doing; the real radicals are the people on the right who want to declare much of what our government has been doing for generations illegitimate.
rubbish. the problem isnt thinner slices of pie, that is bullcrap, and based on a static economic model. tht theory is based on, if someone wins someone else has to lose, and that is rubbish. the economy is dynamic, not static. there is no finite amount of money in the economy because we are not on a particular standard, like gold for instance. if the economy were on the gold standard, then i would agree since we do have a finite amount of money to deal with.
but since our economy is expandable, then everyone that wants to can win.
You clearly didn't read the article. Your "no finite amount" was addressed. You are making the same argument Stiglitz said your side makes:
Quote:
So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.
...
Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
rubbish. the problem isnt thinner slices of pie, that is bullcrap, and based on a static economic model. tht theory is based on, if someone wins someone else has to lose, and that is rubbish. the economy is dynamic, not static. there is no finite amount of money in the economy because we are not on a particular standard, like gold for instance. if the economy were on the gold standard, then i would agree since we do have a finite amount of money to deal with.
but since our economy is expandable, then everyone that wants to can win.
So what you're saying is you know more than a Nobel Peace prize winning economist?
Our economy is now strongly tied to the petrodollar so claiming it doesn't have a standard is really not true at all. Proof is in the pudding, oil collapsed and the markets are now following.
That is what the Wall Street Journal once coined as the Lucky Duckies, those lucky poor people who get government assistance and don't have to pay taxes.
It is obviously nonsense; equally obviously, it was originally created in an effort to dupe people who didn't know better. It was and is what Orwell called "prolefeed," junk aimed at the ignorant masses -- the people who are ready to believe at a moment's notice that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
In Orwell's vision, however, the Party – and especially the Inner Party – wasn't supposed to consume this same tripe. It was supposed to understand the true Party agenda and vision (a boot stomping on a human face forever). So, if you believe this tripe, you aren't in the Inner Party.
Moreover, redistribution isn't new. We have been doing it for as long as there was an America. So, it isn't radical for liberals to suggest that we should continue to do what we're already doing; the real radicals are the people on the right who want to declare much of what our government has been doing for generations illegitimate.
You don't think the average "poor" person in America doesn't have money for a cell phone or own a car (Maybe they don't in cities where many including the middle class do not cars).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
