Page 2 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,011
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jul 2014, 2:14 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 2:15 pm

khaoz wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
khaoz wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


American business owners who close businesses in the US (move jobs to China) are not moving jobs to China in order to bring Chinese people out of poverty. The jobs are being moved to China to make more money.


Exactly, what is more the reason is they are moving the jobs because in China they do not have to cover higher wages, or put up with rights won by western workers such as shorter hours, the right to three breaks a day or medical coverage.

By playing the capitalist game, western workers are locked into a no win game which sees them in a race to the bottom to compete with third world workers where they are forced to accept lower salaries, less rights and generally shittier contracts.

The inherent problem is within the socio-economic system itself, not that the 1 percent are too greedy.


Perhaps so, but the 1 percent, or a large percentage of the 1 percent ARE excessively greedy


Redistribution of wealth for its own sake, would be nice, but at this stage in the game it would be like treating a brain haemorrage with a band aid.

What is needed is a new economic system.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 2:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


I specifically want a system where excessive personal property is not just unobtainable, but redundant.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

07 Jul 2014, 2:55 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


I specifically want a system where excessive personal property is not just unobtainable, but redundant.


I think that will only happen in a post-scarcity system like what we see in Star Trek. When you can replicate anything, maybe we wouldn't even need money. Of course, if someone were to invent a replicator the government would ban it because it would "reduce demand" for non-replicated goods, making everyone unemployed. Of course, once you have a replicator you don't need a job anymore.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

07 Jul 2014, 3:40 pm

The only way anything is going to change is for people to get off of their cabooses and vote. Someone who makes over 100k a year is 35% more likely to vote than someone who makes under 30k. The 1% know that, which is why they own so many politicians who are trying to suppress the vote in strategic locations. I don't see any national effort to implement all of these arbitrary restrictions being introduced in some areas.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 4:20 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


I specifically want a system where excessive personal property is not just unobtainable, but redundant.

Have you applied for emigration to North Korea? Really, that's about the only place that comes even close.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 4:57 pm

Raptor wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


I specifically want a system where excessive personal property is not just unobtainable, but redundant.

Have you applied for emigration to North Korea? Really, that's about the only place that comes even close.


You really don't think outside the box, do you?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 5:40 pm

/\ Define "excessive personal property" and how it could possibly become "unobtainable" or made "redundant". Why would the majority go along with it, or doesnt that matter in your world?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 5:44 pm

Raptor wrote:
/\ Define "excessive personal property" and how it could possibly become "unobtainable" or made "redundant". Why would the majority go along with it, or doesnt that matter in your world?


Excessive property is an amount of property beyond what a person needs to live happilly or beyond what could be deemed reasonable.

For example, you can only watch one HD flatscreen TV at a time or drive one sports car at a time.

In a RBE society where people are allocated energy credits based on their contributions into society, rather than dead cash, no-body would have greater spending power or power to acquire than another.

The majority would go along with it, because they would be able to enjoy the spoils that would be otherwise denied to them.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 600

07 Jul 2014, 5:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy...


This might help you understand why some of us suspect that: Several years ago I quit a tech-job because we weren't doing as much innovative work as we'd done when I started. I wanted to help people, not coast on past achievements.

So I took a non-profit job that paid about $1,000/month. I accepted that because (a) it came with health coverage, and (b) it was an opportunity to refresh my rusty organizing skills and get my feet on the ground in a new state. I also had savings, which I'd built up while I was in school by working part time and not blowing the money.

Compare that to my co-workers at the non-profit: They were mostly college students or new graduates. They spent much more than I did on cars, rent, going to bars, impressing mates or pampering themselves.

They seemed to resent that I could afford to go out for lunch, but for years they'd taken more out of society that I had. They were dating and going to clubs while I was working on the weekends. They demanded "cool" jobs while I was working in a factory. They wouldn't have even talked to most of my friends because I hung out with people who had skills (which they found tiresome).

In every way they were aggressive and haughty: They wrote people off for not being "cool" enough, even when those people put much more into society than they did. Then they cried foul anytime someone didn't share with them.

When I stopped by the "Occupy" encampment in Minneapolis, the kids there had nicer camping gear than I did, including never-used $300 bivy-sacks.

If Democrats would spend money on people who are *actually poor*, I would listen. They won't.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 5:57 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ Define "excessive personal property" and how it could possibly become "unobtainable" or made "redundant". Why would the majority go along with it, or doesnt that matter in your world?


Excessive property is an amount of property beyond what a person needs to live happilly or beyond what could be deemed reasonable.

For example, you can only watch one HD flatscreen TV at a time or drive one sports car at a time.

In a RBE society where people are allocated energy credits based on their contributions into society, rather than dead cash, no-body would have greater spending power or power to acquire than another.

The majority would go along with it, because they would be able to enjoy the spoils that would be otherwise denied to them.


It's got arbitrary enforcement and big brother's hand written all over it. It won't go over in this county. The majority is not denied anything that they can afford.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 5:59 pm

^ Knowbodyknows-
you can't base a generalisation of the collective potential of something better among several billion people off the back of an experience you once had with some spoilt students.

:roll:


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Last edited by thomas81 on 07 Jul 2014, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 6:01 pm

Raptor wrote:

It's got arbitrary enforcement and big brother's hand written all over it. It won't go over in this county. The majority is not denied anything that they can afford.

the bolded part being the emphasis. What we have the western world over is an economic apartheid, and this is conceded by prominent economists such as Max Keiser.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 6:09 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
If Democrats would spend money on people who are *actually poor*, I would listen. They won't.

Yep!
That's one of the things that kick-started me in a political direction early on. It wasn't people who were down on their luck or on actual disability getting help at taxpayer expense that bothered me, it didnt. It was the caliber of the people that were getting it but wouldn't do s**t to help themselves. There are too many people who are happy to spend their whole lives sitting in their own s**t as long as they're getting a check from uncle sugar.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 6:13 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:

It's got arbitrary enforcement and big brother's hand written all over it. It won't go over in this county. The majority is not denied anything that they can afford.

the bolded part being the emphasis. What we have the western world over is an economic apartheid, and this is conceded by prominent economists such as Max Keiser.


Apartheid is forced segregation. Retailers will take ANYONE's money and there is no law to prevent it. So much for your apartheid analogy.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 600

07 Jul 2014, 6:20 pm

thomas81 wrote:
^ Knowbodyknows-
you can't base a generalisation of the collective potential of something better among several billion people off the back of an experience you once had with some spoilt students.


You're speaking for a lot of people yourself: "several billion" :roll: I'm only speaking about jurisdictions that I might have a small influence in.

It's not an isolated incident, anyway. I've worked on several Democratic campaigns. I've done non-profit work in multiple states. I have family scattered over Europe. I read foreign news, whether it's Profil, The Economist, The Guardian, The Montreal Gazette, Haaretz or The Hindustan Times.

Of those "several billion" people that you refer to, the ones who are desperately poor and hurting aren't on WP complaining about it. They don't even have running water or electricity, let alone internet access. They wouldn't care about most of the pampered, piddling things that Democrats and British Labour like to b***h about.