|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 28, 2019 2:20:45 GMT
Right, the 1% are buying up all the multi-million dollar mansions so there’s none left for the poor folks to buy.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2019 3:07:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2019 3:09:43 GMT
another strange social idea: what if, when aperson accumulated more money than they could spend in their lifetime*, they were required to either earn less or spend more.
* based on their current spending habits plus anticipated costs of aging
the same assumptions apply: this would involve a cultural shift, purges are cheating and some effort at sneaking around it are to be expected. however, for purposes of equality, "spend more" would allow the people in question to decide how the money is spent, and would allow transferring wealth to family members either directly or through a trust fund. (of course, that may put the family members in the same position of "earn less or spend more" "earn less" would assume working less and playing more.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 14, 2019 5:36:32 GMT
another strange social idea: what if, when aperson accumulated more money than they could spend in their lifetime *, they were required to either earn less or spend more. * based on their current spending habits plus anticipated costs of aging the same assumptions apply: this would involve a cultural shift, purges are cheating and some effort at sneaking around it are to be expected. however, for purposes of equality, "spend more" would allow the people in question to decide how the money is spent, and would allow transferring wealth to family members either directly or through a trust fund. (of course, that may put the family members in the same position of "earn less or spend more" "earn less" would assume working less and playing more. Not to cause any trouble or even start a debate, but I do have a question. Do you believe that if a person has more money than you, that is somehow the cause of you having less?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2019 14:46:48 GMT
another strange social idea: what if, when aperson accumulated more money than they could spend in their lifetime *, they were required to either earn less or spend more. * based on their current spending habits plus anticipated costs of aging the same assumptions apply: this would involve a cultural shift, purges are cheating and some effort at sneaking around it are to be expected. however, for purposes of equality, "spend more" would allow the people in question to decide how the money is spent, and would allow transferring wealth to family members either directly or through a trust fund. (of course, that may put the family members in the same position of "earn less or spend more" "earn less" would assume working less and playing more. Not to cause any trouble or even start a debate, but I do have a question. Do you believe that if a person has more money than you, that is somehow the cause of you having less? it depends on whether that person is actively using their money for the purpose of causing an imbalance of wealth. case in point, a statistically relevant number of my customers have more money than I do, and that is the cause of me having more money; because they spend their money, and that benefits me. however, I have also been told of customers who did everything in their power to ensure their workers got as little of the money they had worked for as possible. and in fact, that is why I will not accept jobs from third party maintenance companies any more. but of course, I know that the bottom line is that I have less because Mrs TLW got sick, and I burned through close to a quarter million dollars keeping her alive before we were finally able to break through the disability stonewall. now let me ask you a question: do you perceive a person having more money than you have to be a reliable indication that they are somehow a superior person to you and therefore deserve to be rich? addendum: do you believe people who have massively increased their wealth have other people's interests at heart?
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 14, 2019 16:52:49 GMT
now let me ask you a question: do you perceive a person having more money than you have to be a reliable indication that they are somehow a superior person to you and therefore deserve to be rich? addendum: do you believe people who have massively increased their wealth have other people's interests at heart? I don't perceive anyone, wealthy or poor, to be either superior or inferior to me. I believe that God gives everyone special talents. I was born with a strong aptitude for mechanical things and being able to use that aptitude to solve problems. I can't draw a straight line with the help of a ruler nor carry a tune in a bucket. I know others that can draw or paint beautiful paintings and others that can make wonderful music. That's not me. I don't really respect people for the talents they were given but how they have made use of those talents. I also believe that some people were given a talent of making money (again, not me.) I don't respect or despise them for having that ability, but for how they use that talent. Which gets to your second question. I know rich people that have increased their wealth and still have a heart for other people. I also know some that would throw their own mother off a cliff if it made them a buck. I have to look at everyone for who they are, not what they have.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 15, 2019 3:57:59 GMT
now let me ask you a question: do you perceive a person having more money than you have to be a reliable indication that they are somehow a superior person to you and therefore deserve to be rich? addendum: do you believe people who have massively increased their wealth have other people's interests at heart? I don't perceive anyone, wealthy or poor, to be either superior or inferior to me. I believe that God gives everyone special talents. I was born with a strong aptitude for mechanical things and being able to use that aptitude to solve problems. I can't draw a straight line with the help of a ruler nor carry a tune in a bucket. I know others that can draw or paint beautiful paintings and others that can make wonderful music. That's not me. I don't really respect people for the talents they were given but how they have made use of those talents. I also believe that some people were given a talent of making money (again, not me.) I don't respect or despise them for having that ability, but for how they use that talent. Which gets to your second question. I know rich people that have increased their wealth and still have a heart for other people. I also know some that would throw their own mother off a cliff if it made them a buck. I have to look at everyone for who they are, not what they have. okay, now the next question: do you believe the waltons think having their employees get more money means the waltons are losing money? keeping the following in mind: www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 15, 2019 5:12:56 GMT
I don't perceive anyone, wealthy or poor, to be either superior or inferior to me. I believe that God gives everyone special talents. I was born with a strong aptitude for mechanical things and being able to use that aptitude to solve problems. I can't draw a straight line with the help of a ruler nor carry a tune in a bucket. I know others that can draw or paint beautiful paintings and others that can make wonderful music. That's not me. I don't really respect people for the talents they were given but how they have made use of those talents. I also believe that some people were given a talent of making money (again, not me.) I don't respect or despise them for having that ability, but for how they use that talent. Which gets to your second question. I know rich people that have increased their wealth and still have a heart for other people. I also know some that would throw their own mother off a cliff if it made them a buck. I have to look at everyone for who they are, not what they have. okay, now the next question: do you believe the waltons think having their employees get more money means the waltons are losing money? keeping the following in mind: www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/Here's what I think. Walmart has done more to help low income people than the Government ever could dream of doing. That's not to say that they couldn't do more, but I'm still not going to demonize them for the good that they have done. So the Government (WE) pay 6.2 billion in assistance. How much more would we have to pay if they weren't working part time at Walmart? And it's also not like Walmart isn't paying Federal, State and local taxes. The Government makes a lot of money from Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 15, 2019 11:54:44 GMT
another strange social idea: what if, when aperson accumulated more money than they could spend in their lifetime *, they were required to either earn less or spend more. * based on their current spending habits plus anticipated costs of aging the same assumptions apply: this would involve a cultural shift, purges are cheating and some effort at sneaking around it are to be expected. however, for purposes of equality, "spend more" would allow the people in question to decide how the money is spent, and would allow transferring wealth to family members either directly or through a trust fund. (of course, that may put the family members in the same position of "earn less or spend more" "earn less" would assume working less and playing more. Not to cause any trouble or even start a debate, but I do have a question. Do you believe that if a person has more money than you, that is somehow the cause of you having less? Goog question. But, it could be that this question SOMETIMES depends upon specifics. An example that may not exactly fit the point I am trying to make (because it is based on mere gambling rather than business skill, but some of it still applies): A man is standing in line to buy a lottery ticket. For whatever reason, a woman pushes up to the counter, stepping right in front of the apparently more patient man and asked a question of the counter help. I think the question was "where is the bathroom" (something like that). She gets her answer, and then quickly asks for a lottery ticket. Rather than tell the woman that there are others waiting ahead of her, the counter help prints up a ticket and quickly hands it to her. Later it is discovered that she has won the lottery. It could be argued that the man who was patiently waiting in line was supposed to get that ticket, and that he should have loudly insisted that the counter help NOT help her because she wasn't next in line! But, that's not how things played out. Who's at fault? Who is to say? Could it be that the person ending up with more money is the one who caused the other to have less? A debate could rage on, but when it comes down to specifics, in each case it could be that a battle is waging between people who are trying to get more money. Sometimes there are winners and losers. In some of those cases, the one who ended up with more money, beat down the one who ended up with less in what could be argued a successfully employed dirty trick. More generally, though, I don't think one should go around feeling as though the rich are specifically robbing the poor. Because, in many cases, rich are often beating down their competition who are also arguably rich rather than spending a lot of effort figuring out how to beat down the poor. At the end of the day, we might see it is actually more like one rich guy taking away an opportunity from some other rich guy. After a battle of some sort, one has more than the other, and it IS because of the actions of the richer guy: Case example: When oil was transported by rail in the 1800s the man who wanted to move his oil and NOT PAY THOSE DARN TRAIN OWNERS ANY MORE created oil pipelines for his needs instead. Did he "take away" money from the rail system? It had been agreed by contract that his oil would be transported by rail. Business decisions on the part of the rail company had been made according to those agreements. But, when things got rolling, the pipline changed the way the agreement would go. Would attorneys have helped here? Do we need attorneys? In short, the well-played and successful "dirty trick" often results in one ending up with money that another could have had. Is that "taking money"? Debatable, I think.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 15, 2019 13:23:02 GMT
I believe TLW is specifically talking about the rich taking advantage of poor people for cheap labor. In many cases he is correct. I just don’t agree with some of his solutions. I have yet to see a level government playing field.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 15, 2019 14:08:38 GMT
I believe TLW is specifically talking about the rich taking advantage of poor people for cheap labor. In many cases he is correct. I just don’t agree with some of his solutions. I have yet to see a level government playing field. True. I did attempt to generalize the question out to a wider situation, all the while declaring that the situation I was referring to depended upon specifics. My bad. Still an intersting problem. Government trying to get everyone to "play fair" or attorneys jumping into things doesn't seem to improve much, and often times make things worse it seems. Main problem, I think: -- we, as humans, are living in a bubble created by civilization. To think the original natural situation discovered by some of the first lifeforms that life feeds on life could be replaced with something more "fair" is likely wishful thinking. When civilization first ramped up under rule of the ancient Greeks, trying to improve the individual with ideas about what a perfect individual was seemed to be a large part of philosophy then. But, today, the individual is almost expected to diverge from idealized perfection. Today, celebrating what might be thought of as abnormal is the "new way". That, and trying to work out what's "fair" seems to work counter to having so many people to deal with. And, yet, we pile on billions and billions more of us onto this planet, expecting that living elbow to elbow will just work out somehow. By 2060 another world war could be in the works I fear.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 15, 2019 14:23:37 GMT
One thing to note is that according to the UN, global population growth has plateaued. The UN is actually forecasting that global population will start to decline around 2050-2100.
Here are a few countries that already reporting negative population growth: Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Romania, etc. In some it is due to emigration and political upheaval, others, its a birthrate lower than the death rate.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 15, 2019 14:58:46 GMT
One thing to note is that according to the UN, global population growth has plateaued. The UN is actually forecasting that global population will start to decline around 2050-2100. Here are a few countries that already reporting negative population growth: Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Romania, etc. In some it is due to emigration and political upheaval, others, its a birthrate lower than the death rate. one thing a person who looks at trends over history sees is that when population densities have reached unsustainable levels, there has been something which caused a catastrophic drop in population. it kind of takes a 50,000 yard view to see it, because the mechanism has changed from instance to instance, and the point of unsustainability has varied.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 15, 2019 15:11:46 GMT
I believe TLW is specifically talking about the rich taking advantage of poor people for cheap labor. In many cases he is correct. I just don’t agree with some of his solutions. I have yet to see a level government playing field. True. I did attempt to generalize the question out to a wider situation, all the while declaring that the situation I was referring to depended upon specifics. My bad. Still an intersting problem. Government trying to get everyone to "play fair" or attorneys jumping into things doesn't seem to improve much, and often times make things worse it seems. Main problem, I think: -- we, as humans, are living in a bubble created by civilization. To think the original natural situation discovered by some of the first lifeforms that life feeds on life could be replaced with something more "fair" is likely wishful thinking. When civilization first ramped up under rule of the ancient Greeks, trying to improve the individual with ideas about what a perfect individual was seemed to be a large part of philosophy then. But, today, the individual is almost expected to diverge from idealized perfection. Today, celebrating what might be thought of as abnormal is the "new way". That, and trying to work out what's "fair" seems to work counter to having so many people to deal with. And, yet, we pile on billions and billions more of us onto this planet, expecting that living elbow to elbow will just work out somehow. By 2060 another world war could be in the works I fear. one defense the wealthy use is "anyone can do it" to explain why they are superior to poor people. however, one illustration used to demonstrate why it can be true and inaccurate at the same time is to take a boxcar full of alcoholics and toss a bottle of whiskey into it. anybody can have a drink of the whiskey, but not everybody can have a drink. and it is likely that one or two alcoholics will actively work to prevent anyone else from getting a drink. there are some people who get rich as a byproduct of doing something with value, but most people who gain significantly more wealth than average do it because they are addicted to gaining wealth. even then, some who are addicted to gaining wealth, don't cheat in order to do it, and they make a point of spending wealth as a part of the process. but the point is that wealth IS a finite resource. it is theoretically possible for everybody in the world to have everything they need. However, it is not psychologically possible because most people are unable to comprehend the concept of having enough. then, there are als the sociopaths and psychopaths who derive pleasure from causing other people distress. but in this case, I am more just toying with what results of neo-utopian ideas might be in real life. panic responses notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 15, 2019 15:13:08 GMT
I believe TLW is specifically talking about the rich taking advantage of poor people for cheap labor. In many cases he is correct. I just don’t agree with some of his solutions. I have yet to see a level government playing field. I have yet to see a level private sector playing field, either. except maybe aboriginal cultures. but maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 15, 2019 15:49:54 GMT
True. I did attempt to generalize the question out to a wider situation, all the while declaring that the situation I was referring to depended upon specifics. My bad. Still an intersting problem. Government trying to get everyone to "play fair" or attorneys jumping into things doesn't seem to improve much, and often times make things worse it seems. Main problem, I think: -- we, as humans, are living in a bubble created by civilization. To think the original natural situation discovered by some of the first lifeforms that life feeds on life could be replaced with something more "fair" is likely wishful thinking. When civilization first ramped up under rule of the ancient Greeks, trying to improve the individual with ideas about what a perfect individual was seemed to be a large part of philosophy then. But, today, the individual is almost expected to diverge from idealized perfection. Today, celebrating what might be thought of as abnormal is the "new way". That, and trying to work out what's "fair" seems to work counter to having so many people to deal with. And, yet, we pile on billions and billions more of us onto this planet, expecting that living elbow to elbow will just work out somehow. By 2060 another world war could be in the works I fear. one defense the wealthy use is "anyone can do it" to explain why they are superior to poor people. however, one illustration used to demonstrate why it can be true and inaccurate at the same time is to take a boxcar full of alcoholics and toss a bottle of whiskey into it. anybody can have a drink of the whiskey, but not everybody can have a drink. and it is likely that one or two alcoholics will actively work to prevent anyone else from getting a drink. there are some people who get rich as a byproduct of doing something with value, but most people who gain significantly more wealth than average do it because they are addicted to gaining wealth. even then, some who are addicted to gaining wealth, don't cheat in order to do it, and they make a point of spending wealth as a part of the process. but the point is that wealth IS a finite resource. it is theoretically possible for everybody in the world to have everything they need. However, it is not psychologically possible because most people are unable to comprehend the concept of having enough. then, there are als the sociopaths and psychopaths who derive pleasure from causing other people distress. but in this case, I am more just toying with what results of neo-utopian ideas might be in real life. panic responses notwithstanding. Wealth is finite? Hardly so. So many think in terms of a pie being cut into slices and that some get less of a slice than others. Keep in mind that in undeveloped areas the pie is hardly worth cutting because it is so small. And, yet, in more developed, populated areas (of which were originally undeveloped too long ago) the pie is much, much bigger. SO, it may be possible to simply make a bigger pie. Thus, I doubt wealth is finite. It is dynamic, and apt to vary with input.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 15, 2019 15:59:34 GMT
one defense the wealthy use is "anyone can do it" to explain why they are superior to poor people. however, one illustration used to demonstrate why it can be true and inaccurate at the same time is to take a boxcar full of alcoholics and toss a bottle of whiskey into it. anybody can have a drink of the whiskey, but not everybody can have a drink. and it is likely that one or two alcoholics will actively work to prevent anyone else from getting a drink. there are some people who get rich as a byproduct of doing something with value, but most people who gain significantly more wealth than average do it because they are addicted to gaining wealth. even then, some who are addicted to gaining wealth, don't cheat in order to do it, and they make a point of spending wealth as a part of the process. but the point is that wealth IS a finite resource. it is theoretically possible for everybody in the world to have everything they need. However, it is not psychologically possible because most people are unable to comprehend the concept of having enough. then, there are als the sociopaths and psychopaths who derive pleasure from causing other people distress. but in this case, I am more just toying with what results of neo-utopian ideas might be in real life. panic responses notwithstanding. Wealth is finite? Hardly so. So many think in terms of a pie being cut into slices and that some get less of a slice than others. Keep in mind that in undeveloped areas the pie is hardly worth cutting because it is so small. And, yet, in more developed, populated areas (of which were originally undeveloped too long ago) the pie is much, much bigger. SO, it may be possible to simply make a bigger pie. Thus, I doubt wealth is finite. It is dynamic, and apt to vary with input. wealth is finite in two different ways - first is the simplistic "if everybody is rich, nobody is rich" manner - it is certainly possible to make a pie big enough for everybody to share - at which point some people will complain that somebody else got a piece as big as they one they got. second is the simple fact that resources are finite as I believe it was Einstein who said, "the only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not certain about the universe" the very definition of wealth is having lots of a limited resource - which circles back to the first.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 15, 2019 18:00:02 GMT
Wealth is finite? Hardly so. So many think in terms of a pie being cut into slices and that some get less of a slice than others. Keep in mind that in undeveloped areas the pie is hardly worth cutting because it is so small. And, yet, in more developed, populated areas (of which were originally undeveloped too long ago) the pie is much, much bigger. SO, it may be possible to simply make a bigger pie. Thus, I doubt wealth is finite. It is dynamic, and apt to vary with input. wealth is finite in two different ways - first is the simplistic "if everybody is rich, nobody is rich" manner - it is certainly possible to make a pie big enough for everybody to share - at which point some people will complain that somebody else got a piece as big as they one they got. second is the simple fact that resources are finite as I believe it was Einstein who said, "the only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not certain about the universe" the very definition of wealth is having lots of a limited resource - which circles back to the first. Wealth is the measure of having a significant amount of money, with respect to others Money is merely a qualification of want or desire. It is an exchange unit of desire. So long as there is want in the world, there will always be some form of money or outright barter exchange. If everyone is rich, but there is still something to be had or wanted, then someone out there stands the chance of being just that much more richer if he or she can satisfy that want in others. Take for instance this new patch that has just come out by Vicks Vaporub. Before the patch you had to rub the gel onto your skin. Now, with the patch, you can just wear a piece of material on your jacket and still get the aroma benefit of having smeared on the gel. So, now there is just one more item in the aisle to want or get. Before that, desire was satiated with the gel on the skin. But, now there is yet another way to do it, and some might think a better way to do it. So, a new want is generated, which is satisfied by enough want-unites (money). If you don't have enough want-units to get "what you want", save them more frugally, or work a few more hours, if you can. Whether someone has their "fair share" of money, or if there is enough money to go around depends upon personal factors, not the nature of money itself. All one need do to possibly obtain more wealth is discover a want or need that someone else has (whether they realize as yet, that they have such want or need) and find an agreement for satiating that want or need. Therefore, the idea that all could remain equally-wealthy is, very likely, a short-lived situation. And with regard to using resources to obtain wealth: Not all massive wealth came about from the exploitation of Earth's natural resources. One case example: the Star Wars picture show franchise., much of which is brought about by art, artist's skill, imagination and so forth. Oh, sure, some resources like celluloid film and some props made from wood, cement, plastic and others items was used, but I ask you, for all the billions brought in by the Star Wars franchise, how many of those natural resources you mentioned were used up anyway? And yet, the Star Wars franchise was eagerly consumed by many millions of takers (viewers). In other words, you can satisfy the want in others just so long as you are able to imagine what they want, and it doesn't have to be much of any other resource than basically your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 15, 2019 18:41:42 GMT
I believe TLW is specifically talking about the rich taking advantage of poor people for cheap labor. In many cases he is correct. I just don’t agree with some of his solutions. I have yet to see a level government playing field. I have yet to see a level private sector playing field, either. except maybe aboriginal cultures. but maybe not. I think there are many. In fact, I'd say most are. It's just that the outrageously biased ones are so obvious that they overshadow those that are fair.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2020 14:44:10 GMT
This idea comes from NYC. they are experimenting with the idea of wealth weighted fine structures for minor infractions.
the immediate response was that it is bad, because then poor people, no longer having to pay fines, would be free to commit minor infractions with impunity. also that it is bad, because it is unfair to rich people because now the fines on them will be enough that they aren't free to commit minor infractions for pocket change. a more valid complaint is that since NYC is basing it on the honor system, people WILL be gaming the system.
so here is the thought - if you base fines or infractions that essentially make the fine a sin tax - like parking violations, noise violations, or littering; but NOT material crimes like theft or endangerment crimes like drunk driving - on a number of hours of income instead of a flat dollar amount, will it produce a broader base of compliance.
let's assume we can come up with a reasonable way to minimize gaming the system - and includes both work income and investment income to find an average hourly income.
would this produce a more equitable deterrent to such infractions? would having an option to exchange actual work for the fine make a difference?
|
|