So your answer to all this is global redistribution of wealth, it seems like?
If you look at the net worth of these individuals, most of all of them had their net worths spike during the pandemic - While small businesses were forced to shut down and lay off employees, large corporations were still allowed to operate. The answer to this is not taxing the rich at an absurd rate. Try propelling the lower class, not slowing down the economy and retributing wealth by taxing the rich, who already pay the largest burden of taxes, create the most jobs, and spur the most economic activity.
Topic: The Economic Gap has Exceeded the Tolerance Limit - page 3. (Read 462 times)
BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.
Please answer honestly, have you actually read Das Kapital? All of it?
I'm asking this because I don't know why you're focusing on the way we're exploiting resources since this had nothing to do with Marx's doctrine, remember (if you actually read it) that Marx never referred to capital as money but as the means of production. Nor did he ever mention anything else about production other than keeping the profits for the ones that are doing the work, so, nope, nothing about saving the planet, reducing pollution, or distributing all the means of production to everyone, but only to the ones taking part in the production! Same for welfare, the original view on welfare is quite different from what people think it was, no airdrop after airdrop of money to everyone!
I refered to Marx doctrine in my reply because he was the famous thinker who described the capitalist society as Proletareat and Bourgeoisie and how the gap between them will get bigger as time goes by.
And within the same op context, i also thought about natural ressurces who are only exploited to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in a global economy by which we should all have to natural ressources in a fair way.
Marx proposed the communism as a solution for the capitalism dilemma. Me myself i think that wisely controlling the natural ressources can limit that gap between poor and rich. I remember few years ago there were two projects in this field ut i don't know if they stopped or postponed :
- The Green Project.
- The Zeitgeist Movement
Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer even though it is not fair that is the actual reality, Ofcourse if the rich people start spending their earned money today they still can't able to spend all of them in their remaining life even by living the extremely luxury life style.
Most of the rich people are helping the poor people in someway but don't expect them to bring equality in this world which is never going to happen.
Most of the rich people are helping the poor people in someway but don't expect them to bring equality in this world which is never going to happen.
Do you think this kind of reality is fair?
No, and plenty of others don't, either, including, encouragingly, many of those who benefit from the inequality. Here for example are two groups of millionaires who think it's unfair:Millionaires Against Pitchforks
Patriotic Millionaires
What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.
In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.
I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.
You're being both defensive and needlessly aggressive, which suggests that Sterbens may have hit a nerve.In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.
I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.
Your argument boils down to: any level of inequality is absolutely fine, because we used to live in caves.
And of course wealth is a pie. And is also dynamic... the two aren't mutually exclusive. The pie may be expanding over time, but it is still finite. We don't live in some post-scarcity sci-fi utopia.
And hello, again.
Do you think this kind of reality is fair?
I think fairness has no value on its own. It's better to have an unequal society where poor people have some decent living than to have an equal society where everyone is barely surviving. The global standard of living keeps getting better and better, things like child mortality or hunger have plummeted compared to 50-100 years ago.
Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business?
Just like with Bitcoin.
Add the numbers the biggest whales have and you're going to see it's quite the same, the Winklevoss twins have around 100k coins, Barry Silbert has at least 50k, Draper bought 30k, and there are many more. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about this
Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved,
No they can't be!
Every single fucking time in human history when somebody has tried this it has ended in tragedies.
Oh, and before you come with an example from the Scandinavian countries, just a small reminder both Noway Sweden has more billionaires per inhabitant than a lot of other countries, including the USA.
BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.
Please answer honestly, have you actually read Das Kapital? All of it?
I'm asking this because I don't know why you're focusing on the way we're exploiting resources since this had nothing to do with Marx's doctrine, remember (if you actually read it) that Marx never referred to capital as money but as the means of production. Nor did he ever mention anything else about production other than keeping the profits for the ones that are doing the work, so, nope, nothing about saving the planet, reducing pollution, or distributing all the means of production to everyone, but only to the ones taking part in the production! Same for welfare, the original view on welfare is quite different from what people think it was, no airdrop after airdrop of money to everyone!
Do you think this kind of reality is fair?
What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.
I think OP is trying to discuss all those facts and didn't ask to change the world. If you see it a logic result that we spend all the natural ressources on Earth and still failing to establish a better environment for al of us. BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.
In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.
It makes me lough how you compared between the situation of a poor in the 1800 with another from 21 century. Poorness is poorness whenever it exists and it's so logic that their situations isn't the same just like the rich people in the 1800 who can possess large grounds and properties without even working, and by time goes by, many factors have been changed and we can see the rich power becomes more limited.I wished to read your response to first op question : Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business?
yawn. this argument... Again?
try this https://www.humanprogress.org/paul-ehrlich-ignores-abundance-again/
https://www.humanprogress.org/pickup-prosperity/
and this and im not a fan of the chinese gov https://www.humanprogress.org/how-much-more-prosperous-would-the-world-be-without-chinas-one-child-policy/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58810551 << bill gates did that and im not a fan
And heres your marxism 50 years on https://www.humanprogress.org/castros-cuba-unfree-unequal-and-underperforming/
so please grow up.
try this https://www.humanprogress.org/paul-ehrlich-ignores-abundance-again/
https://www.humanprogress.org/pickup-prosperity/
and this and im not a fan of the chinese gov https://www.humanprogress.org/how-much-more-prosperous-would-the-world-be-without-chinas-one-child-policy/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58810551 << bill gates did that and im not a fan
And heres your marxism 50 years on https://www.humanprogress.org/castros-cuba-unfree-unequal-and-underperforming/
so please grow up.
Equality is a strange thing.
Those who don't want to work. Who take no risks, make little effort to educate themselves or develop specialized skillsets. Feel they deserve to enjoy the wealth and prosperity which comes from working hard, taking risks and becoming wealthy as a result. They wish to create a society where there are no winners or losers in society. Everyone receives a participation trophy. No matter if they worked hard. Or didn't work at all. No matter if they made good decisions or bad decisions.
One narrative behind abolishing meritocracy. Punishing winners and billionaires. Is to create a society where laziness, ignorance, immorality and bad decision making are rewarded. It could represent a regressive trend.
Certainly the world has never been perfect. Wealth and wage inequality are at all time negative trends. I think what most fail to realize is, there is an underlying blueprint and design to it all. Wealth and wage equality have been systematically targeted and destroyed. In the way a silent war has been waged against the middle class in an effort to erect something vaguely resembling the beginnings of a caste system.
It could take people years to recognize and acknowledge even the most basic and fundamental aspects of current events. The learning curve is against us and against progress in general.
Those who don't want to work. Who take no risks, make little effort to educate themselves or develop specialized skillsets. Feel they deserve to enjoy the wealth and prosperity which comes from working hard, taking risks and becoming wealthy as a result. They wish to create a society where there are no winners or losers in society. Everyone receives a participation trophy. No matter if they worked hard. Or didn't work at all. No matter if they made good decisions or bad decisions.
One narrative behind abolishing meritocracy. Punishing winners and billionaires. Is to create a society where laziness, ignorance, immorality and bad decision making are rewarded. It could represent a regressive trend.
Certainly the world has never been perfect. Wealth and wage inequality are at all time negative trends. I think what most fail to realize is, there is an underlying blueprint and design to it all. Wealth and wage equality have been systematically targeted and destroyed. In the way a silent war has been waged against the middle class in an effort to erect something vaguely resembling the beginnings of a caste system.
It could take people years to recognize and acknowledge even the most basic and fundamental aspects of current events. The learning curve is against us and against progress in general.
What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.
If so, how do you think that the ideal world works and can harmonize the economy so that it can provide prosperity for all who have the right to live a decent life? if in the end only our indifference masks empathy.
I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.
I will definitely accept the encyclopedia you provide and read it, of course it will be very interesting. As for the mentality of lying which one are you referring to? can it be measured according to rational parameters?
When you say they have XYZ income which they should distribute to fulfil the hunger of needy then note that they are already feeding millions of families who work for them. We call it as Job, salaried personnel etc.
Have you forgotten how today's social classifications show differences in economic terms? there is a middle to upper social strata, or lower middle class.
If measuring on the quality of individuals who have a salary just for working in a company then how do we measure the people out there who need more attention from rich people like you.
Why should the rich bear the burden of the poor? Isn't that the concept, we as humans have empathy, don't we? (if you realize it) because if you don't, then after all it will not correlate at all to solving poverty. Basically we have no influence, but we have a role as human beings who can still stand tall and make ends meet, isn't there a right to 2.5% of what we have is theirs for us to give. As a form of concern, but unfortunately our concern is not aware of what people are suffering out there.
We only sleep soundly on expensive mattresses, but before closing our eyes, try to reflect on our thoughts whether there are neighbors who are starving because they can't find a mouthful of rice to face the rigors of tomorrow's life.
This is a complicated case study tbh.
First thing all the rich peeps in the world, they are not earning money out of thin air. They have multiple incomes sources with factories, industries and services running 24*7 to earn the money.
When you say they have XYZ income which they should distribute to fulfil the hunger of needy then note that they are already feeding millions of families who work for them. We call it as Job, salaried personnel etc.
Why not count that one?
They are already doing more than enough by paying millions of dollars in tax form. They need to contribute to charities, infra developments, and many other projects layout by government or made by themselves.
It’s completely true that there is one part of the world which is very poor but that’s due to local government failing to make it better world Or may be being the corrupted one.
So the fact is why the richest should take overburden if they are already having one in place !
First thing all the rich peeps in the world, they are not earning money out of thin air. They have multiple incomes sources with factories, industries and services running 24*7 to earn the money.
When you say they have XYZ income which they should distribute to fulfil the hunger of needy then note that they are already feeding millions of families who work for them. We call it as Job, salaried personnel etc.
Why not count that one?
They are already doing more than enough by paying millions of dollars in tax form. They need to contribute to charities, infra developments, and many other projects layout by government or made by themselves.
It’s completely true that there is one part of the world which is very poor but that’s due to local government failing to make it better world Or may be being the corrupted one.
So the fact is why the richest should take overburden if they are already having one in place !
Do you think this kind of reality is fair?
What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.
In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.
I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.
Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business? Well about 22 people have more money saved abroad than the total population of China, United States and India combined?
Let's take a look at Elon Musk, Jeff Bejoz, Bernard Arnold and Family, Bill gates etc. Their income within 1 or 2 weeks is equivalent to the income needed by the United Nations Organization to provide humanitarian aid in Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan etc, all of which are experiencing a hunger crisis. with 0.00000005% of their wealth, it will provide a decent life for 1 family who can eat 3 times a day for the next 100 years.
Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved, because look at the economic disparities in the world which have greatly exceeded the tolerance limit.
What can we as democratic citizens do to demand global governments stop giving excessive tax breaks to multinational corporations from the world's richest people? Or can we just watch this reality from day to day? When we don't have any influence reviewing the chest is something I often do.
Look at them just laughing:
Share your thoughts here
Reading sources and things I use as a reference for reading and drawing conclusions (I use a translation because it's not my native language):
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition##_proposals
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#57b829293d78
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition#_edn30
https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it
Note: If there's a referral source I'm missing, please let me know.
Let's take a look at Elon Musk, Jeff Bejoz, Bernard Arnold and Family, Bill gates etc. Their income within 1 or 2 weeks is equivalent to the income needed by the United Nations Organization to provide humanitarian aid in Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan etc, all of which are experiencing a hunger crisis. with 0.00000005% of their wealth, it will provide a decent life for 1 family who can eat 3 times a day for the next 100 years.
Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved, because look at the economic disparities in the world which have greatly exceeded the tolerance limit.
What can we as democratic citizens do to demand global governments stop giving excessive tax breaks to multinational corporations from the world's richest people? Or can we just watch this reality from day to day? When we don't have any influence reviewing the chest is something I often do.
Look at them just laughing:
Quote
"There's a class war, alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that makes war, and we won." – Warren Buffett.
Share your thoughts here
Reading sources and things I use as a reference for reading and drawing conclusions (I use a translation because it's not my native language):
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition##_proposals
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#57b829293d78
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition#_edn30
https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it
Note: If there's a referral source I'm missing, please let me know.
Jump to: