Topic: Wealth distribution, and tragedy of the commons. (Read 755 times)

Wealth distribution is a myth across the world and it's never going to happen. What we have come to know and we will know is that, the term is only used in other to keep the social order because when that consciousness is absent,, it gives room to anarchy which the society does not need. Since time immemorial, there have been the rich and the poor and the gap has continually been there which makes it possible for the rich to get richer no matter the extent in which they are taxed and the poor continues to get poorer no matter the subsidy or handouts they are given. It's the law of nature and any other process outside that will always end in futility.

To become rich you need to make profits but people here were taught to get salaried jobs amd that is become their eternal goal of their life.Most of the millionaires are started from pew dollars as their capital but they quickly converted it more with their smartness so to become richer the smartness is more important than hardwork.

Why can't you use simple language and just say that you want to rob the money from rich people (who became wealthy as a result of their hard work) and distribute it to the "poor" (i.e lazy welfare rats who would like to stay at home 24x7, drinking beer and doing nothing else)? This is not a permanent solution, because within a short period of time there will be no more rich people to rob, and the poor will remain as poor.

I will argue the fallacy that wealth is deprived by the continent of the race. The 3 races (Jew, Tribe in china and Igbos of Nigeria) rated to be averagely wealthy are attributed to their business acumen from long term culture. Although, I think the wealth status of the developed world countries are results of long term projection and process by their leaders. It is not cheap process as well.

Well, nations can be used for making more money by the bigger nations but it is a bigger trouble to do that compared to your own population. A big example could be politicians seeing their own people not doing very well while other nations are getting richer off their hard work and could put a lot more tax towards foreign companies for example, obviously most of them do take bribes instead of actually putting tax, that way instead of 10 billion extra tax companies need to pay, they just pay couple hundred million in bribes and they get away with it.

All of this of course is still risky because elections could change the leader and the new leader would want more bribe or they could be basically unbribebale as well. So it is always easier to take money from your own countrymen compared to other nations.

If something fails, it is not the goal that must be changed but the strategy that changes. As I said, one of the teachings of socialism is justice, and justice is not a bad thing, it is a noble goal for all human beings. And striving for truth and goodness is a good thing and must be appreciated.

Agree with your opinion, that the endless accumulation of material which ethically is called greed is human nature. But on the other hand, because we are human, we have a combination of a brain and a conscience and there are moral and religious values that we must hold in order to remain human. Capitalism provides a suitable habitat for greed to become savage so that exploitative (dominating) relationships emerge.

You are like a shaman who guesses someone's past wrong. 
My youth until now is quite fun, I have dated the most beautiful school stars, including exemplary students with several achievements and skills, I am a graduate of civil engineering at a well-known college. I inherited my father's body repair workshop, I started a seafood export business after I got married, I am a father of three children with a wife who has a hobby of sharing.

I am not a supporter of socialism nor anti-capitalism, because one of the roots of the teachings of each of these ideologies has a positive value. As the Venn diagram in the set of universes, A is a capitalist circle, B is a socialist circle, then I am C which has a circle of A & B.

The division in social classes (lower, middle, upper) are indications that there is really a variation of people's capability to have a capacity managing the usage of their money to lift up their social class or drag them down into the lower level class where they belong. Even if we state that the wealth would be equally distributed among people, still people with the highest capability of managing their wealth will always move up bringing themselves into the upper class for they do know how to make their money useful and profitable compared to the lower and middle classes.

Even if we always put it into that way, there would be still a way the upper class would be lifted up because they have the experience and the knowledge needed to manage their wealth which makes them a lot more richer and due to lower classes are lacking of such since they do not have always money to manage with, they will always end up dragged down to the lower classification of the society. The wealth distribution will not work out for we are diverse and we have different ways on how we make ourselves exceptional to be always on top of others which makes our social classifications not just dependent on the amount of money we have but also on how we manage it to make ourselves better.

I do not know why there are many people who thinks capitalism is bad and not good, actually capitalism is the reason why there is economic freedom. Look at the capitalist nowadays, they keep donating their money in different institutions and charities. They also implement free education and scholarships for many students. The world is only becoming unfair if you have negative beliefs. Beliefs are opinions that passed down to us, if your family thinks the world is unfair or your friend told you then it is the belief that passed down to you. There is nothing wrong about it because humans need and wants are unlimited after all so it is expected that many people wanted to become rich. In terms of becoming rich, it is true that the job cannot make you rich. Hardwork is not enough, you need to learn specialized skills in order to become one of the capitalist.

When you are born poor it is really hard to change your destiny that you are going to be poor for the rest of your life, but you really have to work hard and do something for you to rise. I'm sure gradually it will change your life and it is so hard to rely on the people around us. The idea of dividing money of rich people then distribute to the poor is very impossible to happen, rich people will never agree with that i'm sure, maybe many of them also come from poor families and work so hard to achieve what and who they are now.

The world is unfair. There is no real equality in this world, in race, in height, in work and in wealth.
This is how capitalism works. Poor becomes poorer and rich becomes richer. If you want to become rich, either you become a politician or a businessman. But if you depends on a daily wage, I swear even you are 20 years of working, you are still lack of financial freedom.

We can`t do anything from it because capitalism works throughout our society, if you want to achieve financial then be one of them.

It is a very small country and made their initial economy growth from their natural resource which is Oil and later they went to tourism which is one of the most preferred place to visit by the rich people.But we can't say all the people are rich, there are millionaires and also middle class people but most of the countries don't have much natural resources and also had huge population so the reach people manages to find the people for low wages and getting richer and richer.

So many disinformations and incorrect views of Smith's capitalism is probably the failure of our education system.

Smith:


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

The self-interest in a (normal) human being includes the interest of him in the fortune of others.

Milton Friedman Speaks - Is Capitalism Humane?

Yes, you are, maybe you're not realizing but your ideas are pretty left hardcore.
That being said, it's your view on things and that's your choice on how you would want the world to change, although I consider your utopia a nightmare as I said before at the same time I acknowledge everyone's right of an opinion or a view on the world, that's freedom! The same freedom hardcore socialism has always in it's history tried to destroy.


Desire to dominate, and you think this is because of capitalism? No, it's because of human nature.
But I'm certain that when you were a kid you liked to lose at every game you played, you liked being the last in your class, you didn't try to get the best looking girl in the school on a date, right?  The need to dominate, the need to come forward, the need to have something is not a thing of capitalism or any other movement, it's what we are and it's the thing that bought us here, from the moment our ancestors got hold of a better stick than the other monkeys and exterminated them. Yes, it's unpleasant but the need to dominate over a million of year of our species is what made all you see around for us, their followers possible. And some try to go against it with a book...seriously?


A slight correction!
In my country it didn't worked. We had 40 years of socialism and communism, enough to understand the difference between theory and real life.

The problem of poor people is that the rulers of their countries do not plan strategies that allow them to get out of poverty. They are ignored for lack of policies so that the entire population is included.
A good example of leadership is the UAE, which manage its wealth by including its entire population under four pillars: trade, transport, tourism, and technology.

The problem is always that humans are so different. Even if the wealth would be distributed evenly to everybody, that would not last and we would see all traits coming back. There will always be people who want to consume more today than others, so borrowing and lending will take a big part in every society. Once people have to payback loans (for example because they wanted a bigger car than they could actually afford) wealth will be transferred again within the economy. So far this world has always seen poor people and rich people, but you also have to see that poor people are much better of in Western Countries that they have 1000 years ago.

I agree with the wealth distribution theory in the opening post. In fact, to become rich people only with the way we think about money,
usually rich people will always think about how their money can work for themselves. Meanwhile, poor people will think about how they
work to make money. Enough with a simple thought as it can be seen the difference in the way the rich and poor think about money.

That place where you said they should divide the money equally so that there will be no more poverty, you know that’s never going to happen, and if you bring up such idea the rich people are going to kick against it and will never agree; trust me, a lot of these people you are seeing today that are billionaires were once poor and they had to work very hard to build up their wealth and then got rich, and you expect them to let years of hard work go as charity? Lol, they will never agree to that. And some of these poor you’re seeing are the ones that keeps putting themselves in that poor position, because they are careless, and don’t know what to do with money, but keeps on spending on unnecessary things.

I don't think I'm socialist, but not all socialist roots are wrong. There is no single motive that applies to the entirety of human behavior throughout their history. Collectivity and simplicity clearly expose capitalism's exploitative power structure. The real reality of oppression, namely where oppression is rooted in an economic and political desire to dominate.

Maybe in your country, it may not work, but in my country, there is still a chance of it. I know actions and moves like this won't be easy or possible, but sometimes it's easier to grab than to defend. I don't want to take the wealth of a conglomerate, but there is nothing wrong if I want to improve the lives of the middle and lower-class people. Choosing the best of today's bad choices is everyone's right. In addition, the concern is not for the rich, but on how to improve the welfare of the bottom of the pyramid.

Giving is good but the benefits are only temporary, there is awareness and movement together to create bonds that strengthen each other.

ineffective at all but may have little impact because the rich spend their money with the aim of earning more and the cycle will continue to revolve around their offspring because their parents have taught them, while simiskin may be able to follow in the footsteps of the rich, however of course with extra effort because they have to learn how to independently, it is not easy but there is a chance that it will be successful.
but still, the chances of the rich to continue their descent to become rich again are greater than the poor.
as said the rich will inherit from their parents the genes of how to manage money this is like a hidden talent that must be honed and will develop more quickly than poor people who do not know how to manage money because they never have enough money to develop.
but actually if seen from another point of view, of course this is unfair, say 2 children are born simultaneously, 1 from a rich family and the other from a poor family, they both have the same chance of being successful but the opportunity for the children of a rich person is greater because get adequate knowledge and education, while simiskin will be difficult because there is no knowledge or money to help him develop.
that is why this cycle will mostly continue into the next generation.

All of us have different perspective so I understand what you just said, I see the world as fair as it is where there is full of abundance and prosperity; I will carry this belief until my last breath. There is really a socioeconomic status where the middle class stay to middle class where the poor become more poorer and where the rich become more richer. All of it starting with thoughts, middle class persons stay middle class because they have poor and middle class mentality. Poor people stay poor not because of lack of opportunity but because of their poor mentality. Rich people are becoming rich not because they are greedy but because they have rich mindset where they keep making money in any instances.