Seems from where I'm sitting, there's dipshits to the left and right. This thread pretty much proves that point beyond argument.
And there Scout is stuck in the middle.
mr train you are a pain, your words - they make me go insane
they strike my ever-thinking brain like little drops of acid rain
oh, to my life you are a bane; crazy, mixed up, mr train - r2e
mileage hound
Okay, so do you agree that the top 5% earned the right to own half the country, however you define "earned?" Because that's the question I asked.
No, you asked:
"The top 5% own more than half of our country. Did they really do the labor to deserve this? Did they work that much harder?"
You started with a misleading premise and asked for confirmation based on an overly simplistic understanding of the value of one's work. Which makes it impossible to answer your question because you're asking for it under false conditions.
Without seeing who is in that 5%, it's impossible to say. But to simply assume because wealth is not more evenly distributed without proof that it should be is a fools' errand. My personal experience leads me to believe that only small percentage of people have the drive, willingness to sacrifice, intelligence, motivation, and luck to rise to the top. What I would find disturbing is is wealth distrubution WAS a flat line. What the proper shape of the curve is, I don't know and it comes down to an idealogic (ie useless and irrelevant) argument.
2012 goals: Fastest race times since 2006.
The follow-up question is why do you believe they are not allowed to own this much based on their efforts? Why will you not allow me to become uber-wealthy based on my efforts/labor?
Also as far as "hard" work is concerned. The senior execs here typically put in 60-70 hours on site and they are responsible for the success of a multi-billion dollar company and have to answer to shareholders and keep us minions with something to do. If they screw up, we all lose. Yes they have lots and will have lots more but you can't say they don't work as "hard". That's BS. I on't begrudge them any of it if they do it honestly and build solid companies that provide a beneficial product/service to others.
As far as the schools are concerned, lots of successful people came from less than ideal surroundings. You make it sound like a guaranteed sentence of abject poverty. It's not. It may be difficult but the opportunity is what needs to be available and mostly it is.
Jeff, you think that is a Nashville-specific problem? Maine is one of the poorest (and highest taxed, so the wealth redistribution doesn't seem to be working here) states in the country. We have the same private/public school issues, as do many other cities and states, I'm sure. Respectfully, you didn't give me definitions. And yet you take an extreme view, based on your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant, that we are only entitled to that for which we "worked". If you are going to go that far to one side (albeit in response to the other side) shouldn't you be able to define what you mean? MTA: I'm not disagreeing with the above post. But that's a watered down and vague version of what you were saying a few pages ago.
Jeff, you think that is a Nashville-specific problem? Maine is one of the poorest (and highest taxed, so the wealth redistribution doesn't seem to be working here) states in the country. We have the same private/public school issues, as do many other cities and states, I'm sure.
Respectfully, you didn't give me definitions. And yet you take an extreme view, based on your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant, that we are only entitled to that for which we "worked". If you are going to go that far to one side (albeit in response to the other side) shouldn't you be able to define what you mean?
MTA: I'm not disagreeing with the above post. But that's a watered down and vague version of what you were saying a few pages ago.
Definitions, simply: property, that which is "proper" to the individual, what is rightfully his. What makes an individual's property his is the mark of his labor. Property is capital that has been accumulated by labor.
This is the classic definition of property.
I agree with you that tracing the relationships between labor and capital are increasingly difficult in the complicated world in which we live. But, locally, as you say, in our own communities, it is easy to identify the communities that can tie their labor to capital and the the ones who are denied making that connection. The work of democracy (at least insofar as right to property is concerned) is making that connection. The free market is the best means of making this connection. History has shown that. But history has also shown that under conditions of extreme economic inequality, the market no longer acts freely, but tends to act on behalf of those who have.
What to do in this situation? Government policy is not the only answer, but it might be ONE place where some changes might be made. Taxation is another tried and true way to remedy this effect.
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --Kafka The Logic of Long Distance
the unrunner
But history has also shown that under conditions of extreme economic inequality, the market no longer acts freely, but tends to act on behalf of those who have. What to do in this situation? Government policy is not the only answer, but it might be ONE place where some changes might be made. Taxation is another tried and true way to remedy this effect.
But history has also shown that under conditions of extreme economic inequality, the market no longer acts freely, but tends to act on behalf of those who have.
what about the bank and AIG bailouts and the saving of freddie mac and fannie mae? those were chances for some leveling of the playing field. no, really. i am being serious. it's called a "market correction". why pass up these opportunities for a market-driven leveling?
if you don't run, you'll rust. [tom petty] ..... i just wanna get back on track, even if it kills me. [motion city soundtrack] ..... if i only could be running up that hill, with no problems. if only i could, be running up that hill. [kate bush] ..... still running in place [alkaline trio] ..... at least i'll try and run, and run tonight, everything will be alright [the killers] ..... don't give up the distance. [flavio the magnificent]
Prince of Fatness
So everyone has to start from scratch? I can't leave property to my kids? I make many sacrifices for the well being of my kids. Should I not?
There is a long dark road ahead of me.
If and only if that uber-wealth infringes on my right to property (for example, by prohibiting access to a decent education, which is the precondition for the accumulation of property, especially in today's economy) should that wealth be seen as a threat to democracy.
To spaniel: no one is arguing that the proper distribution is a flat line. The argument is an old one: that democracy needs a strong middle class that ensures the labor-capital connection. It's an empirical fact that the middle class here is disappearing.
My knee-jerk reaction (I've got a lot of those) is that it was a missed opportunity. But I'm out of my league here. I'm not sure what the long-term consequences of the market correction might have been. I think we're still in the middle of this and hopefully we can come through with some legislation that will prohibit a few speculators from taking risks with the whole economy in order to get rich.
When, and under what time frame?
Because my take on history is that this corrects itself in the end, either by civilization decline or in revolt. Which is why I stated that I believe the factors you are talking about are a threat to capitalism.
And yes, I suppose taxation is a "tried and true" way to remedy the effect. Hoover taught us that.
Some have thought that inheritance laws are unconstitutional. I think that the reasonable position is that inheritances ought to be highly taxed (as they are), but the fact that our identity as individuals cannot be divorced from our dreams about our kids is a strong argument that inheritances ought to be preserved in some form.
(As we all know, grossly large inheritances can ruin kids, as often as they help them.)
When, and under what time frame? Because my take on history is that this corrects itself in the end, either by civilization decline or in revolt. Which is why I stated that I believe the factors you are talking about are a threat to capitalism. And yes, I suppose taxation is a "tried and true" way to remedy the effect. Hoover taught us that.
Shoot, you don't need history. Just look at the armada of lawyers that the extremely wealthy are able to hire to enforce their "fair" market transactions. Ever tried to have a free market transaction with your health insurance company?
Taxation is a part of all well-ordered societies. It's a way to redistribute wealth.
While I have not the perspective to fully think through the outcome, IMHO the action taken should have been to split them up. Now that they know they are "too big to fail", there is insufficient incentive for them to take steps to prevent a repeat.
As for a correction, the economy was massively overblown by silly spending, and real estate inflation. Yet somehow we expect we are supposed to be able to return to that growth pattern? Fool's economics. There has to be a correction and all the government wasting of our tax dollars is not going to prevent that. Jobs are still shedding, mortgages are still foreclosing, and hundreds of billions of bad assets are still on the books.
Ok now you've really spun something. You're saying that the wealthy prohibit access to a decent public education/ I think you have an agrument with the wrong people. The wealthy pay for private school with after tax dollars and they also pay taxes to the local government to fund public schools which they will not use. In this way they are paying twice. If the education is system is poor, you can't blame this on the people who pay for something they are not even using. You need to deal with those that control the system providing the service. Poor argument.
Agree, and with wealth comes responsibility. True, many parents fail in this regard, but the responsibility is theirs, not the government's.
While I have not the perspective to fully think through the outcome, IMHO the action taken should have been to split them up. Now that they know they are "too big to fail", there is insufficient incentive for them to take steps to prevent a repeat. As for a correction, the economy was massively overblown by silly spending, and real estate inflation. Yet somehow we expect we are supposed to be able to return to that growth pattern? Fool's economics. There has to be a correction and all the government wasting of our tax dollars is not going to prevent that. Jobs are still shedding, mortgages are still foreclosing, and hundreds of billions of bad assets are still on the books.
Yes, perhaps. I have to throw up my hands here and trust that Obama came to Washington to govern--to solve the problems. I hope he has the best and brightest working on this. And I hope that the opposition will criticize him in his efforts and support him as well when it is in the country's best interest for him to succeed, even though it is not in the Rupublican party's interest that he succeed. I'm sure you agree.
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy