By the way, can anybody tell me...
Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????
Spexvet: What difference does it make? Do you have a solution to the problem?
Are you willing to give enough of your income to "the cause of the poor" to equalize the lack of income of some poor person enough to bring them to "the middle class."
Chip
Sorry, Chip, I can't afford to. I haven't made my $150 million yet. I told you, I will not accept any income over $500,000 a year.Originally Posted by chip anderson
You still haven't answered the question.
Yes, I have. Everyone wants to cure the world's troubles with someone else's money. Kind of like the people in church (and I used to be one of this group) that say I can't afford to tithe, but I'll make up later after I've arrived. I just can't afford to give 10% now (and some folks think this means after tax money).
Liberals say I think those horrible tight conservative rich people ought to pay for bringing those poor (never mind that most of them would't stay out of poverty 3 months if you made them millionaires) devils out of despaire.
If you ain't willin to carry your own cross, don't ask someone else to carry it for you, that only happened once.
Chip
So the question seems to be: Why can some people seem to "make it", and some people never can? Please don't say "because they're lazy", because this makes you look stupid and uninformed. Some of the hardest-up and poorest people around are working two and three jobs in order to make ends meet. My wife worked with a woman a few years ago who took a second job purely so she could afford designer clothes. Misplaced priorities? Sure, for you and I, but I guess her idea was that if she's going to work hard, she might as well have nice things to show for it.
I don't have answer for the first question, because to me, it begs this question: If some people can do it and some can, how can we teach those people who haven't figured it out? Teach a man to fish, et cetera.
Let me be clear, since someone will likely start talking about Welfare soon enough: I don't like Welfare either. I wish it didn't need to exist. If you could earn enough money working an honest 40-hour week to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, childcare, and preventive healthcare with a little left to save, spend on luxuries or whatever, it hardly would need to exist, except as a program to make sure the bottom doesn't drop out on someone who's out of work for a longer period of time than they expected. Why should citizens in the richest country in the history of the world expect less?
I mean, I know I'm asking a lot--the common conservative rallying cry seems to be that government can't do anything right, so it's no surprise when Republicans wield unprecedented federal power, they make sure that exactly that happens, which of course leads to less faith in government, and so on. But here's the thing--in a democracy, we can vote the idiots out and put people in who actually are competent. That's sort of the point. If you're going to give up and say, "Well, they're all crooked and can't do anything right," and vote for the guy with the letter behind his name that matches your voter registration, don't bother voting. However, if you're interested in making politicians accountable to voters, the merely negligent ones will figure it out, and the bums will get booted. Determining that no good will ever come out of government, which seems to be your position, Chip, merely benefits those already in power, since that's what they've been trying to get you to believe.
Weird that Bush talks up the virtues of democracy for Iraq and people in this country seem to have decided that it doesn't work.
Um. Where was I? Oh. Living wages and universal healthcare would be a start. I know, I know--government can't do anything right. Read the last two paragraphs again. I'm tired of typing. And someone really needs to answer Spexvet's question.
So the two choices are Marxism (different from Socialism as I am sure you know????) or a growing gap between the top tier and the bottom tier. Got it.
No, you haven't. My question is "why". We have a system where some folks make $200 million a year, and get all their benefits for free, and others work sixty hours, make $16,000 a year, and can not afford healthcare for their children, let alone maintain their car or have cable TV.
My question is not "am I, personnally willing to give money to welfare recipients?", it is "why is the system I described better then a system where folks max out lifetime income at $150 million and the amount above that which they would have made can A)go to their employees (note: not welfare recipients), B)create new jobs (maybe get folks off of welfare), C)improve a product or service without raising its price (improves working poor's standard of living), D) reduce the price of a product or service, or E) given to charity?
I agree with Spartus. If "front-line" jobs provided a standard of living above that of welfare, more folks would work, and get off welfare! But, apparantly, that's not what's important to the wealthy in this country - it's much more important for them to have excess.
I support workfare. I believe working for a government check would accomplish a couple things: as a taxpayer, I would get a return on my investment, workers would learn good habits, and their self-esteem would increase. :cheers:
Spexvet,
I am not much of an economist, but I think that your income redistribution plan has serious implications concerning the acquisition and control of venture capital. Whether they're "right" or "wrong", I suspect that the "high rollers" would probably say that you are going to reduce the scope for one person or a small group of people to make an independent or "free market" decision about where to put their "chips" (not Chip) - one person or a small group thinks that they have a smart idea for a new product or enterprise (or the next version of the Ford Foundation) and wants to stake some serious money on it. It sounds like you are going to redistribute the acquisition and control of venture capital into many more hands - larger groups of people and (G-d forbid) the government. Down with visionary and imaginative entrepreneurship. Up with "investment by large committees only". Looks like your moving headlong towards socialism. Wall Street aint gonna like it.
Governments..........
I think that our govenments should be cut in personel and other expenses to the bare bones. Unions of government employees should be disbanded and eliminated. Government then could become lean and efficient at less than half the present cost and would also perform better.
I dont know the ratio in the USA, but in Canada every 3rd Canadian works for the government of one type or another.
Blue collar workers got caught in Montreal 2 weeks ago using 195 man hours to fill 9 potholes....the pay is $ 22.50 per hour.
Government is stealing from us and mismanaging many things. While out in the corporation world the mergers continue with resulting layoffs by the thousands, all due to streamlining the old world corporations that functioned like governments.
Before thinking of handouts of money we dont have, create the already existing funds by eliminating the sources of spoilage.
Thank you for an answer to my question, Rinnsey. Finally, an answer! And one based on legitaimate reasoning.
I can't say that you are right or wrong. While this may be a negative of my plan, does it outweigh the benefits? Additionally, I don't think my plan heads toward socialism. I think it makes our economic system more democratic. A venture capitalist will have to get more folks to "vote" for a venture, than before. Maybe fewer businesses will be "flash in the pans" or "flashes in the pan".
Do you view that as a positive thing?
I'll happily go on record as being one that supports an economic model that tends more towards socialism than it does today, as opposed to our current haphazard "laissez-faire for big campaign contributors, standard rules for the rest" system.
Pure socialism is just about as bad as pure free-market capitalism. However, as some elements of capitalism are great things for the public, so are some elements of socialism. Roads are socialist. Schools are socialist. Clean tap water, the electrical grid, parks, police and fire departments--infrastructure--all socialist.
You're all quick to go on about the "redistribution of wealth". That's all that government does. A government collects taxes and provides the services and amenities to its citizens that the citizens, by voting in their candidate, demand. It's sort of like a free market in that respect. All we're quibbling about is which services they provide. Every time I start thinking about what Libertarians would like to see government do, I get a headache trying to figure out the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist.
I can't say it enough: Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civil society. If you don't like it, I hear the rates are very low in sub-Saharan Africa. Mind the death squads.
Gates fortune hits 50 billion dollars as megawealth spreads
Bill Gates increased his lead at the top of the megarich ranking as the world's wealthiest people added 400 billion dollars to their net worth, according to Forbes magazine's annual list.
The number of people whose wealth reached 10 figures stood at a record 793, an increase of 102 from the previous year, with Microsoft founder Gates in first place for the 12th straight year. His 50 billion dollar fortune increased by 3.5 billion dollars from the 2005 Forbes list.
How much profit is too much......His
How much profit is not enough......mine.
But I promise you that if I ever become a billionaire, I will give all but 10 million or so away. But I will also give it to whom and how I see fit, not as you would have me do.
Chip
If you're referring to me, I never told you how to use your excess. I made suggestions, but I also said that what the gluttonous filthy rich do should be voluntary. Go back, read my posts, you'll find that it's all there.
I have heard that Bill will be giving all his wealth away when he exprires.
Is this to be believed?
Fair play to him if its true.
No one keeps any wealth after they expire although I am sure some have tried to bury it to pick up on the way down.
Chip
Sorry, I meant to charitable causes rather than let it pass to his family.
I ran across this, found it interesting, and thought I'd share it with you.
WAGE--PRODUCTIVITY GAP
The most damaging factor to our economy today is the Wage-Productivity gap. This refers to the increase in the hourly output of workers vs. the increase in hourly pay. This concept is described quite well in Chapter 6 of economist Ravi Batra's book, "Greenspan's Fraud." During times of true economic prosperity, wages have kept pace with productivity increases. Workers have shared in the benefits of their increased productivity. The result is that wages remained sufficient to purchase our nation's industrial output. Borrowing, or debt-financed consumer spending, was unnecessary to maintain sufficient consumer spending to purchase our production. More production can be purchased because more wages are paid. Demand, created by wages, matches supply, which is created by productivity. This creates a balance that makes massive borrowing unnecessary. And such balance maximizes economic "growth."
This balance has not been maintained, however, during recent years. It has worsened greatly under the Bush administration. Productivity has increased significantly during the Bush years. In contrast, wages have actually decreased. This trend started before Bush took office, but I'll confine the time frame to December 2001 through March of 2005. These are years for which records are readily available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Below is a graph from the New York Times showing how productivity is outpacing wages.
Starting in January of 2003, productivity (or output per hour) has increased 11.2% thru the 1st quarter of 2005. In contrast, hourly wages have declined 2.3% over the same time period, from an inflation-adjusted $8.32/hour in January, 2003, to $8.13/hour in June, 2005. Production has exceeded the ability of wage earners to purchase the production by 13.5%. This gap has been filled by consumer borrowing. The amount borrowed must steadily increase, in order to keep pace with our increasing industrial production. If it did not, our economy would sink into recession. However, maintaining demand through borrowing is not a sustainable path.
Sometimes the effect of the wage-productivity gap can be seen better from a distance. An example of the effect of the wage-productivity gap can be seen with Japan's economy. Again, this was described by economist Ravi Batra in Chapter 6 of his book, "Greenspan's Fraud." Dr. Batra makes a very compelling case that Japan's economic problems resulted from the increasing gap between Japanese wages and productivity. I will paraphrase his explanation here.
Japan experienced extremely rapid growth between 1960 and 1975. During that time there was a 168% increase in per capita GDP. Their per capita GDP increased from $2,139 in 1960 to $5,750 in 1975. Real wages increased 217% during that time. Manufacturing productivity increased 264% during these 15 years. Japan prospered and its economy grew during this period because wages, which create demand, kept up with productivity, which creates supply. There was sufficient WAGE-FINANCED demand to stimulate production. And the necessary demand was maintained by consumer income, not consumer borrowing.
After 1975, productivity growth began to outpace wage growth. The result was a much slower growth in GDP. Between 1975 and 1990, productivity increased 3% more than wages per year. During that period, wages increased 27%, while productivity increased 86%. The per capita GDP increase was 64% from 1975 to 1990. Less of the wealth produced by Japanese workers was being shared with them. As a result, business profits soared, increasing money available for investment. This caused Japanese investors to over-invest in both the stock market and housing. Japanese stock markets and real estate values soared as a result of this over-investment. Meanwhile, there was insufficient wage-financed demand to keep up with this capital investment.This necessitated increased levels of borrowing to maintain the demand that wages could not maintain.
By 1990 there was a huge Japanese stock market bubble and real estate bubble. And in 1990 this overvaluation all came crashing down. The Japanese economy has still not recovered 15 years later. By 2003, the Japanese stock market was still 80% below its peak in 1990. From 1990 thru 2002, per capita GDP increased 13%. Compare that with the 168% increase between 1960 and 1975. Compare this latter 15-year increase with the 59% increase during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Japan's per capita GDP increased 3 times as much during the 15 years prior to 1975, than it did during the 27 years after 1975. The pre-1975 rate of increase was 5 times faster than the post-1975 increase.
What caused this slowdown? The rise in the wage-productivity gap. Worker income that could have been put to good use buying Japanese goods was siphoned off as corporate profits. Since the benefits of investment capital are limited by consumer demand, the result was over-investment of Japanese stock and housing markets, and maintenance of consumer demand by borrowing.
Does this situation describe any other economy you can think of?
One could make the argument that we are redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top. Forget Japan, this is the sort of thing that made Marie Antoinette light headed......;)
I've presented a solution, hoping to stir discussion. The response has not been constructive debate or discussion, only reasons why my idea wouldn't work. Let's try this:
1. Do you think the disparity between rich and poor is currently a problem in the US?
2. Would it be OK if one person aquired 90% of the wealth of the world, and the rest of us split the remaining 10% (living in squallor)?
3. What solution do you have for solving the problem of the disparity between rich and poor?
I have found the answer: To a Liberal Democrat His Profit is Too Much.
To a Conservative Republican: My Profit Can't Ever be Enough!
Anybody noticed how good we are getting at telling other people how to behave, spend thier money, get educated, require a license, etc. But, of course we don't need anyone to tell us.
Chip
Thanks for the nonsense, Chip
T'aint quite the original, but on short notice, THIS was the best I could come up with ...
And if that aint enough, there's always more!
The UAE (United Arab Emirates) was the country at the center of the recent US port terminals controversy. Why are they known as America's "Top Gun" in the Middle East? RinselNews has the answer: See http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=207
Last edited by rinselberg; 03-22-2006 at 06:33 PM.
Still no serious answer to my question?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks