Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
When someone like Gates comes along and and builds a company which makes computers an appliance like a washing machine, within everyone's reach (remember Xerox passed on the mouse idea, no value to them,) it's a Henry Ford kind of thing. You might not like the guy or his company's software. You might begrudge him his wealth, but he did not steal it from you. No one out there would have a cent more than they do had he never been born.
You think he was just lucky, talk to a hockey player. Hockey looks random like pinball to most people. 95% luck. The players will tell you you that you make your own luck.
Anyway, making the economy bigger is not theft. It is not at your expense.
There are rich who have stolen their money from the rest of us. I hope they don't sleep well at night. But this idea tat people who succeed are bad people is bad for all of us.
Yeah some of you will say that Ford was a robber baron or some such thing. He employed a lot of people when the nation was growing fast. He created the idea that you didn't have to be rich to have a car, for example.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
50% of all US school children are not in poverty.
Most all have a roof over their head, all have access to clean water, nearly all get daily meals, if from school.
Are many poor? Sure. Does their life probably suck? Sure. But they aren't living in the jungle slums drinking from a cholera-infested river. And they are in school - they aren't digging up dirt in a diamond pit at age 9 in the Congo.
Let's be realistic here...
The Southern Education Foundation needs to get out more.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Are many poor? Sure. Does their life probably suck? Sure.
Poor is what poverty is.
Our definition of poverty may differ slightly, but to act as though there is no poverty in America is to deny the truth.
I've been to a lot of third world countries, and I still say that even though our poor people usually have more than the poor people in Tibet, they damn sure ought to, considering how much wealth is in this country.
I get so tired of hearing people say "Oh but they won't be motivated to work harder if we share with them."
I call bull. Poor people are some of the hardest working in the world. It's the filthy rich who don't do much work.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
It's the filthy rich who don't do much work.
The issue here is not how "hard" one "works." Economics does not revolve around "work." It revolves around value. Bill Gates and company added value, and he got a percentage of that added value. He didn't get all of the added value. It's not a zero-sum game, where somebody else has have reduced value in order for him to have added value.
So many on this thread seem to think that there's a moral "ought" here somewhere. Lines about the poor "having more" than in third-world countries: "They damn well ought to," and the implied bit about the rich not working "hard enough," like: "They damn well ought to work harder for the money they have," all make me wonder what economic principles you imagine. What sense of "harder" "ought" it to be for the "rich"?
It's very interesting to me that so many are outraged about the "filthy rich," but could not articulate economic principles that are non-arbitrary about what they have done "wrong." Definitely, some have outright stolen what they have, and they should be in prison (or shot for treason). I'm thinking of the big bankers and even government officials who orchestrated the latest economic meltdown. But what about the many "rich" people who have not stolen or cheated to gain what they have? Is it somehow right to outright steal from them so that the poor "damn well should" have more than they do?
I'd love to hear the economic principles employed to justify "wealth redistribution."
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
Did anyone here accuse Gates of stealing? Did he come close? Why yes (he and/or his company) did. One of many examples.
TECHNOLOGY; Temp Workers At Microsoft Win Lawsuit
Microsoft agreed to pay $97 million yesterday to settle an eight-year-old class-action lawsuit in which thousands of temporary employees accused the company of improperly denying them benefits.
Microsoft reached this settlement, one of the largest ever received by a group of temporary employees, after the workers had sued the company, maintaining that they were actually permanent employees, not temporaries, and therefore deserved the same benefits as regular workers.
Did Gates build his empire on the backs of others? Of course he did. Read up. Did he therefore profit at someone else's expense. Of course he did.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
To the extent that this can be proved, he (and others) should be prosecuted. It's pretty widely known that early Microsoft ripped off the owners of CPM in order to convert it to 16-bit MSDOS (which was licensed to IBM as a bill of goods prior to its actual development). All sorts of garbage was floated to get Microsoft off the ground. So, prosecute. That's the right of the people at the time of the crime.
What you can't legitimately do is decades later use such an example to claim that all the "filthy rich" have ripped society off to gain their wealth. Such is over-generalizing. And it doesn't answer the question about what principle would justify "wealth redistribution" in order to give the poor what they "damn well should" have.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
It's (the Microsoft class action) the result of a lawsuit, done and done. Look it up. Notice is from 2000. The title should read "settle" not "win".
Of course Microsoft admitted no wrong-doing. Why settle after fighting it for 8 years? MS was gonna lose.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Plantation owners ripped off blacks to gain their wealth. Railroad big shots ripped off Chinese to gain their wealth. CA agriculture empire ripped off immigrants to gain their wealth. Sweat shop owners do it. Banks do it. Insurance companies do it to everyone. Powerful people have been doing it since the beginning of time. Their wealth is not all righteous and immune from criticism, nor is the current economic system immune from improvement.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
Both have definitions that can easily be googled.
The issue is the society in which you apply the definition and how one views his own idea of wealth in contrast to that.
For example, from 2004 to 2009 I lived in my van and worked just enough to continue my road trip. Each year I made between 9,000 and and 11,000 bucks. Under what the American government considers to be "poor".
I traveled all over the US, Canada and Mexico. I climbed at pretty much every major destination and plenty of minor ones. I climbed 4 to 5 days a week. I made friends from all walks of life. I gained experience and memories that I'll have for the rest of my life. I wouldn't change that decision in ten lifetimes.
I never had to borrow money or go without good food and beer. I never stiffed a waitress on a tip. I never couldn't buy a new rope or cam. I never failed to pay my bills.
So, during that time was I poor?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Powerful people have been doing it since the beginning of time. Their wealth is not all righteous and immune from criticism, nor is the current economic system immune from improvement.
To the extent that what you say is true, that is still not the basis of justifiable generalizations about either "the poor" or "the wealthy".
And what "improvement" would you make to the current economic system? It's not just "semantics" to say that I don't believe that the "system" needs "improvement". What we need is for existing anti-trust, anti-corruption, and anti-theft laws to actually be enforced. Such enforcement is one of the slated tasks and powers of our federal government, and it is one of the areas in which they have most shirked their duty!
I said before: This is not about "class warfare" with the "poor" against the "wealthy". This is about the federal government protecting the integrity of the "playing field," which is one of its primary powers and duties.
The "poor" do not better their case by coercing the feds into ripping off the middle class in their efforts to "go after the wealthy". And it is not primarily the "wealthy" individuals that are lobbying the feds to give them a pass in all that they do.
Our problem is giant corporations against ALL of us. As one example, whatever else Obamacare was, it was transference of wealth from the middle class to the insurance companies, with a federally-guaranteed "safety-net" for the insurance companies in the unlikely event that unforeseen consequences caused them to (gasp!) lose ANY money on the deal in even the short term. The insurance companies wanted this law, because they gained a huge, guaranteed, and CAPTIVE market!
Meanwhile, more and more of the "poor" are finding out that a gigantic annual deductible does NOT amount to effectively being "insured".
This was "class warfare" at its "finest," and who REALLY wins are the insurance companies (who, btw, for my company group plan immediately doubled our deductible and cranked up the rates by over 40%).
Every time the feds engage in pandering to "class warfare" instead of doing the job they are ACTUALLY supposed to do, everybody but some giant corporations end up worse off, we end up further in debt, and the groundwork is even more firmly laid for the next incident of misguided "class warfare".
So, what about "the economic system" would you change?
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2015 - 04:58pm PT
|
Madbolter should start a thread on his economic theories. Might be interesting reading for somebody. Economics being a lot of theories and no science makes dull talk. Irving Langmuir pointed out in the 1930's that economics wasn't a science because theories about things like depressions and recessions can't be tested and we will never gather enough data to make reliable statistical statements. Since economics isn't a science, boring people can debate it endlessly because no opinions about economics can have a rational basis. What this means it that the only thing we can do to influence the economy is to try something and see what happens. We should slowly try small things so that our mistakes are small and happen slowly.
Pray that our mistakes are small and happen slowly.
Anyway, discuss unfounded, unconfirmable economic opinions if you wish but tell us what wealth and poverty are to you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
boring people can debate it endlessly because no opinions about economics can have a rational basis.
So, your opinion about economics is that no such opinions can have a rational basis, which means that your opinion itself cannot have a rational basis.
Uh, huh....
Carry on
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2015 - 06:41pm PT
|
Exactly! You got it! I won't debate economics with you! My opinion and your opinion are both equally empty and worthless.
I have posted on forums for long enough to recognize that nobody has ever changed anybody's mind, opinion or whatever on a forum. The opiner's posts get longer and more repetitive but people simply listen less and less. My conclusion is that it is a waste of time to argue on a forum with the expectation that you will influence anybody's opinion. I try not to waste my time.
On the other hand, some people seem to enjoy, or can't resist, endless circular argument. OK, they can do what they want.
So, I actually ask you opinion about something, you won't answer and insist on talking about something else.
Ok, carry on.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
But, in the case of madbolter's example - a theory was put in practice into law, thus is being tested, and numerous examples just like madbolter's have been and are playing out daily across the country.
So, the question remains: what would you change?
|
|
two-shoes
Trad climber
Auberry, CA
|
|
Overthrown Citizens United!
|
|
ladyscarlett
Trad climber
SF Bay Area, California
|
|
Make it far, far more difficult for the wealthy to buy elections by passing a constitutional amendment permanently divorcing the topics of campaign donation limits and free speech.
Then, a personal per election per office or issue limit, of $5000. Period.
No PAC money. No corporate donations, neither of those entities can vote anyway.
On person, one wallet, one issue, one vote, one donation. $5000 max.
It could be a rather simply worded amendment.
If you want to take (power) from the rich and give it to the poor (powerless); this is how you do it without firing a shot.
DMT
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
If you want to take (power) from the rich and give it to the poor (powerless); this is how you do it without firing a shot.
Exactly right, imo.
In the political realm, power is vested in money. DMT, you're spot on about "leveling the playing field" in that respect!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Exactly! You got it! I won't debate economics with you! My opinion and your opinion are both equally empty and worthless.
No, actually, you don't get it. Your opinion that opinions are equally worthless is itself, by its own lights, worthless.
Yet, you want to have a "discussion" using economic terms, but you don't want those terms to be well-defined.
Sorry, but you don't get it.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 4, 2015 - 07:37am PT
|
No, actually, you don't get it. Your opinion that opinions are equally worthless is itself, by its own lights, worthless.
Yes.
Yet, you want to have a "discussion" using economic terms
If you say "What is Wealth? What is Poverty?" is a request for an economic discussion, OK.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What do you think a wealth/poverty discussion IS apart from an "economic discussion"?
Was your intention here to have just a big, warm, sloppy group hug about how "wealthy" we all are because we have life, health, a nice family, enough to eat, and so on?
If so, you should not have led in your OP with a steaming pile of socialist/communist snake-droppings that IS itself economic theory (worthless, according to you).
Look, you led with crap. You got called on it. And your lame response is that you don't want to debate the very thing you started to debate. And you debate THAT by saying that all such debate is equally worthless.
What do YOU think we are talking about, since YOU started the ECONOMIC discussion? LOL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!