I saw someone with a t-shirt that read"champions do more". I don’t think that anyone is entitled to the wealth of another. One should be entitled to the opportunity to work and to enjoying the fruits of his labor.
Bellyaching about a lack of jobs comes from the same fantasy that believes in an “us”. Companies are importing skilled professionals, who have become a significant part of the middle class, because our youth has sought either no education, even marginal (this, and not the location of 90% of the wealth is the problem), or choose easy careers, thinking that the most generic education gives them the right to a job. How many doctors complain about this? And yet anyone can work their tails to be a doctor…even this scavenging vulture.
Literally nobody gains wealth by themselves, they gain it through the labor, cooperation and/or exploitation of others.
You dismiss “us” as a fantasy as if that were self-evident. All i see is “us”. i don’t see individual people acting alone - i see masses of people inter-acting with one another.
People don’t get rich as lone actors, it’s quite impossible.
Wealth is a resource, and it is in fact a significant problem when 1% of a society’s population controls the vast majority of the wealth because it keeps the concentration of power and influence in the hands of a relatively tiny number of people. Granted, it’s not a problem for you if you happen to be one of those people, but it’s a problem for the majority.
And people bellyache about lack of jobs because, for instance, even if one wishes to work one’s tail and become a doctor, how does one afford it if they can’t get a job?
Hey uglypeople
— Literally nobody gains wealth by themselves, they gain it through the labor, cooperation and/or exploitation of others.
O- What about their labor? None of these economist ever put time becoming professionals? Plato asked: What is fine? The answer is that which is hard, which is rare. There is a reason that brain surgeons are often millionares.
Don’t get me wrong, there are useless parasites that drive their companies to the ground while they exit with a “golden parachute”. That is NOT fair. But it is fair that rare abilities get rewarded accordingly.
— You dismiss “us” as a fantasy as if that were self-evident. All i see is “us”. i don’t see individual people acting alone - i see masses of people inter-acting with one another.
O- There are several groups of “us”. There is no one absolute “us”. As you just said, there is the explotation of “others”, even if for the sake of “all” or the “people”. Fantasies created for an alibi.
— People don’t get rich as lone actors, it’s quite impossible.
O- Perhaps legally you mean. Quite true. My point is not that everyone can get rich on their own. It takes others, but it also takes ability, opportunity and luck.
— Wealth is a resource
O- NO. Does it grow on trees? And if it IS the product of fraud, explotaition of otherwise undeserved, then to think of it as a resource is to legitimize it’s means of production.
— and it is in fact a significant problem when 1% of a society’s population controls the vast majority of the wealth because it keeps the concentration of power and influence in the hands of a relatively tiny number of people. Granted, it’s not a problem for you if you happen to be one of those people, but it’s a problem for the majority.
O- Wealth is not the only source of power and influence, nor is the pursuit of power and influence ends in themselves. What strikes me is that wealth is not what I want, but happiness. Seeing wealth as a means to power and influence blinds us from what is really important which is meaningful relationships and a happy life. The mathematical formulas that went viral over the OWS movement obscured the fact that some of the 99% dropped out of school, joined gangs, settle for meager existences subsidized by an assortement of drugs, can’t even wear pants properly or have enough discipline to stop their reproduction until their life is better. That is not a matter of class but of character, which unfortunately, many people lack.
— And people bellyache about lack of jobs because, for instance, even if one wishes to work one’s tail and become a doctor, how does one afford it if they can’t get a job?
O- If you have low income, but high grades you can qualify for financial aid and grants. Many EMT’s work their way through their degrees in medicine. This I have seen in the aviation industry as well. Some are currently studying aeronautics and engineering while changing tires on 737’s. Some might say: “He’s being exploited”, but one day he’ll be a millionaire, I think he will, and people will say that he is a millionaire because he is an exploiter. Is that fair to you? I know that you’re going to say that this is a straw man, but that is what I am hearing from scavenging vultures that perch near by.
Hey Omar
Sure, but overall it’s not as if there is anything necessarily meritocratic about who has the wealth under the current system, as shown in your example about CEO pay - yes, some people with rare and valuable abilities are rewarded well, which is as it should be, but i don’t think that everyone who has extraordinary amounts of wealth is so deserving.
Right, “us” is clearly relative, not absolute. But i would say the same thing about “I”.
Agreed.
i disagree. i think you’ll find that by most definitions of the term, money, or anything that can be exchanged for money, qualifies as a resource - and if it is the product of exploitative or fraudulent practices, i don’t see how calling it a resouce changes or excuses that.
What you are saying really only pertains once one already has enough wealth to get one’s basic needs met. You’re completely right that money doesn’t buy happiness - but it can certainly relieve various kinds of misery and suffering that stand in the way of happiness. And power and influence can be bought - look at Mitt Romney, for one.
Well, i’m not sure it’s entirely fair to judge a person’s character based on clothing, but yeah, some people lack character. However, as you say, that’s a description that fits people of all classes, rich and poor alike. I think the point of the OWS statistics was not that the 99% are all virtuous people, but rather that it is a fundamentally skewed vision of the world which says that only 1% of the people deserve such a vast majority of the wealth. What entitles this relatively tiny elite to so much privelage?
Well, i can’t speak for the scavenging vulture. i personally don’t think it’s fair to label someone an exploiter simply because they have a lot of money - but, by the same token, it’s not fair to assume that just because a person is poor or unemployed they must be lazy, lack ability, and/or lack character. Like i said, our society is not a meritocracy, and opportunities are not equal for rich and poor alike.
I think the Occupy movement is the burning out of the anti-globalisation movement, or possibly a set-up distraction for that movement. No Logo was not just a clever title, it was actually a very interesting book that captured a time when political radicalism was on the incline. Now it is on the decline, like so many things. Perhaps we’ve reached peak radicalism.
Hey Ugly People
— Sure, but overall it’s not as if there is anything necessarily meritocratic about who has the wealth under the current system, as shown in your example about CEO pay - yes, some people with rare and valuable abilities are rewarded well, which is as it should be, but i don’t think that everyone who has extraordinary amounts of wealth is so deserving.
O- not everyone. The question is whether golden parachutes are an aberration or the norm. I think there was media coverage because it is the aberration.
— Right, “us” is clearly relative, not absolute. But i would say the same thing about “I”.
O- sure.
— i disagree. i think you’ll find that by most definitions of the term, money, or anything that can be exchanged for money, qualifies as a resource -
O- Legally it is a private resource and not a public one. Even when taxed, it is you giving some of your resource something you otherwise have a right to. Air is a public resource, as well as water to drink
— and if it is the product of exploitative or fraudulent practices, i don’t see how calling it a resouce changes or excuses that.
O- my point is that using the horse that the prince robbed from the peasant as a resource is to forget that the horse belonged to someone else and to use it, sell it or redistribute rather than restore to the rightful owner is to perpetuate his victimization.
— What you are saying really only pertains once one already has enough wealth to get one’s basic needs met. You’re completely right that money doesn’t buy happiness - but it can certainly relieve various kinds of misery and suffering that stand in the way of happiness. And power and influence can be bought - look at Mitt Romney, for one.
O- look at Joel Osteen, Dr Phil, Oprah. While powerful and influential, it was not because they were simply rich. In their cases, as well as others, maybe Romney, wealth and power are effects and not the cause of influence.
— Well, i’m not sure it’s entirely fair to judge a person’s character based on clothing, but yeah, some people lack character.
O- if you are an employer such details are part of the hiring process. This is no secret.
— However, as you say, that’s a description that fits people of all classes, rich and poor alike. I think the point of the OWS statistics was not that the 99% are all virtuous people, but rather that it is a fundamentally skewed vision of the world which says that only 1% of the people deserve such a vast majority of the wealth. What entitles this relatively tiny elite to so much privelage?
O- it depends. Maybe they are creative pioneers or technological visionaries. But that is not objectionable. It is mitt and those like him whose wealth was build through investment. They play a game of risk where the value of something is always redefined, exorbitantly high or low. I know of people who won ridiculous payouts in state lottery. What entitles them?
— Well, i can’t speak for the scavenging vulture. i personally don’t think it’s fair to label someone an exploiter simply because they have a lot of money - but, by the same token, it’s not fair to assume that just because a person is poor or unemployed they must be lazy, lack ability, and/or lack character.
O- not all. But a person who is skilled, with a work ethic and good character will not stay unemployed for long as these are uncommon qualities.
— Like i said, our society is not a meritocracy, and opportunities are not equal for rich and poor alike.
O- I disagree. Engineers do not come solely from rich families and financial aid, grants, scholarships exist precisely to open the door of opportunity to those of modest means or poor but with the capacity for brilliance.
Hey Omar,
So overall do you think the system is meritocratic?
These distinctions won’t always work, individuals can privately own drinking water, and the public can have a budget. Fact is, water and money are universal needs, and they are things that both societies and individuals can posess - how they are distributed effects the welfare of the entire society.
Money and posessions change hands all the time under all kinds of circumstances and for all kinds of reasons. It’s not as if because you own something one moment that you are forever the rightful owner of it. i think you are making the argument that taxation is inherently unfair - in which case, i have to disagree. Sure, there are taxes which are unfair, it is probably unfair for the prince (presumably very rich) to confiscate a peasant’s only horse, but there are taxes which makes sense as well.
i would say THEY are the aberrations.
Romney has purchased his way to the top of the political heap - he is not a particularly talented or brilliant politician, he simply has lots of money - enough to get him nominated for, if not elected to, the presidency of the US.
Right, it’s a good idea to try to dress conventionally at job interview because . . . well, just because. But even though you may see someone with low hanging pants, it doesn’t mean they will be any less skilled or able to do the job. So it is a bit prejudicial and not always wise of an employer to be overly concerned with how someone is dressed.
It’s a good question. i don’t really think anything entitles them to it - they are merely lucky.
Hmm, im not sure they are as uncommon as those of us who posess them might want to think.
Must one be brilliant in order to access the doors of opportunity? That’s leaves a large percentage of the population in the cold.
In any case, having money makes it easier to access opportunity - one does not require scholarships to pay for a decent education, one need not work a job in addition to studying, one has the peace of mind of knowing that there is a safety net should one fail to achieve their goal, and so on. It’s simply not a level playing field for rich and poor.
Hey Uglypeople,
— So overall do you think the system is meritocratic?
O- Everyone will have their own opinion based on ideology or personal experience. It is my experience that employment within my field rest heavily on one’s merits, one’s resume. I don’t know about the hiring process for CEOs but I believe that there has to be at least the semblance of a merit-hiring system.
Now there is Affirmative Action, but again, the backlash against demonstrates the base ideology in industry. It’s existence demonstrate however that the system is not without defects. The law states that you shall not discriminate upon the basis of age, race, religion, political affiliation because some have. So the system is not without flaws and aberrations but I think that the cultural and legal norm is one of merit and desert.
— These distinctions won’t always work, individuals can privately own drinking water, and the public can have a budget.
O- within their property, people can own drinking water. But one think is to own a portion of a natural supply and another to own drinking water entirely. A person can have a deed to a property with a spring. A homeless man can have a 5 gal bucket filled by a fresh rain and that is his and is drinkable.
Now lets get back to money. Drinking water is not, generally, the product of private labor while money is. Money in my bank account does not fall from the sky or grow on trees. There is nothing natural about its production. It requires my labor. It is an exchange. Only a shaman could equate rain with money. So I still fail to see how money is like a natural resource, I say it isn’t and that is why there are questions about fairness involved with any distribution and more importantly, redistribution of this apparent “resource”.
— Fact is, water and money are universal needs,
O- They are but how they are, what they are, creates important distinctions.
— and they are things that both societies and individuals can posess
O- Yet how I come by that possession is not the same.
— how they are distributed effects the welfare of the entire society.
O- this is true, but the consequence does not demonstrate the cause to be equal or even alike.
— Money and posessions change hands all the time under all kinds of circumstances and for all kinds of reasons. It’s not as if because you own something one moment that you are forever the rightful owner of it.
O- under the law…How would you define a robbery then?
— i think you are making the argument that taxation is inherently unfair - in which case, i have to disagree.
O- that is not what i am saying. If what you argue is the opposite, that taxation IS inherently fair, or that redistribution is inherently fair then i disagree, consistent with my opinions about merit and fairness.
— Sure, there are taxes which are unfair, it is probably unfair for the prince (presumably very rich) to confiscate a peasant’s only horse, but there are taxes which makes sense as well.
O- agreed.
— i would say THEY are the aberrations.
O- I believe that influence that is bought is not influence. It is the lack of influence that is covered by fake allegiance.
— Romney has purchased his way to the top of the political heap - he is not a particularly talented or brilliant politician, he simply has lots of money - enough to get him nominated for, if not elected to, the presidency of the US.
O- it takes money to run a political add, but that is not the source of his influence- that comes from his story as a successful business man. That, and a record as governor of MA is what he uses as influence, to lend weight to the promises he makes. Money is not influence.
— Right, it’s a good idea to try to dress conventionally at job interview because . . . well, just because. But even though you may see someone with low hanging pants, it doesn’t mean they will be any less skilled or able to do the job. So it is a bit prejudicial and not always wise of an employer to be overly concerned with how someone is dressed.
O- true, but only if you have talents that merit someone hiring you. If you are a graduate of MIT in astrophysics then who cares about how you dress? Sadly I don’t think that the 99% has many of those.
— It’s a good question. i don’t really think anything entitles them to it - they are merely lucky.
O- what entitles them is running the risk. It’s a game of risk as I’ve said and you win or lose big. If you lose, it is your loss and no one else. No one should pay for the risk you took. If you win however the it is your gain and yours alone. No one should be paid for the risk that you took. You want to tax income then that is fine but is their income, their gains and not just returning to society what they are entitled to or what belongs to all as if it grew from trees.
— Hmm, im not sure they are as uncommon as those of us who posess them might want to think.
O- I know. But I do think that it is less prevalent than inertia.
— Must one be brilliant in order to access the doors of opportunity? That’s leaves a large percentage of the population in the cold.
O- so, in your opinion, some are born rich, some are intelligent enough to become rich and the rest, the great majority are incapable to follow and must be fed the gains of those who luck has visited?
I see the great majority as capable, if not of brilliance then of dedication and hard work which can open doors. You and I and the rest of this great majority may never be filthy rich, but that does not demonstrate that uncommon abilities should not be uncommonly compensated. What I am convinced of is that everyone should earn his keep according to his virtues. I believe in disparity based on merit, due to effort or brilliance and not because of sex or race. I am not convince that you should be compensated in equal terms simply because you exist. Everyone should be assisted but assistance should be seen as circumstantial, as an adaptation to what has happened and not as the norm.
— In any case, having money makes it easier to access opportunity - one does not require scholarships to pay for a decent education, one need not work a job in addition to studying, one has the peace of mind of knowing that there is a safety net should one fail to achieve their goal, and so on. It’s simply not a level playing field for rich and poor.
O- those are the few. There are those like them, for whom there is already a fortune in place and a family business that one only has to take over to perpetuate the family’s wealth. But of course they are not insulated against failure, against poor choices, against temptation. The point however is wealth is not guaranteed by wealth alone and that many fortunes have humble beginnings. To me this is how it should be. For many immigrants this is what it is. They leave the land they love to give themselves and their children a better future. That is not equal to saying that they either get rich or die trying but that where they find themselves by virtue of their efforts should not be seen as a fraud they have committed but as something they earned. This is not the 1%, but setting the precedence that the 99% is entitled to whatever is owned by the 1% will ensure that one day they will rob a person like you and me using the basic argument, in the name of being fair while committing a most unfair act.
Hey Omar,
Indeed, affirmative action notwithstanding, there is the semblance of a merit-based hiring system in most cases. That is, as you say, the cultural norm. Merit-based PAYMENT is a different story however. i suppose the point of contention comes when we are discussing who “deserves” what, and what their respective “merits” are that entitle them to those deserts. i would suggest, for instance, that merely having risked (gambled) some money is not a sign of merit, and that one does not necessarily deserve the rewards that might come as a result, even if the law allows one to have and enjoy them. i don’t think that being lucky enough to have made money playing with investments or winning the lottery equates with DESERVING the money one has made. Luck is not merit. Conversely, i also think that many proficient, hard working people are not compensated adequately or fairly for what they do, particularly those in what are deemed more “menial” positions. No, it’s not difficult to learn how to mop the floor and clean the sink, but that does not mean that it is easy work to do for a living, or that it is less important or useful work - it seems to me many such jobs are not compensated fairly, at least relative to the compensation we see for other positions higher up the scale.
My point here is not that money grows on trees or falls from the sky. However, it is significant to note that there is in fact a great deal of labor and expense that goes into the production and distribution of drinkable water to all the people, and that most of that labor is collectively subsidized by the government, meaning that society as a whole foots the bill for those who would not otherwise have access to drinking water - which is effectively an example of wealth redistribution. So, my point is rather that the job of fairly distributing resources (natural and otherwise, and especially resources like money and water which are universal needs), cannot effectively be left to the markets alone, as this results in the gross and often blatantly unfair disparities, symbolized in things like the 99% / 1% statistic. In my opinion, there needs to be a complement to the system, whereby the distribution of resources that results from the markets is tweaked in such a way that people on the lower rungs of the social ladder are not denied access to necessities of life. This seems only fair to me.
i think, as i have said, that money and water are alike NOT in that they have the same origin or that they are produced in the same way, but rather in that society has a vested interest in ensuring that they are both fairly distributed. This does not mean that everyone is entitled to equal amounts of these resources, only that, for pragmatic and ethical reasons, everyone should have SOME access to them, given that they are both universal needs.
Well, officially, a robbery would be the UNLAWFUL seizure of property that belongs to another, as opposed to a legal exchange or transfer of property. But the law is often pretty arbitrary, so of course the essential question this raises is what ought to be considered lawful and how that should be determined. Part of that determination, in my opinion, ought be based in considerations about what is good for the whole of society, and not simply what allows individual people to become as rich as possible.
Apologies, i did not intend to put words in your mouth. No my argument is not that taxation is inherently fair either - i think it can go either way (fair or unfair), entirely dependent on context and circumstance.
Interesting, i can imagine that is sometimes the case. However i’m not sure how much practical difference there is between the real and the fake in this instance. Yes, if you have purchased allegiance, it will likely run out if and when the money does. But meanwhile, you are still able to pay people to do and say things they wouldn’t otherwise, and that can have very real effects and bring about very real changes, even if those things are said and done in bad faith.
i live in MA, and i voted against Romney when he ran for governer. Romney purchased his way into the governership of MA (at great expense unaffordable to most people), after he had already spent inordinant amounts of money on a failed senate campaign against the late Ted Kennedy (also filthy rich, and highly influential). Spending that much money to run political campaigns would bankrupt most people, but when one has the amount of money that Romney does, it goes a LONG way. Saying that Romney is a politician because he is a “successful business man” is simply another way of saying he is a politician because he is rich, since his “success” in business is measured solely on how much money he has managed to hoard. Make no mistake, without his personal fortune, he would not be running for president. This is what happens in a system where people take wealth to be an indicator of merit.
i don’t know - granted there are only so many MIT graduates in astrophysics to go around, but within the 99% there are actually still a lot of people with (often very expensive) degrees from decent schools who nonetheless cannot find work, and the frustration of such people is a big part of what fueled the OWS thing.
What if society did not establish and maintain the laws and institutions that allow people with money to take such risks in the first place? What if it did not reward such gambles so generously? As you say, money doesn’t grow on trees, it had to come from somewhere before it ended up in the hands of the investor - where does it come from? It comes from the labor of ordinary working people who don’t profit from it anywhere near the extent to which the investor does. How can you then say that the profit the investor earns is “his and his alone”? I’ve said before, no one gets rich solely by themselves.
Not really. It’s not that those people are incapable, it’s that a great many of them are not afforded the same opportunities and advantages (educational, financial, social and otherwise) as the lucky few who do become rich. And if so much of becoming wealthy is luck, then i see no reason why those who are so lucky should not give back to the society that enables their luck in the first place.
i don’t think everyone should be compensated equally either. That would eliminate incentives for advancement. What i do believe is that in a first world, fully developed nation like the US, disparities such as those highlighted by the 99% statistic are unhealthy for the society overall. The notion that everyone should earn their keep according to their virtues makes sense in the abstract, but doesn’t seem to work in practice. Virtues don’t come with price tags, and i don’t think that being virtuous is enough to make one financially successful. Hard work is not always adequately compensated. Honesty generally does not prove profitable. Many talents and skills aren’t worth any money at all - and many others are not developed or used because the system is so often ineffective at matching people’s occupations with their abilities. The majority take the work that is available to them, rather than doing what they are best at - Some people happen to find work within fields at which they excel, but that is actually relatively rare - and usually costs a fair amount of money (in the form of education, training and time) to start.
Well, the point is not that the poor are entitled to whatever the rich own. In fact, i don’t even think the rich are entitled to everything that they own. Nobody is ENTITLED to vast amounts of wealth, some people HAVE vast amounts of wealth, but that does not mean that all of it is theirs by right, more like it’s theirs through serendipity. i have a small amount of money and own a few nice things and i pay a share back to the society in proportion with what i have. i do not consider that the same as being robbed, even if the money i pay goes to help out someone other than me, or even if it goes to someone who i judge (from a distance, without knowing them) as lazy, unmotivated, or whatever. That’s fine because what EVERYONE ought to be afforded is a basic level of access to the resources they need to subsist within the society as it is structured - generally that means clothing, food, housing, protection, and educational opportunities - and it means that it falls on the government, as representative of society at large, to help enable those who lack such resources. How can the government do this? Among other things, by redistributing wealth from those who have more than they need to those who have less than they need. Not so that everyone has an equal amount of wealth, but so that everyone has a basic level of access to the needs and opportunities that wealth affords.
Good post, I like your ideas. rebecca
Cheers Rebecca
Hey uglypeople,
— i don’t think that being lucky enough to have made money playing with investments or winning the lottery equates with DESERVING the money one has made. Luck is not merit.
O- I believe that the games are in place as they are. Don’t hate the player- hate the game…to say it in an urban way. Within the context, the rules in place, they deserve. Say it another way- legally they deserve that money. It is not an entitlement and it is not a priviledge, but something they won, be it with luck, STILL at a RISK all their own. Man loses at the tables deserves his debt, under the eyes of the law, the rules of the game, as much as he would deserve the winnings.
— Conversely, i also think that many proficient, hard working people are not compensated adequately or fairly for what they do, particularly those in what are deemed more “menial” positions. No, it’s not difficult to learn how to mop the floor and clean the sink, but that does not mean that it is easy work to do for a living, or that it is less important or useful work - it seems to me many such jobs are not compensated fairly, at least relative to the compensation we see for other positions higher up the scale.
O- Compensation is, ideally, equal to rarity. The more rare an ability the more compensation offered. The logic of a resume is to make it as unique as possible. Being competitive is simply being more rare than others. People pay for diamonds highly because of their rarity. While sand and rock have a price, it is less than diamonds.
My own work is menial, manual labor, but I speak the truth, even when I wish it was otherwise. Next year I plan to go back to school if for nothing else than to eventually command a higher compensation.
— My point here is not that money grows on trees or falls from the sky. However, it is significant to note that there is in fact a great deal of labor and expense that goes into the production and distribution of drinkable water to all the people, and that most of that labor is collectively subsidized by the government, meaning that society as a whole foots the bill for those who would not otherwise have access to drinking water - which is effectively an example of wealth redistribution. So, my point is rather that the job of fairly distributing resources (natural and otherwise, and especially resources like money and water which are universal needs), cannot effectively be left to the markets alone, as this results in the gross and often blatantly unfair disparities, symbolized in things like the 99% / 1% statistic. In my opinion, there needs to be a complement to the system, whereby the distribution of resources that results from the markets is tweaked in such a way that people on the lower rungs of the social ladder are not denied access to necessities of life. This seems only fair to me.
O- I believe that wealth redistribution is necessary, yes, but NOT because the 99:1 ratio is “unfair”, and we need to make it 50:50. Roads and infrastructure are needed, and rich people would agree to that, but that is quite different from the proposition that I have to give you money because you dropped out of school, or are on your 4th child before the age of 21. We can agree, perhaps, that a minimum standard of living has to be maintained for all, a standard that is elegant in today’s world and compared to other times…that would still not necessarily alter the 99:1 ratio.
— This does not mean that everyone is entitled to equal amounts of these resources, only that, for pragmatic and ethical reasons, everyone should have SOME access to them, given that they are both universal needs.
O- Look at it then this way: The person willing to go farther upstream will have the freshest water. But, as you say, and I agree, “This does not mean that everyone is entitled to equal amounts of these resources”. Among the OWS protestors, you might want to keep that to yourself, because you agree on the principle of disparity. The ratio is merely a formality.
— Part of that determination, in my opinion, ought be based in considerations about what is good for the whole of society, and not simply what allows individual people to become as rich as possible.
O- But unfortunately, what is “good for the whole of society” is not easily agreed upon, and what for some is seen as the deleterious practice of greed, for others it is the freedom to pursuit one’s dreams and healthy entrepeneurship.
— Interesting, i can imagine that is sometimes the case. However i’m not sure how much practical difference there is between the real and the fake in this instance. Yes, if you have purchased allegiance, it will likely run out if and when the money does. But meanwhile, you are still able to pay people to do and say things they wouldn’t otherwise, and that can have very real effects and bring about very real changes, even if those things are said and done in bad faith.
O- I don’t think that money buys electoral votes. No one has sent me a check with instructions on whom to elect. Millions are spend to persuade people. That persuasion rest generally on influence. Debates, commercials, are about attacking the record of your opponent or promoting your own, that is, to destroy influence or create influence. Wealth in itself, is not influential. What Mitt is selling is not that he was born rich, or inherited a fortune, but that he amased wealth, he created a fortune, by his lights, his abilities, abilities that then purchase him influence with the electorate.
— Saying that Romney is a politician because he is a “successful business man” is simply another way of saying he is a politician because he is rich, since his “success” in business is measured solely on how much money he has managed to hoard. Make no mistake, without his personal fortune, he would not be running for president. This is what happens in a system where people take wealth to be an indicator of merit.
O- See what I said above. It is the ability to succeed at business, not the zeroes to the right that make him influential. We don’t know who is richer. Is Romney the richest politician? Probably not. What wins him influence and gives weight to what he says is that he has had success in economical matters, in financial matters, and just as other economists (richer) like Buffett, he has influence. Is not the size of the fortune that correlates to influence but the possession of A, any, fortune period.
— i don’t know - granted there are only so many MIT graduates in astrophysics to go around, but within the 99% there are actually still a lot of people with (often very expensive) degrees from decent schools who nonetheless cannot find work, and the frustration of such people is a big part of what fueled the OWS thing.
O- A degree of philosophy has been worthless for years (hehehe). It is very true that people with degrees are unemployed, but that may very well reflect poor choices about which degree to pursue, a bad analysis about which careers will be competitive. I see personal responsibility, not a conspiracy by the 1%.
—Not really. It’s not that those people are incapable, it’s that a great many of them are not afforded the same opportunities and advantages (educational, financial, social and otherwise) as the lucky few who do become rich. And if so much of becoming wealthy is luck, then i see no reason why those who are so lucky should not give back to the society that enables their luck in the first place.
O- The world of investment ought to be better regulated. I think that most would agree. I don’t agree that the lucky owe the unlucky. One should be charitable, but the charity of another should be a priviledge and not a right. It makes a lot of sense when we place the 99 against the 1%, but within the 99%, I am sure, luck has visited unevenly it’s members and I wonder if the moral they would impose on the rich is one that they follow by themselves or would even want to follow as a law.
— i don’t think everyone should be compensated equally either. That would eliminate incentives for advancement. What i do believe is that in a first world, fully developed nation like the US, disparities such as those highlighted by the 99% statistic are unhealthy for the society overall.
O- Look at China, the next hegemon: Are they without gross disparities?
— The notion that everyone should earn their keep according to their virtues makes sense in the abstract, but doesn’t seem to work in practice. Virtues don’t come with price tags, and i don’t think that being virtuous is enough to make one financially successful. Hard work is not always adequately compensated. Honesty generally does not prove profitable. Many talents and skills aren’t worth any money at all
O- True, true…
— and many others are not developed or used because the system is so often ineffective at matching people’s occupations with their abilities. The majority take the work that is available to them, rather than doing what they are best at - Some people happen to find work within fields at which they excel, but that is actually relatively rare - and usually costs a fair amount of money (in the form of education, training and time) to start.
O- Well, I believe that education should be subsidised…universally. The state should fund talented young people…it is in their best interest. But that is to create opportunity, not to simply redistribute wealth. In a sense, I am for teaching people how to fish rather than to declare a right in our society that the poor will eat the fish of others.
— Well, the point is not that the poor are entitled to whatever the rich own. In fact, i don’t even think the rich are entitled to everything that they own. Nobody is ENTITLED to vast amounts of wealth, some people HAVE vast amounts of wealth, but that does not mean that all of it is theirs by right, more like it’s theirs through serendipity.
O- Which invites a lot of ambiguity which ushers over-regulation.
— i have a small amount of money and own a few nice things and i pay a share back to the society in proportion with what i have. i do not consider that the same as being robbed, even if the money i pay goes to help out someone other than me, or even if it goes to someone who i judge (from a distance, without knowing them) as lazy, unmotivated, or whatever. That’s fine because what EVERYONE ought to be afforded is a basic level of access to the resources they need to subsist within the society as it is structured - generally that means clothing, food, housing, protection, and educational opportunities - and it means that it falls on the government, as representative of society at large, to help enable those who lack such resources.
O- As a safety net, as a circumstantial necessity, yes, not aan absolute right.
— How can the government do this? Among other things, by redistributing wealth from those who have more than they need to those who have less than they need. Not so that everyone has an equal amount of wealth, but so that everyone has a basic level of access to the needs and opportunities that wealth affords.
O- Basic needs, yes, but more important are basic opportunities. The govt should be busy getting people jobs rather than cupons. People have chests.
Hey Omar
Like i said, our central point of contention here would be when we discuss who DESERVES what and why. It’s a point, i think, upon which reasonable people may disagree.
Yeah, rarity plays a big role. That’s true. i wish you success in returning to school.
A fair point.
Well, i was never an OWS protester simply because there was a lot of nonsense being said in the name of the movement. Some disparity is definitely necessary. The world will never be an egalitarian utopia. However, i would disagree when you say that the ratio is a mere formality - i think it speaks volumes that such a small minority controls so much wealth. i don’t want to live in a plutocracy.
This is true, without doubt.
We can probably just agree to disagree here - i don’t think he “created” a fortune, at least not by himself, and i would insist again that money has a highly influential effect on who people vote for. Yes, it is less direct than simply handing out checks with instructions on which ballot to cast, but the power to purchase one’s way into political office is, IMO, demonstrated pretty well in Romney’s case.
Youre right that Romney is probably not the richest politician, but he is both rich and highly influential, and i believe the two things are pretty closely related, just as they are in the case of politicians wealthier than him.
Yes, i know from experience. LOL.
i don’t think it’s a conspiracy either, but i do think it’s a shame and does not speak well of the system that so many educated people still can’t find work.
i wish most agreed, but i’m not so sure. Seems to me many highly influential politicians (including Romney and his running mate) would like to see little or no effective regulation of banks and investment markets at all.
This is another fair point. All too often, people are willing to agree that the rich should pay more, but with the caveat that “rich” actually refers only to people richer than themselves. Obviously, that’s hypocrisy.
No they certainly aren’t, but i don’t think the gross disparities are healthy for them either. i think of it like a young, robust person who starts smoking cigarettes - at first, it’s no big deal, they are healthy enough that they can do it for a while and still remain physically fit, it’s only down the road that the negative health effects start to show . . .
Fair enough, but i do believe that the redistribution of wealth is one means of extending opportunity to those who lack it. i would include education subsidies under the broader umbrella of wealth redistribution.
i don’t follow what you mean here . . .
Sure. It needn’t be an absolute right. Context and circumstance are essential. i’m all for a pragmatic approach.
Indeed, i think we can agree that fiscal dependency upon the govt is not the end goal - it’s rather the extension of opportunities that’s ultimately needed.
Hey Uglypeople,
— Yeah, rarity plays a big role. That’s true. i wish you success in returning to school.
O- Thank you for the sentiment.
— However, i would disagree when you say that the ratio is a mere formality - i think it speaks volumes that such a small minority controls so much wealth. i don’t want to live in a plutocracy.
O- But do we live in a plutocracy? Are we even close? No. I am convinced that the US educational rank among developed countries is the key ingredient for the wide disparity of wealth. I think that the need for engineers, mathematicians, doctors, scientists, has never let up. Some US companies are going to Puertorrican campuses to hire engineer graduates because there is no need to get them a visa. Were the majority of graduates today from these fields, you might see a Luxemburgo…then again, maybe not- because the problem of disparity has to do with other factors as well. Take Luxemburg, which by some estimates, is 87% Catholic. The US, the UK, falling behind in an age of peace, one has to agree with some of Webber’s assessments about a possible relation between religion and economics. Then you add race. The discussions in Washington therefore only have the illusion of secularism and cold reason, but it is driven by racial and religious considerations, at least here in the US. The huge disparaty of possession is but another relic of our racial history. Obama passed very few his agendas because he IS a polarizing figure, unable, unfortunately, in this country, to bring under his tent those who would not even want their daughters to date someone like him…
…What then? There is a huge disparaity in wealth. part of it is our responsibility- what decisions we make. Another factor is just who we are, as a country. Redistrubition of wealth, even their wealth, is not the issue as many millionares have generous charities in place. But I think the issue is to WHOM their wealth is redistributed. They fear a govt that would take from them indiscriminately and hand to others in the same fashion. I believe that some are more deserving than others, but such judgments must be made by reason and not by religious or racial fervors. Whill this ever happen? Probably not, and this is worth thinking about because how big would we want our govt to get? It is a sword of two edges. The same machine that would be used for the redistribution of wealth might them be turned, after 4 or 8 years into a Leviathan we cannot stop. Concentrating money is easier than giving it out, as many victims of disasters find out.
— i don’t think it’s a conspiracy either, but i do think it’s a shame and does not speak well of the system that so many educated people still can’t find work.
O- “Which is why we need to unfetter our rich accounts in the Caymans, and yet that will only happen if you don’t tax the living shit out of it”…A Romney inspired response.
— i wish most agreed, but i’m not so sure. Seems to me many highly influential politicians (including Romney and his running mate) would like to see little or no effective regulation of banks and investment markets at all.
O- They are saying that it is not about quantity but quality- that some regulations may have undesired effects. Of course, after the economic catastrophe, only a minority wishes to run the risk of letting the rich investors play with our national security. But of course, the rich would say that neither do they want to see the country in ruins. The financial disaster was not only an effect of de-regulation. Let gas prices spike for over a year at 4-5-6 dollars a gal and you might see houses on sale while also rapidly losing value due to the flooding of the real state market…this is what happened for example in Phoenix.
— i don’t follow what you mean here . . .
O- Being practical, you have to identify, accurately, what is “serendipity” if you wish to pass legislation that is reasonable.
Hey Omar,
If major positions of power, such as the presidency, are occupied by wealthy people (like Romney) who are actively working to promote the interests of other wealthy people, then yeah, i would say that’s close.
Well, yeah. Clearly being black is both an assett and a liability for Obama. But that’s not all it’s about - some of it is just basic ideological disagreements, contrasting aesthetics. Many politicians have religious agendas, it’s true, but not all of them. i would say more of them have financial agendas.
The US is a big place, it requires a big government. A leaner, more efficient govt, certainly. But broad reaching and strong as well. Yes, it difficult to sensibly give away money. When i talk about wealth redistribution i mean more than simply handing out money though. Spending on social programs, infrastructure, etc. all effectively entail the redistribution of wealth.
Define “taxing the living shit” out of something. Anything above 0.5% maybe? i have a suspicion the government couldn’t realistically lower tax rates enough to bring that money home from the Caymans.
Both luck and serendipity are readily defined. In order to pass reasonable legislation we simply need to admit the significance of the role they play in the generation of wealth.
Hey uglypeople,
— If major positions of power, such as the presidency, are occupied by wealthy people (like Romney) who are actively working to promote the interests of other wealthy people, then yeah, i would say that’s close.
O- Romney is a bad example. He lost the nomination the last election to John McCain, and this year barely, barely won it. If indeed it was a plutocracy, why did he struggle?
— Well, yeah. Clearly being black is both an assett and a liability for Obama. But that’s not all it’s about - some of it is just basic ideological disagreements, contrasting aesthetics. Many politicians have religious agendas, it’s true, but not all of them. i would say more of them have financial agendas.
O- The interest do mingle. See Kevin Phillips’ “American Theocracy”. Clinton had greater constrast and yet was a two term president that did manage to leave the country in a better shape than he found it with the help of those across the aisle. Obama is more centrist and leftist, and often he fails to pass legislation even with conservative principles within or republican collaboration.
— The US is a big place, it requires a big government. A leaner, more efficient govt, certainly. But broad reaching and strong as well. Yes, it difficult to sensibly give away money. When i talk about wealth redistribution i mean more than simply handing out money though. Spending on social programs, infrastructure, etc. all effectively entail the redistribution of wealth.
O- Social programs raise the problem of “for whom”. Infrastructure is something that is more easily agreed upon. In fact it is the predominant form of pork barrel because it is, on it’s face, unobjectionable, regardless of the political agendas. When it comes to spending money on highways etc, there just not much disagreement. It is how one pays for them that can cause disturbance. But social programs, I predict, EVEN if the money was abundant, if we had a surplus, will continue to be controversial because redirecting wealth to build a better bridge means that even the person who made the greatest sacrifice will enjoy the benefits of his sacrifice, but with social programs, the money given is enjoyed solely by someone else.
— Both luck and serendipity are readily defined. In order to pass reasonable legislation we simply need to admit the significance of the role they play in the generation of wealth.
O- Luck at the casino or the lottery is not the same as luck with investments. Only as a linguistic short-hand is there only one word, but under a closer look you see analysis of trends, demand, supply. It is an educated guess is my point. While picking a lucky number is random. Nothing in the number makes that choice one makes wothy of praise. However picking the right stocks after studying the markets makes one’s choice worthy of praise.
Hey Omar
Because most of the people he ran against in those Republican primaries were also working at the behest of the wealthy.
You’ll recall that Clinton was not exactly a favorite of those across the aisle from him either. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, became famous via his vendetta against Clinton, which involved more than one government shut down and impeachment proceedings. i don’t think Obama is really any more polarizing than any other president who wants to raise taxes. If anything, the right wing’s ongoing shift further right is what leads to obstructionism in congress.
The predominant form of pork actually goes to military contractors, but yeah, there’s plenty of government lard in infrastructure projects too.
i think you’re right that social programs are more controversial than infrastructure spending, but i think you’re wrong in your assessment of who solely enjoys the benefits of the each kind of government spending. Like infrastructure projects, social programs can and often do lead to a healthier, better functioning society overall, which is something that we all enjoy. Whether or not we ever drive across that bridge our tax dollars contributed some small fraction to is really not important if the bridge is good for the society in which we live. The same holds for the social safety net. i think people need to practice looking past their individualism and narrow self-interest as they attempt to answer the question of what is beneficial for society.
i understand that it takes skill to consistently make money investing, i don’t contest that, and i don’t dismiss the role that actual talent and ability can play in getting rich. What i mean by luck is that the blessings of fate befall some but not others. Some people end up in the right place at the right time and some people don’t. Talent and hardwork do not guarantee financial success, only the arbitrary whims of fate can do that. i get the impression that a lot of wealthy people tend to look at themselves and think,“well i’ve worked hard and made a lot of sacrifices, so that must be why i’m wealthy”. But it’s a classic example of correlation not being causation. Obviously, if you think about it, there are any number of hardworking people making sacrifices who never become wealthy at all. So what ultimately determines the difference between the talented, hardworking poor guy and the talented, hardworking rich guy? NOT the praiseworthiness of their actions, which is the same in either instance, but rather how lucky they are.
‘Fuck you!
ME!
ME!!!’
=D>
Hey Uglypeople,
— Because most of the people he ran against in those Republican primaries were also working at the behest of the wealthy.
O- Fine then. Is that what we have lived under Obama? I understand that money can buy you many things, but it doesn’t matter how much money you have, opr how much your super-pac has if you put your foot in your mouth, or if the economy is bad or if you look over anything looking like Vietnam. Ultimately what gets you in office is votes. It cost money to run a campaign, but money is not enough.
— You’ll recall that Clinton was not exactly a favorite of those across the aisle from him either.
O- Never to the degree Obama was opposed. We lived in a different America then, when stuff might gain bi-partisan support and pass. From the start of his administration, I’ll say hours after the counts were in, the republicans bowed to see Obama out in 4 years. The dead-lock in Congress has been just that- an attempt to help the Pres (and they even went public to say that even if that included the entire country!) FAIL. Clinton had it rough but not to that degree.
— Gingrich, then speaker of the House, became famous via his vendetta against Clinton, which involved more than one government shut down and impeachment proceedings.
O- We had shutdowns and to top it off, a credit rating downgrade.
— i don’t think Obama is really any more polarizing than any other president who wants to raise taxes.
O- Trump is offering millions for info that could help him prove that Obama is an illegitimate Pres. Whether he cut taxes or not, I believe, is irrelevant to these folks.
— If anything, the right wing’s ongoing shift further right is what leads to obstructionism in congress.
O- Exactly. Clinton dealt with a more centrist right, while Obama, and to some extent, even the Republican Party itself, is dealing with a more extreme right. Grover Norquist is a symptom of our political extremism.
— i think you’re right that social programs are more controversial than infrastructure spending, but i think you’re wrong in your assessment of who solely enjoys the benefits of the each kind of government spending. Like infrastructure projects, social programs can and often do lead to a healthier, better functioning society overall, which is something that we all enjoy.
O- That is not how folks on the right, church going Christians see it. They support schools that teach heresy. They support doctors who end life. They support the lazy, the obese, the vices of lost souls better served by intervention. Money going indiscriminately to them is akin to enabling, what can I say, “sin”. I am not saying that this is how some folks on the right MIGHT see it and this is absent from infrastructure and a central difference between the secular left and religious right.
— Whether or not we ever drive across that bridge our tax dollars contributed some small fraction to is really not important if the bridge is good for the society in which we live. The same holds for the social safety net. i think people need to practice looking past their individualism and narrow self-interest as they attempt to answer the question of what is beneficial for society.
O- They oppose such things precisely out of the conviction that harm is being done to society through social programs. They oppose these social programs because they are looking past their self interest.
— i understand that it takes skill to consistently make money investing, i don’t contest that, and i don’t dismiss the role that actual talent and ability can play in getting rich. What i mean by luck is that the blessings of fate befall some but not others. Some people end up in the right place at the right time and some people don’t. Talent and hardwork do not guarantee financial success, only the arbitrary whims of fate can do that.
O- Talent and hard work are unfortunately not guarantees, but without these you will not be in a position that, if luck does come passing by, it can help you any. In fact you improve your chances by having talent and a work ethic that someday you will find and keep a job and climb eventually into ever higher positions. Someone that sits around the tv, makes no effort to better their resume, sabotages their own chances, their own luck. Luck might still find them, but not as easy. If we suppose that becoming financially indenpendent is a matter of luch, then you see what I mean. Person with a degree will usually have better luck at reaching that goal than the luch a high school drop out has at winning the lottery.
— i get the impression that a lot of wealthy people tend to look at themselves and think,“well i’ve worked hard and made a lot of sacrifices, so that must be why i’m wealthy”. But it’s a classic example of correlation not being causation. Obviously, if you think about it, there are any number of hardworking people making sacrifices who never become wealthy at all.
O- My hand is raised. Yet one works hard because, as I do, one believes that it makes a difference, that somehow it works in your favor. Is it all a rosy wish fulfillment, a nice story I tell myself? I guess I’ll find that out. But, I feel, no, I know that it is still up to me, that there are roads that I have yet to take and that I must take. I can see that there are choices that I am leaving on the table and that if I am not picked to work at NASA or the FAA is not because I have bad luck, but because I don’t even have the right degree. Once that is done, then I can ponder about my luck.
— So what ultimately determines the difference between the talented, hardworking poor guy and the talented, hardworking rich guy? NOT the praiseworthiness of their actions, which is the same in either instance, but rather how lucky they are.
O- Is that how it is? Millions of people who basically ALL work hard, equally, and equally capable? No, but you already knew that. It isn’t, in my opinion, luck that picks who wins and who loses but people, judgmental people who look at different resumes, side by side, to discover who is the best of two, three, whatever.
Yesterday or the day before there were a couple of veterans on the daily show with john stewart and he was making the same case as you. They may not have the certifications that employers seek but they are hard workers who know the field in question. Are they just unlucky that employers are obsessed with certifications? Yet certifications are a bi-product of regulation. I found myself in that dilema. Govt, in my case, paid for the certification, the school, the written, the oral/practical…not a penny out of my pocket. You can do that prior to leaving the military. That is, in my opinion, fair. however, without regulations and certifications, how could I make a living? How could I command a decent salary if anyone off the street can do my job? Again, I say this because this is what my reality is with companies that would rather cut maintenance cost created by the requirements of certificates and licenses. It was redundant training to say the least, but I never quip about learning. In any case my point is that what is keeping these folks from getting a job is themselves. Do the courses, obtain the certifications needed and place them next to a military OJT- that is a compelling resume that may tilt fate in their favor more than leaving it to the odd chancxe that regulations will be abolished. And if the are, then I question just how “lucky” they really are and whether they would be helped or hurt by such events.
Hey Omar,
Yes, there are things besides money which win and lose elections, but no competitive campaign for higher office is waged without large amounts of money, and the more money a campaign has, the more competitive it becomes. That’s why third party candidates have yet to win a presidential election, not because people only agree with either the Republican or Democrat point of view, but because third parties lack the funds to compete with the financial powerhouses that are the two established major parties. Money can be and often has been the determining factor in who wins or loses an election, but more than that, it is THE determining factor in who can and cannott wage a competitive campaign.
Absolutely right.
i disagree, but that’s a historical debate i’m not prepared to have - suffice it to say i think Clinton was a lot luckier than Obama has been but that’s about the sum of the difference between them, and i don’t think it’s right to fault Obama for the irrational behavior of Republicans bent on opposing him regardless of what he does.
I don’t deny it. The credit downgrade is particularly funny (to put it mildly), given it was downgraded by the same agencies that gave solid gold ratings to all those shoddy mortgage backed securities that crashed the housing market and threw the country into recession in the first place.
The Trump thing is a publicity stunt. i think the emotional fervor with which most people abhor paying taxes far outweighs whatever inherent distrust they may have of black guys with muslim sounding names.
You make an accurate characterization here. But i would go farther and point out the many prejudices and examples of black and white/ all or nothing thinking that underly the worldview you describe.
i disagree. i think their opposition is fundamentally an indignation over the fact that money is being taken from them, so they invent various ad hoc reasons why that is wrong, some of which invoke religious principles. Ultimately however, they will place individual interests over social well being everytime.
see below
Sure, agreed. That financial success is ultimately a matter of luck doesn’t change the fact that following certain protocols will improve one’s chances of finding decent-paying work. Even lottery winners have to buy a ticket first. There are always prerequisites.
Well, there are in fact millions of people who work hard but of course they are not all equal with regards to their abilities. More to the point they are not all rewarded equally either. Sometimes the disparities in reward make sense, othertimes they are arbitrary, and even unjust.
Unecessarry bureaucracy creates problems and raises cost for professionals and businesses - but you are right that it does no good for people to sit around and complain that there are too many certifications and licenses required to do the job they would like. Just get the necessarry papers - if one already knows the basics of the trade, then it should be no problem.