ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th September 2018, 12:57 PM   #1
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Inequality -- and starvation -- around the world.

Quote:
The British-based charity group Oxfam has done an important service by offering an annual indication of the gravity of inequality. This year, Oxfam noted that a mere 42 rich people have as much wealth as 3.7 billion poor people. What is most astounding is that in 2017, 82 percent of the social wealth produced by the world’s people was vacuumed into the bank accounts of the wealthiest 1 percent among us.
.....
What is less digested is that increased inequality compounds not only poverty — which is obvious — but hunger. It is true that war and climate change are major factors that leave people without access to food. Starvation follows aerial bombardment and rising tides. But it is even more important to focus on the much wider problem of inequality and poverty that make hunger a normal part of life — the constant sound in the heads of the impoverished.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/08/hun...rning_partner/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 04:14 PM   #2
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Glad to see so many people sitting up and taking notice - a massive 120 views, against a thread on the orange toad being up to tens of thousands.

I'm glad it was 42 people they chose.

Bad news is, it's a result of the system we've embedded into our lives so deeply it's going to be pretty hard to change. Jeremy Corbyn is a classic example - Labour UK turned back to its roots, and all they can do is argue whether or not Corbyn is antisemitic.

Short of the world electing democratic socialists everywhere, nothing will change, and going by the growth of the opposite end of the political system, those demsocs will be no more than a footnote to history.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 04:23 PM   #3
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Glad to see so many people sitting up and taking notice - a massive 120 views, against a thread on the orange toad being up to tens of thousands.

I'm glad it was 42 people they chose.

Bad news is, it's a result of the system we've embedded into our lives so deeply it's going to be pretty hard to change. Jeremy Corbyn is a classic example - Labour UK turned back to its roots, and all they can do is argue whether or not Corbyn is antisemitic.

Short of the world electing democratic socialists everywhere, nothing will change, and going by the growth of the opposite end of the political system, those demsocs will be no more than a footnote to history.
Nobody talks about this stuff because it's depressing as hell, and there's nothing we can do about it. I mean, we can make some changes in the countries we live in, that hopefully will help people in other countries (more foreign aid, more refugees, etc.), but we really can't do much for the vast majority of those suffering people, other than directly giving them our money through a charity.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 05:02 PM   #4
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,865
The 3.7B in the Op is matched by another 3.7B who have as much in total as those 42. Why blame the 42 instead of the 3,700,000,042?

Sounds like socialist propaganda to me.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 05:21 PM   #5
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,315
If someone has a 0 or negative net worth it's pretty easy for a lot of other people to have as much as them.
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 05:38 PM   #6
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
The 3.7B in the Op is matched by another 3.7B who have as much in total as those 42. Why blame the 42 instead of the 3,700,000,042?

Sounds like socialist propaganda to me.
Because it is. The world has made remarkable progress in reducing starvation, hunger, and extreme poverty. And it is the unprecedented ability of capitalism to generate wealth that has made this happen, for the first time in human history. Things are not perfect, but overall they are better than they have ever been.

Oh, and their poverty figures are outdated. The World Bank increased the threshold for extreme poverty from $1.25 per day to $1.90 per day, and even with that increased threshold the number has fallen to about 700 million, and it's on a rapidly decreasing trend line.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 10:38 PM   #7
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Nobody talks about this stuff because it's depressing as hell, and there's nothing we can do about it.
I disagree completely.

We could do something about inequality, but won't because there are too many vested interests.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 05:48 AM   #8
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
The 3.7B in the Op is matched by another 3.7B who have as much in total as those 42. Why blame the 42 instead of the 3,700,000,042?

Sounds like socialist propaganda to me.
Did the study make any mention of "blame" to begin with?

If one were interested in blame, they could be nuanced about it. Perhaps there is some shame in participating in an exploitative system they have almost no control over to tread water or achieve a few modest comforts, but I'd reserve far more for those with the means and willingness to bend the system to their own exclusive benefit to hoard sums that could provide lavish and decadent lifestyles for their next 10 generations.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:10 AM   #9
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,318
I wonder about motivation. We know that one of the traits of “human nature” is “acquisitiveness”.... The tendency to store up in times of plenty... A survival trait.

But early on in human history, this gets somehow transferred to wealth and another trait...Status. Through history, we’ve seen wealth go hand-in-hand with power and status.

Currently, the exposure of the “offshore accounts” scene has made pretty clear that people in positions of power all over the world are merrily salting away huge amounts of money, far more than they could ever need. Putin is reportedly one of the wealthiest men in the world, in secret. Tinpot dictators all over loot their respective countries of billions.

All far in excess of any semblance of need. Is it just that monkey-brain “I’ve got more bananas than you!” At work?
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:30 AM   #10
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Is it just that monkey-brain “I’ve got more bananas than you!” [a]t work?

You're being very unfair to monkey brains! A monkey may hide food from others, in particular if it's hungry, and it may hide other stuff that doesn't decompose very fast. Other animals do that too. (Squirrels with nuts, for instance.) Bananas aren't a very good commodity in that respect, as most people know.
Marx explains it in Capital: When money becomes the measure of wealth, something happens to people. Money is the abstract form of wealth, not useful in and of itself, but it can be exchanged for all other kinds of wealth - and even things that aren't products of labour. (Marx mentions conscience, honor etc. as stuff that can be bought.)
When you have money, the only thing that limits the fulfillment of each and every one of your materialistic desires is the quantity.
There is such a thing as too many bananas. But, as Scrooge McDuck will tell you (and his nephew), there is no such thing as too much money. There is such a thing as too many bananas, however.
Try hoarding almost anything other than money and you'll see my point. You may find yourself on reality TV and being offered therapy. Hoarding money, and even better: accumulating money, is never considered sick.
When use value was the measure of wealth, the desire of the wealthy was still limited, and the peasant usually had some time of leisure at the end of the day when he had grown all the bananas he and the lord and his soldiers could eat. With the capitalization of money you also have the production of a surplus population: Those who are superfluous and therefore an obstacle for the production of wealth in money form, enclosures, drifters, hunger.
The next stage in this evolution is when the robots make everybody who depends on wage labour redundant ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 10th September 2018 at 09:20 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 09:19 AM   #11
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because it is. The world has made remarkable progress in reducing starvation, hunger, and extreme poverty. And it is the unprecedented ability of capitalism to generate wealth that has made this happen, for the first time in human history. Things are not perfect, but overall they are better than they have ever been.

Oh, and their poverty figures are outdated. The World Bank increased the threshold for extreme poverty from $1.25 per day to $1.90 per day, and even with that increased threshold the number has fallen to about 700 million, and it's on a rapidly decreasing trend line.

I found this:

Quote:
The World Bank, however, is not only interested in monitoring and reducing extreme poverty. It also wants to monitor and expand what it calls “shared prosperity”, which is reflected in the growth of the per-capita income of a country’s poorest 40 % (see article "Counting statistics").
Currently, there is no progress on shared prosperity, as incomes are actually declining for the bottom 40 % in half of all heavily indebted countries and one third of moderately indebted countries, according to the World Bank. Moreover, the bottom 40 % of the population suffer deprivation in non-income dimensions of poverty as well.
Major breakthrough (D+C, Feb. 19, 2016)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:23 AM   #12
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I found this:
"Currently, there is no progress on shared prosperity, as incomes are actually declining for the bottom 40 % in half of all heavily indebted countries and one third of moderately indebted countries, according to the World Bank. "

OK, let's look at heavily indebted countries. Within that group, half of them have incomes declining for the bottom 40%. That's not good. But what about the other half? Presumably incomes are increasing for the bottom 40%. So that's sort of a wash.

But what about for only moderately indebted countries? Within that group, one third of them have incomes declining for the bottom 40%. That means for two thirds of them, income is increasing for the bottom 40%. That sounds like it is progress, which invalidates the claim that "there is no progress on shared prosperity". Maybe not as much as they want, maybe not as much as there should be, but it still doesn't look like what they're claiming.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:35 AM   #13
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I disagree completely.

We could do something about inequality, but won't because there are too many vested interests.
Sounds like there are only 42.

But seriously, what do you want to do about inequality and why do you think something needs to be done?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:51 AM   #14
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,975
Inequality is a taxation on the economy: the wealthier you are, the less of your income do you spend, and the more you save/invest.
Inequality thus removes liquidity and destroys demand.
There is no proof whatsoever that supply-side economics beyond a certain threshold works: cheaper money just means more bubbles are invested in.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 12:08 PM   #15
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Inequality is a taxation on the economy: the wealthier you are, the less of your income do you spend, and the more you save/invest.
Inequality thus removes liquidity and destroys demand.
There is no proof whatsoever that supply-side economics beyond a certain threshold works: cheaper money just means more bubbles are invested in.
This is unmitigated nonsense. What exactly do you think investing means? When you invest, you create capital. Capital generates wealth. The money needed to build a factory is spent in the building of a factory. And that factory will increase the wealth available to society. Consumption, on the other hand, does not subsequently increase the wealth available to society.

I'm not arguing that wealthy people are any more moral than the non-wealthy, but investment is absolutely necessary for the economy. You can try to dismiss it as "supply side", but the economy does in fact need a supply. And the more supply there is, the more demand can be satisfied. This is basic math.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:15 PM   #16
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
....
I'm not arguing that wealthy people are any more moral than the non-wealthy, but investment is absolutely necessary for the economy. You can try to dismiss it as "supply side", but the economy does in fact need a supply. And the more supply there is, the more demand can be satisfied. This is basic math.

We all understand how capitalism works. We all expect to get paid. But the concentration of vast wealth is the result of specific legal and social policies that were never engraved in stone, and in fact are relatively recent in the U.S. Income tax rates, tax deductions and credits, inheritance taxes, property taxes, labor (and anti-labor) laws all allocate benefits to some over others. Corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution; they are created by laws that define their functions and responsibilities, which could be revised. And the Constitution never intended to confer vast political power on anybody just by virtue of great wealth. Pointing to the way things are doesn't say anything about how they could be or should be, or even have been in the past.

Sen. Warren's ideas are food for thought:
Quote:
Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime.

Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/176830...m-corporations

Last edited by Bob001; 10th September 2018 at 01:20 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:48 PM   #17
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Sounds like there are only 42.
Oddly enough several of the people right at the top of the list - Gates, Buffett, et al, have seen the light and are paying it back.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
But seriously, what do you want to do about inequality and why do you think something needs to be done?
The fix is easy - redistribute wealth through tax. People say it can't be done, but the evidence from UK in the '50s & '60s says it's not just possible, but a certain means of doing it.

Why we should do it is obvious. Less crime, less money spent on healthcare, more productivity...

If we tip the scales towards the poor end of the spectrum, all society benefits from having happier, healthier people. Conversely, having the scales tipped towards the wealthy creates social problems that are only just starting. Our hospitals are becoming inundated with third-world diseases that never existed in NZ.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:57 PM   #18
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
So lets take ALL the money from the rich 42 people (leave them a million each) and give it to the 3.7 billion poor people ... what on earth with they do with all that money???

The $270 each
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:14 PM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sen. Warren's ideas are food for thought:
Indeed, one must wonder whether she actually believes what she's saying, or if it's purely cynical.
"Instead of advocating for expensive new social programs like free college or health care, she’s introducing a bill Wednesday, the Accountable Capitalism Act, that would redistribute trillions of dollars from rich executives and shareholders to the middle class — without costing a dime."
The cost might not be on the federal budget, but this sort of forced redistribution doesn't come free. There's always a tradeoff, and the denial of any such tradeoff is a guarantee that she's peddling snake oil.
The conceit tying together Warren’s ideas is that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like decent citizens who uphold their fair share of the social contract and not act like sociopaths whose sole obligation is profitability — as is currently conventional in American business thinking.
The premise here is that government has a right to demand individuals not only obey the law, but act "decent", whatever that means according to the capricious desires of the political class. This is a very dangerous notion. I'm all for civic responsibility, but I'm not for having government enforce it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:31 PM   #20
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
.....
The premise here is that government has a right to demand individuals not only obey the law, but act "decent", whatever that means according to the capricious desires of the political class. This is a very dangerous notion. I'm all for civic responsibility, but I'm not for having government enforce it.

She herself makes the point that corporations used to see themselves as parts of their communities, with responsibilities to workers and residents. Top executives didn't make hundreds of times the pay of line workers. Making money for stockholders wasn't the be-all and end-all. Corporations are created by law; the laws can be changed.

Quote:
Warren wants to eliminate the huge financial incentives that entice CEOs to flush cash out to shareholders rather than reinvest in businesses. She wants to curb corporations’ political activities. And for the biggest corporations, she’s proposing a dramatic step that would ensure workers and not just shareholders get a voice on big strategic decisions.

Warren hopes this will spur a return to greater corporate responsibility, and bring back some other aspects of the more egalitarian era of American capitalism post-World War II — more business investment, more meaningful career ladders for workers, more financial stability, and higher pay.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/176830...m-corporations
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:37 PM   #21
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The fix is easy - redistribute wealth through tax.
Can you think of anything that could go wrong with such a plan?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:42 PM   #22
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,457
This thread serves as a good reminder that bad economics often makes good politics.

Check out this hilarious quote by the Governor of California:

Originally Posted by Jerry Brown
Revenue means taxes, and certainly those who have been blessed the most, who have disproportionately extracted, by whatever skill, more and more from the national wealth, they’re going to have to share more of that. . . . And everyone is going to have to realize that building roads is important, investing in schools is important, paying for the national defense is important, biomedical research is important, the space program is an indicator of the world leader – all that takes money.
The choice of words is very interesting and illustrative. For example, claiming that they were "blessed with" their wealth, which was "extracted" from the national wealth. And then he goes on to let us know that, contrary to what these people supposedly think, schools, roads and national defense are important.

Thank for your public service Jerry!
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:10 PM   #23
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,315
This is just typical leftist class warfare stuff. The more people believe it the more the country is going to go down the tubes.

Stuff like arbitrary $1B cutoffs will also have weird effects that nobody can anticipate.

Does any of this apply if the company is completely privately held? That's the current trend anyway, money is sloshing around private equity right now looking for good places to invest anyway.
NewtonTrino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:28 PM   #24
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
She herself makes the point that corporations used to see themselves as parts of their communities, with responsibilities to workers and residents. Top executives didn't make hundreds of times the pay of line workers. Making money for stockholders wasn't the be-all and end-all.
Social cohesion is easier when society is more uniform. Does Warren imagine that laws can reverse that dynamic?

As for the increasing gap between the bottom and the top, I see no evidence that she understands the factors that have driven that. She cannot be trusted to help fix that.

For example, the entry of women into higher education and the work force has helped drive greater inequality. It increases assortative mating by socioeconomic status, which both directly increases inequality and helps entrench it across generations. The tax advantaged status of elite universities (like the one she taught at) also helps increase inequality. Does Warren understand these factors? Is she even aware of them?

Quote:
Corporations are created by law; the laws can be changed.
This is trivially true, but useless as a guide to policy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:30 PM   #25
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
So lets take ALL the money from the rich 42 people (leave them a million each) and give it to the 3.7 billion poor people ... what on earth with they do with all that money???

The $270 each
I think if you asked them if they want it, they would all say yes.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:32 PM   #26
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,135
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I disagree completely.

We could do something about inequality, but won't because there are too many vested interests.
This is pretty much it. The plutocratic oligarchs that make the laws aren't going to make any laws that reduce their personal wealth, even though it would be easy for them to do so and they could afford it.

The hyper-rich could pretty much collectively fund Universal Basic Income across the world and it would make barely a dent in their bottom lines. But they are too short-sighted to do it.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key

Last edited by arthwollipot; 10th September 2018 at 06:32 PM. Reason: t7po
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:40 PM   #27
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
So lets take ALL the money from the rich 42 people (leave them a million each) and give it to the 3.7 billion poor people ... what on earth with they do with all that money???

The $270 each
Sounds like an excellent experiment. I am all for it.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:44 PM   #28
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
So lets take ALL the money from the rich 42 people (leave them a million each) and give it to the 3.7 billion poor people ... what on earth with they do with all that money???

The $270 each
This is why I gave the example of the progressive tax structure UK introduced post-WWII.

But good of you to ignore that and post a nice strawman.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Can you think of anything that could go wrong with such a plan?
Not really, no. The people with all the cash aren't going to start shooting, because the Second Amendment People aren't usually the billionaire class.

They'd scream and shift assets around - no doubt Putin would take them in, but if they want to go live in Moscow, bye bye!

Like I said, we have actual historical proof that it did work and I see no impediment to it working again.

Of course, as Arth notes above, it's never going to happen, because the big money controls the political parties on both sides. Again, history - I think USA had some actual Communists in the '50s who were pretty keen on wealth distribution, and my reading of the time says they weren't just unpopular, but actual enemies of the American State. For holding a political view.

I don't imagine it would be any more popular now.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
This is pretty much it. The plutocratic oligarchs that make the laws aren't going to make any laws that reduce their personal wealth, even though it would be easy for them to do so and they could afford it.
More importantly, it's good for their own survival. Breeding inequality breeds disease & crime, and no matter how much money they have, they're susceptible to both.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:18 PM   #29
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,141
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
For example, the entry of women into higher education and the work force has helped drive greater inequality. It increases assortative mating by socioeconomic status, which both directly increases inequality and helps entrench it across generations. The tax advantaged status of elite universities (like the one she taught at) also helps increase inequality. Does Warren understand these factors? Is she even aware of them?

Umm...
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tr.../dp/0465090907
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:25 PM   #30
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,141
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The premise here is that government has a right to demand individuals not only obey the law, but act "decent", whatever that means according to the capricious desires of the political class. This is a very dangerous notion. I'm all for civic responsibility, but I'm not for having government enforce it.
A much more dangerous notion is the idea that corporations should be free from all legal restraints in terms of pollution, labor rights, etc and so on.

If the government doesn't enforce decent corporate behavior, indecent corporate behavior runs rampant.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:29 PM   #31
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,141
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because it is. The world has made remarkable progress in reducing starvation, hunger, and extreme poverty.
About that:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/671012
Quote:
This study documents an increase in the prevalence of extreme poverty among US households with children between 1996 and 2011 and assesses the response of major federal means-tested transfer programs. Extreme poverty is defined using a World Bank metric of global poverty: $2 or less, per person, per day. Using the 1996–2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), we estimate that in mid-2011, 1.65 million households with 3.55 million children were living in extreme poverty in a given month, based on cash income, constituting 4.3 percent of all nonelderly households with children. The prevalence of extreme poverty has risen sharply since 1996, particularly among those most affected by the 1996 welfare reform.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:30 PM   #32
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
I think if you asked them if they want it, they would all say yes.
Until they find the job they had is now gone, because the store or factory where they work was sold so they can get that $270

And the charity they used is gone now, no rich people making donations ...

the list goes on ... look at Argentina
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:45 PM   #33
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Until they find the job they had is now gone, because the store or factory where they work was sold so they can get that $270

And the charity they used is gone now, no rich people making donations ...

the list goes on ... look at Argentina

I dunno. I'd rather look at Germany and most of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. Higher taxes combined with universal health care, affordable higher education and stronger social safety net. All things considered, you think the average American is better off overall than the average Canadian?

The poor would be less dependent on charity if they weren't so poor.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:53 PM   #34
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I dunno. I'd rather look at Germany and most of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. Higher taxes combined with universal health care, affordable higher education and stronger social safety net. All things considered, you think the average American is better off overall than the average Canadian?

The poor would be less dependent on charity if they weren't so poor.
Good point .. yes it's about moderation and taking small steps, close tax loopholes etc.

The average American *I* know is way better of the *me* ... but I'm not sure .. I feel like there is more opportunity in the US than here ...

As far as taxes go? .. I don't make enough money to pay income taxes and I get a lot of my retail sales taxes and property taxes rebated.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:54 PM   #35
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,572
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Until they find the job they had is now gone, because the store or factory where they work was sold so they can get that $270

And the charity they used is gone now, no rich people making donations ...

the list goes on ... look at Argentina
Why would someone buy a store or factory simply to shut it down?

Especially a store in a region where the inhabitants just increased their wealth a thousand percent.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 10th September 2018 at 07:55 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 07:59 PM   #36
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Good point .. yes it's about moderation and taking small steps, close tax loopholes etc.

The average American *I* know is way better of the *me* ... but I'm not sure .. I feel like there is more opportunity in the US than here ...

As far as taxes go? .. I don't make enough money to pay income taxes and I get a lot of my retail sales taxes and property taxes rebated.
The U.S. doesn't rebate sales and property taxes, although they can be deducted from federal taxable income under some circumstances within specified limits. Of course, the Repubs just reduced the amount of state and local taxes that taxpayers can deduct.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:00 PM   #37
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Why would someone buy a store or factory simply to shut it down?
In this example, assists are not sold, the government confiscates all the assets of all the rich people, There is no one with enough money to Buy a big ticket item now.

The government can't run the company (it has to pay out all the $270 cheques) so the assets are liquidated.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:01 PM   #38
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The U.S. doesn't rebate sales and property taxes, although they can be deducted from federal taxable income under some circumstances within specified limits. Of course, the Repubs just reduced the amount of state and local taxes that taxpayers can deduct.
My opinion is if I was in the US, I wouldn;t need the rebates ... I'd be making the big money
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:02 PM   #39
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
In this example, assists are not sold, the government confiscates all the assets of all the rich people, There is no one with enough money to Buy a big ticket item now.
....
No one is contemplating such a thing. Throwing out an idea like that pretty much makes rational discussion impossible.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:05 PM   #40
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,948
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
My opinion is if I was in the US, I wouldn;t need the rebates ... I'd be making the big money
Depending on your professional history and work skills, you might be right. Or wrong. But if you were an out-of-work coal miner or auto worker or a minimum wage burger-flipper, you'd be better off in Canada. At least you wouldn't have to worry about how to pay a doctor if you needed one.

Last edited by Bob001; 10th September 2018 at 08:06 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.