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 10th September 2018, 08:07 PM   #41
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No one is contemplating such a thing. Throwing out an idea like that pretty much makes rational discussion impossible.
Exactly its an extreme example (and I didn't make it up its a common point to make in this kind of discussion) ... by looking at both extremes it can help us see what might actually work somewhere in the middle.
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, 08:08 PM   #42
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,570
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.

The government can't run the company (it has to pay out all the $270 cheques) so the assets are liquidated.
You are changing the parameters of your original proposal.
Certainly confiscating the assets of "all" the rich people would yield more than $270 each for the proposed recipients.
__________________
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, 08:08 PM   #43
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No one is contemplating such a thing. Throwing out an idea like that pretty much makes rational discussion impossible.
Yeah, we're just taking a nice, leisurely stroll through Straw Man Valley.
__________________
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, 08:10 PM   #44
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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.
I've been offered jobs in the US a few times, over the years, I've done contract jobs a couple times .. but the details of emigrating are a bit too daunting for me .. I'd have a good health care plan and as many hours of work as I wanted ... well maybe when I was 10 years younger
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, 08:10 PM   #45
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
You are changing the parameters of your original proposal.
Certainly confiscating the assets of "all" the rich people would yield more than $270 each for the proposed recipients.
I'd honestly be curious the see how it would pan out if the wealth of the global top 10% was confiscated.

I don't know where to find those numbers, though.
__________________
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, 08:17 PM   #46
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
You are changing the parameters of your original proposal.
Certainly confiscating the assets of "all" the rich people would yield more than $270 each for the proposed recipients.
Yes true my apologies, I was involved in the same discussion earlier, but involving ALL the rich people and obviously as you noted the numbers don't match, in my extreme example

Still the theory is even if it was $27,000 the poor people would mostly waste the money in a few months

The theory is the MORE "rich" people you include in the money confiscation, the more devastating it is, less shops, no factories, less overseas shipping vessels, virtually no air travel, many farmers are rich, no food ... top soil blows away ... you get the point

If you take enough rich people money there is nothing left for anyone ... as I mentioned in another post it's not meant to be 100% serious .. but a vision of extremes (like Venezuela for example) can help us find the centre.
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, 09:28 PM   #47
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Zigg,

investing isn't consumption: investments don't create profits in the absence of customers.
So I am correct that wealth inequality reduces the volume of demand in an economy.
The only way to keep the system going in a Supply-side craze is to grant unlimited credit for consumption - as we have seen in the US for the last 30 years.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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, 09:47 PM   #48
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Yes true my apologies, I was involved in the same discussion earlier, but involving ALL the rich people and obviously as you noted the numbers don't match, in my extreme example

Still the theory is even if it was $27,000 the poor people would mostly waste the money in a few months

The theory is the MORE "rich" people you include in the money confiscation, the more devastating it is, less shops, no factories, less overseas shipping vessels, virtually no air travel, many farmers are rich, no food ... top soil blows away ... you get the point

If you take enough rich people money there is nothing left for anyone ... as I mentioned in another post it's not meant to be 100% serious .. but a vision of extremes (like Venezuela for example) can help us find the centre.
Why would the poor people " mostly waste the money "?
__________________
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, 10:31 PM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'd honestly be curious the see how it would pan out if the wealth of the global top 10% was confiscated.

I don't know where to find those numbers, though.
You are likely in the global top 10 percent. And when wealth is confiscated, it ends badly. Sometimes with economic devastation, sometimes with violence and famine.
__________________
"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, 11:30 PM   #50
Lambchops
Muse
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are likely in the global top 10 percent. And when wealth is confiscated, it ends badly. Sometimes with economic devastation, sometimes with violence and famine.
Adorable. What was it you were saying about "propaganda" again?
__________________
Remember what Ol' Dirty said.
Lambchops 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 11th September 2018, 01:35 AM   #51
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But what about the other half? Presumably incomes are increasing for the bottom 40%.

Really? How come?!

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%.[/quote]


I'm sorry, but I don't understand your presumptions. Not declining = increasing??! It might mean stable or it might mean declining at a slower rate. It might mean almost anything, actually.
__________________
/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 11th September 2018, 01:36 AM   #52
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Adorable. What was it you were saying about "propaganda" again?

What?! You didn't read the statistics that say so?
__________________
/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 11th September 2018, 01:43 AM   #53
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Why would the poor people " mostly waste the money "?

Because that's what poor people do! They waste their money frivolously on stuff they don't really need.
This is why magazines are full of articles about how people would be billionaires if they didn't ... drink coffee, for instance.
__________________
/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; 11th September 2018 at 02:43 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 11th September 2018, 01:52 AM   #54
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Still the theory is even if it was $27,000 the poor people would mostly waste the money in a few months

The theory is the MORE "rich" people you include in the money confiscation, the more devastating it is, less shops, no factories, less overseas shipping vessels, virtually no air travel, many farmers are rich, no food ... top soil blows away ... you get the point

If you take enough rich people money there is nothing left for anyone ... as I mentioned in another post it's not meant to be 100% serious .. but a vision of extremes (like Venezuela for example) can help us find the centre.
This is the argument of people who only see the supply-side, not the demand side of the economy: the 'Poor' don't "waste" money anymore than the 'Rich' "safe" it: they both put it back into the economy, albeit at different ends: if either side stopped (or is prevented from) doing this, the economy would grind to a halt.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 11th September 2018, 02:48 AM   #55
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Well, the economy grinds to a recession regularly.
And you could argue that the rich just need to spend even more frivolously to compensate for what the poor can't spend. You used to be able to buy poor people. Now you just rent them ...
__________________
/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 11th September 2018, 02:57 AM   #56
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Well, the economy grinds to a recession regularly.
And you could argue that the rich just need to spend even more frivolously to compensate for what the poor can't spend. You used to be able to buy poor people. Now you just rent them ...
but that is the point: the Rich don't spend. Buying a luxury car or home or yacht is not spending: it is just changing from one asset to another.
The Poor who have to rent and use public transport spend basically all of their money. It is a proven fact that if you want to stimulate demand, you have to give more money to the poor, not the rich.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 11th September 2018, 03:46 AM   #57
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
but that is the point: the Rich don't spend. Buying a luxury car or home or yacht is not spending: it is just changing from one asset to another.

No, not really. The rich are 'big spenders' because they have a lot to spend: See the catalogues that cater to that segment of the population! They can both spend frivolously and invest!

Quote:
The Poor who have to rent and use public transport spend basically all of their money. It is a proven fact that if you want to stimulate demand, you have to give more money to the poor, not the rich.

It is a proven fact that any kind of spending by poor people is frivolous: They spend it all on food, housing, clothes, transport and cheap entertainment, the kind of demand that the state usually does whatever it can to put a lid on because it isn't accumulated. That the ones who sell them the stuff for the sake of their own accumulation of capital depend on people buying their products while at the same time trying to limit their wages is one of the many contradictions of capitalism (Ruthless Criticism).
__________________
/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 11th September 2018, 04:19 AM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your presumptions. Not declining = increasing??! It might mean stable or it might mean declining at a slower rate. It might mean almost anything, actually.
Declining at a slower rate is still declining, and thus would already be counted among the declining, so no, it cannot be that. And it’s probably not steady, since measured quantities are almost never exactly zero.
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 04:21 AM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Adorable. What was it you were saying about "propaganda" again?
Show me Iím wrong, then.
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 04:21 AM   #60
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,033
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Declining at a slower rate is still declining, and thus would already be counted among the declining, so no, it cannot be that.

Yes, it can! It doesn't say at which point declining begins and increasing starts. If it was declining for 100%, it would still be declining for the bottom 40%, too.
__________________
/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 11th September 2018, 04:28 AM   #61
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,761
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
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 think people are just miffed that the 'system' allows some individuals to accrue that much wealth while others starve. It ain't fair, but what are you gonna do? The principal alternative is, historically, that _everyone_ be poor.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 11th September 2018, 04:32 AM   #62
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,761
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
Can you think of anything that could go wrong with such a plan?
Depends. Quite a big chunk of my earnings are taxed and used for services I never use, and somehow I've survived.

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
This is just typical leftist class warfare stuff.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 11th September 2018, 04:35 AM   #63
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,761
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Why would someone buy a store or factory simply to shut it down?
To kill a competitor. Happens all the time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 11th September 2018, 05:26 AM   #64
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think people are just miffed that the 'system' allows some individuals to accrue that much wealth while others starve. It ain't fair, but what are you gonna do? The principal alternative is, historically, that _everyone_ be poor.
incorrect.

The NORM is a rich, ruling elite. This is more or less system Independent.
The only difference is how much effort a system makes to either reduce inequality or reduce the negative effects of inequality (welfare, universal healthcare. etc. ).
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 11th September 2018, 05:38 AM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Yes, it can! It doesn't say at which point declining begins and increasing starts. If it was declining for 100%, it would still be declining for the bottom 40%, too.
Which would mean it would be declining for 100% of the bottom 40%. But it isn't. It's only declining for half of the bottom 40%. It's not declining for the other half of the bottom 40%.

You're bad at 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 11th September 2018, 06:16 AM   #66
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
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.
No, actually, that notion is not dangerous at all, because almost nobody holds it, almost nobody will hold it, and it will never become the actual policy of any developed country.
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 06:35 AM   #67
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, actually, that notion is not dangerous at all, because almost nobody holds it, almost nobody will hold it, and it will never become the actual policy of any developed country.
Labor rights have been eroded down to almost nothing over the last 30 years or so. The human rights organizations didn't help:
http://exiledonline.com/the-lefts-bi...-labor-rights/

Manufacturers operating out of china aren't great about pollution. I doubt you need a link on that.

It's only law keeping corporations in check.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 06:40 AM   #68
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are likely in the global top 10 percent. And when wealth is confiscated, it ends badly. Sometimes with economic devastation, sometimes with violence and famine.
I'd just like to see the numbers for more than than the 40 or so richest people. I don't have anything close to a solid mental image of global inequality. More information = a good thing.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 06:54 AM   #69
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,316
Some weeks back, NPR’s Fresh Air ran a segment on researching the tendency (fad?) for very wealthy folks to build luxurious hideaways in remote areas. Sometimes building from scratch, sometimes converting existing structures like abandoned ICBM silos.

The reasoning behind this? “The pitchforks.” A feared uprising by the “underclass”.

Not without historical precedence, of course. “Your majesty, the peasants are revolting!”
“I know, I know...”
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 11th September 2018, 06:54 AM   #70
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think people are just miffed that the 'system' allows some individuals to accrue that much wealth while others starve. It ain't fair, but what are you gonna do? The principal alternative is, historically, that _everyone_ be poor.
No, the alternative is what it was under Eisenhower when the top tax rate was 91%. Yes, they wiggled out of it a lot, but overall inequality was far, far lower.
The were still rich people under Eisenhower.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 09:10 AM   #71
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, actually, that notion is not dangerous at all, because almost nobody holds it, almost nobody will hold it, and it will never become the actual policy of any developed country.
"Almost nobody"...

https://www.ft.com/content/48b0ce2c-...0-d9cb59be8b3b

Quote:
A pharma executive has defended his decision to raise the price of an antibiotic mixture to more than $2,000 a bottle, arguing there was amoral requirement to sell the product at the highest price”.

Last month, Nostrum Laboratories, a small Missouri-based drugmaker, more than quadrupled the price of a bottle of nitrofurantoin from $474.75 to $2,392, according to Elsevier’s Gold Standard drug database.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 09:28 AM   #72
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Labor rights have been eroded down to almost nothing over the last 30 years or so.
Uh... no. No, they have not.

Quote:
Manufacturers operating out of china aren't great about pollution. I doubt you need a link on that.
You're pointing to problems in a communist country in order to argue about the problems with capitalism? That's rich. Communist countries are far bigger believers in the idea that corporations should be subject to the whims of government, and they do indeed have much worse records on pollution than capitalist countries.

Quote:
It's only law keeping corporations in check.
Again, nobody is arguing that corporations shouldn't be subject to any laws.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
"Almost nobody"...
This example has nothing to do with the actual claim you made. Or did you forget what it is you said?
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 09:39 AM   #73
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'd just like to see the numbers for more than than the 40 or so richest people. I don't have anything close to a solid mental image of global inequality. More information = a good thing.
Sure, but you weren't asking for more information.

Page 25 of this document has some data:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curat...df/WPS6719.pdf
For 2005, the average per capita income of the 90 to 95th percentile was about $15k per year. This is the average of that percentile range, not the bottom of it, which means the 90th percentile starts a fair amount below this. The numbers have undoubtedly increased since then, but the point is it's not that hard to hit the top 10% of the world if you live in a developed country. Not everyone in a developed country will be in the top 10%, but a majority will be.
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 09:47 AM   #74
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, but you weren't asking for more information.
I said:

Quote:
I'd honestly be curious the see how it would pan out if the wealth of the global top 10% was confiscated.

I don't know where to find those numbers, though.
Thank you for the link.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 09:52 AM   #75
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This example has nothing to do with the actual claim you made. Or did you forget what it is you said?
I didn't forget what I said - I added "etc and so on" to labor rights and pollution to cover all the bases of this:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by kellyb; 11th September 2018 at 10:48 AM.
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 11th September 2018, 09:57 AM   #76
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, nobody is arguing that corporations shouldn't be subject to any laws.
Lots of people, almost everyone on the right, tend to argue that corporations need to to be subject to less, not more, laws to make their behavior less anti-social.
__________________
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 11th September 2018, 10:08 AM   #77
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Lots of people, almost everyone on the right, tend to argue that corporations need to to be subject to less, not more, laws to make their behavior less anti-social.
There is a very big difference between saying that there should be fewer laws and saying there should be no laws to regulate corporate behavior, and it is no more valid to confuse the two than it is to claim that those arguing for more laws believe that there should be an infinitude of laws. And unless it is your position that it's impossible to have too many laws, then there must be at least in theory a point at which you too would think that there should be fewer laws.
__________________
"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 11th September 2018, 10:15 AM   #78
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,761
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
incorrect.

The NORM is a rich, ruling elite. This is more or less system Independent.
The only difference is how much effort a system makes to either reduce inequality or reduce the negative effects of inequality (welfare, universal healthcare. etc. ).
Yeah everyone except the king and his advisors, obviously. It's good to the be king, after all.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 11th September 2018, 10:24 AM   #79
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,960
China isn't Communist.
It is a Technocratic Market Economy.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 11th September 2018, 10:26 AM   #80
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is a very big difference between saying that there should be fewer laws and saying there should be no laws to regulate corporate behavior, and it is no more valid to confuse the two than it is to claim that those arguing for more laws believe that there should be an infinitude of laws. And unless it is your position that it's impossible to have too many laws, then there must be at least in theory a point at which you too would think that there should be fewer laws.
I don't even look at it as a need for more vs fewer, to be honest. I tend to think there probably should be fewer, but they should be better.

There are a lot of silly regulations out there, and "regulatory capture" as it pertains to "system gaming" is an enormous problem. For example, Amazon promoting elaborate internet commerce state tax laws because only they would be able to afford to implement them.
__________________
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
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 03:47 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.