What's the big deal about being rich?

[Chiki]

It was against your argument by using human behavior as an example, in this case yours. It did not ignore your argument. It was not an ad hominem in the least sense.

It does not change the fact that you were attacking myself to attack my own argument. It is still by definition ad hominem, as my actions have absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the argument.

I already have. It doesn't make any sense at all. You are reasoning that people that have a lot of money should not be allowed to have a lot of money. You haven't said why. Why should poorer people be entitled to the rich's resources? Why is income inequality necessarily a bad thing?

I am not saying that poorer people should be entitled to their resources. All I am claiming is that poorer people have need for that money, whereas the rich don't. The rich instead choose to put away their money simply for the sake of having money, or spend it on things such as exorbitant trips to foreign countries, first-class plane tickets, and so on. They do not need to spend money on such things, they simply want to for the sake of being comfortable. But poorer people need that money more than rich people do. Therefore they should receive that money.

In a society, we should give priority to ones with greater needs as opposed to ones with lesser needs. Would you really disagree with this statement?

Which rich people? What are you even talking about? The vastest majority of those you likely view as unfairly rich invest it into the economy in their own fashion. Just because they are rich doesn't mean other people are suffering as a result. They cause no harm to anyone by being more rich. Why should they suffer simply because they worked hard and attained wealth? That defeats the entire purpose of effort on an economist's part. What kind of entrepreneur would want to take part in a game where he will have all of the profits he makes seized simply because he succeeded in his venture?

Just because they are rich doesn't mean that others are suffering--certainly. But the fact that they have the power to end suffering (or at least lessen it) if they so choose, by giving up their sports cars, fine restaurants and so on is what makes them so despicable. Or giving up their billions of dollars in banks in Monaco.

There are some respectable rich people, however. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett agree with me, and they gave up the vast majority of their wealth to do good.

It is not that they are causing harm--it is that they are not preventing harm. Say you saw someone on the street being raped and you had the option to call the police. You chose to ignore it. What would that say of you? Surely people would find you despicable if you did that. So it matters that people have the power to prevent something and do not act on it.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Olwen

[Le Communard]

I already have. It doesn't make any sense at all. You are reasoning that people that have a lot of money should not be allowed to have a lot of money. You haven't said why. Why should poorer people be entitled to the rich's resources? Why is income inequality necessarily a bad thing?

Because of the systemic and idealogical violence that exsists to separate the world's resources from those who produce them in the name of those who consume? It's elementry Marxism, really--poor people do all the real work, and because of the system that tells poor people they didn't *really* do the work they did, because someone else "owned" the means of production, rich people get all the benefit. So when rich people work hard they get showerd with money, but when poor people work hard they get jack shit. I don't really agree (in 2013 it is much more complicated than that), but it's hard to deny that some people really don't get a square deal, and that income inequality is all because some people "earned" it. Basically, one could say that it is bad essentially because it is not created in practice via any of its self-stated ethics (and this is ignoring any questions of alternative ethical systems).

Edited May 2, 2013 by Le Communard

[Esau of Isaac]

It does not change the fact that you were attacking myself to attack my own argument. It is still by definition ad hominem, as my actions have absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the argument.

They have everything to do with it. I wasn't attacking you, I was illustrating basic human behavior. It was not an ad hominem. I am not debating this any further.

I am not saying that poorer people should be entitled to their resources. All I am claiming is that poorer people have need for that money, whereas the rich don't.

You have absolutely stated they are entitled to it. You called for the forcible removal of resources from the rich to give away to the poor in this very topic!

What constitutes a need? Are we speaking of pure survival here? Which poor are you talking about? Which rich are you talking about?

The rich instead choose to put away their money simply for the sake of having money, or spend it on things such as exorbitant trips to foreign countries, first-class plane tickets, and so on. They do not need to spend money on such things, they simply want to for the sake of being comfortable. But poorer people need that money more than rich people do. Therefore they should receive that money.

Why do poorer people need the money? You are acting as though they deserve it merely because they have less. As though they are suffering as others become richer. What is naturally wrong about income inequality? Is any income inequality a sign of unhealthiness?

In a society, we should give priority to ones with greater needs as opposed to ones with lesser needs. Would you really disagree with this statement?

I would disagree with the idea that people who are better off should be punished despite their success because others are not in their same situation. There are people that are starving, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to buy a shiny new car with the resources I worked my ass off to receive. People are already forced to give to those less fortunate through mandatory taxation from the state, how much needs to be removed from them before it's fair? Do you want everyone to have the exact same paycheck or something? I don't get it.

Just because they are rich doesn't mean that others are suffering--certainly. But the fact that they have the power to end suffering (or at least lessen it) if they so choose, by giving up their sports cars, fine restaurants and so on is what makes them so despicable. Or giving up their billions of dollars in banks in Monaco.

Those fine restaurants, sports cars, and banks exist because there is a market for them. You act as though rich people are all sitting on their money doing nothing, when in fact many of them invest their earnings into the economy the same as we do. Moreso than the average person, in fact, given that many of them move into economic ventures with far greater ease. Whereas I have to take out a much larger loan and face comparatively larger risk, an investment by a rich individual is one with comparatively low risk. They're encouraged with their increased resources to invest it and grow it further, helping everyone, including themselves. That's the basis of our economy, a rising tide that lifts all boats.

There are some respectable rich people, however. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett agree with me, and they gave up the vast majority of their wealth to do good.

And yet they still are worth billions more than you and anyone you know could ever hope to be. Being a rich philanthropist doesn't mean you're not rich.

It is not that they are causing harm--it is that they are not preventing harm. Say you saw someone on the street being raped and you had the option to call the police. You chose to ignore it. What would that say of you? Surely people would find you despicable if you did that. So it matters that people have the power to prevent something and do not act on it.

Are you equating a rich individual not donating to poor people to someone that stands by and lets a rape happen? How rich is it okay to be before you should be vilified for not donating away all of your wealth?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Fruity Insanity]

You have absolutely stated they are entitled to it. You called for the forcible removal of resources from the rich to give away to the poor in this very topic!

I think Olwen meant that it would be okay if someone stole from the rich to give to the poor, because it would be for a greater cause. He wasn't, on the other hand, saying that it should be done. At least, he wasn't calling for thievery in my understanding.

What constitutes a need? Are we speaking of pure survival here? Which poor are you talking about? Which rich are you talking about?

I notice that for the past few replies, you were just throwing back questions rather than actually arguing. I mean, the people Olwen is talking abouy is pretty clear: People who *need* the money more than rich people. People who are, say, starving, as he stated previously. In this case, I think he means people like in, hm, say... Africa and India for example.

Why do poorer people need the money? You are acting as though they deserve it merely because they have less. As though they are suffering as others become richer. What is naturally wrong about income inequality? Is any income inequality a sign of unhealthiness?

I think... Capitalism is like that. When someone earns money, that money is coming *somewhere*, right? And that can affect other, less-privaleged people. Take Apple. They make billions of dollars in profit... But it is the people of China who make them. All that extra money... And those workers hardly receive a fraction if that. I think it's wrong that America - well, America and most other nations - take advantage if that cheap labor. Of course, I admit that as one who hasn't seen or experienced such things, I can't really say that I honestly know, but... Eh.

It's how the world spins, I guess. I agree with you in the sense that equality isn't - or will ever be - evenly distributed. That'd be some utopia or something. Or some Communist place. However, I agree with Olwen in that the rich have enough to give away. They can make the world a better place. That is, they have the resources to do so, while lower income families such as my own, while also being able to do so, make smaller impacts in this thing we call "poor people."

I would disagree with the idea that people who are better off should be punished despite their success because others are not in their same situation. There are people that are starving, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to buy a shiny new car with the resources I worked my ass off to receive. People are already forced to give to those less fortunate through mandatory taxation from the state, how much needs to be removed from them before it's fair? Do you want everyone to have the exact same paycheck or something? I don't get it.

Uh... Aren't most people who are rich able to easily obtain money? They "work their asses off" at the beginning only. Usually, that is. If they have that much money in the first place, it likely means that they'd be able to continue what they were doing and re-earn that money. So yes, the rich can give. They can. Also, even if they buy a shiny new car, they'd still have money to give away. :P

Those fine restaurants, sports cars, and banks exist because there is a market for them. You act as though rich people are all sitting on their money doing nothing, when in fact many of them invest their earnings into the economy the same as we do. Moreso than the average person, in fact, given that many of them move into economic ventures with far greater ease. Whereas I have to take out a much larger loan and face comparatively larger risk, an investment by a rich individual is one with comparatively low risk. They're encouraged with their increased resources to invest it and grow it further, helping everyone, including themselves. That's the basis of our economy, a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Helping us all. Yes, I agree. But that "all" only goes so far. If Olwen means that the people who need the money are the ones that are starving and dying from lack of clothes, medicine, shelter, and the like, then I'd say that those rich people hardly help. Because what they invest in doesn't affect them because if the rich person is investing in some car company in Japan, would it affect the people who are actually starving in India? And when a rich person *does* invest in foreign businesses, it probably means that they're *taking advantage of the people and economy there. Sure, they open up more jobs. Sure, they help people. Buy not by much. They're just taking advantage of either cheap resources or cheap labor.

And yet they still are worth billions more than you and anyone you know could ever hope to be. Being a rich philanthropist doesn't mean you're not rich.

I wasn't quite following what you said here...

Regardless, I still think the rich should be obligated to give, becuase the most likely reason as to *why* they're not giving is for self-gain. Which is greed, basically. Except more extreme, perhaps.

Are you equating a rich individual not donating to poor people to someone that stands by and lets a rape happen? How rich is it okay to be before you should be vilified for not donating away all of your wealth?

10 million USD, maybe?

Anyway, as a person who's been living in a third world country, I've beem able to witness these poor people... I live in a place where indoor plumbing is a luxury. Most peopl who live in non-apartments have outhouses instead. I live in a place where some people work by the day, people who try hard to become economically stable but often fail to do so. Which is why so many people work abroad here, in places such as America, Russia, Japan, and Korea.

I admit that Kyrgyzstan is more fortunate than *some* nations, such as some African countries and North Korea and the like, but this place is in a mess, too. I mean, two revolutions in the past 10 years? That's something. And here some - a lot depending on the area - steal brides because they can't afford their - by Western standards - very cheap wedding ceremonies.

But yeah, I guess I'm just trying to say the rich - and even the not-so-rich - should give.

Because, you know, often it's not the workers' fault that they're poor; it's the nation's leader and/or the damn economy capitalism created. Not that I can chang much. But yeah, I was - no, am - living in "poverty" by America's standards. But like you said, that poverty isn't so much as whether I'll starve or not, but whether I'll be able to afford a Wii U or not. Damn, I feel so bad for living like this when the people here can't afford video games... *sigh*

EDIT: Gosh, this took so long to write on my iPod... I think I'll use the computer later... X3

Edited May 2, 2013 by FranticforFreeFruityFruit

[Le Communard]

Sigh... someone has to be the Marxist here.

Let me play devils advocate for a moment: under Capitalism, inequality is not coincidental it is built in and * necessary* for the proper functioning of the system: "haves" get what they have from the surplus labor of the "have-nots". That's the bottom line--no more have not's, no more Capitalism. "Giving" can never fix the problem because the very problem was created by the division of society into competing classes. Based on entropy alone, no amount of private action could ever hope to alleviate the misery created by the structure in the first place, leaving aside all other effects. Capitalism, especially contemporary neoliberal ideologies, tells us that when we see problems, the solution is private action, when in fact that puts a ridiculous onus on the private citizen to be responsible for every problem that couldn't possibly be solved by them and leaves an uncoordinated effort at tackling them that spends all its energy putzing around (c.f. the budget sheets of most non-profits).

This counts just as much for idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats": some members of society can't be lifted because they're the ones busy doing the lifting. One needs to look no further than our own jobless recovery in the US: profits are back up, up, up, but are the regular joe's like you and me seeing a dime? Of course not, employment is bad as ever. Workers are a resource. They're an object. And the idea that Capitalism provides for them in any way but the most degraded sense is delusional. Everything good labor has in this country it won because it fought tooth and nail for a fucking long time, and because the government subsidized the creation of a white middle class in the post-war period (because we must not forget that these inequalities are every bit as much raced as classed, perhaps even more so in America). Essentially, both sides are ignoring the systemic implications of the questions of wealth and poverty, instead choosing to focus on quibbles that amount to little more than glorified accounting.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Le Communard

[Fruity Insanity]

I completely agree.

ButIstillthinktherichshouldbeobligatedtogivetothepoorGivingisajoyinitselftooToseewhatyougivehelpingsomeone.improvingtheirlivesIjustdon'tunderstandwhysomerichpeoplecompletelydisregardthat...

Anyway, yeah, I agree.

[bottlegnomes]

Those fine restaurants, sports cars, and banks exist because there is a market for them. You act as though rich people are all sitting on their money doing nothing, when in fact many of them invest their earnings into the economy the same as we do. Moreso than the average person, in fact, given that many of them move into economic ventures with far greater ease. Whereas I have to take out a much larger loan and face comparatively larger risk, an investment by a rich individual is one with comparatively low risk. They're encouraged with their increased resources to invest it and grow it further, helping everyone, including themselves. That's the basis of our economy, a rising tide that lifts all boats.

I thought it was pretty clear at this point that trickle-down economics was a load.

Edited May 2, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Esau of Isaac]

I think Olwen meant that it would be okay if someone stole from the rich to give to the poor, because it would be for a greater cause. He wasn't, on the other hand, saying that it should be done. At least, he wasn't calling for thievery in my understanding.

Alright. Either way it sounds just as bad to me.

I notice that for the past few replies, you were just throwing back questions rather than actually arguing. I mean, the people Olwen is talking abouy is pretty clear: People who *need* the money more than rich people. People who are, say, starving, as he stated previously. In this case, I think he means people like in, hm, say... Africa and India for example.

The problem being that raising these people from inequity is not some simple process of throwing some random millionaire's money at them. Africa's not in need of money. Money won't fix its problem.

I think... Capitalism is like that. When someone earns money, that money is coming *somewhere*, right? And that can affect other, less-privaleged people. Take Apple. They make billions of dollars in profit... But it is the people of China who make them. All that extra money... And those workers hardly receive a fraction if that. I think it's wrong that America - well, America and most other nations - take advantage if that cheap labor. Of course, I admit that as one who hasn't seen or experienced such things, I can't really say that I honestly know, but... Eh.

That cheap labor is often the only option the individuals have in those developing areas. People often vilify corporations such as Walmart for exploitation because of this, but if it's a choice between working well below minimum wage and starving of course they'll choose that. And Walmart will only operate in that area because of the very low costs. Make them pay everyone at a specific wage and they won't pay all of the people, they'll just close shop because it's cost prohibitive. It's not in a business's mind to be solely ethical. It's a very important part of any business's decision-making frame of mind, but it's not the end goal.

It's how the world spins, I guess. I agree with you in the sense that equality isn't - or will ever be - evenly distributed. That'd be some utopia or something. Or some Communist place. However, I agree with Olwen in that the rich have enough to give away. They can make the world a better place. That is, they have the resources to do so, while lower income families such as my own, while also being able to do so, make smaller impacts in this thing we call "poor people."

I'm not saying only that income equality can ever truly be reached, but that it is not necessary. Greater income equality is not a sign of economic healthiness in any way.

Uh... Aren't most people who are rich able to easily obtain money? They "work their asses off" at the beginning only. Usually, that is. If they have that much money in the first place, it likely means that they'd be able to continue what they were doing and re-earn that money. So yes, the rich can give. They can. Also, even if they buy a shiny new car, they'd still have money to give away. :P

Yes and no. Rich people get rich by various means. Do you think someone would bother investing time, effort, and money into a livelihood they knew was going to be stolen away to pay for someone less fortunate?

I think it needs to be defined what rich even is at this point. Is it millionaires? Billionaires? People who own businesses? Businesses themselves? Comparatively all of us here are most likely rich compared to those starving nations that are being mentioned repeatedly.

Helping us all. Yes, I agree. But that "all" only goes so far. If Olwen means that the people who need the money are the ones that are starving and dying from lack of clothes, medicine, shelter, and the like, then I'd say that those rich people hardly help.

How do they hardly help? Are you implying that rich people rarely donate to the poor?

Because what they invest in doesn't affect them because if the rich person is investing in some car company in Japan, would it affect the people who are actually starving in India? And when a rich person *does* invest in foreign businesses, it probably means that they're *taking advantage of the people and economy there. Sure, they open up more jobs. Sure, they help people. Buy not by much. They're just taking advantage of either cheap resources or cheap labor.

What are you talking about? Rich invest in foreign businesses when it's economically viable. It doesn't have to be unethical. If they're taking advantage of cheap resources or labor then they're obviously trying to most efficiently use their resources. If you had a million dollars and wanted to make more, would you invest it in a venture that would cost an exorbitant amount simply because or invest it in means that are comparatively much cheaper?

It's about incentivization. Rich people aren't less human than you or me. They are just as profit-motivated.

I wasn't quite following what you said here...

Regardless, I still think the rich should be obligated to give, becuase the most likely reason as to *why* they're not giving is for self-gain. Which is greed, basically. Except more extreme, perhaps.

I was saying that them being charitable doesn't stop them from being more rich than anyone else here will ever be. They're still filthy rich, and they will still be filthy rich until they die, regardless of what contributions they have made. Do they now get a free pass? Or should they give more, since they are still ridiculously wealthy?

The rich are obligated to give. They give through taxes to those less fortunate every day. How much is okay to take from them before they are left to spend how they wish? Would a 50% income tax rate be appropriate? 60%? 90%? What happens to those that are left over who are still rich? There will always be poor. Should we just take what's left over anyways, despite whether they earned it or not?

This counts just as much for idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats": some members of society can't be lifted because they're the ones busy doing the lifting. One needs to look no further than our own jobless recovery in the US: profits are back up, up, up, but are the regular joe's like you and me seeing a dime? Of course not, employment is bad as ever. Workers are a resource. They're an object. And the idea that Capitalism provides for them in any way but the most degraded sense is delusional.

I don't think the failing jobs market in America is a representation that capitalism is an inherently unhelpful system. Labor is as much an object as land, capital, and entrepreneurship. At the most basic level they're provided for because of simple profit motive. I don't understand how that is inherently awful.

I thought it was pretty clear at this point that trickle-down economics was a load.

In practice there are many situations where it fails, likely for the main reasons that Olwen is complaining of (amassing wealth and sitting on it), but as a general rule as the rich get rich and invest the country becomes richer as well.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[shadykid]

In practice there are many situations where it fails, likely for the main reasons that Olwen is complaining of (amassing wealth and sitting on it), but as a general rule as the rich get rich and invest the country becomes richer as well.

have you been paying attention to the economy for the last 5 years?

this really hasn't been true, since it requires rich people to actually spend instead of, you know, just keeping it all to themselves

[Le Communard]

I don't think the failing jobs market in America is a representation that capitalism is an inherently unhelpful system. Labor is as much an object as land, capital, and entrepreneurship. At the most basic level they're provided for because of simple profit motive. I don't understand how that is inherently awful.

The jobless recovery was merely a convenient illustration of one of the many ways the system works for the haves while it shafts the have-nots. And not only does the nature of Capitalistic "providing for" incomparable with even basic notions of human rights/dignity, but the have-nots made everything we use and see none of the fruits of their labor. Capitalism views labor as instruments as dollar values: no human being deserves to have there worth be assessed by a dollar value on a spreadsheet. It's awful because its totally incompatible with any practical notion of justice.

[Esau of Isaac]

have you been paying attention to the economy for the last 5 years?

this really hasn't been true, since it requires rich people to actually spend instead of, you know, just keeping it all to themselves

That is precisely why I noted that it is best when the rich invest. Although even if they were to "keep it all to themselves," if they're growing it through mutual funds and the like they're still helping the economy.

The jobless recovery was merely a convenient illustration of one of the many ways the system works for the haves while it shafts the have-nots.

Right, but that's a problem with how the system is dealt with, rather than the system itself. We shouldn't say that the concept of driving automobiles is what causes fatalities on the road, but rather that improper use or maintenance of them is.

And not only does the nature of Capitalistic "providing for" incomparable with even basic notions of human rights/dignity, but the have-nots made everything we use and see none of the fruits of their labor. Capitalism views labor as instruments as dollar values: no human being deserves to have there worth be assessed by a dollar value on a spreadsheet. It's awful because its totally incompatible with any practical notion of justice.

But it's just not true that ethics don't play a part in the grand scheme of things. If you were speaking of an accountant, yeah, they'll reduce everything down to numbers: And that makes sense, because they're operating within the purview of the system, on a cost basis. I don't see how a modern economy could possibly work any other way. But an economist is meant to view the entire picture, including both the explicit and implicit costs of actions, including the ethical ramifications of many given ventures. As a textbook example, had Enron operated within the acceptable limits of ethical actions, it would still be around today. One might argue that we need some sort of a GAAP when it comes to the actual ethics and behaviors of corporations, but I think we avoid that because it would further limit today's entrepreneur in motives.

While I wouldn't agree with the most extremist view that capitalism is solely about selfish gain --strictly in a negative way, that is-- I do believe that it is generally a good thing that labor is viewed as an object rather than strictly from an emotional standpoint. It's necessarily more efficient, if even at the most basic level, than one which assigns a "fair" value to individual heads through some arbitrary means. I view the radical advancement that capitalism has brought to the world as an incredible good. There's no doubt that it's an imperfect system, but I would absolutely say that it's not so broken or evil that it should be cast away, but rather modified for our society today. That is why we have many social democracies in the world that operate with a more planned economy in mind. I suppose you can debate whether or not these are ultimately enough, or even --as I would, and am to an extent in this very topic-- whether they are innately necessary, but I can't see a realistic system that is genuinely more efficient and perhaps even truly equitable than what we have in our modern day.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Rehab]

When I asked my dad for his take, as an MBA holder, on whether capitalism is inherently selfish (as in, so much that it's not even really "insulting" to say so, it's just kinda the point), he (a Canadian middle-leftie himself, so a bleedingheart liberal by U.S. standards I assume) said that he defines capitalism simply as "an economic arrangement where a nation's means of production are not directly owned by the government." (and that systems in which this is the case can come in many different flavors)

Is this basically the same definition that everybody else is working with?

Also, I hear the Scandinavians aren't doing half-bad for themselves, relatively speaking, though admittedly I haven't heard much more.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rehab

[Esau of Isaac]

When I asked my dad for his take, as an MBA holder, on whether capitalism is inherently selfish (as in, so much that it's not even really "insulting" to say so, it's just kinda the point), he (a Canadian middle-leftie himself, so a bleedingheart liberal by U.S. standards I assume) said that he defines capitalism simply as "an economic arrangement where a nation's means of production are not directly owned by the government." (and that systems in which this is the case can come in many different flavors)

Is this basically the same definition that everybody else is working with?

That is essentially the meaning of it, but there are degrees of ownership the government will always essentially hold. There can never be such a thing as a completely free market capitalist system, there is necessarily some form of regulation however minute. Ventures combine the use of land (resources), labor (workers), capital (tools, buildings, etc.), and entrepreneurship (leadership).

To use a basic analogy, consider the most simple of some kind of hunter-gatherer system: There is a tree which our village gets its food from. Every day you climb up the tree and gather a handful of bananas and bring them to your village home, where you store them and later consume them. This is working all well and good for you, but you think that you could improve how bananas are gathered. You're thinking you could make a ladder that would make getting loads of bananas a cinch. Then you could trade all of those loads of bananas for everything you want from the rest of the villagers. The only problem is, you don't have any wood, and you can't make the ladder on your own. So you decide one day that instead of just eating the bananas you take from the tree, that night you'll go hungry. Your stomach is rumbling, but the next day you persuade a few villagers to lend you some wood and their help to put the ladder together by trading them all the bananas you gathered. They get to work, and by the end of the day, you have the ladder made. Now you're able to reach the bananas very easily, and gather many more. Now that you have more bananas, you can use them to barter for goods you need to perhaps make other new things. Perhaps now you think you'll make a great net to help you catch more fish, or a better knife to carve wood.

That is basically what our system revolves around. An entrepreneur (you) invests money (capital) --although capital is more often concerned with machines and tools, roads, etc.-- to persuade laborers (the other villages-- to work resources (land) and create a finished product.

[Chiki]

You have absolutely stated they are entitled to it. You called for the forcible removal of resources from the rich to give away to the poor in this very topic!

What constitutes a need? Are we speaking of pure survival here? Which poor are you talking about? Which rich are you talking about?

Asking me a bunch of questions is just avoiding my argument. I made my argument very clear--judging from the fact that you are the only one asking questions about it, and even someone else pointed out that it's very easy to understand. I've told you many, many times that I am talking about people who are starving.

Second, I did not call for the forcible removal of resources from the rich. All I did was say that it was the morally right thing to do. I am arguing about what is ethical, not what we should do in real life.

I am not arguing for anything practical. Here is my argument:

1) There are rich people who do nothing valuable with their obnoxious amounts of money.

2) Rich people do not need this money.

3) Poor people do.

4) If poor people need money that rich people don't need, then they should receive this money.

---

5) Therefore, it is the morally right thing to do to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

This has NOTHING to do with your practical questions.

You seem to have issues with reading my posts. I am unclear if you are lazy, or if you are purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or if you simply cannot understand it. Here, let me copy paste them one by one and explain them to you:

I am not making a practical argument. I am simply making a rational, ethical argument--that is, is it the right thing to take money away from rich people who have no need for that money whatsoever, other than spending it

I'll repeat what I said earlier: I am not making a practical argument. I am not encouraging that it is the practical thing to do to take money from the rich. I am saying that it is the morally right thing to do.

I even gave an example to you in order to illustrate this point, which you conveniently ignored.

Before you say "whatever is impractical is morally wrong," practical /=/ moral. For example, consider 3 drunk drivers. One goes back home from the bar safely. One hits someone on the road but they get injured lightly. The third drunk driver kills a pedestrian on the way home.

Is the morally right thing to do to imprison both drunk drivers equally? Yes, as none of them intended to kill anyone and it was a matter of luck who hit or killed the pedestrian or got back home safely. But is it practical to imprison the drunk driver who got back home safely for as long as the drunk driver who killed someone? No.

The same logic applies to taking money from the rich. Is it impractical and a difficult to achieve goal? Maybe, even though I think it's possible. For the sake of argument, I'll say yes. But this does not mean that it is the wrong thing to do. It is absolutely morally justified to take money away from people who keep it around for no reason.

As you can see, I even directly state that it is impractical--but I am defending that it is the ethical and right thing to do. The point of the example with drunk drivers is that ethics has nothing to do with what is practical.

Here is me talking about starving people:

That Americans and such whine about how they want to maintain a comfortable lifestyle when there's people starving on the other side of the world.

I was very clearly mentioning people in Africa, India, etc. who are starving. I don't know how else to make it more clear.

Now the question is this: Do you think it's the morally right thing to do to take money from people who are rich, who have no need for it other than living a very comfortable, luxurious lifestyle, and give it to the poor people in Africa and India?

Africa's not in need of money. Money won't fix its problem.

What a stupid argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22380352

It was just reported today that 260000 people died as a result of famine. If one billionaire was able to buy supplies (with money) for these people, in order for them to survive this period, the billionaire would at least be able to prevent thousands of people from dying--and that alone is priceless.

You clearly care more about rich people living a comfortable lifestyle with their Prada sunglasses or whatever, as opposed to 260000 people dying in Somalia. I don't think there is any reason for me to argue with someone with such disgusting ethics.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Olwen

[bottlegnomes]

In practice there are many situations where it fails, likely for the main reasons that Olwen is complaining of (amassing wealth and sitting on it), but as a general rule as the rich get rich and invest the country becomes richer as well.

have you been paying attention to the economy for the last 5 years?

this really hasn't been true, since it requires rich people to actually spend instead of, you know, just keeping it all to themselves

This pretty much. It's pretty clear the rich do exactly that because it's what benefits them most, which everyone is concerned with. So again, trickle-down economics doesn't work. So there are two alternatives: "fuck the poor people" and socialistic/communistic/whatever-you-want to-call-it programs to directly help the poor. I'm willing to bet most people would say the latter is better.

[BluBlaDe]

It's a big deal if you make it a big deal.

To be happy in life you have to not care about what others thinks.You won't have much friends / be popular with womyn but you must live for yourself.

Don't buy stupid shit you don't need like a Mercedes over a Toyota.

Basically Money is just for bragging rights / climbing the social lader / founding a family. Three things you can totally live an happy life without.

Let the rich work like crazy while you work just enough to get by. Think about it, who the hell remembers that hardworking dude from 80 years ago? Nobody that's who.

And for who was he working? His family ? That's stupid since the divorce rate is between 40-50 %. He'll lose his cash. Think about FE5 : Do you attack that Dark Mage with 50 % accuracy if he can counter kill you ? Marriage is the same risk except you lose everything, not just the chapter you were in.

The only valid reason to work is to work for not working later on.

[Esau of Isaac]

Second, I did not call for the forcible removal of resources from the rich. All I did was say that it was the morally right thing to do. I am arguing about what is ethical, not what we should do in real life.

If it is ethical then why shouldn't we do it? Why wouldn't you do the right thing?

I am not arguing for anything practical. Here is my argument:

1) There are rich people who do nothing valuable with their obnoxious amounts of money.

2) Rich people do not need this money.

3) Poor people do.

4) If poor people need money that rich people don't need, then they should receive this money.

There will always be poor people. There will always be need. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor will not solve the situation. Have you considered that many of the situations in which those people are starving will not be solved by throwing money at them, but indeed worsened?

Now the question is this: Do you think it's the morally right thing to do to take money from people who are rich, who have no need for it other than living a very comfortable, luxurious lifestyle, and give it to the poor people in Africa and India?

No, I don't. I don't think it's right to steal from some simply because there are others in need. If you want people in Africa to stop starving taking money forcibly from people to help is not going to solve the problem. It hasn't in the past, it isn't now, and it won't in the future. A starving community won't suddenly become a sustainable one just through throwing millions of dollars in their direction.

What a stupid argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-22380352

It was just reported today that 260000 people died as a result of famine. If one billionaire was able to buy supplies (with money) for these people, in order for them to survive this period, the billionaire would at least be able to prevent thousands of people from dying--and that alone is priceless.

Think of it like this: There are starving people. In this starving community, there are farmers still eking out a living, barely. They are selling bushels of grain, bags of rice, whatever. In comes some well-to-do idiot with more money than brains that puts together an aid initiative and airdrops in literal tons of food. Everyone's got food for the moment, so guess what happens to the price of grain and rice? It plummets faster than you can say "basic economics." Soon the aid's gone and everyone's worse off because those farmers stopped producing those crops because they couldn't survive off the profits.

I will say this again, and pay attention: You cannot solve the problem by just throwing money in that direction. If it was that simple then developing nations wouldn't be developing anymore. There are myriad socioeconomic reasons that lead to poor countries being as they are, not one of which is because there are some rich people that are not in the mood to give away money to people they have never met and will never see.

You clearly care more about rich people living a comfortable lifestyle with their Prada sunglasses or whatever, as opposed to 260000 people dying in Somalia. I don't think there is any reason for me to argue with someone with such disgusting ethics.

"Ohhhh Esau please stop making ad hominems they're so mean it's not fair leave me alone you big bully"

Grow up.

This pretty much. It's pretty clear the rich do exactly that because it's what benefits them most, which everyone is concerned with. So again, trickle-down economics doesn't work. So there are two alternatives: "fuck the poor people" and socialistic/communistic/whatever-you-want to-call-it programs to directly help the poor. I'm willing to bet most people would say the latter is better.

What is rich? And what are you debating? That a profit motive cannot possibly help the rest of the country as well as the entrepreneur? What about it is inherently without truth? The fact that some boats sink is not evidence that boats cannot float. Just that sometimes boats can have problems floating.

Let the rich work like crazy while you work just enough to get by. Think about it, who the hell remembers that hardworking dude from 80 years ago? Nobody that's who.

Everybody remembers John D. Rockefeller.

That's not to say all rich are Rockefeller. But still.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Le Communard]

But it's just not true that ethics don't play a part in the grand scheme of things. If you were speaking of an accountant, yeah, they'll reduce everything down to numbers: And that makes sense, because they're operating within the purview of the system, on a cost basis. I don't see how a modern economy could possibly work any other way. But an economist is meant to view the entire picture, including both the explicit and implicit costs of actions, including the ethical ramifications of many given ventures. As a textbook example, had Enron operated within the acceptable limits of ethical actions, it would still be around today. One might argue that we need some sort of a GAAP when it comes to the actual ethics and behaviors of corporations, but I think we avoid that because it would further limit today's entrepreneur in motives.

While I wouldn't agree with the most extremist view that capitalism is solely about selfish gain --strictly in a negative way, that is-- I do believe that it is generally a good thing that labor is viewed as an object rather than strictly from an emotional standpoint. It's necessarily more efficient, if even at the most basic level, than one which assigns a "fair" value to individual heads through some arbitrary means. I view the radical advancement that capitalism has brought to the world as an incredible good. There's no doubt that it's an imperfect system, but I would absolutely say that it's not so broken or evil that it should be cast away, but rather modified for our society today. That is why we have many social democracies in the world that operate with a more planned economy in mind. I suppose you can debate whether or not these are ultimately enough, or even --as I would, and am to an extent in this very topic-- whether they are innately necessary, but I can't see a realistic system that is genuinely more efficient and perhaps even truly equitable than what we have in our modern day.

And, surprisingly perhaps, I'm not trying to argue that we should do away with it. As I said before, I'm no Marxist--I don't believe in dialectical materialism or the necessity of the abolition of private ownership, for example. But it's important that we realize that these systems of inequality are not simply surface effects: they are structures that are built into the very logic of the system, and only through bringing them to light and subjecting them to an honest critique can we possibly hope to build something better. Capitalism is powerful--that nobody, least of all someone who was a Marxist--would deny. But in the 21st century we must begin to seriously consider its human costs lest we risk being utterly destroyed by its ceaseless dynamism. Capitalism in 2013 is like the Romans: it has conquered all of its foes, and now it must change fundamentally or it will destroy itself.

[Esau of Isaac]

And, surprisingly perhaps, I'm not trying to argue that we should do away with it. As I said before, I'm no Marxist--I don't believe in dialectical materialism or the necessity of the abolition of private ownership, for example. But it's important that we realize that these systems of inequality are not simply surface effects: they are structures that are built into the very logic of the system, and only through bringing them to light and subjecting them to an honest critique can we possibly hope to build something better. Capitalism is powerful--that nobody, least of all someone who was a Marxist--would deny. But in the 21st century we must begin to seriously consider its human costs lest we risk being utterly destroyed by its ceaseless dynamism. Capitalism in 2013 is like the Romans: it has conquered all of its foes, and now it must change fundamentally or it will destroy itself.

I can definitely agree with that. I suppose I'm just a bit optimistic, and --perhaps contrary to the average individual-- enamored with the materiality of it all, even if I am sadly not one of those "haves" as mentioned (YET!).

Edited May 3, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Dwalin2010]

This is a too complicated discussion for me, but usually richer the people are, greedier they are. Robbing the rich isn't a method, but somebody who has 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billions and refuses to part with even one of them to help others is just a piece of dung, I don't see how somebody could deny it. Riches and politics corrupt and change most people completely. I really don't see how could somebody have any desire to debate this fact.

The fact that it's not that simple to solve the worldwide problems just by taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a completely different matter though.

[Esau of Isaac]

This is a too complicated discussion for me, but usually richer the people are, greedier they are.

Can you substantiate that claim?

Robbing the rich isn't a method, but somebody who has 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billions and refuses to part with even one of them to help others is just a piece of dung, I don't see how somebody could deny it.

I don't like having things forcibly taken from me, the rich probably don't either. You shouldn't expect charity from people simply because they have more. That defeats the purpose of altruism.

[bottlegnomes]

Y'know, the Socratic method only works if you're actually familiar with the subject. Also, analogies don't automatically make an argument stronger; they have to actually make sense.

Anyway, care to name an instance where trickle-down economics actually improved standard of living for the poor?

Edited May 6, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Chiki]

If it is ethical then why shouldn't we do it? Why wouldn't you do the right thing?

I've never seen someone who so conveniently ignores the vast majority of my post to suit his own argument. I had to tell you twice so far that morality is not the same thing as practicality. I have to copy paste this to you again:

Before you say "whatever is impractical is morally wrong," practical /=/ moral. For example, consider 3 drunk drivers. One goes back home from the bar safely. One hits someone on the road but they get injured lightly. The third drunk driver kills a pedestrian on the way home.

Is the morally right thing to do to imprison both drunk drivers equally? Yes, as none of them intended to kill anyone and it was a matter of luck who hit or killed the pedestrian or got back home safely. But is it practical to imprison the drunk driver who got back home safely for as long as the drunk driver who killed someone? No.

I'm bolding it so you'll actually read it next time.

There will always be poor people. There will always be need. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor will not solve the situation. Have you considered that many of the situations in which those people are starving will not be solved by throwing money at them, but indeed worsened?

By definition what staving people need is food. If rich people buy resources such as food and give them to starving families in Africa, how would their situation worsen? Tell me.

No, I don't. I don't think it's right to steal from some simply because there are others in need. If you want people in Africa to stop starving taking money forcibly from people to help is not going to solve the problem. It hasn't in the past, it isn't now, and it won't in the future. A starving community won't suddenly become a sustainable one just through throwing millions of dollars in their direction.

Saying "IT WON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!!" to the point of ad nauseam isn't going to give your argument any points. You have to explain why it won't solve the problem, because it is common sense that giving starving people food is going to solve their starvation. Unless you want to deny that simple line of reasoning too?

Think of it like this: There are starving people. In this starving community, there are farmers still eking out a living, barely. They are selling bushels of grain, bags of rice, whatever. In comes some well-to-do idiot with more money than brains that puts together an aid initiative and airdrops in literal tons of food. Everyone's got food for the moment, so guess what happens to the price of grain and rice? It plummets faster than you can say "basic economics." Soon the aid's gone and everyone's worse off because those farmers stopped producing those crops because they couldn't survive off the profits.

I will say this again, and pay attention: You cannot solve the problem by just throwing money in that direction. If it was that simple then developing nations wouldn't be developing anymore. There are myriad socioeconomic reasons that lead to poor countries being as they are, not one of which is because there are some rich people that are not in the mood to give away money to people they have never met and will never see.

Then they don't have to "airdrop food from the air." They can give farmers the resources to produce more crops and sell food more cheaply, or even give out food for free if they can afford it. They can say "I'll give you an x amount of money if you give out a y amount of food." Common sense. You really have a narrow, short-sighted way of thinking.

"Ohhhh Esau please stop making ad hominems they're so mean it's not fair leave me alone you big bully"

Grow up.

Lol, I never said I was a saint.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Olwen

[shadykid]

Y'know, the Socratic method only works if you're actually familiar with the subject. Also, analogies don't automatically make an argument stronger; they have to actually make sense.

Anyway, care to name an instance where trickle-down economics actually improved standard of living for the poor?

you won't get an answer cause there isn't one

[Esau of Isaac]

Anyway, care to name an instance where trickle-down economics actually improved standard of living for the poor?

You want me to find one time in United States history where a corporation, because of a lower tax rate, invested more, which led to any poor person being in a better state? Like higher wages? Better technology?

What part of this process are you saying is fundamentally false? Are you saying that corporations will not invest more when they have more? Or that investment can't possibly help the poor?

I've never seen someone who so conveniently ignores the vast majority of my post to suit his own argument. I had to tell you twice so far that morality is not the same thing as practicality. I have to copy paste this to you again:

Okay, then, from a practical standpoint why not do the right thing?

Then they don't have to "airdrop food from the air." They can give farmers the resources to produce more crops and sell food more cheaply, or even give out food for free if they can afford it.

You spoke solely of food aid, so I addressed food aid. But this situation is also similarly vague. Once again, it is not that simple. Many of these communities are in dire straits simply because their economic, political, and cultural climate is in pure turmoil. If it were a vacuum this would be a good idea, but this misunderstands how aid programs work, the problem that such communities tend to face from other suffering neighbors when they receive aid, and the backlash from these communities when affected businesses become a commanding presence. I am not and have never said it's not possible to raise a poor community higher, but it simply is not as simple as you are surely envisioning it.

Common sense. You really have a narrow, short-sighted way of thinking.

And you think far too generally. You don't understand the economic impacts of such a massive outside presence in a market.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Esau of Isaac