Do rich ppl deserve their money?

[Riverwind]

Capitalism works because it makes a non-existent necessity (hard work), the only virtue for those who owns no property (the workers).

Everyone has property. There is little or no distinction between the 'workers' and the 'business owners'. Most workers turn into business owners as they grow older and build up their savings. Edited March 29, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

I find John Locke's idea about how much property any one person should have as interesting and perhaps appropriate here: "But how far has [God] given [all things] us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others."

The problem with Locke's analysis is that we have created a way of attaining property without having to worry about spoilage: money. It's tough to say how much is more than a person can use "to any advantage of life," when money doesn't go bad. (Not in the typical sense anyway, even though value changes.)

I think that to improve Canada and the World at the same time, we have to follow John Locke. In the Second Treatise of Government (1690), Locke puts forward his account of how a man may legitimately appropriate goods from the state of nature for his private use by mixing his labour with them:

"Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for other."

"At least where" means "certainly where". To Locke, it's so easy for a worker to make sure he doesn't make the life of anyone worse off because of his work that he writes his "proviso" as if it was a no brainer and almost a (involuntary) matter of fact. For Locke, implementing the condition seems automatic because he conceives private appropriation as a reduction of the pressure that those living out of the common encounter.

Locke wrote: "He who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen but increase the common stock of mankind. For the provisions serving to the support of humane life, produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land are... ten times more, than those, which are yeilded by an acre of Land, of an equal richnesse, lyeing wast in common. And therefor he, that incloses Land and has a greater plenty of the conveniencys of life from ten acres, than he could have from an hundred left to Nature, may truly be said, to give ninety acres to Mankind."

Edited March 29, 2009 by benny

[cybercoma]

Again, the problem boils down to money. People in the West still reap the fruits of their labour; however, it is in exchange for money, rather than the actual product of the labour. Is the money of fair value? Does a free market for labour work? Should labour be considered a commodity like any other? Is there such thing as perfect information and unlimited resources in the trade of labour?

[benny]

Again, the problem boils down to money. People in the West still reap the fruits of their labour; however, it is in exchange for money, rather than the actual product of the labour. Is the money of fair value? Does a free market for labour work? Should labour be considered a commodity like any other? Is there such thing as perfect information and unlimited resources in the trade of labour?

I see money rather as part of the solution because where there is not enough, and as good left in common for others then the owners (or the owners of the best resources) have money for compensating the non-owners (or the owners of the next-best resources).

[WIP]

Don't forget that this is a thread about the rich not deserving their money. k is a reflection of productive capacities that those people earning more than the mean wage in the population do not deserve.

Right! I got caught up with a few of the posts dealing with 'what to do' with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, but the same principle applies that steps like progressive taxation and freedom to form unions, have to be applied in a capitalist system to prevent violent upheaval such as the rebellions and civil unrest in 19th century Europe. I don't see it as a matter of deserving, as much as there are trade-offs when the rich and superwealthy keep pushing the envelope by pushing for flat taxation and policies like closing factories in Canada and the United States, in favour of outsourcing production to China.

Many libertarians and conservatives keep insisting that the rich have no further social obligations because they already pay higher percentages of the income tax burden than lower income groups; but with greater wealth comes greater power to make life better or worse for the people in the middle or at the bottom. A CEO who outsources production is rewarded for impoverishing entire communities when well-paying jobs disappear in favour of Walmart and McDonalds, and yet he becomes a hero to the directors and shareholders of his company. The trend to outsourcing has destroyed entire states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, and now, where I live in, in the province of Ontario, we are facing the prospect of losing what is left of industry all at once, as the present recession shuts down factories already hobbled by free trade and outsourcing. So, should the CEO's and major shareholders have responsibilities that go beyond maximizing share values? I would say so, but I don't expect them to do what's best for the greater good voluntarily, and that's why the philosophy that the market is always right, and everybody acting in their own selfish interests benefits all, will have to either accept a new New Deal or move towards fascism to protect their pot of gold.

[lictor616]

Lost your job to one huh? The new guy had a better education ?

No I co-own a company, and was forced to hire 3 out of 10 of our employees (as per the requirements our affirmative action grant standard) who where members of the afro-Caribbean "community".

but wait a minute! why shift the onus onto me personally?

Do you deny that mass unskilled turd world immigration has a negative impact on wages?

[benny]

Right! I got caught up with a few of the posts dealing with 'what to do' with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, but the same principle applies that steps like progressive taxation and freedom to form unions, have to be applied in a capitalist system to prevent violent upheaval such as the rebellions and civil unrest in 19th century Europe. I don't see it as a matter of deserving, as much as there are trade-offs when the rich and superwealthy keep pushing the envelope by pushing for flat taxation and policies like closing factories in Canada and the United States, in favour of outsourcing production to China.

Many libertarians and conservatives keep insisting that the rich have no further social obligations because they already pay higher percentages of the income tax burden than lower income groups; but with greater wealth comes greater power to make life better or worse for the people in the middle or at the bottom. A CEO who outsources production is rewarded for impoverishing entire communities when well-paying jobs disappear in favour of Walmart and McDonalds, and yet he becomes a hero to the directors and shareholders of his company. The trend to outsourcing has destroyed entire states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, and now, where I live in, in the province of Ontario, we are facing the prospect of losing what is left of industry all at once, as the present recession shuts down factories already hobbled by free trade and outsourcing. So, should the CEO's and major shareholders have responsibilities that go beyond maximizing share values? I would say so, but I don't expect them to do what's best for the greater good voluntarily, and that's why the philosophy that the market is always right, and everybody acting in their own selfish interests benefits all, will have to either accept a new New Deal or move towards fascism to protect their pot of gold.

Those eager to say someone deserves something are simply unable or unwilling to understand that market mechanisms are about minimizing costs and that it is better to minimize costs by searching the most gifted economic agents first than by going after the most desperate on Earth.

[blueblood]

Right! I got caught up with a few of the posts dealing with 'what to do' with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, but the same principle applies that steps like progressive taxation and freedom to form unions, have to be applied in a capitalist system to prevent violent upheaval such as the rebellions and civil unrest in 19th century Europe. I don't see it as a matter of deserving, as much as there are trade-offs when the rich and superwealthy keep pushing the envelope by pushing for flat taxation and policies like closing factories in Canada and the United States, in favour of outsourcing production to China.

Many libertarians and conservatives keep insisting that the rich have no further social obligations because they already pay higher percentages of the income tax burden than lower income groups; but with greater wealth comes greater power to make life better or worse for the people in the middle or at the bottom. A CEO who outsources production is rewarded for impoverishing entire communities when well-paying jobs disappear in favour of Walmart and McDonalds, and yet he becomes a hero to the directors and shareholders of his company. The trend to outsourcing has destroyed entire states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, and now, where I live in, in the province of Ontario, we are facing the prospect of losing what is left of industry all at once, as the present recession shuts down factories already hobbled by free trade and outsourcing. So, should the CEO's and major shareholders have responsibilities that go beyond maximizing share values? I would say so, but I don't expect them to do what's best for the greater good voluntarily, and that's why the philosophy that the market is always right, and everybody acting in their own selfish interests benefits all, will have to either accept a new New Deal or move towards fascism to protect their pot of gold.

And how is the pro-union NDP doing, thank God most Canadians don't buy that nonsense.

Canada is now a producer of energy, it pays the best wages. There is no way that manufacturing can compete here unless they build a humdinger of a product, other wise it is cheaper to locate offshore.

I find it funny that leftists are all about spreading the wealth, yet when business owners want to share the wealth by investing in overseas countries, you guys are up in arms. Personally I call it hypocrisy.

Unions are poison and are the reason why Chrysler might be pulling out of Canada.

[moderateamericain]

Those eager to say someone deserves something are simply unable or unwilling to understand that market mechanisms are about minimizing costs and that it is better to minimize costs by searching the most gifted economic agents first than by going after the most desperate on Earth.

Market Mechanisms are about Providing supply for a demand. Not for Minimizing cost. Minimizing cost is a bi-product of Manufacturing the best possible product at the Cheapest price. Did you get that out of the Marxsist Manefesto?

[eyeball]

Capitalism succeeds because it encourages people to succeed. Communism failed because it encouraged people to be lazy slobs.

Communism failed because the government was corrupt and that's the reason capitalism is failing too.

Neither will be able to recover for the same reason, the depletion and degradation of natural capital and of course, corruption.

[eyeball]

We set up rules. If the rich became wealthy by playing by the rules then they deserve it. If we later realize the rules were wrong we can change the rules but that does not mean that people who played by the rules at the time did not deserve the money they made at the time.

No. To make a peacefull transition from where we are now to where we need to be there will have to be a reconciliation of past mistakes andreparations and remediation of these, otherwise expect widespread civil unrest and violence and eventually another global war, or more to the point a full-blown flare-up of same world war humans have been waging for at least a century or more.

[Riverwind]

Communism failed because the government was corrupt and that's the reason capitalism is failing too.

China keep the corruption but managed to pull 100s million of people out poverty by adopting market mechanism. Communism is a failed economic system because it rewards the incomponent.

BTW Capitalism is not failing. The current crisis will pass. Just like it did in 1980, 1990 and 2000.

[Riverwind]

No. To make a peacefull transition from where we are now to where we need to be there will have to be a reconciliation of past mistakes andreparations and remediation of these, otherwise expect widespread civil unrest and violence and eventually another global war, or more to the point a full-blown flare-up of same world war humans have been waging for at least a century or more.

Global war cannot happen. There are too many people. Too many supply chains are interlinked. Any conflict would be regional. Violance in certain regions is a fact of life. It has been going on since the dawn of time. The majority of the world's population lives at peace and there is not reason to believe that will not continue.

[cybercoma]

No I co-own a company, and was forced to hire 3 out of 10 of our employees (as per the requirements our affirmative action grant standard) who where members of the afro-Caribbean "community".

but wait a minute! why shift the onus onto me personally?

Do you deny that mass unskilled turd world immigration has a negative impact on wages?

Are you seriously suggesting that every last person in the afro-Caribbean community is "unskilled"? I worked with a woman from Trinidad that was pursuing he PhD in psychology. So, I guess that throws your claim out the window. Perhaps you should just hire better employees, instead of just filling quotas like a bigot.

[cybercoma]

China keep the corruption but managed to pull 100s million of people out poverty by adopting market mechanism. Communism is a failed economic system because it rewards the incomponent.

BTW Capitalism is not failing. The current crisis will pass. Just like it did in 1980, 1990 and 2000.

Capitalism is not failing? Look at the growing income gap and the amount of people enslaved to credit. Capitalism has yet to fail, but that's not to say it is not failing.

Edited March 30, 2009 by cybercoma

[benny]

Market Mechanisms are about Providing supply for a demand. Not for Minimizing cost. Minimizing cost is a bi-product of Manufacturing the best possible product at the Cheapest price. Did you get that out of the Marxsist Manefesto?

Market mechanisms are about finding equilibrium. A crisis is more often than not about surplus (surplus of toxic assets, of workers, etc.). Surpluses are eliminated by lowering prices. This is what cost-minimization is all about.

[Riverwind]

Capitalism is not failing? Look at the growing income gap and the amount of people enslaved to credit. Capitalism has yet to fail, but that's not to say it is not failing.

The income gap has always existed. The only difference is globalization means the income is being distributed a little more fairly around the globe (i.e. more richer people in China more poorer people in Canada).

Wide spread access to credit on reasonable terms is one of the greatest equalizers that society can offer. The fact that many have abused this access does not take away from the social equalization aspect of it. For every person that went bankrupt there is another who was able to get through a rough spot without losing everything. I used to work for a guy that ended up with a pile of debt when his business failed. He went on to start another and is now a millionaire. It would have never been possible without the system of credit that we have.

Another thing to remember: the canadian banking system is not facing a crisis nor is the spanish system. These examples demonstrate that the problems were caused by the regulatory environment - not the capitalist system itself.

[benny]

The income gap has always existed. The only difference is globalization means the income is being distributed a little more fairly around the globe (i.e. more richer people in China more poorer people in Canada).

Wide spread access to credit on reasonable terms is one of the greatest equalizers that society can offer. The fact that many have abused this access does not take away from the social equalization aspect of it. For every person that went bankrupt there is another who was able to get through a rough spot without losing everything. I used to work for a guy that ended up with a pile of debt when his business failed. He went on to start another and is now a millionaire. It would have never been possible without the system of credit that we have.

Another thing to remember: the canadian banking system is not facing a crisis nor is the spanish system. These examples demonstrate that the problems were caused by the regulatory environment - not the capitalist system itself.

It's not a thread about income gaps and equality but about desert. For John Rawls, "the idea of rewarding desert is impracticable". For him, what we can be held responsible for is inextricably entangled with what we cannot be held responsible for (or control).

[Riverwind]

For John Rawls, "the idea of rewarding desert is impracticable".

This is nonsense. Why don't you try using words that actually mean something to people without a passion for abstract philosophy.

[blueblood]

It's not a thread about income gaps and equality but about desert. For John Rawls, "the idea of rewarding desert is impracticable". For him, what we can be held responsible for is inextricably entangled with what we cannot be held responsible for (or control).

Nuts to that, those people who have desert bloody earned it. Taking away someone's incentive results in the USSR, how did that craptacular experiment go?

[jbg]

Nuts to that, those people who have desert bloody earned it. Taking away someone's incentive results in the USSR, how did that craptacular experiment go?

Into vodka-fueled stagnation and social pathologies.

[WIP]

And how is the pro-union NDP doing, thank God most Canadians don't buy that nonsense.

I started my adult life as an NDP supporter, and drifted through the Liberals to the PC's, but one thing you rightwing zealots fail to take into account is that a pendulum has to swing in two directions, and you guys have dominated political thought for over 25 years now; we have been following your advice of lower taxes, cutting government spending and deregulation right into the present crisis. Now, since your side has led to this disaster by just letting business leaders run amok and hoping some benefits will trickle down to the rest of us, it's time to admit that Era of Greenspan is over, and new ideas have to be tried.

Canada is now a producer of energy, it pays the best wages.

Will that remain true with oil prices down and nobody wanting the dirty tar sands oil?

There is no way that manufacturing can compete here unless they build a humdinger of a product, other wise it is cheaper to locate offshore.

Well, obviously you've never been to Ontario, because our economy is based on steel and automobile production.....at least up till now. Right now we can take a look at Michigan to see what the future has in store for us.

I find it funny that leftists are all about spreading the wealth, yet when business owners want to share the wealth by investing in overseas countries, you guys are up in arms. Personally I call it hypocrisy.

Now, that's got to be the funniest thing I've heard in a while! You mean all of these companies that have set up branch plants in China and India, are there to help alleviate poverty in the Third World? I'm sure they are really concerned that they pay good wages to these people also.

Unions are poison and are the reason why Chrysler might be pulling out of Canada.

And if there were no unions, Canada, the U.S., and Europe would have descended into revolutions back in the 30's. The union movement provided a stopgap to block the rise of communist movements in the West. Also, many of the social programs that the Right also takes advantage of, would have never come about if there wasn't a union movement lobbying for them.

The problem with unions has not been about wages, it has been the reluctance of workers on the shop floor to accept change. So, the non-union factory has had the advantage of being more flexible and quicker to adapt to changing market conditions. As a result, many companies have been willing to pay higher wages and benefits to keep unions out because of that problem.

In Hamilton, for example, until the recent takeovers of the steel industry, Dofasco always matched whatever the workers at Stelco got, and added a little extra. You could make an argument that unions are unnecessary because the Dofasco employees did better without one. But then the obvious question is: how much would they have got if there were no unions, as in these third world countries we're outsourcing to?

The truth is the unions have served to benefit people in the non-union shops in much the same way that idiots who refuse to vaccinate their children are usually still safe because of a principle known as "herd immunity." In disease control, herd immunity prevents the likelihood of a communicable disease reaching the ones who aren't immune; but that immunity breaks down if enough people go without their vaccinations.....and likewise, the decline of organized labour in Canada and the United States has reduced the protection against unfair labour practices for those in non-union workplaces.

[lictor616]

Are you seriously suggesting that every last person in the afro-Caribbean community is "unskilled"? I worked with a woman from Trinidad that was pursuing he PhD in psychology. So, I guess that throws your claim out the window. Perhaps you should just hire better employees, instead of just filling quotas like a bigot.

? we don't have a choice in the matter, if we don't fill the racial quotas set forward by the gubmint...

and yes Corky from Life goes on made a million dollars and he had downs syndrome...

i love the "I know a dude that knows someone that's Phd"... argument ...

about 78% of the immigrants coming into ontario and quebec alone are unskilled - about 30% of these remain sub-employed or unemployed ... Montreal gets a yearly 25 000 new immigrants a year, most coming from the third world, and about 20 000 are UNSKILLED.

oh but you know a T&T woman with a Phd... brilliant. its all settled then! yeah you win that argument outright ...

[M.Dancer]

... Montreal gets a yearly 25 000 new immigrants a year, most coming from the third world, and about 20 000 are UNSKILLED.

100% nonsense.

During the period of 2001 to 2006 Montreal became home to 8,440 new Canadian immigrants. The chart to the left shows the regions of birth for the recent immigrants according to the Canadian 2006 Census.

http://www.akcanada.com/lic_montreal.cfm

35% have a university degree, compared with 22% of the Canadian-born residents (aged 25 to 54)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-613-m/2006...4054713-eng.htm

[benny]

This is nonsense. Why don't you try using words that actually mean something to people without a passion for abstract philosophy.

Moral & Ethical Issues belong to philosophy. (How can you consider yourself deserving if you're not trying to understand?)

Edited March 30, 2009 by benny