The Ultra rich getting richer

[dre]

People surrender their property rights under capitalism?

Under pure capitalism most would yes. It should in theory lead to authoritarianism because political power would be allocated by "capital", and since its takes capital to make capital both wealth and political power would concentrate. Youd see widespread monopolization as well, and the entities that could marshal the most "force" would crush and consume the smaller ones.

Its never really been tried before though and admit its just a theory this would happen.

[bloodyminded]

Yes well my positions are generally my own. Anyway, I agree that it doesn't "justify" it in the sense that you mean, but what it does mean is that while the West may have some ugly history, that history in no way takes away from the accomplishments and successes that have been achieved.

Yes, but I wasn't arguing that point. I was arguing against blueblood's notion that all accomplishments result from a vacuum in which Western nobility reigns supreme.

Sounds to me like the most responsible party for the invasion of East Timor would be the invaders themselves, the Indonesians, no?

Ok, but the murderer's direct accomplices--who make the murders materially possible in the first place, and know they are doing so--obviously share direct culpability, certain responsibility. Ford and Kissinger gave the explicit go-ahead for the invasion in the first place; and then they, and successive administrations, and numerous other Western powers, continued to support it.

I can't stress that last point too much; they didn't allow it; they supported it.

9/11 was an isolated event. If planes kept crashing into American skyscrapers on a daily basis, however, then after a few days certainly it would be people's own decision to take the risk of entering such a building.

My analogy wasn't meant to cover every exigency you can think of; it was only about the terrorism itself.

At any rate, choosing not to enter skyscapers isn't quite the same as choosing not to be in your own country, especialy when you're under siege and starving. It's not like they could "just leave"....

Anyway, the "Islamists" are directly responsible for 9/11, they are the people that crashed the planes into the buildings. The same cannot be said for Western powers in East Timor. They merely supported an ally, Indonesia.

Sure the same could be said. The distinction is that we were not solely responsible; we were co-responsible. We share direct responsibility.

Blaming the supporters of Indonesia for the invasion of East Timor would be like blaming the supporters of the Islamists for 9/11... so if you want to blame the West as a whole for East Timor, I guess you must also blame the Muslim world as whole for 9/11?

That's crazy. You're not understanding.

In the situaiton of East Timor, a specific Western government said: "You want to invade? OK...we, the most powerful country in the world, support this; we will supply you with arms; when you run out, we will supply you with some more. We will work to ensure that the UN remains toothless in any potential resolutions, so that your illegal invasion and mass murders can continue unmolested."

This has nothing to do with "the entire Muslim world" nor "the entire Western world."

It is about specific Western governments; the public had little knowledge of it.

Still has little knowledge, actually.

Speaking of Rwanda, that reminds me of Africa and other places that are not East Timor. These places also have terrible conditions, and even if you can lay the blame for East Timor at the feet of the West, you cannot use that explanation for all the world's hellholes. That was after all the point we were originally debating, people being able to lift themselves out of poverty through their own "strength" of character. The fact that a few specific regions have undergone war, invasions, and genocides which may perhaps be partially blamed on the West is kind of tangential to this.

Not to blueblood's argument, which was one of perfect, nuance-less totality of Western magnificene (as well as the usual derision and hatred of the world's poor).

And it was only one situation of many; I mentioned it because it is more obvious than most, and because people can't sideline the argument so easily with the usual remarks about the Soviet menace. but there are plenty of horror stories, and I don't see a good reason to too easily let Western powers off the hook.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

What you call mixed economies are really progressive governments that bow to the demands of the democratic process where voters vote themselves entitlements. Over time they cannot economically sustain themselves. It is a very short lived society after that.

Then how will your new society come about...if pesky voters are determined to have a governemnt that represents their wishes?

A Wise tyranny seems to be your only option.

[Bonam]

Then how will your new society come about...if pesky voters are determined to have a governemnt that represents their wishes?

A Wise tyranny seems to be your only option.

That or having a constitutional democracy where some part of the constitution functions to completely and unambiguously prohibit the creation of said entitlements and is defined as unalterable by any future amendment or alteration of that constitution except by unanimous consent of every single individual in the nation.

Not that I'd necessarily advocate such a constitution, just saying that there are options besides "tyranny".

Edited December 23, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

That or having a constitutional democracy where some part of the constitution functions to completely and unambiguously prohibit the creation of said entitlements and is defined as unalterable by any future amendment or alteration of that constitution except by unanimous consent of every single individual in the nation.

Not that I'd necessarily advocate such a constitution, just saying that there are options besides "tyranny".

Such a constitution would be drawn up with full and unambiguous knowledge that it was working against the will of the public. It's tyrannical in its inception, because it's opposed to the already-present democratic will on such matters.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

Such a constitution would be drawn up with full and unambiguous knowledge that it was working against the will of the public. It's tyrannical in its inception, because it's opposed to the already-present democratic will on such matters.

Obviously such a constitution would only be drawn up in the event of a hypothetical founding of a new nation, whose people, at the time of its creation, largely agreed upon such principles.

[bloodyminded]

Obviously such a constitution would only be drawn up in the event of a hypothetical founding of a new nation, whose people, at the time of its creation, largely agreed upon such principles.

Ah, just so. But our friend liny is forever talking about "changing the United States" (as the only one with any hope, apparently, of adopting such austere principles).

[Pliny]

Such a constitution would be drawn up with full and unambiguous knowledge that it was working against the will of the public. It's tyrannical in its inception, because it's opposed to the already-present democratic will on such matters.

Such a constitution would be a tyranny of the people against government instead of government tyranny against the people. But it would be more a defining of the boundaries of government and govenrmental powers.

The move towards tyranny of any government is generally first manifested in it's taking control of the money supply.

[Pliny]

What, how is exclusive protection for the government a socialist concept?

Perhaps, I should have specified a protection of the government from it's own citizens.

Socialism is the belief that we are social beings, some say it is the workers movement, it's a belief that production should be publicly controlled. Fascism is the merger of corporate and political powers, it is a form of authoritarianism, it is not the same as socialism.

Personally I am socialist, that being said I don't believe socialist programs really work with our current economic system.

Socializing and socialism are not related. Socializing is what people do when they are interacting. Socialism is a political ideology. Nazisim was originally called the German Worker's Party and was a movement of the workers.

I have heard other self-proclaimed socialists claim they are against authoritarianism and socialism has nothing to do with that. But was there no authoritarianism in Stalin, Castro, or even Chavez? Are they not socialists?

The U.S. government takes rights away from their citizens all the time, they tap phone lines and track there citizens without warrants, they send their troops to war without a deceleration of war from congress, America is full of tyranny.

Yes it's full of tyranny. People are attempting to flee in droves. It's government may be getting a little too big but it is far from being tyrannical. Obama has actually achieved his goal of fundamentally transforming America and I would say that ramming through legislation that transforms America is a bit tyrannical. He just claims it is necessary for the common good, as all Statists, of the left or the right persuasion, have done.

I am just not a proponent of Statism.

[Pliny]

It absolutely IS socialist concept. Its a collective program for the common good funded by taxation. The concept is really similar to healthcare actually except one protects you from diseases, the other protects you from preditors. Youd have to privatize the military to see what a non-socialist version looked like.

Defense is not a socialist concept. Your concept of it is.

This US has created its largest entitlement in modern history, and created the largest new department in modern history all in the last few years, and its done the whole thing with borrowed money.

Are you maybe thinking about the 50's or something?

I spend half my time on this forum illustrating this type of socialist "progressivism" is occurring that some leftists deny is happening....like yourself...

dre: There is no real progressive trend. Canada is LESS socialist now than it was 30 years ago not now, and more and more stuff is being privatized all the time.

What??? Why on earth would you view fascism as a form of socialism? Its almost the exact opposite. In one case society is organized around the private owners of production, and in the other there IS no private owners of production. One is based on a corporatist economy, the other is not.

Basically, because in both those systems of government the State is all and the individual nothing.

Communism and socialism are ideologically classless societies without private property rights. Right wing "socialism" is about the collective economy and the State determines what is in the interests of the common good. There really is no "protection" or "security" of private enterprise or private property. It will be confiscated if deemed by the State to be in the interests of the common good.

In both systems people live entirely for the State.

[Pliny]

It's where you cross the line and authorize the state to treat everyone else the same way that it stops being funny. That's pure authoritarianism and people like you thrive under dictatorships no matter what wing they try to fly with.

The State treating everyone the same is authoritarian?

If the State doesn't treat everyone the same no one is equal under the law. The State can then decide who under it's laws is deserving and who is not, laws will be made punishing some and rewarding others. I think that is more authoritarian.

[bloodyminded]

Such a constitution would be a tyranny of the people against government instead of government tyranny against the people. But it would be more a defining of the boundaries of government and govenrmental powers.

You'd first need to subvert the popular will. So a few intellectuals from the Chicago School of Economics would draw up a constitution, congratulating themselves, Straussian/neocon-style, on knowing what's good for the people better than they do themselves.

Lenin and Trotsky felt similarly, directly before destroying genuine democratic institutions such as factory councils.

The move towards tyranny of any government is generally first manifested in it's taking control of the money supply.

I suspect there's truth to this. But your government-who-knows-better-than-the-rest-of-us would still need to collect taxes, to keep the military at least the size and strength it is now (since virtually zero professed Randians currently dare challenge that particular Holy entity in any way); this means continued tax-subsidies--upwards socialism, in fact, for the military and high-tech industries; there'd also need be a police force to protect the wealthy minority against the previously self-entitled and intellectually/morally inferior horde.

But, hey, taxes woud be somewhat lower than currently, and welfare benefits and the medical safety net would be destroyed, signifying total freedom from evil government.

Edited December 24, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GWiz]

What? this sudden outpouring of righteousness is so hypocritical. The poor is depleting the system more.

Here is my simple scenario, let me know who you would wish to support - on the backs of the middleclass:

- an executive who lay a foundation, toiled, sweat, risk much but also has the smarts to paved the way to the top, as the article points out is now deemed rich.

- the poor who has plenty of opportunities not to become homeless, weighing on luck, think the rich owe them something for the injustices of being poor, sit around the corner with outstretched arm accessing your hard earn dollars that you keep giving. Imagine an entire poor family putting both arms out for your alms.

Wow, you are way too simplistically minded for me to answer that... But hey, you've obviously got all the money you need to keep you happy, so as long as you don't look down at us "ordinary" folks that you stepped all over to get to where you're at it doesn't matter to you, eh... I just hope you never lose the blinders you have on and see the "real world"...

[Pliny]

You'd first need to subvert the popular will. So a few intellectuals from the Chicago School of Economics would draw up a constitution, congratulating themselves, Straussian/neocon-style, on knowing what's good for the people better than they do themselves.

The Straussian school of Economjics probably would draw up a constitution like that.

It is an authoritarian economic theory, not a free market system.

Lenin and Trotsky felt similarly, directly before destroying genuine democratic institutions such as factory councils.

I suspect there's truth to this. But your government-who-knows-better-than-the-rest-of-us would still need to collect taxes, to keep the military at least the size and strength it is now (since virtually zero professed Randians currently dare challenge that particular Holy entity in any way); this means continued tax-subsidies--upwards socialism, in fact, for the military and high-tech industries; there'd also need be a police force to protect the wealthy minority against the previously self-entitled and intellectually/morally inferior horde.

But, hey, taxes woud be somewhat lower than currently, and welfare benefits and the medical safety net would be destroyed, signifying total freedom from evil government.

Zero Randians challenge the size of the military? I think you are mistaking Randians as republicans or conservatives; or perhaps fascists?

[Oleg Bach]

Not bothered by the ultra rich - until they say things like "What do you think of the weather I have sent you?"......once they get the god complex insanity sets in...and sometimes it takes a poor man to set the straight - It is easy to go crazy when you sit in an ivory tower and look down thinking you own the world...If the common guy is responsible - he will assist and take care of the ultra rich because some of them are very poor in spirit....as was said "The poor will always be with us" - and they were not talking about money of lack of it...the ultra rich are no different than the ultra poor and should be treated with the same respect.

[Mr.Canada]

Takes money to make money. How many jobs do these "ultra rich" contribute to the Canadian economy?

[scouterjim]

Takes money to make money. How many jobs do these "ultra rich" contribute to the Canadian economy?

Of late, the jobs the "ultra-rich" have created are in third world countries, where they can pay exceedingly low wages, don't have to worry about health and safety protocols, can fire employees at random, then sell the goods made at the same price they would charge had the products been made in Canada, all in the name of bigger profits.

[Jack Weber]

What is pure capitalism in your view?

Better read the history of Hersheyville, Pennsylvania. And Ford. Henry Ford gave his workers unprecedented compensation.

Would that be the Maude Barlow account of what happened?

As you say, we don't have pure capitalism and we didn't then. But we must find out what you mean by "pure capitalism". My idea of it is that it is about making money with money. I would call foreign exchange trading a form of "pure capitalism". Or investing and receiving dividends or interest on your investment. These are forms of pure capitalism in my view. Now we have never had a society where everyone lives on making money with money and I don't think that would work either. So we have never had a society of pure capitalism and doubt we ever will.

There has to be an exchange of goods and services in a capitalist society in order for it to create any wealth. Actually some people do live as pure capitalists. They invest their money and live on the returns, they are often called pensioners. They are also investors in business. But business has to occur for both of these "pure capitalists" to realize a return.

Right. Any govenrenmt intervention has nothing to do with the invisible hand. Although the "trickle down effect" was sort of supposed to be an effect of the invisible hand.

But no one plays high and low living standards against each other better than labour or socially democratic parties.

1.An unfettered free market...

2.Agreed...That's a good thing...

3.They're also called vultur..er...I mean Venture Capitalists...

4.That would most definately not be the "Maude Barlowe" account of what happened...It would the actual account of what happened according to William Kilbourne...The guy who penned the Steel Company of Canada sponsored book about the history of the company,"The Elements Combined"...Printed in 1961 and given to every new hire...Check it out some time and learne about the '46 strike about union recognition....A seminal moment in Canadian labour history!

5.As I stated before...Unfettered Capitalism where the free market reigns...

A really bad idea...

6.Simply repeating yourself...

7.A result of deregulation based on ideological grounds...It's extremely debateable if it was/is effective after 30 + years...

8.And the free market Right brushes the inequalities it creates aside under the guise of "freedom"...

Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber

[GWiz]

Takes money to make money. How many jobs do these "ultra rich" contribute to the Canadian economy?

Why don't YOU tell us? With back-up like direct links please...

BTW Corporations don't count since that's NOT individuals in this country... Their CEO's and CFO's home servants however would count, like anybody working for them outside the Corporate structure of the company's they control would count... Staffs of a plane or yacht would count unless those planes or yachts are registered as company assets, in which case they wouldn't count... Heck to make it easier, why not just include all the staffs of everyone earning over $50 MILLION DOLLARS a year with total assets over $100 MILLION (way below "ultra rich" status I know so I'm trying to be helpful here) just to give you a bigger number to get back to us with...

We'll all anxiously await your answer...

[eyeball]

The State treating everyone the same is authoritarian?

It is when the State deliberately regards everyone as being like a mushroom. Go back and read again the context of the entire post you snipped your assumption from.

If the State doesn't treat everyone the same no one is equal under the law. The State can then decide who under it's laws is deserving and who is not, laws will be made punishing some and rewarding others. I think that is more authoritarian.

Me too.

[netspawn]

Bonam say: ... He used the power of his mind to create new wealth, new value, where none existed before. That is how our economy grows, through innovation and the creation of new wealth. It is right that those who contribute most to this process also reap the greatest rewards.

netspawn say: Interesting idea you have there, Bonam. It certainly applies well to people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but I have a question about rich non-innovators: How is it that utterly useless parasites such as sports stars, TV stars, movie stars, rock stars, pop stars, etc etc, become millionares and multi-millionares when they contribute almost nothing toward the 'greater good' of society as a whole? ... So much for a fair, just, and RATIONAL distribution of wealth!

[Bonam]

How is it that utterly useless parasites such as sports stars, TV stars, movie stars, rock stars, pop stars, etc etc, become millionares and multi-millionares when they contribute almost nothing toward the 'greater good' of society as a whole?

While you may not value sports stars, movie stars, and rock stars, and I may not value them either, clearly many others do value them. Many people enjoy watching movies, enjoy watching sports, and enjoy listening to music. To these people, sports/movie/rock stars create significant value, and they reap the rewards. Just because something has no value to you, doesn't mean it has no value to anyone.

[Peter F]

All people should be treated equal under the law not made equal by law.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge."

- Anatole France

[bloodyminded]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge."

- Anatole France

[netspawn]

On the Unbearable Blindness of Mr Wonderful

.

plutonomy - Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority. -- www.investopedia.com

.

So the inevitable conclusion of this argument (ie. that big corporations are bad for society) is that the current global economic system (capitalism, the free-market, or whatever you want to call it) is fundamentally evil and destructive in its effects and consequences. Now if you are inclined to disagree with my reasonings and/or conclusion, I will remind you that the proof of my contentions lies in the undeniable fact that the uber-rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, and also increasing in numbers. So here we have a system where most of the world's wealth belongs to a mere 1% of the population. This is, to me, an obvious red flag shouting for all to hear that the system is evil and rotten to the core. And yet there are those who think otherwise . . .

.

One such calls himself 'the Merchant of Truth'. At first sight this interesting phrase appears to be a rather off-hand definition of the philosopher, but actually it is a phrase used by self-made millionare Kevin - Mr Wonderful - O'Leary to describe himself. Does he consider himself to be some sort of philosopher then? It may well be so, for he is indeed much inclined to offer pithy gems of wisdom such as 'greed is good' and 'money has no soul' and 'stop the madness'. And yet this wonderous beacon of enlightenment holds the rather absurd opinion that the 'rich getting richer' is actually a good thing, in that it motivates people (ie. entrepreneurs) to work hard so that they too may become wealthy.

.

In fact, the widening gap between rich and poor has the very opposite effect, since the idea that you can enter the exalted 1% is shown to be nothing more than an illusion urging people to consent to their own exploitation in the vain hope that they can 'make it' if only they work hard enough. What the Merchant of Truth doesn't seem to understand is that most people have neither the skills nor the desire to be money-chasing entrepreneurs. And these people, as far as Mr Wonderful is concerned, are utterly null and void, and thus not worthy of even the slightest consideration. That places the majority of humankind straight into the trash bin simply because they dare to suppose that there's more to life than just money!

.

In 'The Wealth of Nations' the philosopher Adam Smith had big enough balls to say: "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable."