The Ultra rich getting richer

[bloodyminded]

And where did that get Venezuela, the only South American country in recession, projected to be in long term recession, and having hyperinflation north of 20+%. Not only that, they're still poor.

Venezuela is an example of what happens when you target the wealthy of a country. They take their ball and leave, leaving the country far worse off and the people poorer than ever.

Leaving aside the fact that the poor majority of Venezuela are not worse off than they were under the dictatorial oligarchs, you missed Dre's point, which I find a little odd: he said that when a country does not allow a decent social safety net, the possibility of an actual socialist becomning elected becomes higher.

In other words, that which you, blueblood, consider terrible for a society becomes more likely if no decent safety net is on offer.

[Pliny]

People are rioting in Haiti at this very moment...and losing a "social safety net" is certainly not their concern, since the powers that be (including our own, in its interference with democracy) have determined that their shouldn't be any.

The powers that be consider the masses too ignorant to look after themselves or contribute to society and have determined that bread and circuses will quell their restlessness. Haiti has generally been a dictatorship. They do not seem to have a shortage of would be Dictators.

And bloody revolutions have been fought against aristocracies...no so-called coddled populace worried about losing their social saftey net is at fault in those cases, either.

What aristocracies?

Over-taxation, tyranny and money debasement were the cause.

In any case Topaz has fell into the trap of promoting division between the classes. A divided populace being exacerbated to create a prime "crisis" for socialist opportunism to further it's progressive march.

Socialism is about the totalitarian state. The means of attainment of the totalitarian state must be included in it's defintion. There are two ways to achieve it. The communist "revolutionary" means or the "progressive" march of creeping socialist ideology that centralizes power and authority until the struggle for that power becomes divisive enough to welcome tyranny in an attempt to end the turmoil. That is where Europe is today and where progressive forces are attempting to take the US.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Sorry, history shows the exact opposite. EVERY SINGLE STABLE PROPEROUS NATION IN THE WORLD has limited socialism + social safety net. If they didnt they wouldnt last long, because if the underclass grows too large and too desperate/impoverished they become a powerfull political force, and vote in real socialists. Venezuela is a pretty good modern day example of that.

Every single prosperous nation in the world must have a government that respects private property and the liberty and freedom of the individual. It isn't until it becomes prosperous that a social safety net can even be considered. It can only be prosperous if people can enjoy the frutis of their labour - that is government's prime role. Once entitlements are established by government and it starts to engineer society, usually by first taking control of the monetary system, it is a short haul to it's ruin.

In a land of potential wealth, such as Venezuela could have created, the left always uses the poor as an excuse for tyranny. Of course they proclaim to be helping but they have no understanding how to create wealth so the poor will eventually, once what exists has been redistributed, turn on them and a power struggle will ensue. But that is because power is concentrated in the hands of government. Chavez will fail because he has no respect for private property, and if the poor should ever acquire any wealth he will take that away from them too. They will forever be impoverished under such a scheme. They may forever be impoverished if left alone as well. Chavez promises them entitlements and a safety net. Now, not only will they be poor but they will be dependant and irresponsible.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Leaving aside the fact that the poor majority of Venezuela are not worse off than they were under the dictatorial oligarchs, you missed Dre's point, which I find a little odd: he said that when a country does not allow a decent social safety net, the possibility of an actual socialist becomning elected becomes higher.

In other words, that which you, blueblood, consider terrible for a society becomes more likely if no decent safety net is on offer.

I notice you mention they are not worse off instead of saying they are better off.

The safety social net is the embracement of socialist concepts. And at it's establishment it is a progressive march to bigger government, increased entitlements, the centralization of power and the divisiveness of the populace resulting in the struggle for that power. When the country does allow or, in the case of Chavez, offers a social safety net is when a socialist can be elected. Oil rich Venezuela means money and power are at stake. Developing wealth takes time and productivity. Socialists promise to magically make everyone wealthy instantly.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a great devide between the Ultra rich and people like myself...Here I am an old rebel artist..60 years of age - a man who stuck to his principles of freedom and righterousness all of his life...and stand in poverty for my daring collecting welfare...and my "friend" - who likes to chat - who moves about billions of dollars every year..for years...has the nerve to say to THIS old man...."are you GAINFULLY EMPLOYED?" Some times gainfulness is glutoness...I suppose I was gluttoness when it ganme to freedom..and HE was gluttoness when it came to control and material wealth...So in the end it will not matter for the prince and the pauper..for as explained to me we are the same...just wish that son of a bitch would truely support society rather than donate to charities and foundations in his quest for self relevance.

[bloodyminded]

The powers that be consider the masses too ignorant to look after themselves or contribute to society and have determined that bread and circuses will quell their restlessness. Haiti has generally been a dictatorship. They do not seem to have a shortage of would be Dictators.

I don't dispute this at all; though I would add that the freedom-loving nations of Canada, France, and the United States have had no problem at all with the dictators--and have been on excellent terms with the worst of them all, the Duvalier dynasty. Further, this has had nothing at all to do with our three coutnries' "creeping socialism," as it's been multi-partisan, and pre-dates Marxism at any rate.

My point, stated clearly, was that the Haitians are not upset by the loss of a robust social safety net, to which they feel they've become entitled. They've never had it, so are not mourning its loss. They've been impoverished, diseased, and ruled by tyranny again and again, with an ocasional interregnum, and probably are not too happy that our nations back and support these tyrannies in our usual formulation.

In any case Topaz has fell into the trap of promoting division between the classes. A divided populace being exacerbated to create a prime "crisis" for socialist opportunism to further it's progressive march.

Capitalism often promotes division between classes. Obviously.

Socialism is about the totalitarian state. The means of attainment of the totalitarian state must be included in it's defintion. There are two ways to achieve it. The communist "revolutionary" means or the "progressive" march of creeping socialist ideology that centralizes power and authority until the struggle for that power becomes divisive enough to welcome tyranny in an attempt to end the turmoil. That is where Europe is today and where progressive forces are attempting to take the US.

This verges on platitude.

Let's say there was no social safety net, and that taxes were restricted to paying for police, basic infrastructure upkeep, and the occasional war against brown people for resources, as some libertarians maintain is government's only responsibilty.

(Well, those things plus "defending traditional marriage," and demanding that political philosophy remain statically tied to eighteenth century notions of what constitutes "liberalism," since words are evidently copyrighted by men in powdered wigs.)

What makes you think there would be no government tyranny? Of course there would be...far worse than that which you deplore.

Those with the greatest means--the dictinct minority--would be a de facto government, holding virtually all the power.

And they would be completely unelected, unaccountable, and unrepresentative.

Edited December 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

Every single prosperous nation in the world must have a government that respects private property and the liberty and freedom of the individual. It isn't until it becomes prosperous that a social safety net can even be considered.

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that Communism and dictatorship actually helped a few countries that were in a state of disrepair. Not to say that it's a great end goal, but as an interim solution it did work, I think, for China and Cuba... at least for awhile.

[GostHacked]

Money does not equal wealth. Money is not wealth.

[dre]

And where did that get Venezuela, the only South American country in recession, projected to be in long term recession, and having hyperinflation north of 20+%. Not only that, they're still poor.

Venezuela is an example of what happens when you target the wealthy of a country. They take their ball and leave, leaving the country far worse off and the people poorer than ever.

To suggest that wealthy people want an impoverished underclass is proposterous, the richer the citizens of a country are, the more likely they are to buy things. Unfortunately for you guys, the fastest and most effecient way to do that is for rich people to invest money through debt, equity, and sweat financing; which means that they demand a return on investment for their trouble.

History has shown us that a huge social safety net and socialism has led those countries to rapid failure, did the cold war not teach you anything?

The fact that Bill Gates and his foundation aren't getting a return on their investment shows that he is burning money, however if he wants to burn it then he can have at it. He'll have spend 35 billion dollars and had nothing to show for it, those people will still be poor and diseased. He would be far better to invest in companies operating in Africa which provide jobs and an income to Africans, at the same time collecting more money to invest in other endeavours in developing countries.

And where did that get Venezuela, the only South American country in recession, projected to be in long term recession, and having hyperinflation north of 20+%. Not only that, they're still poor.

That was my point. Things dont go well for countries that neglect their poor and allow them to fall into extreme poverty. Thats the whole reason for the social safety net and limited socialism.

History has shown us that a huge social safety net and socialism has led those countries to rapid failure, did the cold war not teach you anything?

The USSR was NOT a country that that used limited socialism with a social safety net. The countries such as the US that won the cold war WERE though. You need to stop taking things to silly extremes.

And the American revolution was fought against over-taxation to fund the English social safety net. England was left poorer because of it.

No that revolution was against taxation without representation.

[dre]

Money does not equal wealth. Money is not wealth.

Sure it is. Government backed currency is a commodity thats value is based on demand. Really much the same as gold, realestate, oil, or oranges.

[August1991]

I would attribute our longer lifespan to advances in sciences and technologies.

Well, it's somewhat incorrect to say that longer lifespans are due to advances in science and technology. It would be more accurate to say that advances in science/technology increased productivity providing the wherewithal to enjoy longer lifespans with a higher quality of life. (I quibble. Note that this higher standard of living did not come at the expense of anyone.)

Critically, a market with prices is arguably the best long term method to incite new technology and advances in sciences. When people benefit from their creations, they have an incentive to create.

Your assertion is horseshit anyways. What history has shown is that virtually every successful modern industrialized nations has a social safety net. And for good reason... without a social safety net you can have private property rights (for long).

Look dre, your argument might make sense in the libertarian world of Somalia.

But in Canada today, governments of various levels take about half of what Canadians produce. The governments distribute about 60% of that among Canadians and they use the other 40% on our behalf. And yet dre, you want the government to take more.

Your "social safety net" has turned into a bottom ocean trawl line that leaves society destitute.

----

The whole premise of this OP is wrongheaded.

How rich can the richest person be? Well, the sky's the limit, as they say. Within a decade or so, we will have the world's first trillionaire. (That one person will be richer than if everyone in Edmonton won the million dollar lottery.)

Does this kind of "inequality" bother you? Why? Most ordinary people in North America live well. But if that doesn't appear your sense of injustice, consider this: We all live for about 70-80 years or so. In terms of lifetime left, any 20-something will be richer than the first trillionaire in his 50s. Life itself has a great power to equalize.

Edited December 11, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

Well, it's somewhat incorrunbect to say that longer lifespans are due to advances in science and technology. It would be more accurate to say that advances in technology and science increased productivity providing the wherewithal and to enjoy longer lifespans with a higher quality of life. It is important to note that this higher standard of living did not come at the expense of anyone.

Moreover, a market with prices is arguably the best long term method to incite new technology and advances in sciences. When people benefit from their creations, they have an incentive to create.

Look dre, your argument might make sense in the libertarian world of Somalia.

But in Canada today, governments of various levels take about half of what Canadians produce. The governments distribute about 60% of that among Canadians and they use the other 40% on our behalf. And yet dre, you want the government to take more.

Your "social safety net" has turned into a bottom ocean trawl line that leaves society destitute.

----

The whole premise of this OP is wrongheaded.

How rich can the richest person be? Well, the sky's the limit, as they say. Within a decade or so, we will have the world's first trillionaire. (That one person will be richer than if everyone in Edmonton won the million dollar lottery.)

Does this kind of "inequality" bother you? Why? Most ordinary people in North America live well. But if that doesn't appear your sense of injustice, consider this: We all live for about 70-80 years or so. In terms of lifetime left, any 20-something will be richer than the first trillionaire in his 50s. Life itself has a great power to equalize.

Look dre, your argument might make sense in the libertarian world of Somalia.

But in Canada today, governments of various levels take about half of what Canadians produce. The governments distribute about 60% of that among Canadians and they use the other 40% on our behalf. And yet dre, you want the government to take more.

Thats a quantitative judgement. Youre saying we spend too much on the social safety net, not that its a bad idea.

With limited socialism... EVERYONE would have less than they do now including the rich. Plus we would be a full on socialist country by now without the social safety net. Which is the funny part... people who are trying to dismantle welfare programs to fight what they think is "socialism" are ACTUALLY unwittingly the real FOOT SOLDIERS of socialism, and socialism is where theyre ideas will lead us. If you plunge millions of people into abject poverty you will change the political landscape, and the result will be a government that not honor private property rights.

How rich can the richest person be? Well, the sky's the limit, as they say. Within a decade or so, we will have the world's first trillionaire. (That one person will be richer than if everyone in Edmonton won the million dollar lottery.)

Does this kind of "inequality" bother you? Why? Most ordinary people in North America live well. But if that doesn't appear your sense of injustice, consider this: We all live for about 70-80 years or so. In terms of lifetime left, any 20-something will be richer than the first trillionaire in his 50s. Life itself has a great power to equalize.

This has already been explained. Theres nothign wrong with having rich people, but if the system itself allows extreme wealth concentration it will lead to instability and violence. So if youre charged with managing the system then youre going to make sure it doesnt happen. Two of the most prominent methods are progressive taxation, and inheritance taxation. These things were not pie in the sky measures thought up by modern liberals. They were a response to things like the guilded age and the railroad tycoons, where wealth concentration was essentially creating a new kind of royalty or aristocracy.

Your "social safety net" has turned into a bottom ocean trawl line that leaves society destitute.

I gotta laugh at that and Im wondering if you just need to try harder in life if you think that way? Canada is one of the wealthiest nations in the history of the human race, and we enjoy a standard of life that would put in the top 1/10th of a percent of ALL humans EVERYWHERE.

We arent "destitute". This is an EASY place to live, where even the most lethargic laggard can make a comfortable living for themselves, and anyone with any semblance of brains or work ethic can easily succeed.

[Bonam]

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that Communism and dictatorship actually helped a few countries that were in a state of disrepair. Not to say that it's a great end goal, but as an interim solution it did work, I think, for China and Cuba... at least for awhile.

Incorrect. China suffered terribly under communism, with millions of people being exterminated and the nation remaining in poverty. China's recent economic growth has only come to the extent that they have begun to reject communism and integrate capitalist elements into their economy.

[August1991]

Thats a quantitative judgement. Youre saying we spend too much on the social safety net, not that its a bad idea.

Governments now take 50%. How far would you take this, dre?

IOW, is our problem inequality - or is it something else?

dre, how do you help "poor people"? In some cases, I agree that poor people simply need more money. But in other cases, taking money from a Bill Gates and giving it to a Clifford Olson (for example) won't solve any problem.

Leftists (do gooders) really need to rethink this.

Edited December 11, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

Governments now take 50%. How far would you take this, dre?

IOW, is our problem inequality - or is it something else?

dre, how do you help "poor people"? In some cases, I agree that poor people simply need more money. But in other cases, taking money from a Bill Gates and giving it to a Clifford Olson (for example) won't solve any problem.

Leftists (do gooders) really need to rethink this.

Youre thinking about this all wrong. The safety net isnt there to "help poor people" its there to help RICH people, and strengthen private property rights. Its there so that a capitalist society can stay stable without

Governments now take 50%. How far would you take this, dre?

I think our level of taxation and social spending is somewhere near close to right. Im not calling for more taxes, I was just trying to explain why the system is there and how it works.

IOW, is our problem inequality - or is it something else

Inequity is GREAT! But extreme wealth concentration will lead to violence, and the end of private property rights as we know it, and it will lead to socialism.

[Smallc]

Governments take about 1/3 of GDP in Canada, not half. In France, it's closer to half. I've shown the numbers before.

[August1991]

Governments take about 1/3 of GDP in Canada, not half. In France, it's closer to half. I've shown the numbers before.

Whether 1/3 or 1/2, how much do you want to give to people like Stephen Harper or Nicholas Sarkozy?

Is France a more civilized society than Canada? How far do you want to take government spending?

You American socialists/leftists (eg. Obama/Krugman) really must think about this.

[Smallc]

Whether 1/3 or 1/2, how much do you want to give to people like Stephen Harper or Nicholas Sarkozy?

The money isn't for them, so....

Is France a more civilized society than Canada? How far do you want to take government spending?

Where did I say that?

You American socialists/leftists (eg. Obama/Krugman) really must think about this.

Think about what? That I happen to think that we do things pretty well in Canada?

[dre]

Think about what? That I happen to think that we do things pretty well in Canada?

Apparently we are destitute! Poor poor canadians.

[charter.rights]

Money does not equal wealth. Money is not wealth.

Wealth is being able to leverage your money to make more debt.

[Pliny]

Sure it is. Government backed currency is a commodity thats value is based on demand. Really much the same as gold, realestate, oil, or oranges.

But it is not a store of wealth as a real commodity would be. If I own a commodity that I hold for that purpose, such as gold, it has never dropped to zero in value. Paper fiat currencies, printed by governments always do.

[Pliny]

Capitalism often promotes division between classes. Obviously.

Some capitalists do. But that is their political slant. Bill Gates supports a division of classes.

George Soros is politically a socialist.

This verges on platitude.

Let's say there was no social safety net, and that taxes were restricted to paying for police, basic infrastructure upkeep, and the occasional war against brown people for resources, as some libertarians maintain is government's only responsibilty.

Occasional war for resources? Sad, you should make that statement.

(Well, those things plus "defending traditional marriage," and demanding that political philosophy remain statically tied to eighteenth century notions of what constitutes "liberalism," since words are evidently copyrighted by men in powdered wigs.)

What makes you think there would be no government tyranny? Of course there would be...far worse than that which you deplore.

No. There would be far less, if any.

Those with the greatest means--the dictinct minority--would be a de facto government, holding virtually all the power.

They would hold power but what you are suggesting is that, they can then be tyrannical. Government's role is to limit tyranny.

You see, if government did it's job no dishonest, tyrannical, criminally inclined individual would ever accumulate enough wealth to become influential and only hounourable men would rise to the top. Unfortunately, anyone, no matter their integrity or undisclosed motives, can enter government in a country of universal democracy.

And they would be completely unelected, unaccountable, and unrepresentative.

They influence and lobby government now and if you don't have "resources" you stand no chance of getting elected. But who wants their elected, accountable representative to have not been able to accomplish anything in their own lives running yours. A current problem with career politicians today.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that Communism and dictatorship actually helped a few countries that were in a state of disrepair. Not to say that it's a great end goal, but as an interim solution it did work, I think, for China and Cuba... at least for awhile.

At the cost of a great many lives. Millions in China's case. In the short term, tyranny established itself as the totalitarian state to tyrannize and make the individual nothing, the state everything.

Is making the individual nothing desirable?

[Michael Hardner]

Is making the individual nothing desirable?

I think it's kind of like Maslow's heirarchy of needs, where a country has to provide the basics for living first, before moving on to consumer wants and eventually self-actualization.

[Pliny]

I think it's kind of like Maslow's heirarchy of needs, where a country has to provide the basics for living first, before moving on to consumer wants and eventually self-actualization.

And if the country does not provide the basics for living? People move, right?

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand that governments cannot provide anything without extracting money from the economy first. Which is why we are off the gold standard...it is easier to extract fiat currencies than money and people will even try and hide their fiat currency.

Self-actualization? Is that the point where nothing matters anymore and one can devote himself entirely to the welfare of others? Sounds like the point where one decides to become a politician!