Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2025 5:04 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:24 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:41 am
Posts: 4695
Offline

I saw this photo...and it made me think:
Image



1.) Is it inherently wrong/evil to be wealthy? Or is it all what you do with that wealth?

2.) What is the appropriate level of wealth before someone has "too much"? If there's a poverty line, is there an opposite "rich line" that no one should be above?

3.) Should people be required to give all their wealth beyond a certain point to the state for the "common good" (a way to enforce a "too rich" line)?

4.) Is someone like Bill Gates "too wealthy" and "evil" despite the massive amounts he (and his wife) have used to support great causes? Despite his generous giving, he still could afford to have everyone on FUBU killed quite easily.

5.) If someone starts a successful business that creates jobs/tax revenue/etc do they deserve to earn more than the people they hire?

Example: There's an Empanada's place across the street, started by a Colombian immigrant. It is now very successful and he has opened up another location (I rarely see him at the original location anymore..he has hired tons of employees, raised prices slightly, etc.). Does this businessman deserve to be wealthier than others because he created some good empanadas and had a great business plan? Obviously this was his motivation - does he deserve the benefits?

6.) How do you incentivize innovation and business without a profit motive? Can it be done?


I'm just curious. For the record, I believe the tax code needs to be fixed...I think Capital Gains taxes are too low, and I think the Rich ought to be taxed more. My questions are about wealth itself, and I'm interested to hear your opinions. Also, I'm asking within the context of our current Capitalist society...which won't be changing any time soon. If we agree the system is broken, what can realistically be changed within it to "close the gap" fairly.. as they say


Azelma

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:06 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:38 pm
Posts: 967
Location: Resisting the urge to giggle uncontrollably!
Offline

People that despise wealth tend to be the ones that don't have any. There has to be some sort of reward for hard work, ambition and ingenuity. I will go back and answer your questions in a little bit. I've got my hands full with carpet sharks right now.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Callysta of Reverence
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:26 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Azelma wrote:
1.) Is it inherently wrong/evil to be wealthy? Or is it all what you do with that wealth?


No, and not really.

People are what they do in this world. This applies least of all to charity and most of all to compassion, fairness and justice towards "the stranger". Enjoying one's wealth is no vice; enjoying one's wealth to the exclusion of compassion towards others is.

Like most Jews, I believe that the greatest service to society one can perform is to give someone a job. And like all Jews, I believe that the highest form of tzedakah is to do good anonymously, with no hope of reciprocation of worldly reward.

Hence I utterly reject most forms of charity and non-profit as they exist today.

Azelma wrote:
2.) What is the appropriate level of wealth before someone has "too much"? If there's a poverty line, is there an opposite "rich line" that no one should be above?

Meaningless question.

I reject the idea that anyone has to lose for anyone to win. People believe this only because of the illusions of shortfall created by the limitations of the free market.

Not everyone can have three mansions, five cars, a yacht, and a helicopter, but I don't believe that so many people seriously want those things that anyone need live like an indentured servant to ensure that those who do, can.

And I believe that with a mixed economy, human and material resources could be used more efficiently than our current system allows - more infrastructure and full employment - to allow many more people to become "super-rich" while also reducing the ranks of those in want.

A rising tide raises all boats.

Azelma wrote:
3.) Should people be required to give all their wealth beyond a certain point to the state for the "common good" (a way to enforce a "too rich" line)?


Progressive taxation is not comparable to a hard cap on wealth, something no one has ever proposed. The strawman is promulgated by capitalist propaganda.

Azelma wrote:
4.) Is someone like Bill Gates "too wealthy" and "evil" despite the massive amounts he (and his wife) have used to support great causes? Despite his generous giving, he still could afford to have everyone on FUBU killed quite easily.


No.

Bill Gates has earned what he has. And the world is infinitely better off for it.

Azelma wrote:
5.) If someone starts a successful business that creates jobs/tax revenue/etc do they deserve to earn more than the people they hire?


Yes.

But this is actually very rare these days. Attention is focused on a handful of brave pioneers, but they are neither the majority nor the most influential amongst the super-wealthy. Most of them are just socially connected and play with paper (corporate raiders and hedge fund managers).

Azelma wrote:
6.) How do you incentivize innovation and business without a profit motive? Can it be done?


No.

But it is a false duality. We can, in fact, have the best of both worlds:

1. Mandate that corporations pay their employees with a mix of cash and stock, so that all companies gradually evolve into co-ops.

2. Fully fund education and research.

3. Low interest state loans to entrepreneurs.

4. Build infrastructure - water, power, and mass transit.

5. Bring down the cost of living - build more high-rise, rent-free urban tenements and bring down the cost of utilities, education, food, and other life staples.

6. Dismantle the military-industrial complex.

7. Stabilize the currency and stop stagflation.

8. Exorbitant taxes on land, interest, and other unproductive speculation.

9. Mandate that all goods sold in the US must be produced in accordance with US law, and put the burden (and cost) of proof on the vendor.

10. Continue to raise the minimum wage, and establish other mandatory entitlements for workers.

11. Outlaw labor strikes and pickets. Outlaw the hiring of scabs. Unions negotiate directly with employers for employment, and all union representatives are directly elected by the employees.

12. Executives bear direct legal culpability for all illegalities committed by employees accountable to them, even if they were unaware of their misdeeds.

13. Ban women from receiving employment benefits (e.g., pensions and vacation time).

14. Fix the workday at six hours, and the workweek at four days.

15. Disband the EEOC.

16. Kill all legal firms. Bar associations now assign cases directly to their members via a DKP system. Wages are based on rank, which in turn is based on total score. Individual case scores are the inverse of their DKP cost.


There would still be an incentive to create startups - more than ever, as individual leadership would have a strong advantage against co-ops, but would not be undermined by oligopoly. This would balance the strengths of the capitalist and socialist systems - but with the weaknesses of neither. That is the great strength of a mixed economy, and it's why Germany is taking over Europe.

Essentially, this works on the same principle as the expiry on patents (something these same capitalists have worked very hard to repeal).

Azelma wrote:
If we agree the system is broken, what can realistically be changed within it to "close the gap" fairly.. as they say


Almost no societies that encounter their limitations are able to overcome them peacefully. I don't believe that our society will prove any different. I believe that change will come to America only after we meet with total catastrophe.

Azelma wrote:
Also, I'm asking within the context of our current Capitalist society...which won't be changing any time soon.


Germany in 1915
Germany in 1935
Germany in 1955


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.


Last edited by Aestu on Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:08 pm, edited 12 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:30 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Callysta wrote:
People that despise wealth tend to be the ones that don't have any. There has to be some sort of reward for hard work, ambition and ingenuity.


Anyone who thinks that life is fair, has not earned, and does not deserve, what they have.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:12 pm  
User avatar

Feckless Fool
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:53 pm
Posts: 1495
Offline

Quote:
4.) Is someone like Bill Gates "too wealthy" and "evil" despite the massive amounts he (and his wife) have used to support great causes? Despite his generous giving, he still could afford to have everyone on FUBU killed quite easily.

Are you mistaking wealth for power? Sure, Bill Gates has the money to command such a thing, but his name would be stigmatized if even the thought of Bill Gates putting out hits on people got out.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:29 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Bill Gates is something of a pariah amongst the wealthy.

He has simple tastes and is dedicated to his family life. He has progressive social views and is not interested in wealth for its own sake. He hates opulent social gatherings, and is in many ways still the pimply, nerdy Harvard dropout he once was.

For all these reasons, Gates wields very little influence over his economic peers.
Which is itself testament to how much of a fraud the so-called "free market" is.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:25 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

I'd be more inclined to agree with that assessment if we had an actual free-market. Bill Gates is probably more representative of what a free-market capitalist would be. Arguing that crony-capitalists don't want to be like him sort of proves that point. Classic "Captains of Industry" were also well known for their philanthropy, like Andrew Carnegie or J. P. Morgan.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:07 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
Classic "Captains of Industry" were also well known for their philanthropy, like Andrew Carnegie or J. P. Morgan.


Modern China proves you wrong.

People like Carnegie and Morgan were driven by a desire for social respectability, not a desire to affect real change. Proof being that then as now, "philanthropy" wasn't enough to affect real change any more than it was during the Middle Ages or in China today.

Did "alms for the poor" fix poverty during the Middle Ages? Ever? Like, during that entire 1200-year period?
Or was it the storming of the Bastille?

Do you really think China is going to fix its social problems because the winners in that society are going to just be "nice" and stop polluting rivers, stealing land, oppressing peasants, etc?
Or is change only going to come when these "captains of industry" are held accountable for their misdeeds by a higher authority?

Did "captains of industry" stop putting melanide in the milk because they were being "nice" or "charitable", or did they stop doing it because the Chinese government publicly executed several people convicted of doing so?

People suck. Claiming that people will be "nice" for the sake of being "nice", or give others "free lunches", is by definition childish and naive, and the only reason that you believe this is brainwashing.

Question. If you believe that "philanthropy" is an effective motivator for the rich and powerful, then why do we need a military to defend us? Why not expect the powerful in this world to just do the right thing without being compelled to do so?

And, as always...given that what you believe is completely at odds with obvious historical facts which I have cited...why do you believe such things? If you believe something so obviously false, made to sound reasonable only by the media, isn't it logical to believe you are being manipulated?


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: @Wealth
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:33 am  
User avatar

Obama Zombie
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: NoVA
Offline

Yea, well, maybe you're being manipulated because you've been manipulated into believing what you believe isn't provably false.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group