The Rich/Poor Disparity Myth

Fluttershy said:
How did we manage to be so much more equal and equally, if not more, wealthy than we are now in the 50's without killing 60 million people, Dixie? Can you explain that?
Click to expand...
People are not equal. Never have been, never will be. Government cannot make people equal.
 
Fluttershy said:
How did we manage to be so much more equal and equally, if not more, wealthy than we are now in the 50's without killing 60 million people, Dixie? Can you explain that?
Click to expand...

I thought you guys didn't want to back to the 50s

Why do you hold up the 50s as the be all end all?

Man you guys are inconsistent
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Thats pretty much the point I made to Dixie, though I didn't coach it in Randian jargon, but some how that makes me Chairman Mao.
Click to expand...

You didn't make a point to me, you reeled off some insulting garbage and intentionally missed the point of the thread. And I never said you were Chairman Mao, or that Liberals were either, just that Mao's ideology is the same as what we currently are hearing about the wealthy vs. the poor and the disparity between them.

Look, if you have three people who make a widget and trade it for a pie. One person supplied the capital to make the widget, one person supplied the knowledge, design and the process to make the widget and the third person actually made the widget. None of these people are "takers" but does this give the capitalist the right to take 90% of the pie? Is that fair?
Click to expand...

You're failing to consider all the people involved with the production of the widget, someone had to buy the equipment, someone had to rent a building, someone had to carry insurance, someone had to do marketing, someone had to keep the books, someone had to transport the widget, so there were a lot of other people behind the scenes, not just the person who made the widget. Also, a "capitalist" is not just a person who provides capital. If the three people of your example traded the widget for a pie, they are all three capitalists.

Dixies argument that "Well it's always been that way." is laughable. The fact that something is wrong and has been for a very long time, never makes it right. Hell that same argument was used in Alabama to protect slavery. The argument that this form of social inequity (slavery) had always been that way was historically accurate. Did that make it morally right?
Click to expand...

My argument is, this is human nature, and it can't be fixed if we are to live in a free capitalist society. It has nothing to do with slavery or social inequity. You will never change the fact that in a free capitalist society, some men will be more motivated and strive for greater achievement than other men. If we observe a marathon, we never see all the participants cross the finish line at the same time, it doesn't matter if we want this to happen, or whether we think it's right, wrong, or fair, the fact of the matter is, some people will be faster while others are slower, and they will never all finish at the same time. Recognizing that is a fact of life, is not akin to accepting slavery.

The greed argument is a bogus one and it appears many of you don't understand the sin of greed. Greed is when you lust for something that does not belong to you which you have neither produced or earned. So contrary to Wacko's argument greed is always bad. To desire to profit from your productive labor and skill is in no way shape or form "greed". The "Greed" argument is one that the upper end "Takers" use to make you feel guilty about wanting your fair share of the pie that you helped produced through your productive labor. In other words it's an argument a crony capitalist or one of their apologist or lap dogs would make and it's a bogus one. They'll never make me feel guilty about my desire to profit from my productive labor cause their argument is the embodiment of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Ironic take you have there, so it's the rich who are calling the poor "greedy" these days?
 
wanderingbear said:
People are equal in their value. Those who say otherwise should jump of a cliff because their to stupid for words.
Click to expand...

It's "TOO stupid for words," bear. People are equal in value as people, but they are not equal in value as contributors to society, and they never will be, that is human nature. You guys keep wanting to turn this into the slavery argument, and that is very ironic, since the Maoist theory you are espousing, produced an entire slave class who was forced to work for the State and ruling class. I didn't write the history, and I didn't make all of this up, it's recorded and documented and you can go check it out for yourself. The People's Revolution which brought Mao to power in China, made the exact same argument as the Occupy crowd about the 1%. That was the whole basis of their revolt, to enact social equity and redistribute wealth. Not only did it fail miserably, it resulted in 60 million deaths.
 
Mott: One person supplied the capital to make the widget, one person supplied the knowledge, design and the process to make the widget and the third person actually made the widget. None of these people are "takers" but does this give the capitalist the right to take 90% of the pie? Is that fair?
Click to expand...

I wanted to go back to this for a moment with another point. Without the person supplying the capital to make the widget, none of the other occupations exist. There is no one to pay the designer or producer, therefore, they are not employed. Widget designers and widget producers are totally useless in a society without someone to invest in widget manufacturing. They may as well be Twinky machine operators.

I'm not sure where the 90% number comes in, but I want to know where (as an investor) I can get a 90% share of profits? Just really curious about that, if you have a few examples you want to toss out, because I have a little money to invest. You see, my stockbroker also raises and sells chickens on the side, and maybe he is giving me some outdated advice, but the best he can get me is about a 7.8% return over 10 years.

We also didn't factor in the governmental and environmental regulations and mandates on widget producers, and discuss where that is paid from. You've simply taken that "labor" gets a 10% slice of the pie, and tried to make the other 90% go to the rich investor. That simply isn't the case in any realistic scenario, and you should be smart enough to know that.
 
Stargazer said:
Is a garbage collector of the same value to society as a neurosurgeon?

I don't think so.

To claim otherwise is PC garbage, not reality.
Click to expand...

Yes. You don't need a neurosurgeon every two weeks. They both have equal value. However that doesn't mean they should get paid the same.

Ones salary is commensurate with how easily it is to replace the person doing the job. Obviously replacing a neurosurgeon is quite a bit mor difficult than a trash collector or a waitress or a teacher.

As a side note education majors have the lowest SATs
 
I Love America said:
Yes. You don't need a neurosurgeon every two weeks. They both have equal value. However that doesn't mean they should get paid the same.

Ones salary is commensurate with how easily it is to replace the person doing the job. Obviously replacing a neurosurgeon is quite a bit mor difficult than a trash collector or a waitress or a teacher.

As a side note education majors have the lowest SATs
Click to expand...
They're not of equal value because everyone has the skills to pick up trash. Not everyone can operate on a brain.
 
Stargazer said:
They're not of equal value because everyone has the skills to pick up trash. Not everyone can operate on a brain.
Click to expand...

They are to their families.


A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
 
Stargazer said:
They're not of equal value because everyone has the skills to pick up trash. Not everyone can operate on a brain.
Click to expand...

Value is relative. If you are a Sandy victim and have rotting trash piled up in front of your house, a neurosurgeon is of little use. However, if you have a glioma then you shouldn't be calling Waste Management. On second thought in the age of OWEbamacare maybe a trash collector is the only one who will see you
 
You right wingers sure are stupid. The value of a human being isn’t in what they can or can not do.the fact that they are human that gives them value.And despite our differences we are all human.
 
Dixie said:
When listening to the arguments of liberals advocating more socialist entitlements and social justice, the prime argumentative point they often use, is the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor in our society. The rich are getting richer, while the poor barely survive, and this growing disparity is the source of all our problems and what needs to be fixed. Or at least, that is the argument they present for rational discussion. The problem is, you can't fix this and still live in a free capitalist society. As long as we live in a society where men are free to explore all options, engage in free market capitalism, and attain wealth and be successful, some men will and some men won't. Some will have enormous will and determination, drive and motivation, to attain as much as they possibly can. Others will be less motivated, willing to settle for less and not have to work as hard, be completely unmotivated to do anything more than complain. This is called, Human Nature. As long as people have been critters on this Earth, they have been this way, and they won't likely change.

Let's have an exhibit about this, an experimental scenario where we re-establish society on the basis of sheer financial equality across the board and start over. Let's pretend there are 10 people stranded on a desert island, deep in the Pacific, where they are likely to never be rescued. They come to the realization that they are now a new society, which much establish some kind of societal structure to exist, or they will devolve into anarchy and kill each other. But the thing is, the 10 people all have various differences of opinion on what kind of "government" they need to establish, so they can't really come up with a solution. What they end up deciding to do is, split up all the collective resources they possess, and establish their own 'countries' on different parts of the island. This is fair, they all start out with the same stuff, and establish their own 'paradise' as it were. They agree that all 'countries' will trade with each other through bartering of each other's goods and services. Those terms will be negotiated between buyer and seller, based on need (demand) and availability (supply).

So one guy is an engineer, and he determines quickly, there will be a great need for coconut busting, since this is the island's main food/beverage supply. He builds a machine to do this fairly quickly and without much effort, and opens his business to trade. He may want to trade with another person who knows how to sew clothing from vines or another person who has made nets to catch fish. And so the society begins to work together to do the various things and function, but there is a problem. A few of the people have no ambition or drive, and no real skill set or inspiration to develop one. They constantly complain about the conditions, all of their divided mutual resources ran out months ago, and they now go around to the other countries, begging for hand outs. Some of the countries are sympathetic to their conditions, because it's sad to see people suffering. Over time, the countries who are providing the supplementation for these people, start demanding the others chip in and help too, it's not right that only some of the countries are helping the 'poor' ...so they are cajoled into doing this, even though it is against their principles. Meanwhile, our original engineer with the drive and motivation, has expanded and now grows many assorted food items from seeds he developed through his vast knowledge of horticulture. This had nothing to do with his engineering degree, he had just always been interested in growing things, and he used his passion and ambition to further his entrepreneurial success. His family in his country, eat very well. They have an abundance of clothing and things provided as barter for their products and services. In just a very short time, this society has developed a disparity between rich and poor, and there is no turning back. It will forever and always be that way, the country with the ambition and drive, will always be ahead and pulling away, from the country with it's hand out, begging for benevolence and mired in 'victimhood' status.

We can't change this aspect of humanity, it is what we are and who we are. The ONLY way to "fix" this disparity, is to implement totalitarian authority through dictatorship. Freedom has to be eliminated for this to work. Personal ambition and success has to be strongly discouraged, and even punished. Such an implementation, whenever attempted on a widespread basis, has resulted in a collapse of production, which grinds society to a halt. No one is motivated to work. There is no advantage to success, so what is the purpose?

The most historic example of this idea being attempted in human history, is Mao in China. Virtually the same argument being made now by liberals in America (and Europe) is the argument Mao rose to power under with the People's Revolution. You see, "The People" were tired of only the wealthy having things, while the peasant "People" suffered and did without. Mao envisioned a China where everyone had materialistic and financial equality, and their value to society was also equal. There could be no disparity between the rich and poor, this would be forbidden in Mao's society. As we discover through history, this plan did not work for China, and the "People" suffered tremendously. To the tune of about 60 million in all. First, Mao killed off all the capitalists, the people motivated to earn wealth, the rich folk... he took their property and money to fund his Utopian idea. Of course, government under Mao was very corrupt and full of cronies, so the wealth naturally went to provide for a ruling class, and the "People" never got anything at all. So, with the capitalists dead and no economic prosperity happening anymore, the conditions worsened in China, and demands were made on the "People" to produce more, work harder, work longer hours, start work at an earlier age... etc. By now, the "People" are becoming displeased and start to revolt, and Mao executes thousands and thousands more.

The point here is, this "Disparity Myth" the liberals have created, has been addressed before with their same ideas. It resulted in the death of over 60 million Chinese. It did not work, and it turned a huge nation into a third-world slave state for decades, until the ruler was finally ousted, and reforms could be made. Since that time, in a relatively short period, China has gone from abject poverty and destitution, to being the world's leading economy. How did that happen? Through CAPITALISM!
Click to expand...


"Let's have an experimental society where 10 people are stranded on a desert island..." and we''re supposed to believe that these people, who are presumably reasonably intelligent, with survival their primary concern, still decide to split their resources, go in 10 different directions and take their chances.

But the truly ridiculous part is we're supposed to buy into this premise, and that the one guy who has been successful, whose love of money is so all consuming that he's going to SELL his surplus to the other castaways and not just feed everyone stuck in the same bad situation?

Sounds like the very definition of a greedy Conservative to me.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
"Let's have an experimental society where 10 people are stranded on a desert island..." and we''re supposed to believe that these people, who are presumably reasonably intelligent, with survival their primary concern, still decide to split their resources, go in 10 different directions and take their chances.

But the truly ridiculous part is we're supposed to buy into this premise, and that the one guy who has been successful, whose love of money is so all consuming that he's going to SELL his surplus to the other castaways and not just feed everyone stuck in the same bad situation?

Sounds like the very definition of a greedy Conservative to me.
Click to expand...

Well there is no "premise" to buy into with a hypothetical scenario, it's hypothetical. They split their resources out of fairness to all, since they couldn't all agree on a certain type of 'government' arrangement. Some wanted to be communists, some wanted to be capitalists, etc. I didn't say one guy had been successful, I said one guy was an engineer. He may not have ever been successful or made money in his life, but he knew how to make a coconut cracking machine and he knew this service would be in demand and capitalized. He also knew there would be a demand for seeds to grow food, so he took the initiative to develop the 'product' for trade and barter.

Now, if you were part of this crew, you might decide it best to give away the product of your efforts and labor, because there was a need from your fellow survivors, and that is awesome that you would be so generous and caring, but in the end, you'd be the first person to starve to death, because you didn't trade for food or supplies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top