First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The 1%
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16
"The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%"

A couple questions:

Is income inequality bad? That is, should some people earn more money than others? Is it only acceptable if the top 1% owns 1% of the wealth?

If some people should make more money than others, what would be the acceptable statistic? Worldwide, the stat I have is that the top 1% have 40-ish% of the wealth. What is the acceptable stat? Is 1% control of 20% OK? What about 10? How do we determine how much people should make?

Here's how I think about it.

People have good ideas all the time. If you walked on the sidewalk instead of the middle of the street today, you had a good idea. For most things, people can get by on their own ideas, and lots of good ideas are things pretty much shared between just about everyone. However, there are times when people have ideas that are unavailable to you, and would improve your life, and for that, you give them something in return for their expertise. The fact of the matter is, common ideas, even if good, often don't have value to other people because other people also have those ideas -- they don't need to go to you to get them. So when someone has a rare idea, one that will improve many people's lives more than they could do themselves, it makes sense to me that the 'rare-idea-havers' would get a lot of stuff in return. Today, we mostly use 'capital.'

When somebody can provide something for themselves, they don't need to pay someone to provide it for them. The easier it is to provide, the more people will be able to get themselves. The harder it is, the more they will need to look elsewhere, and the likelihood becomes higher that a good portion of their peers will need to go elsewhere as well. If only a few people can provide it, then everyone will end up going to them, and these people will become rich.

People that innovate, that create, that are better at doing things than others should be richer than their peers, for the simple fact that they can make the world better than those peers. What better way to decide how much a person is worth than to measure how much people are willing to give them. How much should the 1% make? How much are you willing to give them? Every time you buy a laptop, every time you get a cheeseburger, you are telling the 1% how much you think they are worth, and apparently, you have a rather high view of their value.

If I write a book, I might have trouble getting the book out to people -- editing, publishing, advertising, etc. So, I might have somebody that's good at those things do it for me. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that they give me a 10% cut of the book's sale price, and let's say that they sell each book for $10. So, I get $1 per book. Anyone that wants the book gives $10 in return for being able to read it, a cost they view as 'worth it.' As it turns out, lots of people like the book, and 500,000 people exchange their money for it in a year's time. At that point, I am officially in the 1% in America. Have I done anything wrong? Has the publisher? Have the customers? Who is to blame for my corrupt hoarding of wealth?


There are ways to get wealthy without providing anything that people want, and we should prevent that from happening. In fact, capitalism depends on a lack of corruption. However, the fact alone that some people make quite a lot of money while others don't does not, to me, seem to be a problem of itself, and "the top 1%" stat always given never seems to me to be anything more than a way to stir up class envy. Full disclosure, I'm probably voting Bernie Sanders because pretty much everyone else in both parties is shit on Foreign Policy, but that's not really important to the topic.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
Employees should offer what they are willing to work for and only the lowest bidders would get the job.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16
I wonder if the top 1% of posters on CrunchyRoll have more posts than the bottom 90%.
18696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
being a maid seems like a good job
37144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

sarteck wrote:

I wonder if the top 1% of posters on CrunchyRoll have more posts than the bottom 90%.


Probably. Some of these elitist scum hoard thousands of posts. God only knows what disgusting things they are using them for.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16

sarteck wrote:

I wonder if the top 1% of posters on CrunchyRoll have more posts than the bottom 90%.


THIS FORUM IS RIGGED!
23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16
Some people from the real 1%...


1) Lord Jacob de Rothschild. 2) Nathaniel Jacob de Rothschild. 3) Baron John de Rothschild, 4) Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. 5) David Rockefeller, 6) Nathan Warburg 7) Henry Kissinger, 8 George Soros, 9) Paul Volcker, 10) Larry Summers, 11) Lloyd Blankfein 12) Ben Shalom Bernanke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rothschild,_4th_Baron_Rothschild
62009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / The stars.. too b...
Offline
Posted 1/24/16



You seem to have a decent grasp on what is capitalism, so I have no clue why you would even consider Sanders.


The one percent are that way because you vote to make them that way. If Sanders wasn't bat-shit crazy on ruining the economy and giving away shit for free, he'd actually make a good running for what's looking to be Hillary on the Democratic seat. I totally agree with him on taking money out of politics but don't agree with the ways he wants to do it or the, "Fund everyone running" policy he pushes. He's basically running on the spoiled entitlement crowd giving him money instead of investing in their futures.

The idea seems to be that people acquire wealth just to swim in it like good 'ole Uncle Scrooge McDuck. Generally, they're going to live lavish lives spending lots of money to support those lives - creating jobs in the process. The problem with Sanders is, instead of taking away taxes he promotes this type of hording... Instead of the wealth being transferred directly to the labor force sustaining their lifestyle, business ventures or investments, he purposes to stick a bureaucratic vacuum in the middle to suck out funds and transfer it to the, "poor". Not by voluntary choices, but with coercion and state power. This, all assuming they don't leave the country all together and take their money with them. Not sure how informed you guys are, but anyone remember when France upped it's, I want to say general income tax to something like 70%?


I don't know who's the bigger clown in this race, really... Trump or Sanders... What I do know is we have a snake in the back who has a shit ton of blood on it's hands and she should not be allowed to be president.

Also... Sanders, Cuck? He threw himself under the bus for Hilary at the first Dem debate... "Can't we just forget about the emails..?"

Um no, Sanders... Those emails and that unsecured email server could have caused greater damage than any breech of intelligence to date. I'm sure they're quite important to American security... Anyone else find it odd he would make such a comment? Then the revelations coming out of Project Veritas about common core being anti-american pro-islamic curriculum?


So Orwell, trying to stop the stomping boot... But like you said brother... People are begging for it.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16

dyme420 wrote:

You seem to have a decent grasp on what is capitalism, so I have no clue why you would even consider Sanders.


Believe me, as a Libertarian, it makes me feel physically ill that Sanders is the best I have. Economically, he's practically the Libertarian anti-christ. And yet, as a Libertarian, I'll explain why I'm still thinking Sanders.

First it's important to understand that: $15 min wage, single-payer healthcare/college, most everything he's proposing on the economic side -- none of it is going to pass congress. And even if, by a long shot, it does, I'm sufficiently confident enough in myself to know that my happiness does not so deeply depend on the economy. Simply put, these sorts of policy reports by presidential candidates are useful for determining their views, but when it comes to putting them into law, congressional elections are far more important. So these things are less important to me.

The President's capacity as commander-in-chief, however, is hugely important, and this is probably my biggest concern. Whereas, in congressional elections, I hardly consider foreign policy at all. Republicans are shit on social issues for me, but just about all of them are gung-ho for war at this point. Rand Paul was my guy (although he, too, gave me pause on the social issues), but he's gotten just a bit too hawkish for me as of late. Truth is, we pay some of the highest tax rates in the world and get shit nothing in comparison to the rest of it, mostly because of military spending. Sanders is just about the only guy running who I can see getting a smaller military budget, which would free up some tax cuts, or more likely under Sanders, health care. I'm basically against Obama-care and single-payer, but if I had to choose between spending on armament and spending on medicine -- lesser of two evils, I guess.

Basically, Sanders is the only one who's in line with me on both social issues and foreign policy, and I view both of those areas to be more central to my well-being than economic issues. The only thing I really, really worry about with Sanders is that, if elected, he may further popularize his particular brand of wealth-hate. Hence the topic.

Edit: And for the record, I'll be voting Sanders in the primary. For the general election, I'll be throwing my ballot in the trash-bin marked "Gary Johnson."
Posted 1/24/16
My opinion is that a hard working person can only be so poor. We had 33% of the population receiving benefits. Now this points to two things. Either we have too lax of a standards on welfare, or we're doing a poor job getting people off of welfare.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

My opinion is that a hard working person can only be so poor. We had 33% of the population receiving benefits. Now this points to two things. Either we have too lax of a standards on welfare, or we're doing a poor job getting people off of welfare.


I think, actually, the problem is that we aren't supposed to get people off welfare. People don't go on welfare. Persons go on welfare. The problem, I think, is on both the side of conservatives and liberals who view it as a "people" issue. I don't know what makes another person happy, and I don't want anyone else trying to guess at what will make me happy, and then have the government give it to me. They're likely to be wrong. A person is responsible for his own happiness, and his happiness alone, for the simple fact that he's the only one that knows what that is. It's up to the individual to make their own life, and the problem with both liberals and conservatives is that they both spin a sort of "we/they" mentality devoid of individual responsibility. Poor people are deprived of their individuality by being told that it's the government's responsibility to take care of them, but at the same time, it's not like welfare is all about lazy people leeching off the government. Ideally, welfare would be for people who have lost the ability to take care of themselves for some unforeseen circumstance while they find a way to rebuild their work capacity, but ideally, I think we would have some sort of "unemployment insurance" instead of welfare. But, for practicality, welfare's probably best for now.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that the problem with "getting people off welfare" is not a problem to be solved by government, because I don't think it's a problem with government, per say. It's a cultural problem, that needs to be solved by each person inside the culture. There may be some things the government can do to improve that process, but basically, "getting off welfare" is up to the individual, which is why I think something like "private unemployment insurance" will be better. Insurance companies run huge amounts of very sophisticated mathematical models to figure out when it's worth their money to continue to give benefits, and it's in their interest for future premiums to insure someone who has a good chance of getting on his feet again. There would obviously be problems with this, but it's not like welfare is without its problems as well. Either way, I genuinely do not know which system would be better -- I'm more or less just thinking out loud here.
585 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Center-of-US
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
Well, about the welfare stuff. Plain and simple, there are 4 options for people in economically depressed places like rural towns and inner cities:
1. welfare
2. drug dealing
3. crime
4. rolling over and dying

What about moving somewhere else? Yes, individuals can do that, but the rural and inner-city populations as a whole add up to tens of millions. So telling everyone to move doesn't sound like a feasible plan.

So back to welfare. Take that option away, and either a) people will go "oh, no more welfare, I guess I'll just roll over and die," or b) they'll go for crime, drug dealing, or something else which will probably make things worse than they already are.

I'd say welfare is the cost of doing business. To a large extent, people with money (including the middle class) have abandoned the rural areas and the "that part of town," so welfare is probably a good pitchfork-prevention mechanism - and since this is the U.S., we have to worry about more than just pitchforks, but that's another can of worms.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

theYchromosome wrote:
THIS FORUM IS RIGGED!
thx will remember that XP
Every place here on CR from gaming to general to anime discussion is quite rigged, damn we need to stop this segregation!

Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

kinga750 wrote:


sarteck wrote:

I wonder if the top 1% of posters on CrunchyRoll have more posts than the bottom 90%.


Probably. Some of these elitist scum hoard thousands of posts. God only knows what disgusting things they are using them for.


d-don't judge me!!
451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
The great part of capitalism is that everyone gets paid both what they are willing to work for and what someone else is willing to pay them to do that work.

Do I think that professional athletes should be paid millions of dollars? No.
But it's not my money that is paying them, it's the team owner's money and he earned it so he can do whatever he wants with it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.