First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The 1%
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
I salivated reading this topic, I love good thoughtful shit like this---oh and so lovingly well communicated too!



Er, anyway...


theYchromosome wrote:
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?


Income inequality is not inherently bad. It is only a matter of giving proper and equitable compensation and motivation for ideas and innovation. The real discrepancy isn't how much people should make however, it is how much people should contribute to society. That is where it gets trickier, because not all money is placed back into the system. How much should individuals give back to society to prevent the halting flow of money--the dam at the top of the waterfall? Most make it a matter of disposable income--a function taking into account necessity to an individual's pursuit of happiness. Essentially, an individual can contribute more to society at the top without impeding his living and happiness than one would be able to do so at the bottom. As for how much that contribution should be--well that's where the debate really breathes in controversy. I honestly couldn't put a finger on it myself--not exactly anyhow.


theYchromosome wrote: 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.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. Corruption ought to be well combated, especially in capitalism. The "top 1%" statistic is spoken to fan the flames of passion in class envy and discrepancy. It gets people to jump, scowl, shout and stamp their feet--it is entirely a matter of pathos. Such rhetoric is uncommonly met or intended to be received by logic. It is spoken to specifically elicit and manipulate the feeling of "unfairness" and "division".

29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

bobsagget wrote:

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


white
Posted 1/24/16
This



is the second richest person in Norway.

And this



is the third richest person in Norway.


Well... at least they're not 60 year old white men.
23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16

ayesharocks wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

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


white


Shockingly only one of these men is of European descend (David Rockefeller). All of the rest the men are actually Semites. (non-European)
4260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / The Shire, England
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16
The top 1% earning 1% diminishes the point of them being the "top 1%". You're basically trying to start a capitalism vs communism/socialism debate here which I neither have time for or quite frankly am not well enough informed to truly input. However I do find these discussions quite interesting...
1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / USA
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%.


that is unfair tho. they should only get one percent of the posts because they are only one percent right?

LOL thank you for the good example. if you work for it or if you own it then it is yours and no one has the right to take it from you. or tell you what to do wit it
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

ayesharocks wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

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


white


Can you spot the Nazi in the picture? I can!
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

VZ68 wrote:
Can you spot the Nazi in the picture? I can!
All of them?

Hrafna wrote:
This

is the second richest person in Norway.
And this

is the third richest person in Norway.

Well... at least they're not 60 year old white men.
But who was first then?

10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

Freddy96NO wrote:


VZ68 wrote:
Can you spot the Nazi in the picture? I can!
All of them?

Hrafna wrote:
This

is the second richest person in Norway.
And this

is the third richest person in Norway.

Well... at least they're not 60 year old white men.
But who was first then?



Well Soros did work for the Nazis in WWII helping them round up his fellow Jews.

But you just called the other Jews in the picture Nazis, and they might get upset at that.
Posted 1/24/16

VZ68 wrote:


Freddy96NO wrote:


VZ68 wrote:
Can you spot the Nazi in the picture? I can!
All of them?

Hrafna wrote:
This

is the second richest person in Norway.
And this

is the third richest person in Norway.

Well... at least they're not 60 year old white men.
But who was first then?



Well Soros did work for the Nazis in WWII helping them round up his fellow Jews.

But you just called the other Jews in the picture Nazis, and they might get upset at that.


Lolololo get upset

10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/24/16

ignitingmemories wrote:

Lolololo get upset



Posted 1/24/16

VZ68 wrote:


ignitingmemories wrote:

Lolololo get upset





i was replying to the comment u said where u said they'd get upset lol


16727 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
When our system encourages large corporations to buy up all small businesses that will happen. When 1 person is in charge of 50 billion assets they will get paid more than someone that just has 50 million assets. We need more smaller businesses and less large businesses.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16
I have absolutely no issues with other people having more money than me.

The distribution of wealth is , I'm told, a Pareto distribution.
Which is sort of exponential is nature.
The question is, of course, why?
I'd imagine it might have something to do with a few people receiving a large number of payments of varying severity from a large number of people. You might even be able to graph it like a network.

Ultimately wealth has less to do with morality than it does with the flow of goods and services, and having greater revenue than cost.

The best way is to have some sort of basic income, where everybody on earth gets paid some amount at the beginning of every week. There are only a few problems, like not having even remotely close to enough excess production to fund it. Of, course this is different from communism by guaranteeing everybody the minimal essentials, like water, food, and housing, and then using that as a base, rather than taking income from some and giving it to others.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:
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?


Income inequality is not inherently bad. It is only a matter of giving proper and equitable compensation and motivation for ideas and innovation. The real discrepancy isn't how much people should make however, it is how much people should contribute to society. That is where it gets trickier, because not all money is placed back into the system. How much should individuals give back to society to prevent the halting flow of money--the dam at the top of the waterfall? Most make it a matter of disposable income--a function taking into account necessity to an individual's pursuit of happiness. Essentially, an individual can contribute more to society at the top without impeding his living and happiness than one would be able to do so at the bottom. As for how much that contribution should be--well that's where the debate really breathes in controversy. I honestly couldn't put a finger on it myself--not exactly anyhow.



There is a sense in which I agree with a lot of that, but I think our starting point might be a little different. When you talk about, for instance, "how much people should contribute to society" I sort of get what you're saying, but I'm of the opinion that nobody has anything like a duty or obligation to contribute to society. Society is an idea -- it doesn't have feelings, thoughts, emotions, desires, anything of value, really. "Society," if we're to take it to mean anything, is the one with the obligation towards the individual, whose thoughts and desires do have some value. If everyone could be their best 'self' without anyone else, there would be no need for 'society.' Society exists because groups of people can all be better off as individuals than they would otherwise be alone. Society exists to serve the individual, not the other way around. So, for me, it's not about 'paying into the system' or 'contributing to society.'

However, the fact is that we've decided it best that everyone is compelled to have certain services -- police, a judiciary, libraries, etc. -- and that everyone must receive these services, regardless of whether they work well, whether you want them, whatever. For the record, I think this is a good thing, but it's not without its problems. And since everyone is a beneficiary, it is assumed that everyone is compelled to 'pay into the system.' I get that, and there's a sense in which I agree with it, but I think it misses the point. Society exists to further the lives of individuals, but over time, we've built up this sort of idea that 'society' -- this emotionless, thoughtless, goal-less, abstraction -- is to be put above the individual, that the individual is meant to serve society. "Ask not what your country can do for you," right?

This may seem like a bit of semantics, but for me, it's quite important, because the way we've put up the state and the services we provide, when we start saying something basic like 'policing,' for example, is a right, then it becomes priceless. We don't know how much needs to be 'payed in' because we have no fucking clue how much it's worth -- what it costs. It's for this reason that I'm really attracted to the idea of keeping most things in the private sector. I really do think that the world's better off with public police, but I also understand that we're paying a premium for it. If I had to guess at what 'might' have happened with no public policing, I'd have to say that a private police force would probably be more effective and cost efficient, but it wouldn't cover everyone. That's more or less the price we pay, and I'm okay with that.

With healthcare, however, it's a little different. Competition drives progress and efficiency in ways that are really interesting, but to put it in a blunt and probably wildly exaggerated fashion, I think the payoffs go something like this:

In a future world of purely private medicine, competition and the need for efficiency leads us to greater discovery, and we have cures for things like cancer, aids, etc. Most people have health insurance but there are many that can't afford it, and subsequently die from quite treatable diseases.

In a future world of purely socialized medicine, lack of reasonable price points and incentive for discovery leaves us not much further along than we are now, but nonetheless, since everyone is covered, many people that would have died from quite treatable diseases now live.



The difference between those examples, and reality, I think is only a matter of degree. Socializing a service will almost certainly make it less efficient and less effective, but how much? In the case of policing, most people will agree that the cost of effectiveness is negligible compared to the cost of having outsiders without any protection. Is the same true of medicine? I'm tempted to say that in medicine, the cost is too high. But, really, I'm a Libertarian because I think it's the more practically effective means. I should really, however, call myself something like "an experimentalist." I think we should try different things to test how things work (albeit at the state level where it will have less of an impact if it fails). It's my opinion that similar experiments have had disappointing results, but the verdict isn't yet crystal clear to me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.