isn't there something fundamentally wrong?

[unbillievable]

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

[3rdnlng]

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

 

The starving people would feel much better about it.

[Just Jack]

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

 

Cannibalism?

[Jim in Anchorage]

http://t1.gstatic.co...hFZgzOxLt0VEDiQ Just having Sally Struthers go on a diet would feed hundreds

[4merper4mer]

sharing the resources. It's not either/or. You can incentivize hard work without starving people. The carrot is mightier than the stick. But does it need to be such a huge carrot for so few?

 

Did the time machine talk about who gets to control the carrot and the stick? I'm sure they will be very trustworthy since it is such an important job.

 

The Eddie Murphy character wasn't randomly picking stocks, he was picking commodities. And it wasn't random, he was using his street smarts and understood how the market changes, based on the time of year.

 

 

I get that but I didn't want to get to detailed and complicated given that there are some people that post here that might not understand. For Pete's sake there are even a couple of Canadians.

 

Anyway, the point is that it is easy to make money. One minute Eddie Murphy is begging and has fake fake legs and the next he is rolling in dough and romancing a moderately classy hooker.

[birdog1960]

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

aren't wealth and poverty terms that ultimately describe the ability to obtain or not obtain resources? if demand for luxury items were decreased due to a more equitable distribution of wealth, economic demand for subsistence goods would increase resulting in prioritized production and availability of such goods. this would be only one effect. much of that 40% of global wealth is sitting on the sidelines, unused in an humanitarian context but producing more wealth for the already wealthy. don't we have an economist around here somewhere?

[GG]

aren't wealth and poverty terms that ultimately describe the ability to obtain or not obtain resources? if demand for luxury items were decreased due to a more equitable distribution of wealth, economic demand for subsistence goods would increase resulting in prioritized production and availability of such goods. this would be only one effect. much of that 40% of global wealth is sitting on the sidelines, unused in an humanitarian context but producing more wealth for the already wealthy. don't we have an economist around here somewhere?

 

I have rarely seen a more clueless account of the wealth effect. Congratulations doctor, you've outdone yourself.

[birdog1960]

I have rarely seen a more clueless account of the wealth effect. Congratulations doctor, you've outdone yourself.

pray tell, what are your definitions of the terms? what effects would you expect to see with a more even distribution of wealth? do you believe it impossible to devise a working, stable economic system that results in fewer starving and impoverished people? wouldn't that system necessarily require a more even distribution of wealth?

[Magox]

with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo...-153013317.html i keep thinking back to a line from a star trek movie where they travel back to the present and explain to a groundbreaking scientist that they now live in an age where the accumulation of wealth is no longer a measure of success. ridiculous....

A few questions. And if you could, if you could expand on your answers more than just observations and conclusions. What is the "system" that you talk about? Keep in mind, that this is a global occurrence. How would you propose to close the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of the world? Would it include some sort of hard cap, a tangible figure where it would get confiscated or taxed at an even higher rate? If so, at about what tax rate and what roughly around where would this cap be? a million, 10, 100? Do you propose a global or domestic wealth distribution sort of scheme? And if so, how so? I'm curious to hear some of these answers or anything else that you would wish to share related to how you believe we could achieve this.

[3rdnlng]

 

A few questions. And if you could, if you could expand on your answers more than just observations and conclusions. What is the "system" that you talk about? Keep in mind, that this is a global occurrence. How would you propose to close the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of the world? Would it include some sort of hard cap, a tangible figure where it would get confiscated or taxed at an even higher rate? If so, at about what tax rate and what roughly around where would this cap be? a million, 10, 100? Do you propose a global or domestic wealth distribution sort of scheme? And if so, how so? I'm curious to hear some of these answers or anything else that you would wish to share related to how you believe we could achieve this.

 

You're wasting your time. Birdog sees the world as a pie, barely able to adequately feed everyone, if distributed properly (his way). I gave him a hypothetical earlier in this thread and he refused to answer it, knowing that it was a trap question. It's not about humanity with him, it's all about "fairness" or in other words, redistribution of wealth.

[Nanker]

Well, clearly there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. So it's the wealthy who are growing in numbers. From the cited article - the number of millionaires "surged by 10% last year, reaching 13.8 million." That's 1.38 million more wealthy people who are hoarding food and absolutely refuse to invest their capital in vehicles that will save the planet/children/homeless/hungry/huddled masses. You know - like paying more in taxes to their governments. Instead of giving it away to good causes like government has, they're selfishly protecting it so they can have more now and even more later. Diabolical. Worse yet is that their increase in wealth is coming from equities like stocks which are burgeoning in value now that the government has put the slammers on any incentive for corporations to actually invest in their own businesses. They're actually out performing commodities. Take THAT you Saudi Oil Princes!

 

Used to be you'd have to strike it rich by digging a gold mine or an oil well, or invent the frisbee or something else useful like that. Of course back in the day you could also have owned a part of a clipper ship and engaged in the opium trade with the devil Chinese. Lots of good old Americans earned a fortune that kept their family well by doing that. People like FDR's grandfather. Then again, if you were really well connected, you might have gotten appointed as the Ambassador to the Court of St. James and cornered the market on importing Scotch into the US. Somebody else's daddy did just that, between his philandering with Gloria Swanson. Ah, those were the days. When hunger wasn't a word anyone heard.

[GG]

pray tell, what are your definitions of the terms? what effects would you expect to see with a more even distribution of wealth? do you believe it impossible to devise a working, stable economic system that results in fewer starving and impoverished people? wouldn't that system necessarily require a more even distribution of wealth?

 

I think this topic has been covered hundreds of times in this forum and debated and practiced in real life over the last two hundred years. And the clear answer is that poverty does not exist because millionaires exist, and redistributing wealth will do virtually nothing to eliminate poverty. It has been proven conclusively that extreme wealth distribution schemes that you propose do the exact opposite what academics & intellectuals pine for.

[birdog1960]

A few questions. And if you could, if you could expand on your answers more than just observations and conclusions. What is the "system" that you talk about? Keep in mind, that this is a global occurrence. How would you propose to close the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of the world? Would it include some sort of hard cap, a tangible figure where it would get confiscated or taxed at an even higher rate? If so, at about what tax rate and what roughly around where would this cap be? a million, 10, 100? Do you propose a global or domestic wealth distribution sort of scheme? And if so, how so? I'm curious to hear some of these answers or anything else that you would wish to share related to how you believe we could achieve this.

to which i don't have answers. certainly, different interventions have been tried throughout history with limited success and sometime outright failure. our own dog eat dog, every man for himself system has suffered a devastating depression, multiple recessions and a recent near collapse. i'm not convinced we're out of the deep water yet. the solution to hunger needs to happen through global efforts in my opinion. it's doubtful that will include changes in global economic systems. history tells us that those type of changes usually happen through coup, collapse or both. i'm certainly not wishing for those as the people likely to get hurt the most initially are the one already hurting.

my question was about a fundamental systemic flaw. maybe it's the flaw of human nature. maybe it's that there hasn't been enough good examples of alternative thinking to inspire change. i don't know but it certainly seems fundamentally flawed to me.

 

You're wasting your time. Birdog sees the world as a pie, barely able to adequately feed everyone, if distributed properly (his way). I gave him a hypothetical earlier in this thread and he refused to answer it, knowing that it was a trap question. It's not about humanity with him, it's all about "fairness" or in other words, redistribution of wealth.

well, if limited supply is not the problem causing hunger, then what is? it's likely to be a critical problem with water in very short order. do you see the world as containing infinite resources?

[3rdnlng]

to which i don't have answers. certainly, different interventions have been tried throughout history with limited success and sometime outright failure. our own dog eat dog, every man for himself system has suffered a devastating depression, multiple recessions and a recent near collapse. i'm not convinced we're out of the deep water yet. the solution to hunger needs to happen through global efforts in my opinion. it's doubtful that will include changes in global economic systems. history tells us that those type of changes usually happen through coup, collapse or both. i'm certainly not wishing for those as the people likely to get hurt the most initially are the one already hurting.

my question was about a fundamental systemic flaw. maybe it's the flaw of human nature. maybe it's that there hasn't been enough good examples of alternative thinking to inspire change. i don't know but it certainly seems fundamentally flawed to me.

 

well, if limited supply is not the problem causing hunger, then what is? it's likely to be a critical problem with water in very short order. do you see the world as containing infinite resources?

 

Do you not think that man has the capability to produce more? Our productivety has only been limited by the artificial limits placed on it by those "in charge". You lean towards redistribution of wealth. That was tried here in Jamestown centuries ago and much later in the old Soviet Union. It doesn't work. Anyway, until you answer my question earlier in this thread, I'm done.

[Magox]

to which i don't have answers. certainly, different interventions have been tried throughout history with limited success and sometime outright failure. our own dog eat dog, every man for himself system has suffered a devastating depression, multiple recessions and a recent near collapse. i'm not convinced we're out of the deep water yet. the solution to hunger needs to happen through global efforts in my opinion. it's doubtful that will include changes in global economic systems. history tells us that those type of changes usually happen through coup, collapse or both. i'm certainly not wishing for those as the people likely to get hurt the most initially are the one already hurting.

my question was about a fundamental systemic flaw. maybe it's the flaw of human nature. maybe it's that there hasn't been enough good examples of alternative thinking to inspire change. i don't know but it certainly seems fundamentally flawed to me.

 

well, if limited supply is not the problem causing hunger, then what is? it's likely to be a critical problem with water in very short order. do you see the world as containing infinite resources?

I'd simply say that not everyone has a desire to achieve or at least have the desire to put the work into doing what's necessary to achieve. There will always be a decent sized segment of the population that just don't want to do what it takes to reach the next level. You can apply this statement that I just made not just for those that are "poor", but for many in the lower economic "middle class" as well. Too many people are content with where they are. I don't mean "content" so much as that they believe their economic situation is acceptable, but content in the sense that they aren't willing to go the extra mile to do what it takes to climb up the latter. In my experiences, and I'm pretty sure this is the case broadly speaking that many people simply aren't cut out to "achieve" in life. They just don't have it in them or at the very least have developed bad habits that inhibit them from succeeding. In any real attempt to somehow lift them up through wealth distribution is futile. Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for those that who indeed need it. Such as the TRULY disabled, many seniors and those that are in need of short-term assistance to get them up on their feet when **** happens. But the abuse of the safety nets does in my view do the exact opposite of it's intended purpose, which is to help support those in TRUE need. What happens is that when people abuse the system, it becomes a way to sustain their lives, living off the government, with no true desire to do what it takes to get themselves off of government assistance. This is not the way the system was intended to work. Now of course, this is a two pronged issue, one is those trying to climb up from the lower tiers, and those that are already elevated and are in the top 1%. Of course the dramatic separation is primarily coming from the top 1%, their incomes are continuing to rise sharply, whereas many in the middle to lower economic class are remaining stagnant. So what gives? Well for starters Globalization. While Globalization has been a negative for many of those in the "middle class" here in the US that work within many of these industries, it has been a positive for many people in the countries where the jobs have been shipped to. This is just a part of reality, it is evolution. So rather than complain about it, you adapt. How do you adapt? Well it goes back to what I was talking about earlier, having an internal desire to do what it takes to climb higher. Yes, I understand for many, this is all that they knew how to do, so it's easy for me to say to just simply "adapt", but what options do you have? It is what it is, and you do what it takes. Then another culprit for the separation of incomes is investment income ie. stocks. With the printing presses working 24/7 with uber low interest rates, it's been a very conducive time to invest in stocks, not to mention I was reading that many of the homes that are being purchased on the market have been coming from private equity firms. Is there something nefarious about these activities? Again, it's simply just a result of the conditions. Through no fault of those taking advantage of these conditions, that's just the way things are. What about technology? No doubt that robotics and software are decreasing the demand for human physical capital. It's another step of the economic evolutionary process we are in. I'm sure you are well-intentioned with your concerns, but you truly are wasting your time looking for bogeymen. They don't exist, at least in the sense of there being any sort of malign force out there purposely trying to foster these conditions. Rather than focus on the rich birddog, you would be better served in trying to focus on the poor and middle class, and stop looking at them as victims, and look to advocate and search for ways in how they can climb up the socio economic latter.

[birdog1960]

 

 

Do you not think that man has the capability to produce more? Our productivety has only been limited by the artificial limits placed on it by those "in charge". You lean towards redistribution of wealth. That was tried here in Jamestown centuries ago and much later in the old Soviet Union. It doesn't work. Anyway, until you answer my question earlier in this thread, I'm done.

i answered your question. You didn't Ike the answer.

 

I've already stated that more food can be produced. But that will involve making it a larger percentage of the global economy at the expense of other goods. But why isn't food already produced at a percentage that sustains the population? Answer that and you'll understand the problem with the concentration of wealth. And food production capability is not infinite even with infinite will. Demand can outstrip maximal supply and may already. We don't know since we've not tried.

 

I'd simply say that not everyone has a desire to achieve or at least have the desire to put the work into doing what's necessary to achieve. There will always be a decent sized segment of the population that just don't want to do what it takes to reach the next level. You can apply this statement that I just made not just for those that are "poor", but for many in the lower economic "middle class" as well. Too many people are content with where they are. I don't mean "content" so much as that they believe their economic situation is acceptable, but content in the sense that they aren't willing to go the extra mile to do what it takes to climb up the latter. In my experiences, and I'm pretty sure this is the case broadly speaking that many people simply aren't cut out to "achieve" in life. They just don't have it in them or at the very least have developed bad habits that inhibit them from succeeding. In any real attempt to somehow lift them up through wealth distribution is futile. Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for those that who indeed need it. Such as the TRULY disabled, many seniors and those that are in need of short-term assistance to get them up on their feet when **** happens. But the abuse of the safety nets does in my view do the exact opposite of it's intended purpose, which is to help support those in TRUE need. What happens is that when people abuse the system, it becomes a way to sustain their lives, living off the government, with no true desire to do what it takes to get themselves off of government assistance. This is not the way the system was intended to work. Now of course, this is a two pronged issue, one is those trying to climb up from the lower tiers, and those that are already elevated and are in the top 1%. Of course the dramatic separation is primarily coming from the top 1%, their incomes are continuing to rise sharply, whereas many in the middle to lower economic class are remaining stagnant. So what gives? Well for starters Globalization. While Globalization has been a negative for many of those in the "middle class" here in the US that work within many of these industries, it has been a positive for many people in the countries where the jobs have been shipped to. This is just a part of reality, it is evolution. So rather than complain about it, you adapt. How do you adapt? Well it goes back to what I was talking about earlier, having an internal desire to do what it takes to climb higher. Yes, I understand for many, this is all that they knew how to do, so it's easy for me to say to just simply "adapt", but what options do you have? It is what it is, and you do what it takes. Then another culprit for the separation of incomes is investment income ie. stocks. With the printing presses working 24/7 with uber low interest rates, it's been a very conducive time to invest in stocks, not to mention I was reading that many of the homes that are being purchased on the market have been coming from private equity firms. Is there something nefarious about these activities? Again, it's simply just a result of the conditions. Through no fault of those taking advantage of these conditions, that's just the way things are. What about technology? No doubt that robotics and software are decreasing the demand for human physical capital. It's another step of the economic evolutionary process we are in. I'm sure you are well-intentioned with your concerns, but you truly are wasting your time looking for bogeymen. They don't exist, at least in the sense of there being any sort of malign force out there purposely trying to foster these conditions. Rather than focus on the rich birddog, you would be better served in trying to focus on the poor and middle class, and stop looking at them as victims, and look to advocate and search for ways in how they can climb up the socio economic latter.

everyone can't climb the ladder. Some have to make clothes in factories (but not ones in Pakistan that collapse).some need to pick crops. Etc. talents aren't equally distributed and compensation needn't be either. But shouldn't the Pakistani food worker with no ladder to climb have enough to eat. Isn't greed at least in part to blame? Is that human nature or are people prone to exploiting others also prone to financial success in our current system? The converse is also largely true.

 

Your contention that nothing nefarious is going on in high finance is just silly in light of what we saw in 2008. The game is rigged and it's rigged by and for many of the same people that already hold 40 percent of the wealth.

[3rdnlng]

i answered your question. You didn't Ike the answer.

 

I've already stated that more food can be produced. But that will involve making it a larger percentage of the global economy at the expense of other goods. But why isn't food already produced at a percentage that sustains the population? Answer that and you'll understand the problem with the concentration of wealth. And food production capability is not infinite even with infinite will. Demand can outstrip maximal supply and may already. We don't know since we've not tried.

 

You didn't answer my question (post #11). All you did was tap dance around it, proving that it's not the inhumanity that disturbs you but your ideology that drives you. Truly you'd rather we all ate mush rather than the poor eat steak while the rich ate caviar.

[birdog1960]

 

 

You didn't answer my question (post #11). All you did was tap dance around it, proving that it's not the inhumanity that disturbs you but your ideology that drives you. Truly you'd rather we all ate mush rather than the poor eat steak while the rich ate caviar.

people are looking at the feasibility of insects as a major protein source for the future and you're proposing steak for all. Are you related to Marie Antoinette? It's not possible. It doesn't mean that no one can ever acquire steak however.

[Magox]

i answered your question. You didn't Ike the answer.

 

I've already stated that more food can be produced. But that will involve making it a larger percentage of the global economy at the expense of other goods. But why isn't food already produced at a percentage that sustains the population? Answer that and you'll understand the problem with the concentration of wealth. And food production capability is not infinite even with infinite will. Demand can outstrip maximal supply and may already. We don't know since we've not tried.everyone can't climb the ladder. Some have to make clothes in factories (but not ones in Pakistan that collapse).some need to pick crops. Etc. talents aren't equally distributed and compensation needn't be either. But shouldn't the Pakistani food worker with no ladder to climb have enough to eat. Isn't greed at least in part to blame? Is that human nature or are people prone to exploiting others also prone to financial success in our current system? The converse is also largely true.

 

Your contention that nothing nefarious is going on in high finance is just silly in light of what we saw in 2008. The game is rigged and it's rigged by and for many of the same people that already hold 40 percent of the wealth.

No, what's silly is that You're conflating two separate entities. I didn't say nothing nefarious happened in finance, what I said was that nothing nefarious is going on in the overall scheme of the separation of the income disparity between rich and poor via investment income. Those that abused the system in the world of finance are not responsible on a meaningful level for the widening income disparity, those are instances. Big difference. In regards to your "rigged" statement... Tell me how the system is "rigged", please explain this I'd be interested to hear your answer. Remember what we are talking about, we are talking about income disparity on a wide scale level, so any examples you bring up, keep that in mind. In regards to your issues about food scarcity, those countries that have these issues lack proper infrastructure, capital and geographical resources to produce food. It's a problem, and sure there are abuses from people who want to take advantage of workers, but that is an issue that will have to be resolved from within their own governments. However, after living in Bolivia for a number of years, I can tell you that there are many able-working people, who simply do not desire to work, and would rather pan handle for sustenance.

[GG]

No, what's silly is that You're conflating two separate entities. I didn't say nothing nefarious happened in finance, what I said was that nothing nefarious is going on in the overall scheme of the separation of the income disparity between rich and poor via investment income. Those that abused the system in the world of finance are not responsible on a meaningful level for the widening income disparity, those are instances. Big difference. In regards to your "rigged" statement... Tell me how the system is "rigged", please explain this I'd be interested to hear your answer. Remember what we are talking about, we are talking about income disparity on a wide scale level, so any examples you bring up, keep that in mind. In regards to your issues about food scarcity, those countries that have these issues lack proper infrastructure, capital and geographical resources to produce food. It's a problem, and sure there are abuses from people who want to take advantage of workers, but that is an issue that will have to be resolved from within their own governments. However, after living in Bolivia for a number of years, I can tell you that there are many able-working people, who simply do not desire to work, and would rather pan handle for sustenance.

 

He thinks the system is rigged because he doesn't have enough income/wealth to qualify for investment minimums in the exclusive private equity/hedge funds, so he thinks he's disadvantaged. What he fails to recognize is that if those private equity pools actually beat the overall market/segment returns, they are modestly higher than what is available to the general public through regular mutual funds, index funds or ETFs. What he also doesn't recognize is that outside Warren Buffet, few of the vilified 1% got there through investment income vs building something great and have the market recognize that greatness through market valuation.

 

He also doesn't recognize that the piece he referenced was about GLOBAL WEALTH, not just the US, so most of his point (whatever it is) is moot. That's why he conveniently ignored my request to source the link of the story and talk about the actual BCG study and not get n his usual soap box about wealth distribution, blah blah blah.