The richest 85 people in the world hold as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
I'm sure the type of people that have access and enjoy reading through these forums enjoy a standard of living MUCH higher than that bottom half and are quite removed from the hardships of it. Even the poor in America can receive tons of help from governments and charities.
I'm all for people being able to "have connections", be born into wealth, have an idea and get rich, have a skill that makes you rich etc. But there seems to come a point where it's completely harmful to the human species to be hoarding that much wealth.
This is one of our favorite topics around here. Perhaps oh wise one you could help us with a solution to deal with those corrupt governments that keep so many of their people in poverty so they can live like kings.
I watched The Nut Job yesterday. It dwells on this topic quite a bit for a kids movie.
Also wealth is a very relative term. It's not like 85 people are hoarding as much water and food as the 3.5M. You're talking about things that have perceived value such as cash and stocks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Not saying we should do this, but what if the United States had a target nation at any one time. We use our power to cause change in that country until it is more modern. Be it building up infrastructure in countries that want to get better to placing sanctions on countries that refuse to advance until they are willing to do so? We could target things like human rights, women's rights, property rights so on and so forth and slowly bring the world into the 21st century without actually leading coups in countries and replacing their democratically elected rulers with despots.
This is one of our favorite topics around here. Perhaps oh wise one you could help us with a solution to deal with those corrupt governments that keep so many of their people in poverty so they can live like kings.
No need to be sarcastic. I'm talking about people who are dieing from poverty and comparing them with an ultra elite. I presented a discussion on the topic to see what other people's ideas were. I'm also not talking about corrupt governments. I'm talking about a system that allows for this sort of an imbalance.
As I said in the OP. I'm all for people being able to become very rich. I understand imbalance is only natural, but the extreme level of imbalance that exists right now is pretty insane.
I watched The Nut Job yesterday. It dwells on this topic quite a bit for a kids movie.
Also wealth is a very relative term. It's not like 85 people are hoarding as much water and food as the 3.5M. You're talking about things that have perceived value such as cash and stocks.
You can call it whatever you like. These people have enough "perceived value" to give the rest of those folks food and water so they don't die. I'm not demonizing them either. This is just a discussion on the imbalance in general.
Not saying we should do this, but what if the United States had a target nation at any one time. We use our power to cause change in that country until it is more modern. Be it building up infrastructure in countries that want to get better to placing sanctions on countries that refuse to advance until they are willing to do so? We could target things like human rights, women's rights, property rights so on and so forth and slowly bring the world into the 21st century without actually leading coups in countries and replacing their democratically elected rulers with despots.
I don't think that's a solution considering America currently has its own largest wealth disparity in American history.
This is one of our favorite topics around here. Perhaps oh wise one you could help us with a solution to deal with those corrupt governments that keep so many of their people in poverty so they can live like kings.
So what will you do here in the good ol' USA, where the top 400 have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million?
Quote from the_cardfather »
Also wealth is a very relative term. It's not like 85 people are hoarding as much water and food as the 3.5M. You're talking about things that have perceived value such as cash and stocks.
I'd try living by that bottom standard of living for a while before you try apologizing for it.
Not saying we should do this, but what if the United States had a target nation at any one time. We use our power to cause change in that country until it is more modern. Be it building up infrastructure in countries that want to get better to placing sanctions on countries that refuse to advance until they are willing to do so? We could target things like human rights, women's rights, property rights so on and so forth and slowly bring the world into the 21st century without actually leading coups in countries and replacing their democratically elected rulers with despots.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Income per capita would be a much better judge on how a good a country is poverty wise than just saying 400 people have 30 percent of the money therefore we are screwed.
Income per capita would be a much better judge on how a good a country is poverty wise than just saying 400 people have 30 percent of the money therefore we are screwed.
Not really...the statistic isn't going to change much. No one, in fact said we are screwed. Not sure who you are responding to. I talked about people that don't even have clean water, safe food, etc. in comparison to those that are hoarding wealth.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
Whom do you nominate to manage them better?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A good start might be "the same people, with much stronger regulations."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
Whom do you nominate to manage them better?
Interesting that so few people can actually talk about the subject without taking it so personally.
This isn't about me. I'm asking what others think about this.
Here's a better question: is it inherently wrong for the richest person in the USA/world/wherever to make/have 10000000000000000x as much as the poorest? Do we believe there should be a limit to wealth disparity? What are the consequences of extremely wide wealth disparity vs those of narrow disparity? Is there a "sweet spot" that we should be striving for?
Personally I think large wealth inequality is bad for economic prosperity. It basically sets up a feudal system, with a wealthy lord at the top, and the masses completely dependent on their charity. Such a system inevitably leads to gross abuses by those at the top, since those they are exploiting have no means to fight back. Because the masses have so little wealth, there is very little consumer spending. The spending of the few at the top cannot outweigh the impact of millions upon millions of people not having money to spend, no matter how much money the richest people have. This in turn slows the economy and results in less prosperity all around.
A good start might be "the same people, with much stronger regulations."
Who determines how "strong" the regulations should be, and by what metric(s) should they make this determination?
Moreover, who decides which regulations are good versus which are bad, and how do they decide this? "Anyone who has over $1 million must forfeit their entire wealth to the government and shall be imprisoned for 5 years" is an example of a "strong" regulation, but not a good one.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
Whom do you nominate to manage them better?
Interesting that so few people can actually talk about the subject without taking it so personally.
This isn't about me. I'm asking what others think about this.
I don't think he's taking this personally, he's asking you to justify your statement that resources are "mismanaged." This is a debate forum, you're supposed to back up your claims. Typically when someone says something is mismanaged they have some thoughts as to how it could be managed better.
You have to consider that since the 2008 financial crisis, central banks all around the world (especially the West and Japan) have been printing money like it's going out of style. When money is created, the people that benefit the most are the ones that get to use that money first. Or in other words... the richest of the rich.
The Federal Reserve is also paying the big banks not to lend out money. So if you want to blame someone for hoarding money, blame the Fed.
Who determines how "strong" the regulations should be, and by what metric(s) should they make this determination?
Moreover, who decides which regulations are good versus which are bad, and how do they decide this? "Anyone who has over $1 million must forfeit their entire wealth to the government and shall be imprisoned for 5 years" is an example of a "strong" regulation, but not a good one.
Usually the democratic process is a good place to start.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
Whom do you nominate to manage them better?
Interesting that so few people can actually talk about the subject without taking it so personally.
This isn't about me. I'm asking what others think about this.
We aren't taking it personal. We've just hashed over this about 500 times and It's like dealing with the college freshmen in the bar on Good Will Hunting.
There are massive efforts to bring affordable clean water and low water farming techniques to impoverished areas, especially drought stricken parts of Africa. The problem is that many of those countries (Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad et et) do not have stable governments that allow or want us to use our "vast resources" to bring these people water and food because those governments know that if those people have water and food in excess they'll start to do other things with their time like learning to read and how to fight.
Timothy, Mimeslayer I would never see you as the type to advocate military force to get rid of these despots. Haven't we spent enough money and blood in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to do exactly what you are suggesting? The quality of life for women in those two countries is significantly better than before we showed up. Girls can now attend schools and be something other than baby machines.
How long should we go around pretending we have it all figured out here in the states? Perhaps the Euro guys are a bit more hands off because they took their turn at colonizing the known world already and realized they weren't going to fix anything either. (I sound like Tuss).
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Who determines how "strong" the regulations should be, and by what metric(s) should they make this determination?
Moreover, who decides which regulations are good versus which are bad, and how do they decide this? "Anyone who has over $1 million must forfeit their entire wealth to the government and shall be imprisoned for 5 years" is an example of a "strong" regulation, but not a good one.
Usually the democratic process is a good place to start.
Isnt that kind of like asking the inmates how the guards and warden should run the prison?
Quote from the_cardfather »
How long should we go around pretending we have it all figured out here in the states?
When did we figure anything out in the states? I find it funny that some want to impose what we have done and how we do it and that way doesnt work for everyone here. I dont know how they can expect it to work every where else if we cant get our stuff together here.
Here's a better question: is it inherently wrong for the richest person in the USA/world/wherever to make/have 10000000000000000x as much as the poorest? Do we believe there should be a limit to wealth disparity? What are the consequences of extremely wide wealth disparity vs those of narrow disparity? Is there a "sweet spot" that we should be striving for?
You can reverse those questions easily and they become much harder to answer. How do we force a narrow wage gap? What are the negative side effects of having a system that doesn't allow wealth to be gained beyond a certain point?
Certainly you could setup taxes in a way that would cap earnings, but what would the effects of that be? Would the rich just move out of the country? Would they setup some kind of trusts or something that would allow portions of their income to be separated to not hit the wall? Or would they just stop trying to make more money? What effects would it have if the richest 1% in America got to a certain pay scale and then just stopped trying?
Isnt that kind of like asking the inmates how the guards and warden should run the prison?
Would you rather the guards be the only ones with a say? Because remember, what you get then is this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Timothy, Mimeslayer I would never see you as the type to advocate military force to get rid of these despots. Haven't we spent enough money and blood in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to do exactly what you are suggesting? The quality of life for women in those two countries is significantly better than before we showed up. Girls can now attend schools and be something other than baby machines.
I wasn't promoting military force, I said we shouldn't go around replacing democratically elected leaders with despots like our foreign policy of the 50's-80's. I am saying we should use economic pressure on them to change. Maybe if life gets so bad that they realize they would rather have women be able to drive cars instead of nobody having anything, that could cause change.
It seems sanctions worked on Iran for their nuclear program, so why couldn't it work on say, other things?
Not saying we should do this, but what if the United States had a target nation at any one time. We use our power to cause change in that country until it is more modern. Be it building up infrastructure in countries that want to get better to placing sanctions on countries that refuse to advance until they are willing to do so? We could target things like human rights, women's rights, property rights so on and so forth and slowly bring the world into the 21st century without actually leading coups in countries and replacing their democratically elected rulers with despots.
I don't think that's a solution considering America currently has its own largest wealth disparity in American history.
How many people either starve or die of thirst in the US every year? What standard of wealth are you looking for here?
Here's a better question: is it inherently wrong for the richest person in the USA/world/wherever to make/have 10000000000000000x as much as the poorest? Do we believe there should be a limit to wealth disparity? What are the consequences of extremely wide wealth disparity vs those of narrow disparity? Is there a "sweet spot" that we should be striving for?
How many people either starve or die of thirst in the US every year? What standard of wealth are you looking for here?
About twenty million people in the US frequently have to forego meals because they can't afford food.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What number is an acceptable amount? (they are not dying) Still waiting for what standard some of you hope to obtain.
I think an ideal goal is "no-one." The realistic result would probably be less than that, but I don't think any number of people starving to death, or even going hungry, is "acceptable"; we should constantly be striving to improve the world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With so many people in the world unable to even meet the basic needs of nutritious food, clean water, safe dwelling space, basic medicine/sanitation, etc. does this speak of an incredible mismanagement of the world's resources?
I'm sure the type of people that have access and enjoy reading through these forums enjoy a standard of living MUCH higher than that bottom half and are quite removed from the hardships of it. Even the poor in America can receive tons of help from governments and charities.
I'm all for people being able to "have connections", be born into wealth, have an idea and get rich, have a skill that makes you rich etc. But there seems to come a point where it's completely harmful to the human species to be hoarding that much wealth.
Discuss...
I watched The Nut Job yesterday. It dwells on this topic quite a bit for a kids movie.
Also wealth is a very relative term. It's not like 85 people are hoarding as much water and food as the 3.5M. You're talking about things that have perceived value such as cash and stocks.
You can call it whatever you like. These people have enough "perceived value" to give the rest of those folks food and water so they don't die. I'm not demonizing them either. This is just a discussion on the imbalance in general.
I don't think that's a solution considering America currently has its own largest wealth disparity in American history.
So what will you do here in the good ol' USA, where the top 400 have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million?
I'd try living by that bottom standard of living for a while before you try apologizing for it.
Oh, you mean this?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Not really...the statistic isn't going to change much. No one, in fact said we are screwed. Not sure who you are responding to. I talked about people that don't even have clean water, safe food, etc. in comparison to those that are hoarding wealth.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A good start might be "the same people, with much stronger regulations."
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Interesting that so few people can actually talk about the subject without taking it so personally.
This isn't about me. I'm asking what others think about this.
Personally I think large wealth inequality is bad for economic prosperity. It basically sets up a feudal system, with a wealthy lord at the top, and the masses completely dependent on their charity. Such a system inevitably leads to gross abuses by those at the top, since those they are exploiting have no means to fight back. Because the masses have so little wealth, there is very little consumer spending. The spending of the few at the top cannot outweigh the impact of millions upon millions of people not having money to spend, no matter how much money the richest people have. This in turn slows the economy and results in less prosperity all around.
Who determines how "strong" the regulations should be, and by what metric(s) should they make this determination?
Moreover, who decides which regulations are good versus which are bad, and how do they decide this? "Anyone who has over $1 million must forfeit their entire wealth to the government and shall be imprisoned for 5 years" is an example of a "strong" regulation, but not a good one.
I don't think he's taking this personally, he's asking you to justify your statement that resources are "mismanaged." This is a debate forum, you're supposed to back up your claims. Typically when someone says something is mismanaged they have some thoughts as to how it could be managed better.
The Federal Reserve is also paying the big banks not to lend out money. So if you want to blame someone for hoarding money, blame the Fed.
Usually the democratic process is a good place to start.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
We aren't taking it personal. We've just hashed over this about 500 times and It's like dealing with the college freshmen in the bar on Good Will Hunting.
There are massive efforts to bring affordable clean water and low water farming techniques to impoverished areas, especially drought stricken parts of Africa. The problem is that many of those countries (Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad et et) do not have stable governments that allow or want us to use our "vast resources" to bring these people water and food because those governments know that if those people have water and food in excess they'll start to do other things with their time like learning to read and how to fight.
Timothy, Mimeslayer I would never see you as the type to advocate military force to get rid of these despots. Haven't we spent enough money and blood in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to do exactly what you are suggesting? The quality of life for women in those two countries is significantly better than before we showed up. Girls can now attend schools and be something other than baby machines.
How long should we go around pretending we have it all figured out here in the states? Perhaps the Euro guys are a bit more hands off because they took their turn at colonizing the known world already and realized they weren't going to fix anything either. (I sound like Tuss).
Isnt that kind of like asking the inmates how the guards and warden should run the prison?
When did we figure anything out in the states? I find it funny that some want to impose what we have done and how we do it and that way doesnt work for everyone here. I dont know how they can expect it to work every where else if we cant get our stuff together here.
You can reverse those questions easily and they become much harder to answer. How do we force a narrow wage gap? What are the negative side effects of having a system that doesn't allow wealth to be gained beyond a certain point?
Certainly you could setup taxes in a way that would cap earnings, but what would the effects of that be? Would the rich just move out of the country? Would they setup some kind of trusts or something that would allow portions of their income to be separated to not hit the wall? Or would they just stop trying to make more money? What effects would it have if the richest 1% in America got to a certain pay scale and then just stopped trying?
Would you rather the guards be the only ones with a say? Because remember, what you get then is this.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I wasn't promoting military force, I said we shouldn't go around replacing democratically elected leaders with despots like our foreign policy of the 50's-80's. I am saying we should use economic pressure on them to change. Maybe if life gets so bad that they realize they would rather have women be able to drive cars instead of nobody having anything, that could cause change.
It seems sanctions worked on Iran for their nuclear program, so why couldn't it work on say, other things?
How many people either starve or die of thirst in the US every year? What standard of wealth are you looking for here?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Is it really a moral question?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
About twenty million people in the US frequently have to forego meals because they can't afford food.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What number is an acceptable amount? (they are not dying) Still waiting for what standard some of you hope to obtain.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I think an ideal goal is "no-one." The realistic result would probably be less than that, but I don't think any number of people starving to death, or even going hungry, is "acceptable"; we should constantly be striving to improve the world.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.