Wealth distribution

[Sarmatian]

but it doesn't justify asking the lucky few to pay for it.

After 4 pages, you're still on square 1.

[Fragony]

After 4 pages, you're still on square 1.

All that means is that I haven't been convinced. I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing. If you keep asking the same questions you keep getting the same answers.

[Lemur]

I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing.

But don't you bear some responsibility? Isn't it at least slightly on you to respond to the various and very different points that have been made in-thread, rather than just re-stating the same position you've had all along?

A discussion, by definition, means back-and-forth. If you do not offer cogent responses, and just re-state the same point over and over ... well ... doesn't give your discussion companions much to work with.

[Fragony]

But don't you bear some responsibility? Isn't it at least slightly on you to respond to the various and very different points that have been made in-thread, rather than just re-stating the same position you've had all along?

A discussion, by definition, means back-and-forth. If you do not offer cogent responses, and just re-state the same point over and over ... well ... doesn't give your discussion companions much to work with.

My point is clear i'd say. Just neglecting other's opinion and not getting into it at all would be ruder. I don't agree. You will just have to suck it up that I look differently at things. My opinions aren't set in stone, I have changed my opinion on things many times.

[Myth]

I was pleasantly surprised by the OP and the responses on the first page. If everyone (well, most anyway) recognizes the problem, can we point a solution? Has there even been one in the past? The human desire to dominate and exert control over others is ever present, and the abuses of power and influence become more and more severe the more one gains.

If it's a capitalist western "democracy" faceless corporations will pollute, sue, extort, bribe, spread lies and propaganda and basically do anything for those few who own them. Those few then are above the law and regular folk. They can own politicians, media, patents, whatever. They are untouchable and further increasing their wealth is only a means to obtaining more power.

If it's some sort of totalitarian/autocratic government the same things happen but are done by the ruling party and the secret police.

The only difference is that in the first scenario the people are being given the illusion of freedom (you are free to buy a 2.6 million dollar house. No one is stopping you.) and in the second one you get some social benefits like health care, school and security, but at the cost of total control, indoctrination and the secret police labeling "enemies within".

Overall both systems suck hard. The flaw with today's society is that the whole currency system and the way we conceptualize economics is flawed. If all we ever had in the world were goods and services produced and exchanged between people, then each man would be worth as much as the value they provide to their community. But now we make money from money: loans, mortgages, forex, stock market and a thousand other tricks that make money out of nothing. We no longer see currency as a convenient means of exchanging goods or services, it is now its own demon that ran away with our lives.

And since the ones who manufacture money out of nothing also say how much it is worth and how much we get, it's easy to see how working hard and voting doesn't mean jack in today's world.

I am no expert on economics though. I'd still go back to gold standard, but hey, Qaddafi tried it and he got killed so... Actually, what is the official reason for removing the gold standard and allowing privately held central banks? Because the world bank said so?

[Husar]

I was pleasantly surprised by the OP and the responses on the first page. If everyone (well, most anyway) recognizes the problem, can we point a solution?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053575453

?

[Lemur]

The noted Commie pinkos from Google explain why stagnating and falling incomes for the middle-and-lower tier people are a bad thing all around.

The stagnation in middle-class wages is not just a middle-class problem. It's an economic problem. And it's one of the main reasons that global economic growth is so lousy.

Why do stagnant middle-class wages hurt the economy?

Because the middle-class folks whose wages are stagnant are the global economy's biggest spenders.

And when they don't have money to spend, their lack of spending hurts not just them but all the companies that depend on them for revenue.

Including, Schmidt pointed out, Google.

Put differently, one company's expenses (wages) are another company's revenues. So, collectively, when companies are cutting wages, they're also cutting their own future revenue growth.

Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible — that wages as a percent of the economy are now near an all-time low (see chart below). And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak.

Looked at from this perspective, ruthless cost-cutting with employees is just another variant of the Tragedy of the Commons.

The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory [...] according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, act contrary to the group's long-term best interests by depleting the common resource.

Or to put it even more bluntly, when a Walmart executive complains that his customers have no money, he is whining about a mess he helped create.

[Husar]

All that means is that I haven't been convinced. I am open to be convinced, but it has to be convincing. If you keep asking the same questions you keep getting the same answers.

But my arguments are convincing. I have in fact convinced you, you just refuse to accept it.

edit: Maybe you'll like this argument: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgr...-poor-muslims/

[Fragony]

But my arguments are convincing. I have in fact convinced you, you just refuse to accept it.

edit: Maybe you'll like this argument: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgr...-poor-muslims/

I didn't bring islam into the equation, so why do you? Just because I don't like the islam that makes sense? How? Is there any double-standard I apparantly have, then please kindly oblige.