Wealth distribution

**Fragony** · 01-24-2014, 16:18

Income equality isn't a bad thing, it benefits the middle classes and is ultimatily better for the economy as more people have more to spend, but it doesn't justify asking the lucky few to pay for it. It's just symbolism not pragmatism. Cut out your own fat as we say here. The fat being the government who is always out of money because they spend too much. Lower the taxes.

**Sarmatian** · 01-24-2014, 16:25

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

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

**Fragony** · 01-24-2014, 16:59

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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** · 01-24-2014, 17:14

Originally Posted by Fragony

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** · 01-24-2014, 17:49

Originally Posted by Lemur

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** · 01-24-2014, 18:15

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** · 01-24-2014, 19:01

Originally Posted by 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?

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

?

**Husar** · 01-24-2014, 18:11

Originally Posted by Fragony

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** · 01-24-2014, 20:09

Originally Posted by Husar

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.