The rich are getting richer
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,964
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
05 Apr 2012, 2:56 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This isn't about me wanting more, hell I am quite fine with what I have....its about the issues that such a large class division create for the entire society. I'm not making this personal so why try and provoke an emotional response by dismissing my opinions as 'whine, whine, whine.'? that seems a tad bit immature.
I have no problem with disagreements at all. I am disagreeable and I expect disagreement. No big deal.
Why complain about what is never going to change. A waste of breath and time.
ruveyn
Well I would hope things can maybe change for the better...why is it so bad that I don't just want to submit to 'this is the way things are and no one can do anything about it.'?
_________________
We won't go back.
05 Apr 2012, 3:01 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This isn't about me wanting more, hell I am quite fine with what I have....its about the issues that such a large class division create for the entire society. I'm not making this personal so why try and provoke an emotional response by dismissing my opinions as 'whine, whine, whine.'? that seems a tad bit immature.
I have no problem with disagreements at all. I am disagreeable and I expect disagreement. No big deal.
Why complain about what is never going to change. A waste of breath and time.
ruveyn
Well I would hope things can maybe change for the better...why is it so bad that I don't just want to submit to 'this is the way things are and no one can do anything about it.'?
The human race (our kind, homo sapien sapien) has been around between 150,000 and 250,000 years. The only thing that has improved is the technology. Our character has not changed since God invented Dirt.
ruveyn
Gravechylde
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 196
Location: Funeralopolis
05 Apr 2012, 3:16 pm
ruveyn wrote:
The human race (our kind, homo sapien sapien) has been around between 150,000 and 250,000 years. The only thing that has improved is the technology. Our character has not changed since God invented Dirt.
ruveyn
ruveyn
I agree that we are not as far evolved as many might think, but we have grown a lot since then as people. Even having a civilization is a huge step forward from when modern humans first emerged. Not to mention, all the advancements of structure, rules, and economy since the beginnings of civilization. There are many problems that still exist, and we still have a long way to go before we truly have a peaceful society, but I do think we are heading that way.
this conversation reminded me of this picture.
Image Link
_________________
I speak with a whisper and feel with a shout
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,964
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
05 Apr 2012, 3:19 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This isn't about me wanting more, hell I am quite fine with what I have....its about the issues that such a large class division create for the entire society. I'm not making this personal so why try and provoke an emotional response by dismissing my opinions as 'whine, whine, whine.'? that seems a tad bit immature.
I have no problem with disagreements at all. I am disagreeable and I expect disagreement. No big deal.
Why complain about what is never going to change. A waste of breath and time.
ruveyn
Well I would hope things can maybe change for the better...why is it so bad that I don't just want to submit to 'this is the way things are and no one can do anything about it.'?
The human race (our kind, homo sapien sapien) has been around between 150,000 and 250,000 years. The only thing that has improved is the technology. Our character has not changed since God invented Dirt.
ruveyn
Well then everything's pointless after all I guess.
_________________
We won't go back.
05 Apr 2012, 3:48 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
05 Apr 2012, 5:32 pm
CoMF wrote:
As I've stated before, the rich are indeed getting richer. My question still stands: What are you going to do about it?
I'll tell you what I've done. I only deal with my Credit Union. I don't shop at "big box marts" if I can help it; when possible, I try to buy things from companies that care about their workers. I buy my vehicles used and combine errands so that I don't waste fuel. I do my best not to fall into the trap of consumerism; I try not to impulse buy things which I don't absolutely need, and when I do, I look for value. While some things which I find "unfair" are admittedly beyond my control, I found that these practices improve my quality of life more than petitioning my elected officials to take away from those who have greater material wealth than me.
I'll tell you what I've done. I only deal with my Credit Union. I don't shop at "big box marts" if I can help it; when possible, I try to buy things from companies that care about their workers. I buy my vehicles used and combine errands so that I don't waste fuel. I do my best not to fall into the trap of consumerism; I try not to impulse buy things which I don't absolutely need, and when I do, I look for value. While some things which I find "unfair" are admittedly beyond my control, I found that these practices improve my quality of life more than petitioning my elected officials to take away from those who have greater material wealth than me.
Such a hipster!
05 Apr 2012, 6:20 pm
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
05 Apr 2012, 6:49 pm
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other part is that Marxists are generally either economic illiterates or naive gullible suckers who ignore human nature. Personally, I define economic freedom in the only logical way, the freedom to spend my money as I elect to.
05 Apr 2012, 7:21 pm
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other part is that Marxists are generally either economic illiterates or naive gullible suckers who ignore human nature. Personally, I define economic freedom in the only logical way, the freedom to spend my money as I elect to.
I don't think economic literacy or knowledge of human nature has anything to do with values. One can study the economics of capitalist systems in detached analytic framework without necessarily agreeing with the moral outcome of the system. I think liassez-faire advocates have a lot in common with Marxists in that they mix subjective moral claims regarding "natural rights", "value", and "freedom" and treat them as if they were objective fact. I find this an annoying type of sophistry.
I also don't think pure liassez-faire capitalism is any more compatible with human nature than Marxism. If all people naturally loved liassez-faire and thought it provided the most freedom and justice to every person alive there wouldn't have been such a history of strife and occasional violence between labor and owners/industrialists. If there were no excesses and general dissatisfaction in liassez-faire capitalism the ideas Karl Marx wouldn't have gained traction.
05 Apr 2012, 8:07 pm
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other part is that Marxists are generally either economic illiterates or naive gullible suckers who ignore human nature. Personally, I define economic freedom in the only logical way, the freedom to spend my money as I elect to.
I don't think economic literacy or knowledge of human nature has anything to do with values. One can study the economics of capitalist systems in detached analytic framework without necessarily agreeing with the moral outcome of the system. I think liassez-faire advocates have a lot in common with Marxists in that they mix subjective moral claims regarding "natural rights", "value", and "freedom" and treat them as if they were objective fact. I find this an annoying type of sophistry.
I also don't think pure liassez-faire capitalism is any more compatible with human nature than Marxism. If all people naturally loved liassez-faire and thought it provided the most freedom and justice to every person alive there wouldn't have been such a history of strife and occasional violence between labor and owners/industrialists. If there were no excesses and general dissatisfaction in liassez-faire capitalism the ideas Karl Marx wouldn't have gained traction.
There is a saying in business, "If you have too many principles, you end up having no money" business isn't about morals its about getting as much out of it as you possibly can for yourself and those close to you. This is the mantra of capitalism and what ultimately ends up happening under Marxism.
05 Apr 2012, 8:53 pm
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other part is that Marxists are generally either economic illiterates or naive gullible suckers who ignore human nature. Personally, I define economic freedom in the only logical way, the freedom to spend my money as I elect to.
I don't think economic literacy or knowledge of human nature has anything to do with values. One can study the economics of capitalist systems in detached analytic framework without necessarily agreeing with the moral outcome of the system. I think liassez-faire advocates have a lot in common with Marxists in that they mix subjective moral claims regarding "natural rights", "value", and "freedom" and treat them as if they were objective fact. I find this an annoying type of sophistry.
I also don't think pure liassez-faire capitalism is any more compatible with human nature than Marxism. If all people naturally loved liassez-faire and thought it provided the most freedom and justice to every person alive there wouldn't have been such a history of strife and occasional violence between labor and owners/industrialists. If there were no excesses and general dissatisfaction in liassez-faire capitalism the ideas Karl Marx wouldn't have gained traction.
There is a saying in business, "If you have too many principles, you end up having no money" business isn't about morals its about getting as much out of it as you possibly can for yourself and those close to you. This is the mantra of capitalism and what ultimately ends up happening under Marxism.
Which makes the perfect argument against unbridled rule-of-the-jungle capitalism. It's a system that gives sociopaths free-reign and crashes the entire economy, and with no government sefety-nets that means people finding themselves unable to feed themselves. If that's the kind of morality you want to promote, don't be surprised if the peasants eventually revolt and gather the severed heads of the business elite.
05 Apr 2012, 9:43 pm
marshall wrote:
If that's the kind of morality you want to promote, don't be surprised if the peasants eventually revolt and gather the severed heads of the business elite.
That last time that happened was in 1793. In general the peasants don't revolt regardless of how bad things are. Revolutions are started by intellectuals who come from the upper classes.
Don't count on the Proles. All they require is some strong drink and enough food to keep from starving. If things get bad enough the government will issue food stamps precisely to keep the Proles quiet.
ruveyn
05 Apr 2012, 9:53 pm
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
But how much economic freedom do people really have in this society? I mean unless your extremely wealthy there's not exactly endless options. What it's turned into is peoples worth being measured by how much wealth they've accumulated. People are barred from many things due to not having enough money........it would seem maybe capitalism does not work so well for humans. I guess communism wasn't the only thing that failed when put into action.
It depends on what you define as economic freedom I guess. If you define economic freedom as being financially independent, that's a fairly small group. If you define economic freedom as in freedom in exchange of goods and services, people have quite a lot of freedom. Everyone is a trader in one form or another, a worker trades his labor for money, a shareholder trades his money for ownership in a company and so on.
People being measured by how much money they have is no difference than a painter being measured based on the quality of his art or the same for a writer. People are judged by what they have done and money is a measure of this, admiration is another.
The problem is freedom is just another one of those window dressing words used to sell an ideology invented to benefit one group at the expense of another. Everyone likes the sound of the word freedom, but every ideology gives a different definition. Marxists have their own definition of freedom.
Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other part is that Marxists are generally either economic illiterates or naive gullible suckers who ignore human nature. Personally, I define economic freedom in the only logical way, the freedom to spend my money as I elect to.
I don't think economic literacy or knowledge of human nature has anything to do with values. One can study the economics of capitalist systems in detached analytic framework without necessarily agreeing with the moral outcome of the system. I think liassez-faire advocates have a lot in common with Marxists in that they mix subjective moral claims regarding "natural rights", "value", and "freedom" and treat them as if they were objective fact. I find this an annoying type of sophistry.
I also don't think pure liassez-faire capitalism is any more compatible with human nature than Marxism. If all people naturally loved liassez-faire and thought it provided the most freedom and justice to every person alive there wouldn't have been such a history of strife and occasional violence between labor and owners/industrialists. If there were no excesses and general dissatisfaction in liassez-faire capitalism the ideas Karl Marx wouldn't have gained traction.
There is a saying in business, "If you have too many principles, you end up having no money" business isn't about morals its about getting as much out of it as you possibly can for yourself and those close to you. This is the mantra of capitalism and what ultimately ends up happening under Marxism.
Which makes the perfect argument against unbridled rule-of-the-jungle capitalism. It's a system that gives sociopaths free-reign and crashes the entire economy, and with no government sefety-nets that means people finding themselves unable to feed themselves. If that's the kind of morality you want to promote, don't be surprised if the peasants eventually revolt and gather the severed heads of the business elite.
So, just to summarize, you are saying "If sociopaths are given free reign in our economic system and never physically hurt someone, the natural consequence is that the downtrodden decapitate people? That sounds like a case for more police and control of the populace if anything ever did. At least in my book crashing a financial system that everyone including the saber-wielders were happy to benefit from until they had to face consequences is less bad than decapitating people.
