There should be no rich as long as there are poor?

Interesting - the weathy ABUSE their power of wealth, while the poor only USE their power of numbers? The noble poor and the wicked wealthy, character traits inherent to their station in life? That's just silly.

The nature of the original post sets this up as an adversarial situation. Out tax system sets this up as an adversarial situation. Live is an adversarial situation in many ways. I wouldn't go so far as to say "enemies" but competitors.

Good point, Gravy. You're suggesting that the wealthy share with Marx the notion that the rich and the poor are inherently antagonistic. It WOULD seem that American plutocrats are, by means of their lackey, GWBush, waging class warfare against the poor. Indeed, they can do so because the poor have virtually no political power, are poorly organized, if at all, and have no resources with which to buy off their local and national politicians. The Plutocrats seem to be trying to deprive the poor of whatever security net they have as a result of FDR's (New Deal) and Lyndon Johnson's (Great Society) programs. They can't possibly believe in an everlasting Hell.

Please explain.

Just what I said, Idaho. Bush is representing the short-term unenlightened interests of the the greedy among the power elite by depriving the poor of protection from the inevitable consequences of competitive capitalism by cutting back on their security nets. This is designed to render them more economically helpless/compliant and less of an expense for the taxx-paying rich.

the reality is more accurately explained as the wealthy use their power of wealth amorally for promotion of self to the exclusion of others, and the poor don't use their power of numbers because they are too busy keeping afloat to attempt strategizing a direction.

As far as the power of numbers argument goes, there are moles everywhere: the same human characteristic that justifies unchecked wealth aquisition (under the guise of survival/prosperity) exists in the poor too to "make it", and become the haves, and who cares about the have-nots. So the power of numbers is constantly undermined by an internal defection.

I agree that systems today highlight/protray this as an adverserial process, and that's what I am pointing to as being the problem. The amoral self-propogating activity of acquiring wealth has become a runaway process (which in a world with limited resources eventually becomes immoral).

The wealth-making/prosperity system needs a method of self-restraint (how many yachts do I really need, and should I have any check over my level of want?)

(now I have to go count my yachts.......done)

Perhaps I should be more clear - please provide examples. Without examples, all I can say is - you're dead wrong. Bush is attempting to make the economic situation of all of us better by representing the need for people to own their own destiny.

Idaho, the "ownership society" is a bullsh*t sales slogan. You must know that.

In which case it could be fixed by an engineer or scientist.



Then the widget makers can be turned off, those that are entirely specialised can be recycled and those that are generally used machines can be sold/given to another company which does have a use for them.



Aaaaaahhhhh, I get what you're saying. You think I'm talking about MANAGERS. No, they're workers like everyone else (and equally necessary). I'm saying that the SHAREHOLDERS aren't necessary in the functioning of a company. The CEO is important as are lesser managers, but the shareholders usually contribute nothing beyond the initial capital.



Well except that the new janitor doesn't know the security procedures to log in after hours, that he's also expected to water the pot plants in the CEOs office, that the pot plants in the CFOs office are artificial and shouldn't be watered, that the door on floor 31 needs to be proped open or it will automatically lock and he'll be stuck in all night....

You're sharing the same prejudices as I was addressing before that blue collar labour is particularly different from white.



Any job requires time to become familiar with the particular details of the new workplace. As I demonstrated above. You're merely prejudging the two positions.



That's mostly true... though consider Stalin, power can be found in unusual places. However I do agree with you point for the main part.



I agree with you completely but I didn't think that was in doubt.



Learning to be a CEO would probably take several more years of study than janitorial skills would require. If that's the point you were trying to get across with your example I'm afraid it wasn't quite relevant since your example addressed the adjustment time to a new company, not initial training.

I agree with you entirely, but fail to see the relationship between your point and socialism. Why does the increased time required to become a CEO infuence the viability of socialism? You'll have to spell it out for me because I don't see the link.

True, shareholders are not necessary for the daily operation of a company, but without them, the company would not start up in the first place, unless you have a fabulously wealthy individual who starts the company at great personal financial risk (one shareholder), or the government puts up the money for the company (millions of uncompensated shareholders). But, I submit that people do not appreciate the things they are given as much as the things they earn and stewardship of the company is worse. Compare govt agencies to private companies. Now you can point to Norway, which is socialist and has a high GDP, but realize that the government owns most of that GDP and cannot release much money into the internal economy because every time they do, inflation skyrockets. Individuals are taxed on their net worth, effectively removing incentive to save or take care of themselves. Actual standard of living is low relative to the high GDP.

Ha...
Haha...
Hahaha...

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to take that statement seriously when Norway is consistantly ranked as the highest standard of living in the world by the United Nations Human Development Index.

That's right, NUMBER ONE, in the world.

Of course not to mention 78.4 year average life expectancy in Norway, (what's the bastion of capitalism again... 73? something like that.).

I'm sorry, but...

Ha!

EDIT: People are going to want a source on that....
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

And if you want to have a look at the general statistics of Norway and see how it kicks so much arse.
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/

Yeah, but who wants to live with that weather and the lack of spices (especially chili peppers)?

A potentially pertinent article from the scientific side of verifying the perpetuation of inequalities in market economy and in wealth distribution, by comparing it to gas molecules and energy distribution

Why it is hard to share the wealth

1. Wealth and poverty are subjective values. An individual might have access to a great resources, yet be impoverished. The term "land-poor" should be familiar. One "owns" much, but has little. This is even more the case where a person's self-worth is shaky. No matter how much wealth is accumulated, it is never enough to satisfy the craving for just a bit more; just a little "security hedge against a risky future". People often believe that those who have access to property and resources are wealthy, and that their lives are typified by ease. Not so, every bed of roses has thorns.

Voltaire wrote a little tale, The Tale of the Good Brahman" that is apropos. A wealthy and brilliant minded prince lived in the "lap of luxury" feted by all, and used to the finest of all things. The prince was never happy, never content and at the heart of his being he felt acutely the poverty of his existence. Outside the prince's gate, the lived a crippled old woman of limited mental capacity. She was clothed in rags and slept on the ground through sunshine, rain, snow and sleet. Her food consisted of what might be tossed her way by charitable strangers, or peanuts left by lazy pigeons. In spite of all her hardships, the old woman's face was creased with smiles and her songs in praise of life, art and beauty were without cease. So, Voltaire asks, who was wealthy and who poor?

The quality of life we all seek is one of plenty, or failing that at least enough to survive. In the United States of 2004 the Utopian dreams of a few centuries ago are realized. No one here starves to death, or is without the simple necessities of life. Home ownership is high, and even the "poor" have automobiles, stereo systems, and large screen televisions. Education is available to all, and the laws of the land protect the weak from depredations by the strong. It is not a perfect world, but these Untied States has gone further toward making it possible for every individual to realize their potential than all the mighty nations of history.

What is poverty? The perception that one lacks something important to their well-being? Surely, that is something that each individual determines for themselves. If I feel deprived, must that deprivation be without end? This society, without the rigid class barriers of the Old World, permits every individual to determine for themselves what "class" they belong to, and how much property they can acquire. Of course, those whose families have been diligent, frugal and wise for generations have a better chance of acquiring excess ... that's called reward. Those who are spendthrift and make no effort to improve their lot will have less material advantage.

2. The idea of "leveling" has a poor historical track record. Perhaps the first, and most successful of the leveling experiments was Sparta. Everyone had pretty much the same access to the wealth. Men lived from childhood on in military barracks, and the women lived separate communal lives. The State owned the people, and the people often rose to heroic heights. Among the Ancients, the Spartan Legal system was deemed the most just, and the harshest. The system was based on slavery, and the Spartans lived in constant dread of a Helot rebellion, so in a way it wasn't a level society at all.

Briefly after the War for American Independence, there were efforts to redistribute the property equally to Patriots. The attempt was depression, and economic disaster corrected only with the adoption of the Constitution and Federal assumption of State War Debts. The French Jacobins of the Revolution believed in leveling, and produced The Terror and economic disaster for the nation. The whole thing devolved into a military coup and assumption of dictatorial powers by Napoleon. The French tried communism without success later in the 19th century. Also during the 19th century a number of "property-less" experiments were attempted in the United States, and in a few small experiments in Russia. All such experiments eventually failed, even when they were small and modest in their goals.

Who is there to say anything positive about Communism in the 20th century, which claimed to be the Revolution of peasants and laborers against wealth and privilege? Was Stalin's USSR a "Worker's Paradise"? Did China really make a "Great Leap Forward", or accomplish a "Cultural Revolution" to institutionalize Communist Idealism? How many died in Cambodia to prove that leveling the wealth is not a "good thing"? Yet there are still legions who just can't seem to understand that systems that penalize individual initiative and effort tend to cause much more suffering than not. Welfare societies are ultimately slave societies that depend for their very existence on strong dictatorial power of government. If you want full equality, forget liberty and freedom. If you believe that society should be built upon, "To each according to his needs; from each according to his means" become used to shackles and chains.

Hi, Ash. Glad to see you back. Let me ask you what you think of the "mixed society," one that retains the impetus for innovation and creativity of capitalism but restrains its excesses by means of welfare (socialist?) programs that provide a measure of social justice and security? Should the world be condemned to choose between the two extremes of a dull but more just socialism (with the risk of totalitarianism) and unbridled rapacious capitalism (with its risk of plutocracy and the certainty of extreme poverty)?

Very very well put JL.

As the Founders so wisely foresaw, humans aren't too be trusted with unlimited and unconstrained power. That applies as well to Capitalists as it does to politicians, or religions. The Capitalist excesses of the late 19th century in both the United States and Britain clearly demonstrated the need to for public constraint, and the Progressive Party broke the trail for later legislation. Teddy Roosevelt was not a popular man among the "upper classes" with all of his reforms and trust busting. The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl on the eve of WWII pretty much required that the Federal Government enter areas that had previously been "off-limits" to it. Social Justice and Federal interference in private affairs had arrived. Actually, FDR's programs probably had less to do with ending the Great Depression than the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941.

Since that time we Americans have become accustomed to having the Federal Government play an ever more active part in our lives. LBJ mobilized his considerable powers to enact some of the most sweeping social reform legislation in the nation's history. Many of the reforms were far overdue, and apparently were necessary if we were to deliver a knockout blow to Jim Crow. It isn't difficult, especially for our more liberal brethren to find positive results for much of the social engineering legislation that we conservatives find disturbing. There is however, downsides and they should not be overlooked.

Our people have come to believe that the Federal Government should attack and solve every problem of concern to every interest group. We have surrendered much of our local autonomy and responsibility to the Federal District. State and Local governments have been weakened as local revenues are redirected to the Federal government, and local legislation is pre-empted by Washington. Political Correctness has taken offensive words out of our vocabularies, but it has also tended to reduce freedom of expression. Somehow many have lost their faith in representative government, and demand direct obedience to popular sentiment. Our idealism has tended to reduce the very real grey tones of political life to black and white where compromise is evil, and good manners a betrayal. Partisanship communicated by the greatest communications in human history has so enbittered much of our electorate that finding consensus is nigh impossible.

Balance, that is what the Constitution sought. Political balance between interest groups has always been at contention, but some changes we've adopted have, in my opinion, gone too far. I've always disliked the popular election of Senators, but that isn't likely to change. I believe that the Federal government has no place in deciding questions like abortion, or local school policies. These are just the sort of rights reserved by the Constitution for the States, localities, and individual citizens. Federal policies and the massive red-tape to insure against corruption has made it more difficult for individuals to start small businesses, and succeed. That has shifted responsibility from the individual to the government, a very dangerous trend in my opinion whether the welfare be given to the under-employed in the inner Cities, or the plutocrats in the Agro-business boardrooms. It is impossible for government to redistribute the wealth in a just manner, or to determine who is worthy and who is not. The Constitution gave the Executive certain great powers for good reason, and putting the principle war-making powers into the hands of the Executive Branch was a wise choice. The Congress can restrain by with holding funds. Like many Conservatives, I think we've become far too entangled in international agreements and that we have surrendered far too much of our national sovereignty to the United Nations.

Reponding to something in your last paragraph, Ash, I would never advocate a Robin Hoodian direct redistribution of wealth, other than the system of progressive taxation that we have now. I would advocate the removal of loopholes in the tax system; I would insist on fair wage and salary practices; I would advocate security nets in the form of social security, workers' compensation, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, in other words the necessary and just compensatory and protective programs we have had since the New Deal and that Bush43 now hungers to destroy.

JL,

We've never been so far apart as it might seem to some. Constrains and balance are important in a well functioning society. The question of just how much control, and where the balance should be struck is the issue.

I think you go too far to assume that the President "hungers to destroy" all of the social safety nets so beloved of the liberal left. Indeed, this administration seems to be the first one in my life time to seriously try to fix the "problems" of social security. If I were a young person at the beginning of a career, I'd love to have a portion of my social security tax directed instead into my own personal investment choice. There is no suggestion that SS would change for those of us in the rocking chair set, and something has needed to be done for many years.

Shifting the balance of welfare and charity from the central government is also, I think, long over due. The Federal Government was never designed to be all things to all people, and the loss of local controls has gone too far in my opinion. One should not think that I advocate the sort of decentralized government of Jefferson and the Jacobins, I remain strongly committed to the sort of strong central government that is inherent in the Constitution ... lets just restore some of the balance that was lost in the last half of the 20th century.

BTW, you might want to comment on the "explain Zen elightenment" thread. Second day of snow here in Albuquerque. The flakes seems smaller and less dense today, so far. We now have probably 5 inches of snow outside my windo on the patio cover. Everything beyond a half mile is as white as an opal.

Ash, I did what you think Bush is suggesting. I dollar-cost-averaged a good portion of my income into an index mutual fund for years. I gained a lot up until the crash. Fortunately I have my pension and property earnings. I almost feel guilty about the social security checks that I really do not need for survival. I think it exists solely for my security, and I am not insecure. My SS guarantees that others will not have to sacrifice for me should I lose my property, pension and investments. It's a question of security, not investment.
I too want a state of balance in our government; but that's what I mean by the mixed economy and society.
Keep warm, respected friend.

I know what you mean refereing to the "guilt" one feels in getting those monthly SS checks. We were prudent and prepared for our old age by savings and careful investments. Old classmates went into private practice and many of them retired much earlier than I ... and with more money. I went into public service and did very well both for myself and the public. We didn't get rich, but our pensions and other resources give us a dependable income greater than many folks earn during their most productive years. Still, that SS check has made a difference on more than one occasion.

As we got within five years of retirement, my plans became much more specific and details. I ran projections against almost every contingency I could think of, and constrained the results far more than on my most conservative analysis for other questions. I developed plans for best cases and worst case scenarios with continguencies for the most probable outcomes. In the final year, I had the detailed planning checked by two highly reputable nationally known firms specializing in wealth management for retirees. Their responses were gratifying, and one went so far as to remark I could make a living planning for other people. Ha! Though I doubled my estimates of what medical costs and insurance should be, I was still wrong by an enormous margin. I can hardly wait to become eligible for Medicare to kick-in and take some of the financial burden off of us. The point of this little rant, is that no matter how carefully and skillfully one plans, things can go wildly wrong.

So many people fail to do any planning for their own future. They live from paycheck to paycheck without saving a sous. "I want it, charge it to tomorrow". They spend their resources recklessly and think to themselves that the somehow they'll always get by. Often they do get by for a long, long time. Then when the winter snows pile up, and there isn't a blanket without a hole in it, they complain that the world has let them down. Did they go to school and get an education? Did they learn a skill and lead a productive life? What did they do with all of the opportunities that life makes available to us all? Why do so many fail to be responsible for their own well-being?

It isn't enough to complain that life is unfair, that others were "lucky" or became "wealthy" by some corrupt means or another. Those who do take responsibility for themselves and their own well-being may not end their lives with unlimited wealth, fame and all the comforts. They may have little, but they will always have their pride and knowledge that whatever their station, they earned it. True wealth is not the size of one's bank deposits so much as it is the depth of the individual's character. I've known bums sitting on the curbstones drinking Thunderbird from a paper sack wealthier than acquaintances whose lives are pampered by an army of servants. Wealth isn't outside of us, but is state of our inner resources. Whatever the government might do to provide a "safety net" for the unfortunate has to be balanced against the possible harm it may do in crippling the development of character and individual initiative.