‘It Is Utterly Impossible to Be Rich without Committing Injustice'

[Audie]

While I agree with your overall point, I think your use of the word "take" isn't justified.
To "take" somehow implies, in my ears, that it's been taken and not earned.

It's not like Jeff Bozos is standing next to you holding a gun and forcing you to use amazon services...

He earned his money, he didn't take it.
And by "earn" I don't mean (necessarily) that he deserves it. Just that he earned it in terms of hims creating a company that sells products and services, and in return he received an enormous amount of money from paying customers that bought those products and services - freely, by their own choice.

When you have a succesfull business, then you make lots of money.
Even if you yourself haven't lifted a finger and instead hired a bunch of people to do all the work for you.

The people doing all the work would be doing some
lesser work otherwise. Or none.

 

[joe1776]

While I agree with your overall point, I think your use of the word "take" isn't justified.
To "take" somehow implies, in my ears, that it's been taken and not earned.

It's not like Jeff Bozos is standing next to you holding a gun and forcing you to use amazon services...

He earned his money, he didn't take it.
And by "earn" I don't mean (necessarily) that he deserves it. Just that he earned it in terms of hims creating a company that sells products and services, and in return he received an enormous amount of money from paying customers that bought those products and services - freely, by their own choice.

When you have a succesfull business, then you make lots of money.
Even if you yourself haven't lifted a finger and instead hired a bunch of people to do all the work for you.

You object to my use of the word take. I have a problem with your word earned. Bezos was born gifted with high intelligence. He didn't earn his IQ. He shouldn't be rewarded as though his IQ is a lifetime achievement.

Moreover, he just bought the most expensive mansion in California to go along with his magnificent cars and yacht. I'd call that taking more than you need.

A society is a cooperative effort. Asking citizens to cooperate in a competitive economy that many can't share in equally is dumb.

 

[Audie]

You object to my use of the word take. I have a problem with your word earned. Bezos was born gifted with high intelligence. He didn't earn his IQ. It shouldn't be rewarded as though its a lifetime achievement.

Moreover, he just bought the most expensive mansion in California to go along with his magnificent cars and yacht. I'd call that taking more than you need.

A society is a cooperative effort. Asking citizens to cooperate in a competitive economy that many can't share in equally is dumb.

That last sentence is so absurd that we hope for your sake
you will delete it.

When did paying for something mean taking it?

You do know there's a billion people or something living
on less than 2 dollars a day.

You live closer to Bezos style than they do to you.

Prease exprain how this vocab and morality work out.

 

[Nakosis]

In his Homily on 1 Timothy 12:3–4,71 the early church father St. John Chrysostom (died 407 CE) made the bold statement that "it is utterly impossible to be rich without committing injustice" (οὐκ ἔστιν οὐκ ἔστι μὴ ἀδικοῦντα πλουτεῖν) and moreover said that wealth is tantamount to theft, for ‘its origin must have come from an injustice against someone’, an ἀδικία (Timothy 1, 3, v.3, v. 8; 6, v.10; John Chrysostom in Schaff, 1886, Vol. 13, p.447). He then posed a rhetorical question: ‘Is this not an evil, that you alone should have the Lord’s property, that you alone should enjoy what is common?’, finally concluding: "Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs" (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5).

Arguably, if you earned $5,000 a day every day, beginning in 1492 when Columbus discovered America, you would probably still have less money than Jeff Bezos. The richest 26 people in the world have as much wealth as the 50% most economically disadvantaged of the global population - all 3.5 billion of the planet's poorest. Jeff Bezos has personal income equivalent to the GDP of a number of sovereign countries, such as New Zealand.

Surely an economic system that enables such gross income disparities to not only exist but widen with every passing year, often to the detriment of the environment to boot, is an inherently 'unjust' one?

The counter-argument, from libertarian free-marketeers, is that the financially well-endowed are specially-talented wealth creators. Jeff Bezos created a service that billions of human beings wanted and so he reaps the dividends.

But the question of acquiring wealth and the question of keeping it are distinct. 'To be rich' is not just about acquisition but retention. Whereas Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $130 billion, George Soros has "only" $8 billion because he has donated more than $32 billion to philanthropic causes.

It’s one thing to claim you ascended the ranks of the 0.01% through talent, thrift and graft. It’s quite another to justify using that wealth for one's own private luxury, with plush houses and greco-roman sculptures of oneself rather than giving aid to people living hand-to-mouth in an effort to pay their exorbitant rents or dying without medical coverage from untreated malaria.

Is there a “maximum moral income” beyond which it’s inexcusable not to give away your superfluous money?

I'm rich, your poor = injustice...

Depends on how you define rich, poor, injustice.

 

[Audie]

I'm rich, your poor = injustice...

Depends on how you define rich, poor, injustice.

Of course.

But there is no satisfying a social justice warrior.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You object to my use of the word take. I have a problem with your word earned. Bezos was born gifted with high intelligence. He didn't earn his IQ. He shouldn't be rewarded as though his IQ is a lifetime achievement.

I don't feel like his "reward" was for having the high IQ. It rather is for founding amazon and expanding it into what it is today. Surely his IQ helped with that.

Just like Ronaldo's or Ibrahimovic's or Federer's exceptional physical traits helped them to become the athletes they are today.

I too played tennis back in my day. I'm actually of the generation of Kim Clijsters and Xavier Malisse. I sparred and went on training camps with both. I actually have beaten Malisse a few times as well, in both friendlies as well as tournaments. Then my body started to block. First the knee, then the shoulder, then the back. I eventually quit playing for other reasons, but if I were to have stuck with it, I'm fairly certain my body wouldn't have been able to withstand the strain put unto it by the harsh training schedule of such high level athleticism.

I don't feel like I'm "entitled" to a piece of their pie, nore do I feel that they haven't "earned" the money they gained through their tennis carreer. Eventhough it's their genetics that allowed them to do this. Not only that, but it certainly is requirement nr 1 and it definatly doesn't count as an "accomplishment" either.

It's estimated that more then 80% of humans simply do not have the body that would withstand the strain put unto it by professional sports. No matter the talent, will, money, etc people can bring to the table. If the body fails, there will be no sports carreer.

Why should IQ be any different?
I'm sure there are a lot of high IQ people, who simply do not have the economic insight or the willpower or whatever else is needed, to build a giant company the likes of Amazon.

Likewise, I also know low educated people who are barely able to add and subtract without using a calculator, who for example started out with building simple furniture in their garage and who today have an international business providing high quality furniture to most of western europe.

No chance of that happening in sports.
Building a business is more then high IQ. Nore is high IQ really a fundamental necessity.

Moreover, he just bought the most expensive mansion in California to go along with his magnificent cars and yacht. I'd call that taking more than you need.

I call that "spending your own money".

I have my own opinion about buying a mansion like that, but who am I to tell him what he can and can't do with his money?

A society is a cooperative effort. Asking citizens to cooperate in a competitive economy that many can't share in equally is dumb.

To me, that is a contradiction in terms.
You can't have competition while at the same time "sharing equally".

When there is competition, there are going to be winners and losers.

 

[joe1776]

You can't have competition while at the same time "sharing equally".When there is competition, there are going to be winners and losers.

You are making my point. I'll try to explain and keep it brief.

I'll start by saying that a regulated, competitive, free-market, on products, mixed with socialized healthcare is the best option for an economy currently but only because a fully cooperative economy requires an efficient and corruption-free government to manage it and we humans have yet to invent such a thing.

Since a society is a cooperative endeavor, ideally all citizens should have the incentive to cooperate fully for an equal share of the benefits. When you have citizens compete for survival, you make it impossible for the citizens born without the gifts to compete to get an equal share. They were born losers. So, why should they cooperate?

Citizens born with a 130 IQ and infected with greed can own far more private property than they need in ten lifetimes while the born losers can work their *** off and never own anything.

 

[Nakosis]

Is there a “maximum moral income” beyond which it’s inexcusable not to give away your superfluous money?

Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

What good is giving money away? Then you are only teaching folks how to depend on others.
It's this mentality that is the leading cause of the wage gap.

 

[Nakosis]

You are making my point. I'll try to explain and keep it brief.

I'll start by saying that a regulated, competitive, free-market, on products, mixed with socialized healthcare is the best option for an economy currently but only because a fully cooperative economy requires an efficient and corruption-free government to manage it and we humans have yet to invent such a thing.

We have socialized health, it is just privately ran. What do you mean by "socialized?

Since a society is a cooperative endeavor, ideally all citizens should have the incentive to cooperate fully for an equal share of the benefits. When you have citizens compete for survival, you make it impossible for the citizens born without the gifts to compete to get an equal share. They were born losers. So, why should they cooperate?

Equal work - equal share anything else would be immoral.

Citizens born with a 130 IQ and infected with greed can own far more private property than they need in ten lifetimes while the born losers can work their *** off and never own anything.

Obviously this is not something they could do on their own. Rich folks have to have to cooperation of the society they live in to become wealthy. Unless they are cheating/stealing. Where I would agree if they are cheating/stealing, their ill gotten gains should be taken from them.

If they've earned their money legally, they've done it according to society's rules. I don't see any problem with that.

Bezos has a billion+ dollars, so what? That doesn't affect me, how much I can earn, how much I can contribute. I don't understand the worry about how much someone else has. Bezos could have a zillion dollars, why would I care. He could horde all of it for all I care. Him hording a zillion dollars has zero effect on my life.

 

[joe1776]

We have socialized health, it is just privately ran. What do you mean by "socialized?

I favor Single-payer. The free market is simply the wrong tool for the job of providing healthcare at a reasonable cost.

Bezos has a billion+ dollars, so what? That doesn't affect me, how much I can earn, how much I can contribute. I don't understand the worry about how much someone else has. Bezos could have a zillion dollars, why would I care. He could horde all of it for all I care. Him hording a zillion dollars has zero effect on my life.

Bezos isn't the problem. The problem is that the system that make Bezos possible can't adequately provide for millions who lack Bezo's IQ and Business acumen.

 

[Nakosis]

I favor Single-payer. The free market is simply the wrong tool for the job of providing healthcare at a reasonable cost.

Ok, but we are not using free market. We are using a system that combines money from everyone to pay for each according to their need. You want to combine it further, that will just make a larger pool of money for the medical industry to draw from. Single payer fine, but this by itself won't solve the high cost of healthcare.

Bezos isn't the problem. The problem is that the system that make Bezos possible can't adequately provide for millions who lack Bezo's IQ and Business acumen.

Why couldn't it adequately provide for everyone? IMO, the problem is not the system, it's a lack of training/understanding of how each individual can benefit from the system.

There are different types of intelligence. One does have to play to their strengths but there is room for everybody. In fact the more people that are successful the better for everyone. Sure there are those that honestly can't provide for themselves. Let's help them, the more successful each individual is, the more the "disabled" can be helped. We need a system that promotes more people becoming like Bezos.

 

[1213]

...
The source of poverty is our guilt, and the government's greed. They, not business owners (who pay twice in taxes as they are employees and employers) are the 1%.

I agree that greed is bad and I also am against obligatory taxes and interest, because they make people slaves.

 

[joe1776]

Ok, but we are not using free market. We are using a system that combines money from everyone to pay for each according to their need. You want to combine it further, that will just make a larger pool of money for the medical industry to draw from. Single payer fine, but this by itself won't solve the high cost of healthcare.

Medicare provides a safety net for some but otherwise the doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are operating in a free market with inadequate controls for fraud.

Doctors, hospitals, drug companies and malpractice lawyers feel no remorse in over-billing deep pocket insurance companies....and the deep-pocket insurance companies don't care as long as they can add a profit onto the expense for fraud and pass it along to consumers.

The basic problem is that there are no well-informed consumers spending their own money to control fraud as there is in the manufacturing of products, for example.

Why couldn't it adequately provide for everyone? IMO, the problem is not the system, it's a lack of training/understanding of how each individual can benefit from the system.

We can walk into the hospital's nursery and look at two babies; one a little white boy and the other a little black girl and know that the odds of a bright economic future aren't equal. That isn't fair.

 

[Audie]

Medicare provides a safety net for some but otherwise the doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurers are operating .....

We can walk into the hospital's nursery and look at two babies; one a little white boy and the other a little black girl and know that the odds of a bright economic future aren't equal. That isn't fair.

It is not fair to the child but the problem is cultural.
The disadvantage is cultural.

It has nothing to do with medicare, well informed consumers
or anything else you wrote about.

 

[Audie]

I agree that greed is bad and I also am against obligatory taxes and interest, because they make people slaves.

How do you determine when wanting to have a bit
of surplus over your minimum daily needs turns into greed?

You live in outlandish material splendor compared to at
least a billion of earth's inhabitants.

 

[Audie]

Ok, but we are not using free market. We are using a system that combines money from everyone to pay for each according to their need. You want to combine it further, that will just make a larger pool of money for the medical industry to draw from. Single payer fine, but this by itself won't solve the high cost of healthcare.



Why couldn't it adequately provide for everyone? IMO, the problem is not the system, it's a lack of training/understanding of how each individual can benefit from the system.

There are different types of intelligence. One does have to play to their strengths but there is room for everybody. In fact the more people that are successful the better for everyone. Sure there are those that honestly can't provide for themselves. Let's help them, the more successful each individual is, the more the "disabled" can be helped. We need a system that promotes more people becoming like Bezos.

The system?
Wait for that, try to elect someone who will
"fix" it? Ha.
The culture of the group to which a person belongs
counts for vastly more than does the "system"
under which they live.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you determine when wanting to have a bit
of surplus over your minimum daily needs turns into greed?

Easy answer...
Whatever I want is reasonable.
Anyone wanting more is greedy.

 

[joe1776]

It is not fair to the child but the problem is cultural. The disadvantage is cultural.

It's the job of governments to manage cultures. The cultural disadvantage of which you speak is created by a competitive economy that allows us to predict winners and losers at birth. The competition is rigged. It's unfair.

It has nothing to do with medicare, well informed consumers
or anything else you wrote about.

Food, shelter, clean water, fuel for heating and healthcare --- it should not be reasonably predictable at birth that some people will have what they need to live well in their lifetimes and some won't.

 

[Audie]

It's the job of governments to manage cultures. The cultural disadvantage of which you speak is created by a competitive economy that allows us to predict winners and losers at birth. The competition is rigged. It's unfair.



Food, shelter, clean water, fuel for heating and healthcare --- it should not be reasonably predictable at birth that some people will have what they need to live well in their lifetimes and some won't.

The job of the government to manage cultures. Really?
What a completely weird idea.
Of course, the statement is vague far beyond the point
of being meaningless.

The cultural disadvantage of which you speak is created by a competitive economy that allows us to predict winners and losers at birth

Also a weird statement. Japan has a competitive economy.
The economy did not create the culture. They all look Japanese.

In the USA, Asians have a long history of being heavily discriminated
against, something few Americans seem aware of now, as no
big fuss has been made as is the case with other minority groups.

Asians just get busy, work hard and excel. THAT has been a source
of a lot more discrimination, and many anti-Asian laws or covert
policies, from "Asian exclusion act" through to setting far higher
admission standards at top universities to limit their enrollment.

There are a lot of subcultures in the USA, native tribes, and
immigrants from everywhere. Some groups are very successful,
some are not. Sure we can predict winners and losers and it is
on the basis of that group's culture.

If you are Jewish, Iranian, East Indian, Japanese, to name a few
you have a very good chance. if you are Native American, Black,
Latino, white trailer trash, not so much.

What rigging there is is against all of those, but some
outdo the majority and beat them at their own game.
So your explanation just does not stand up to
even a cursory glance.

You do know this, right?

 

[Nakosis]

We can walk into the hospital's nursery and look at two babies; one a little white boy and the other a little black girl and know that the odds of a bright economic future aren't equal. That isn't fair.

You can walk into a hospital with two Black little girls. One born to wealthy parents, one born to poor parents and know that the odds of a bright economic future aren't equal. I suppose that ain't fair either. How do you fix that?

The biggest indicator of a person's future success is not the color of their skin but the amount of money their parents have in the bank.