Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Secret Chief]

It can be hard indeed to spot sarcasm or a Poe on RF.

A Poe?

 

[Revoltingest]

A Poe?

Urban Dictionary: Poe

A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[Secret Chief]

Urban Dictionary: Poe

A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.

www.urbandictionary.com

I did do a spot of googling but didn't come across that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did do a spot of googling but didn't come across that.

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Secret Chief]

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RF could indeed be a veritable nest of Poes! Maybe I'm one...

 

[PureX]

Except that your concerns can be, and are addressed in a way that preserves the benefits and advantages of a market system over a command economy.

These are terms that capitalists use to justify their greed based system and pretend it's somehow oh-so superior to any possible alternative. There's no such thing as a "command economy". This is just a made up term meant to imply that any alternative to capitalism is some form of totalitarian dictatorship.

There are no "advantages" to a capitalist economic system to anyone but the capital investors. But when we take their total control over commercial enterprise away from them and share it among the people that are being effected by that commercial enterprise (workers, consumers, and community) the benefits will be shared by all.

Except that it seems we don't have any more homeless after the tech boom than before it. I'm not indifferent to the problem of homelessness or poverty, but you keep claiming that it is greatly increasing and I really don't think you can support that claim.

All you have to do is look, but you're not going to do that, are you. Just search 'homelessness in the U.S.' and you will find endless shocking images, scenes, and documentaries showing us things that none of us has ever before witnessed in this country. Town after town after town after town in EVERY STATE gutted by poverty and left to rot, along with the few people left living in them. Huge homeless encampments in cities all across the U.S.,. Yet you read some BS Forbes article telling you not to believe your eyes, so you clamped them shut and bought their claims. Why? All you had to do is LOOK!

You seem to think that a net worth in the millions or billions consists of money or bullion sitting in vaults somewhere. That is not how our modern economy works. There is no easily taking back all the "wealth" that you declare to be excess.

And you still aren't getting that this is not about the money, it's about CONTROL. And under capitalism, money IS CONTROL. Ownership IS CONTROL. Capitol IS CONTROL. "Assets" ARE CONTROL. It's all about who has control and what they are doing with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

RF could indeed be a veritable nest of Poes! Maybe I'm one...

You aren't?

 

[MikeF]

All you have to do is look, but you're not going to do that, are you. Just search 'homelessness in the U.S.' and you will find endless shocking images, scenes, and documentaries showing us things that none of us has ever before witnessed in this country. Town after town after town after town in EVERY STATE gutted by poverty and left to rot, along with the few people left living in them. Huge homeless encampments in cities all across the U.S.,. Yet you read some BS Forbes article telling you not to believe your eyes, so you clamped them shut and bought their claims. Why? All you had to do is LOOK!

Not Forbes magazine, I provided information sourced from the US Census Bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, census takers are great at tracking down and interviewing the homeless. And government agencies are known for sharing news that makes government look like it's failing us.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, census takers are great and tracking down and interviewing the homeless.

I can't speak to the methodology employed in generating the statistics provided, but I have no problem approaching the presented data with some reserve unless and until it is shown the concern is addressed or accounted for.

Do you harbor the same level of reserve when viewing homeless advocacy sites that are trying to generate a call to action through an emotional appeal?

 

[PureX]

I can't speak to the methodology employed in generating the statistics provided, but I have no problem approaching the presented data with some reserve unless and until it is shown the concern is addressed or accounted for.

Do you harbor the same level of reserve when viewing homeless advocacy sites that are trying to generate a call to action through an emotional appeal?

Why can't you just LOOK FOR YOURSELF? The images are everywhere but on the big corporate owned news outlets. And in Forbes "rich guy's are us" magazine. Here, I'll help you out ...

Both of these channels have crisscrossed the U.S for several years and have visited every state, big cities and small towns. And neither of them has an ax to grind with anyone. They show the good and the bad.

 

[Heyo]

What you are suggesting is that we take money away from corporations

Nope, he said

cap the acquisition of personal wealth

(emphasis mine)

that are using it to make payroll, research and development, expanding, etc. etc. whatever corporations use money for, and use that money for people at the bottom. How can you say this would not harm the economy in the least?

You might now say that we cap the amount private people can invest so that it harms the economy indirectly, but 1. it's not that we burn the money, it's still there, and 2. we cap the amount single people have on the economy. Wealth that can be used to select who gets a chance at research and development is inherently undemocratic. And we haven't talked about the wealth that is used to influence government, totally bypassing the power of the electorate.
A society where money decides what is done is called a plutocracy. You want that? Do you have enough money to play that game?

 

[MikeF]

Why can't you just LOOK FOR YOURSELF? The images are everywhere but on the big corporate owned news outlets. And in Forbes "rich guy's are us" magazine. Here, I'll help you out ...


Both of these channels have crisscrossed the U.S for several years and have visited every state, big cities and small towns.

That there are homeless is not what I am pushing back against. That it sucks to be homeless is not what I am pushing back against. I am pushing back against your claim that homelessness is increasing dramatically and the US is now equivalent to a third world country.

California, due to its climate and policies regarding homelessness attracts low and no income people from across the country, as your video acknowledged. If tent city are now tolerated but weren't tolerated before, the tent city is going to permit the concentration of the homeless. Concentrated homelessness has a different visual impact from dispersed homelessness. The existence of tolerated concentrations of homeless does not in and of itself speak to whether or not overall numbers are, or have been, increasing, decreasing, or staying roughly the same.

As to declining small towns, that is a result of changes in agriculture and other natural resource industries. Small rural agricultural towns do not offer sufficient employment opportunities in our modern economy. The young folks get an education and *move* to where their skills can be employed. You are lamenting the decline of those small towns, yet the children are leaving to enjoy the opportunity for a much high standard of living then could have been cobbled together if they had to remain in the town of their birth.

The goal of our economic policies should not be to freeze everything in one point of time, rather, to have it be agile enough to keep up with constant and inevitable change. Many small towns in the south are now being seen as attractive to retirees as the cost of living is lower, retirees are not concerned with employment, and they are ready to embrace the lower density and slower paced life of a small community. These changes take time. Stop lamenting what was lost and instead look to what opportunities are enabled.

As another thought, from an environment perspective, wouldn't we prefer to have populations concentrated in urban/suburban centers and therefore preserve open spaces as opposed to every town in America equally and persistently expanding into every inch of available land?

 

[MikeF]

A society where money decides what is done is called a plutocracy. You want that? Do you have enough money to play that game?

So the goal then would to make appropriate changes such that money does not decide what is done. In that way, it won't matter how much money anyone has and we can preserve its function in a market economy, yes?

 

[Heyo]

So the goal then would to make appropriate changes such that money does not decide what is done. In that way, it won't matter how much money anyone has and we can preserve its function in a market economy, yes?

Yes. And no, as it is much easier to cap (or better, tax) the excess money than to try to prevent the money from doing what it shouldn't. It's better to tackle the problem by the root.
But if there was a method to reclaim democracy without a cap or excess wealth tax, that is easier to implement the taxes, then I'd go for that.

 

[PureX]

A society where money decides what is done is called a plutocracy. You want that? Do you have enough money to play that game?

We are already there. Money is deciding who lives and who dies when we get sick or injured. It's deciding who lives indoors and who doesn't when it's cold or unsafe. It's deciding who eats and who doesn't when we're hungry. It's deciding who is being heard and who isn't when we need help. It's deciding who gets elected into politics and who doesn't. And because of this it's also decides what they support while they're in office and what they don't. It's deciding who we make war on and who we support militarily regardless of their ethics. It's deciding who gets all the opportunities in life and who gets shut out. And it's not based on ability.

We either are rich, or we're serving the rich, or we're outcast. Because money is control and those that have it are using to control the lives and well-being of everything and everyone around them. And no matter how much money and control they get, it will never be enough. Because greed and selfishness have no natural limits.

 

[Koldo]

We have the same thing.
So I use colossal & non-colossal good companies instead.

But they don't have that power.
So they must compete with each other,
which tends to favor the good, & weed
out the bad.

Phone services, internet provider, private college (except for the online class model that arised in the last years), ridesharing companies... are all examples of where there is very little competition around here. We have to pick between few alternatives. It is like presidential elections in that we try to pick the least worse alternative.

 

[Koldo]

So the goal then would to make appropriate changes such that money does not decide what is done. In that way, it won't matter how much money anyone has and we can preserve its function in a market economy, yes?

How? What changes?

 

[PureX]

That there are homeless is not what I am pushing back against. That it sucks to be homeless is not what I am pushing back against. I am pushing back against your claim that homelessness is increasing dramatically and the US is now equivalent to a third world country.

Where do you think all these homeless people were HIDING before? And of if they were all just hiding somewhere out of sight and out of mind before, HOW DOES THIS IN ANY WAY MITIGATE THE FACT THAT THEY EXIST?? Who or what is forcing them out of hiding??

And all those homeless you see in the streets ARE just the tip of the problem. Tgere are thousands and thousands of small town all across the country with people living in falling down shacks. They may not technically be "homeless" yet, but they are living in abject poverty much like those that are living in those broken down RVs and tent-shacks.

I simply can't for the life of me understand why you want to excuse or justify this mess in the name of a greed based economic system that isnt serving you, either. Or is serving you only so long as you continue to serve the wealthy elites.

California, due to its climate and policies regarding homelessness attracts low and no income people from across the country, as your video acknowledged. If tent city are now tolerated but weren't tolerated before, the tent city is going to permit the concentration of the homeless. Concentrated homelessness has a different visual impact from dispersed homelessness. The existence of tolerated concentrations of homeless does not in and of itself speak to whether or not overall numbers are, or have been, increasing, decreasing, or staying roughly the same.

It's happening all along the entire west coast of the North America, even up into Canada. It's also happening in Philadelphia where the weather is not temperate. And in New York and Chicago. The numbers of the homeless are clearly NOT STAYING THE SAME. Where were all these people before? Hiding in the woods somewhere?

As to declining small towns, that is a result of changes in agriculture and other natural resource industries.

Oh, so it's all OK, then.

Small rural agricultural towns do not offer sufficient employment opportunities in our modern economy.

And the "modern economy" is an equivalent to God; never, EVER to be contradicted or countermanded. As the sacred profit margins must always be on the increase regardless of how it effects millions and millions of human lives.

The young folks get an education and *move* to where their skills can be employed.

No, clearly they don't. A few do, but most drop out of their underfunded, understaffed schools early because they know there are no opportunities for them and that no one cares about them, and they end up on the dole. Except with no work and no tax revenue the dole where they live doesn't resolve anything. So they become criminals and junkies destroying what's left of the communities they inhabit.

Why? Because profits determine EVERYTHING we do. It was more profitable to the rich to eliminate those family farms and those local jobs and destroy those towns and all those people. We call it progress but really it's just all about profiting the rich.

You are lamenting the decline of those small towns, yet the children are leaving to enjoy the opportunity for a much high standard of living then could have been cobbled together if they had to remain in the town of their birth.

Only in your capitalist fantasies. Most of them are still there, and voting for people like Donald Trump.

The goal of our economic policies should not be to freeze everything in one point of time, rather, to have it be agile enough to keep up with constant and inevitable change.

The whole point of commerce is to serve the well-being of the humans engaging in it. Period. But that is not the purpose of capitalist commerce. And that's why so many people are being hurt by it.

Many small towns in the south are now being seen as attractive to retirees as the cost of living is lower, retirees are not concerned with employment, and they are ready to embrace the lower density and slower paced life of a small community. These changes take time. Stop lamenting what was lost and instead look to what opportunities are enabled.

One out of every hundred of them, maybe. And what about all the dying towns in all the northern states. To hell with them all, I guess.

As another thought, from an environment perspective, wouldn't we prefer to have populations concentrated in urban/suburban centers and therefore preserve open spaces as opposed to every town in America equally and persistently expanding into every inch of available land?

We used to have a healthy variety of lifestyles and livelihoods. But that meant that the profits were being spread around. Now the rich own and therefor control everything, and so can exploit it however it delivers them the greatest profit. And they don't care about the rest of us at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Phone services, internet provider, private college (except for the online class model that arised in the last years), ridesharing companies... are all examples of where there is very little competition around here. We have to pick between few alternatives. It is like presidential elections in that we try to pick the least worse alternative.

Where you see little competition, I find
much. Prices & quality of services overall
have gotten better, eg, ride sharing vs taxis.
Has government service gotten cheaper &
better? My property taxes rise inexorably.
Services funded by them remain the same,
which is actually an unexpected wonder.
They're still bad though, eg, policing, courts,
roads.

Remember just a few years ago when leftish
RF posters predicted collapse of the internet
if government didn't impose "neutrality"?
They didn't.
It didn't.
The internet value for me has only become
more cost effective.