Wealth acquisition and distribution?

[Estro Felino]

Yes, most people want a higher standard of living. My point is that as things currently are, there's no evidence that the poorest people in the world have anywhere near a globally significant impact on natural resources.

If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.

The problem is that those countries will become developped. As developped as the US or Europe. So their big populations will have enormous impacts on local resources.

It seems strange to me that you would criticize wealthy people and "lounge-loving elites" so often but then make an argument that effectively entails that only they should have children.

Because they have won.
So... the point is not to make children that will be victimized by such people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem is that those countries will become developped. As developped as the US or Europe. So their big populations will have enormous impacts on local resources.

How about reducing overconsumption in wealthier countries instead of telling all poor people that they shouldn't have children?

Because they have won.
So... the point is not to make children that will be victimized by such people.

I would rather focus on the root causes than address the symptoms and place the onus of prevention on the people who bear the brunt of exploitation and inequity.

 

[Estro Felino]

How about reducing overconsumption in wealthier countries instead of telling all poor people that they shouldn't have children?

In Europe for example nobody makes children any more, because of the uncertainty of the future.
It's a matter of far-sightedness.

I would rather focus on the root causes than address the symptoms and place the onus of prevention on the people who bear the brunt of exploitation and inequity.

It's not an onus not to make children.
It's the exact opposite.

I am not the only one who says all this. Neo-Malthusians agree with me.

 

[Revoltingest]

By positive I mean that there will be much more social justice and less inequalities.

Reducing population would enable that
more so than an increasing population.
- More natural spaces available to all.
- Lower cost housing.
- Less demand for natural resources.

 

[Estro Felino]

Reducing population would enable that
more so than an increasing population.
- More natural spaces available to all.
- Lower cost housing.
- Less demand for natural resources.

So do you agree with me that that's the solution?

 

[Revoltingest]

So do you agree with me that that's the solution?

The way you phrase this inspires me to say only...
I favor a lower population.

 

[Estro Felino]

The way you phrase this inspires me to say only...
I favor a lower population.

The topic here is wealth distribution.
The point is that you need to acknowledge specifically, that with fewer people, there will be a much better wealth distribution.
Do you?

 

[Heyo]

The "politics of envy" doesn't mean that every
adherent envies the wealthy. Only most.

The "politics of greed" doesn't mean that every
rich person is greedy. Only most.

It's natural to want the plenty that others have.
How to get it?

It's natural to want more than others have.
How to get it?

Instead of working for wealth, have government
just take & re-distribute it. Easy peasy!

Instead of working for wealth, have government
just take & re-distribute it. Easy peasy!

But there'll be consequences that the would-be
beneficiaries never address. Nor do they offer
evidence that it'll work, eg, real world examples.

But there'll be consequences that the would-be
beneficiaries never address. Nor do they offer
evidence that it'll work, eg, real world examples.

I'm reminded of a tenant I once had. He was poor.
He didn't work. (He found it onerous.)

I'm reminded of an anecdote I once heard. He was rich.
He didn't work. (He found it onerous.)

He carped
that he had no money because "the rich people
took it all". That attitude led to eviction.

He carped
that he had to pay taxes because "the poor people
just want my money". That attitude led to a revolution.


I just explained how bad an argument envy is, but
you had to go there.

 

[Shaul]

Why should anyone want sex more than once a week?
Or use a sexual position that you find "obscene"?
No one needs obscene images & text that are typically
found in Florida's encyclopedias.
The list of things people can do that someone can find
unnecessary & obscene goes on & on.

To have government prohibit behavior that harms
no one under the ultimate threat of violence against
them is pretty nasty authoritarianism.

How am I supposed to disagree with you when you are right?

 

[Shaul]

Excessive wealth disparity is harmful to the wellbeing of populations in general, and constitutes a significant threat to social cohesion. There have been plenty of studies on this, you can easily research it.

No one has a right to judge whether someone else's wealth is excessive. Social cohesion is amoral and not necessarily good.

 

[Koldo]

Limiting the free & legal activity of others
won't generate a rising tide for all boats.
Or for any boats.
That professor suffers from ivory tower
isolation, & the politics of envy.

Generally speaking, the rich tend to "suffer" from ivory tower isolation.

 

[Shaul]

Exactly.
There are billionaires who own many banks who cannot breathe unless they gain their daily million of dollars.
They start having convulsions...or even a seizure if they gain less than that a day.

Because they need to spend it on very spiritual and edifying activities. In casinos and luxury brothels.

The truth is both rich and poor are human with the same ability for both good or evil. Neither group is morally superior nor inferior to the other.

 

[Estro Felino]

The truth is both rich and poor are human with the same ability for both good or evil. Neither group is morally superior nor inferior to the other.

I have never said that wealth is immoral.
Lots of wealthy people are absolutely moral and blessed by God.

I have said that there are rich bankers who spend lots of money on casinos and luxury brothels. And yes, a friar who lives in a countryside convent with very little is morally superior to them. So says my religion.

 

[Kfox]

Often gnawing at the back of my mind, especially when seeing the taxes avoided by the wealthy, what are your thoughts on this issue?

‘No one should have more than €10m’: the author of Limitarianism on why the super-rich need to level down radically

Prof Ingrid Robeyns has spent a decade studying wealth and ethics and says that limits are essential if we want to eradicate poverty and protect social cohesion and the planet

www.theguardian.com

This is a philosophy that appeals to me more than most, and which mostly has done all my life, given that apart from the iniquities of vast wealth differences, unearned power often comes with such wealth as well as the greater chance to escape justice or wield such power for dubious purposes, and of course the notion that some should be rewarded exponentially more than others - because they own or control a business - is just ludicrous, and why I would like to see more public ownership - certainly of essential services. But no doubt many will disagree.



Got my vote.



I think I have this book - Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty - but as usual, economics books are about as much top of my reading list as religious and political ones are.

Any interested in economics/politics and/or philosophy want to chime in?

I'm not getting this. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to accumulate more than $10 million of wealth? If you are under the impression they can commit crimes and get off, change the laws that allow this; but that's a law problem, not a financial one. Assuming they obey the law, why shouldn't someone be able to accumulate an unlimited amount of wealth?

 

[Koldo]

No one has a right to judge whether someone else's wealth is excessive.

Depends on the country you are talking about... and further constitutional amendments.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not getting this. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to accumulate more than $10 million of wealth? If you are under the impression they can commit crimes and get off, change the laws that allow this; but that's a law problem, not a financial one. Assuming they obey the law, why shouldn't someone be able to accumulate an unlimited amount of wealth?

Do you know the board game monopoly?
If you do, tell me what you have to do to win the game.

 

[Secret Chief]

Social cohesion is amoral and not necessarily good.

Wow, that's different.

"Definition.
Viewed as the glue that binds societies, social cohesion is considered an essential ingredient to address common societal challenges. Definitions and associated conceptual frameworks usually summarise social cohesion as collective attributes and behaviours characterised by positive social relations, a sense of identification or belonging, and an orientation towards the common good."

- Social Cohesion: Definitions, Causes and Consequences

 

[Koldo]

I'm not getting this. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to accumulate more than $10 million of wealth? If you are under the impression they can commit crimes and get off, change the laws that allow this; but that's a law problem, not a financial one. Assuming they obey the law, why shouldn't someone be able to accumulate an unlimited amount of wealth?

Because wealth is a form of power. Why can't a regular citizen own an atomic bomb?

 

[Kfox]

Do you know the board game monopoly?

No. Care to answer my question?

 

[Shaul]

Wow, that's different.

"Definition.
Viewed as the glue that binds societies, social cohesion is considered an essential ingredient to address common societal challenges. Definitions and associated conceptual frameworks usually summarise social cohesion as collective attributes and behaviours characterised by positive social relations, a sense of identification or belonging, and an orientation towards the common good."
- Social Cohesion: Definitions, Causes and Consequences

That's a terrible definition and I reject it. Social cohesion is just affinity among a society or group of people. But that affinity could be for good or evil. Mobs, gangs and criminal organizations have social cohesion and yet are evil.