Read the very first quote: Thomas Jefferson's Top 10 Quotes On Money And Banking by Missouri CPAs
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wealth acquisition and distribution?
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
No paradox.I was thinking of this: if all American citizens committed a mass suicide, you could own all the lands of the US.
Wouldn't it be nice?
I am just saying hypothetically: to explain the paradox of greed.
Just a useless hypothetical.
Audie
Veteran Member
No, and its not remotely what said.
Your claim against others'
integity is a bit rancid in view
of such blatant falsification.
But you could answer, at least.
If all lands are taken, how can someone own something?
Répondez, monsieur.
Audie
Veteran Member
Its society that needs the wealthy.
"Unlimited' is a chimera
Audie
Veteran Member
It sure is not improving Hong Kong
Why bother with such a question.But you could answer, at least.
If all lands are taken, how can someone own something?
Répondez, monsieur.
Well I don't think this particular kind of cap would work, but the principle of having an unlimited scale of wealth just seems so wasteful - as to any resources or power often going to the individual rather than to greater numbers within societies, and this often being spent on frivolous things rather than benefitting the community. The trickle-down effect is usually quoted to defend this but this just doesn't seem to work. And with such wealth comes the chance to influence politics - and which appears to be quite likely in the USA, for example. Tax evasion seems to be the major crime that the very wealthy are so often committing.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
How many do you want, lol?
"The bonds or "glue" that maintain stability in society."
- social cohesion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik
"The belief held by citizens of a given nation-state that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other."
- https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2014/LarsenDevelopmentinsocialcohesion.pdf
"A community that has naturally many cross-links, where people from different race, age, background, feel free and happy to mix together in housing, in education, and in leisure facilities."
- social cohesion
"Collective attributes and behaviours characterised by positive social relations, a sense of identification or belonging, and an orientation towards the common good."
- https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...osch/1609db8f12b66dfc97c191a2aae43616a47fb446
"Social cohesion can be thought of as the relational or even the affective dimension of our national life ... the peace, harmony, and connectedness of society” and which is “most commonly indicated by the degree of trust people have in one another and in government, their sense of belonging and their participation in their communities”."
- What is social cohesion, what cultivates it, and what undermines it? - ABC listen
"Social cohesion is a term associated with functionalism and refers to the extent to which people in society are bound together and integrated and share common values."
- Social Cohesion
The more it becomes like mainland China,
the happier our socialist friends will be.
But I'm sure they really want a return to....
Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia
You made my point. Each of these definitions differs from the others. Mine was based on simple etymology.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
My definitions show it is broadly seen as a good thing, not something amoral.
It also shows two other things. One is that there is no universally accepted definition. The other is that you chose cherry-picked definitions. Your definitions are rejected.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Have I missed the reference to North Korea yet?
Speaking of socialism... well...in the US, the 67% of people are homeowners.The more it becomes like mainland China,
the happier our socialist friends will be.
But I'm sure they really want a return to....
Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In Romania, historically socialist country, the 95% are.
I have just showed you that Socialism is 100 times better.
Last edited:
Generally speaking I find perspectives that preoccupy themselves with limits to the amount of money that can be accumulated instead of the means for that accumulation to be unsatisfying. Better to go to the source instead of fixating on the symptoms.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 planetwww.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 don't have the economic background to judge Piketty's book, but I found his preoccupation with studying the difference between wealth and income to be framed in a way that evades recognizing the antagonistic interests of the worker and owner.
95% is 100 times 67%? Not mathing.Speaking of socialism... well...in the US, the 67% of people are homeowners.
In Romania, historically socialist country, the 95% are.
I have just showed you that Socialism is 100 times better.
Speaking of socialism... well...in the US, the 67% of people are homeowners.
In Romania, historically socialist country, the 95% are.
I have just showed you that Socialism is 100 times better.
Economy of Romania - Wikipedia
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It's an addiction, for some people. Wealth equals security, status, and power, and some people can never get enough of those things. The quality of addiction being such that, the satisfaction of hunger leads never to satisfaction, but always and only to stronger craving.
Last edited:
Wealth does not equal power in today's economy. There are plenty of people with little wealth, but through the power of social media have far more power and influence than some of the richest.