 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | David, from each according to their ability and to each according to their need is a tenet of Communism. It doesn't work, is totally against human nature, penalizes the brightest and most ambitious of citizens and rewards the laziest.
I don't even know where to start on your philosophy so I'll just leave it at 'I don't agree with you'. Your heart is in the right place, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't as romantic and idealistic as you think. As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class.
Nobody will work any more than they have to, nobody will innovate because, well, why bother when someone else is going to gain the fruits of your labour and society will slide into oblivion.
I know the collectivist statists around here will jump down my throat, but that's how I see it. |
Why do we have to create this artificial dichotomy where one is either Ayn Rand or a member of the Third International? The fact is that the vast majority of us lie somewhere between; that is to say, most of us accept some of the basic tenets of socialism (minimum standard of living achieved through wealth distribution) and capitalism (a somewhat free market, competition and wage disparity). Like all of us here, I have a foot in each camp. You're possibly the closest to the Rand school here, but even you support "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" to some extent. On the flipside, I like you support the principle of remunerative incentives. Our differences are far too nuanced for us to be throwing around caricatures of each other's opinion as if we're advocating Fidel Castro's Cuba or modern nightmare-capitalist Russia.
The question is not "to tax or not to tax" but "how much to tax". That's hardly a radical disagreement. What I'm proposing will not bring society to its knees. It should perhaps, however, be considered radical to support a status quo in which many modern societies are on their knees and will continue to be so long as resources are distributed so unequally.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | but stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't as romantic and idealistic as you think. As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class |
Stealing from the rich 
That would be the rich who exploit the poor who are prepared to work -(not lazy people but people born in countries were the same opportunities and education afforded us are not available to them) to maximise their profits and wealth a la Gina " Africans are happy to work for $2 a day"
Or the rich who move their companies off shore to minimise paying their fair share of tax- personal or company!
In most cases that's how they got so bloody rich in the first place!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | So basically the first world should be taxed up the wazoo to support the 3rd world. |
Nope. regardless of what David thinks, nope. Tax is of doubtful utility for this and is in any case not necessary. The main requirement is to redress the gross imbalance of power between rich and poor so that it is no longer possible for rich nations and rich individuals to extract absurdly generous terms for trade of commodities. We have seen this sort of reversal in a few isolated examples, the most obvious one is where the (poor) oil exporting nations got together in the 1970s and united to stop the (rich) oil importing nations stealing them blind for ultra-cheap petroleum.
In the short-term, there was some minor hardship for the wealthy nations (and considerable hardship for poor nations without oil assets).
In the medium-term, the poor oil producing nations became wealthy (crazy wealthy in some places) and the wealthy oil-consuming nations became a lot smarter about not wasting irreplaceable oil just because it was underpriced to buggery and (a) finding the economies they should have been looking for in the first place so that they used less of it to get the same benefit (better cars, for example), (b) switching from oil to more suitable and sustainable power sources including coal, uranium, LPG, LNG, and various renewables, and (c) looking a bit harder for their own remaining domestic oil reserves.
Also in the short to medium-term, the rich oil-consuming nations tried to simply take the oil without payment, often at gunpoint. The war against Iraq is an obvious example, but there are numerous others; in particular look at the relentless attempts of the United States to destabilise Venezuela (a very large oil producer), or the even more ruthless attempts of Russia to take and hold oil-rich states around its borders such as Azerbaijan. On the whole, these attempts have been only modestly successful.
Now look at the long-term: the new, fairer price for oil has today resulted in improvements to economies the world over. A number of once very poor countries are now doing OK (a few mostly small ones have become fabulously wealthy - don't let these spectacular few blind you to the much more typical consequence which is a modest and very welcome increase in national wealth), and the rich, oil consuming countries are doing just fine. More importantly, these rich countries - most spectacularly the United States - have been motivated to discover ways to extract energy from more difficult resources such as shale that would never have been investigated and exploited if it hadn't been for fairer oil pricing. The USA (and other countries, including Australia) are now looking ahead to a future where they can look after their own energy needs and even export as well.
In short, fair commodity pricing is, in the long-term, good for everyone.
As to how to achieve this in other areas, that's the hard bit!
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Why do we have to create this artificial dichotomy where one is either Ayn Rand or a member of the Third International? The fact is that the vast majority of us lie somewhere between; that is to say, most of us accept some of the basic tenets of socialism (minimum standard of living achieved through wealth distribution) and capitalism (a somewhat free market, competition and wage disparity). Like all of us here, I have a foot in each camp. You're possibly the closest to the Rand school here, but even you support "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" to some extent. On the flipside, I like you support the principle of remunerative incentives. Our differences are far too nuanced for us to be throwing around caricatures of each other's opinion as if we're advocating Fidel Castro's Cuba or modern nightmare-capitalist Russia. |
^ You are hopeless. How many times have I told you about making sense in this forum? This last post of yours was worse than ever, it make almost perfect sense from start to finish. We will not tolerate this. You are on your last warning.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | So that last paragraph, where do you draw the line? I'm guessing your putting yourself under it, or would you like to say what your going without to help more needy folk? |
Despite my personal difficulties of late, I still have a much better and wealthier life than many people in the worldindeed, it's amazing to step back sometimes and see how much I take for granted.
Contrary to Wokko's suggestions, I'm not arguing for removal of all inequality; I'm arguing for reduction of inequality (not for its own sake, but simply so that all people have access to a basic minimum standard of living). For me, the most obvious target for reduction is excessive wealth. Now, you and I can argue what is or isn't excessive wealth and whether our own situation qualifies (and we should discuss that, because it's an important conversation both on a personal and general level).
Whatever we resolve, however, I think we can all agree that the sort of stuff Singer writes about is excessive wealth in anyone's language: that is, things that you don't need, that don't even work better than equivalent things that cost 1/20th of the price, that you would be every bit as happy and comfortable without. Consumption for the sake of consumption, essentially.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class. |
Welcome to Australia c.2007-2029.
Which is one of the main reasons that I'm happy to sport ridiculous watches to match my mood, attire, setting, ego, whatever.
If I can't derive some joy from my efforts, I'd be on the first plane out of Oz with family in tow to create and spend my income in a less communist environment. (Which is potentially one or two elections away if the general population maintains its current level of self-importance & entitlement). |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
All this excessive wealth.
reality is the really wealthy (those 1%) fund ways around it while the poor schmuck who's managed to work up to a decent standard of living cops it in the next to support over breeders in another country.
%$^$%^&%% that, raise the force field around Australia.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | but stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't as romantic and idealistic as you think. As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class |
Stealing from the rich
That would be the rich who exploit the poor who are prepared to work -(not lazy people but people born in countries were the same opportunities and education afforded us are not available to them) to maximise their profits and wealth a la Gina " Africans are happy to work for $2 a day"
Or the rich who move their companies off shore to minimise paying their fair share of tax- personal or company!
In most cases that's how they got so bloody rich in the first place! |
I'm going to have to take a shower after this...
Gina Reinhart might have some quotes about wage laws that make her seem like a demon, but do you know what else she does? She employs thousands of Australians on very, very good wages. She has turned a multi million dollar company of her father into a multi billion dollar company and is reaping the rewards, as well as providing jobs and wealth to thousands more.
Now she is indeed obscenely wealthy, I can't even begin to comprehend the money she has, but if you take it off her to 'redistribute' then she's going to pull up stumps, sack her entire workforce and live on the Caymans until her dying days in opulent luxury.
Once you make the decision to steal her wealth (yes it's hers) for the benefit of 'society' then she just takes what she has and leaves. Same for any other ultra rich mogul you can think of.
Now of course there is a level of taxation necessary for maintaining a defence force, a legal system and some social programs and currently people such as Gina and her top .001% ilk are paying far more than the bottom 50% who do no more than loan the government the money before getting it back on tax returns. The wealthy are such an easy target for jealousy and hatred but when you really, really consider a nation without them, it's not a pretty place. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CP wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class. |
Welcome to Australia c.2007-2029.
Which is one of the main reasons that I'm happy to sport ridiculous watches to match my mood, attire, setting, ego, whatever.
If I can't derive some joy from my efforts, I'd be on the first plane out of Oz with family in tow to create and spend my income in a less communist environment. (Which is potentially one or two elections away if the general population maintains its current level of self-importance & entitlement). |
Power to you imo, I'm on the edge of poverty and don't begrudge you any of it. Sure i'd like a piece of the pie, but I only want it off my own bat, not by metaphorically jumping through your window and taking yours. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | All this excessive wealth.
reality is the really wealthy (those 1%) fund ways around it while the poor schmuck who's managed to work up to a decent standard of living cops it in the next to support over breeders in another country.
%$^$%^&%% that, raise the force field around Australia. |
Whatever the arguments for and against isolationism, it's simply not a realistic possibility any more. Most of our wealth comes from other countries. We're global citizens whether we like it or not, so we can't just cut ourselves off from the world's problems. We're rapidly approaching the stage where we simply won't be able to shrug off third-world problems as someone else's issue any more.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | CP wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class. |
Welcome to Australia c.2007-2029.
Which is one of the main reasons that I'm happy to sport ridiculous watches to match my mood, attire, setting, ego, whatever.
If I can't derive some joy from my efforts, I'd be on the first plane out of Oz with family in tow to create and spend my income in a less communist environment. (Which is potentially one or two elections away if the general population maintains its current level of self-importance & entitlement). |
Power to you imo, I'm on the edge of poverty and don't begrudge you any of it. Sure i'd like a piece of the pie, but I only want it off my own bat, not by metaphorically jumping through your window and taking yours. |
Trust me, I'm no Gina Reinhardt but I'm not on the poverty line either. However, one thing I'll always maintain is that the harder I work, the luckier I get.
After all, it was that attitude that got my wife and I through a 3 year period barely earning a FTE wage between us while we refused one cent of taxpayer-funded pension/benefits/whatever.
For a good 7-10 year period during & post tertiary education, I lived basically on less money than any dole or Austudy would have paid. To this day I still have no clue as to how I would even apply for a govt handout; it's something that for whatever reason, has never sat in my psyche. I just kept choosing to work towards what I saw as worthwhile goals & dreams.
I've walked a mile in the shoes of people earning bugger-all and the same applies for those earning plenty. All the while I've never felt the need to tell people whether they do or don't deserve what they earn nor did I sit back and choose to blame 'big business' on whatever wasn't working for me. I just kept choosing to get on with it.
So I'll be $%$ed when someone like David starts moralizing and making people wrong for their choices because such utopian views are based on pure fantasy and are completely unrealistic, irrelevant & are the reason we're in this economic mess in the first place! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Gina Reinhart might have some quotes about wage laws that make her seem like a demon, but do you know what else she does? She employs thousands of Australians on very, very good wages. She has turned a multi million dollar company of her father into a multi billion dollar company and is reaping the rewards, as well as providing jobs and wealth to thousands more. |
False.
On a planet this size, if she fell off the side of the earth tomorrow tens of millions of people could walk in and do the same thing and the world would not skip a fraction of a beat. Moreover, she had nothing to do with the rise of Asia and nothing to do at all whatsoever with the mining boom and rising commodity prices. She did not create a new market or a new product or solve any complex economic problems.
She doesn't add any additional value to the planet at all whatsoever because she's easily, readily and entirely substitutable. All she's done is have the luck to inherit opportunity and then the thuggery to beat back suitors for those same rights. There is zero value-adding in that process.
In fact, in theory we could do a lot better; if that pre-existing, market-price-determined dumb commodity were in the hands of a saner, more balanced and less ignorant person, that wealth would not also be funding her ideologically whacko and destructive interference in Australia's democracy.
Mining is all about interfering, plutocratic thugs beating each other up to extract rent off the back of the productive, competitive economy's hard work.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have no to little interest in material possessions - hell I am woman who owns 4 pair of shoes ( which is strange apparently) and having wealth does not a happy fulfilled human make and it is certainly no measure of good taste- wouldn't give you two bob for a Rolex or a Prada anything - ugly ugly ugly!
I don't begrudge the wealthy what they have -IF - they have gained it by fair play, hard work, innovative, creative ideas and have not exploited others to feather their own nests and build obscene amounts of personal wealth at the expense of the rest of society!
Oh and it is not Gina's wealth - she and her ilk are ripping natural resources from this land - our land - the peoples of Australia land - not her land for their own benefit and they ain't paying for the benefit as they should!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | So that last paragraph, where do you draw the line? I'm guessing your putting yourself under it, or would you like to say what your going without to help more needy folk? |
Despite my personal difficulties of late, I still have a much better and wealthier life than many people in the worldindeed, it's amazing to step back sometimes and see how much I take for granted.
Contrary to Wokko's suggestions, I'm not arguing for removal of all inequality; I'm arguing for reduction of inequality (not for its own sake, but simply so that all people have access to a basic minimum standard of living). For me, the most obvious target for reduction is excessive wealth. Now, you and I can argue what is or isn't excessive wealth and whether our own situation qualifies (and we should discuss that, because it's an important conversation both on a personal and general level).
Whatever we resolve, however, I think we can all agree that the sort of stuff Singer writes about is excessive wealth in anyone's language: that is, things that you don't need, that don't even work better than equivalent things that cost 1/20th of the price, that you would be every bit as happy and comfortable without. Consumption for the sake of consumption, essentially. |
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I never pay full price for anything if I can help it! When milks on special I'll buy enough for 2 months, same goes for anything else non perishable! I don't wear brands for the sake of the label, and I don't care if people think I should of got my little car in red, because it was a blue one that was the super dooper deal! All my gym equipment is second hand, cos people don't use it, so you can buy it as new! Same as my spa and sauna! (Only erica the Maltese lady cleans like me, so germs are not a worry!) funny though, I'm still justifying myself! And yes I do donate, but as im sure you'll guess, it all goes to abandoned, mistreated animals!
As for standard of living, bali really opened my eyes. The squalor haunts me. I was tipping people more than their daily wage, just for cooking me breakfast!
Cheers mate, that's a fair answer 
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
