Enough

7 posts / 0 new

How much money or wealth or power is too much for an individual?

The richest 400 have as much as the poorest 150 million here in the USA. Resource distribution is an ethical and moral dilemma, is it not?

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

No, you have to get away from the liberal mindset that there is a finite amount of money that is "distributed" by some, I assume, parental governmental figure. Life is not like when your parents distributed your allowence to you and your brothers and sisters.

Money represents the value of goods and services that people work to CREATE, it is not distributed but created. What intigues me, is why do you think you have the moral authority to determine what another can create and produce in their own lives.

Is this oppression and curtailing of freedom the opposite of what we stand for?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

In this case your assumption makes an ass out of you, but not me. I don't claim moral authority, but advocate the distribution thereof. That's why I ask the question. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. I don't know what you stand for except possible misrepresentation and/or ignorance.You can advocate for one to have more than one million. Go ahead and pretend that is the high moral ground...it makes my point that is too subtle for the likes of you.

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

No, you have to get away from the liberal mindset that there is a finite amount of money that is "distributed" by some, I assume, parental governmental figure. Life is not like when your parents distributed your allowence to you and your brothers and sisters.

Money represents the value of goods and services that people work to CREATE, it is not distributed but created. What intigues me, is why do you think you have the moral authority to determine what another can create and produce in their own lives.

Is this oppression and curtailing of freedom the opposite of what we stand for?

OK, so we can limit people to a maximum wealth of what they can create and produce themselves, in their own lives?

So, set the inheritance tax at 80% for everything over $500,000.

And of course, we'll tax everything away from people that they themselves don't create, but rather, what another man creates. Since that "other man" is the one who is entitled to his own production, since no one in this conversation would presume that anyone has the moral authority to take the "other man's" production for himself.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Must be nice to exist in a world where intellectual gymnastics substitute for reality. Whatever mental machinations are used to justify the obscene accumulation of wealth at the cost of depriving other human beings sustenance cannot halt the inevitability of a forced redistribution of wealth. Crony, corporatist capitalism combined with government that is unresponsive to the wishes of the many is not sustainable in the long run. Attempting to get any form of government to work efficiently is impossible, getting them to work effectively is not only possible, it has actually happened in human history. When government is not effective it is not viewed as legitmate by the governed. When this happens the 'rich' or power elite are in trouble.

The current version of the power elite is not much different than previous versions, out of touch with not only the masses, but also the shrinking middle class; blind to the cultural changes occurring outside of their cacoons; ignorant of the rising knowledge of unwashed; complacent in their sense of fiscal and physical security; and relatively stupid in their response to dissent.

History tells us that when the power elite reaches that level of atrophy a new power elite takes their place. Usually that new power elite is a bit smarter than their predecessors, they significantly reduce their share of the wealth and redistribute a bit of it to placate the masses, they provide some symbolic actions to signify a greater degree of individual liberty, and they act reasonably for a while until the greed for more wealth and power kicks in and then the cycle starts all over again. In the United States that seems to occur about every 3rd generation, usually with violent resistance from the power elite that only delays the inevitable. The United States has reached the point of that cycle reaching the end of one era and the beginning of another. Let's hope the violence and bloodshed aren't as widespread as the last time we went through this in the Great Depression.

Fred Wilder's picture
Fred Wilder
Joined:
Oct. 23, 2011 7:03 am

This is why the tax system should be changed. Tax people on all income not spent back into the economy. Tax money that is nonproductive at a much higher rate than money spent. That is "income" and not savings. This is one way to keep the wealth gap from widening at an absurd rate.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Here's an article, Capitalism vs. the Climate from The Nation. Thom is talking about us having two justice systems. If we had no super-rich people then we'd have one justice system, wouldn't we?

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money doesn't equate to free speech, but it does equate to power.

The love of money is the root of all evil...

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Green World Rising

In two previous videos narrated by Leonard DiCaprio and available over at GreenWorldRising.org, we’ve seen the dangers that global warming and climate change present for our planet and the human race.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system