What level of income/wealth inequality is ideal and how much is too much or can there ever be too much?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Should an abandoned brain-dead deformed infant be entitled to the "universal basic income"?

There's no logic to morally obligate the haves to provide something to the have nots because that somehow means they have to do it for ALL the have nots? Sorry, no, but that makes no sense. It's like saying; "Sorry, I can't help you, mr.pedestrian who just got run over by a car right in front of me... because if I'd help you I'd then have to help all the people who got run over by cars everywhere, and I just don't have the time for that! Sorry, you can't morally obligate me from helping you not bleed out."

Helping *some* of the have-nots is obviously better than helping none.

It might be better to help none, if the cost of helping the selected ones is too high. The cost may end up doing more harm to those who have to pay it than it provides benefit to the ones helped.

Your example of the car accident is not analogous to anything proposed to help those in need. The choice of who is to receive the benefits and how much and at whose expense is far more complicated than that of an injured person in front of you. There are millions of victims needing help -- how do you decide which ones must be helped and which ones not?

As long as you are just providing the help yourself individually, then it doesn't matter. But if you presume to impose costs onto others, then you have to prove that you're going to end up making society overall better off when you're done, and not worse off. And all the schemes cooked up so far probably make society worse off overall.

It would be more rational to objectively define a victim group and help everyone in that victim group rather than to just help some victims chosen arbitrarily at random while ignoring others. How do we know you won't just pick out some personal friends of yours and say these are the ones who must be subsidized at everyone else's expense?

As long as you're only spending your own money you're entitled to define any "victim" you wish and provide them with a basic income. But don't impose your scheme onto others and compel them to pay for the "victims" you choose to take care of. And don't assign this task to someone else, because no one is entitled to dictate to others who the "victims" are that they must pay for.

So a better solution to the inequality problem is to find a way for the "have-nots" to earn something, so they are helped and brought up to a minimum level, while at the same time doing something in return for it, so that it is not free. If the thinking were redirected away from the free-benefits approach to this approach of having the recipients do something in return, i.e., to earn their UBI, then a solution is made possible. Because the result would be something productive from the "have-nots" to reimburse the "haves" so that everyone benefits, and so the "haves" would also benefit, and all would be served, rather than only some at the expense of others.

Except that is impossible, because there will never be enough jobs for that.

We have to leave behind the "jobs" word and come up with some other language to speak about this. There is no end to need. There is much "work" that needs to be done. As long as there is anything wrong in the world, there is need. Only when you can say there is nothing wrong in the world can you say there is no more need for "work" to be done.

The first step is not to look for "jobs" for someone to do, but ask what need is going unfulfilled in the world. This requires an overhaul of the present thinking and rhetoric.

There aren't enough jobs for it now, and there certainly won't be enough jobs for it in the future as the inevitable march of automation continues to make jobs obsolete.

There will be lots of needs. If the world ever becomes a perfect paradise with no needs left, then none of this matters anyway. But as long as something is wrong somewhere, there will be need. There are needs now that could be met but that are being ignored. Not "job" openings in the standard sense, but needs that should be met and are not being met.

The only drawback would be that there would be still be a small number of humans unable to be productive and earn their way.

Small number? You are severely overestimating the number of jobs that could realistically be created to employ people in order to provide a reasonable income for everyone.

Not "jobs" in that sense. But there are and will be needs going unmet which will require vast numbers of humans. And your "reasonable income" requirement is arbitrary. No one can dictate what a "reasonable income" is. We need to drop notions of "income" and instead address the needs that must be met.

We should not start out with the premise that we have a great number of unneeded humans we need to find something to do with. Rather, we need to consider all the needs that are going unmet and consider how those needs could be met.

The only way you can create enough employment to make the number of unemployed people a 'small number' (relatively or in absolute terms), is splitting workloads so much that it is no longer economically tenable for an industry to pay a living wage to each of the workers.

We need to get away from the rhetoric of "employment" and "workloads" and "industry" and "living wage" -- we have to back up and ask more basic questions. The question of a basic minimum income should be addressed outside the tradition of the market economy which is not designed to provide incomes but to serve consumers. Private industry and the market should be left to its good work of serving consumers. Trying to distort it to serve some basic "minimum income" need only distorts it and causes it to function less efficiently.

If the haves are willing to cut their efficiency and income that much, they might as well . . .

No no, let the ones in traditional employment have all the jobs they want and work 100 hours per week if they wish or if the employers can get the work done better that way -- whatever best serves consumers is what they should do. Not distort the "workweek" or routine in any way in order to satisfy "minimum income" or "living wage" social theories which only distort business and degrade production.

Your demand that people "earn" their UBI would be horrible for everyone; it may 'feel' "fair" to you, but it isn't in anyone's interest to do it that way.

Your premise for saying this is that most of these humans have no value to contribute to the society and so cannot "earn" their way. That's based on the present rhetoric about "jobs" and "employment" and the traditional "jobs" that are disappearing because of automation. But there's more to human need or social need than the traditional "jobs" and "employment" and "demand" and "production" of current economics.

It is in everyone's interest to have people perform work in return for their "universal basic income" rather than receiving this without any conditions being placed upon it. It is better if there are conditions, requiring the recipient to serve society to produce a benefit in return for the income. It is not in anyone's interest for them to receive this free and thus become parasites off others who produce value and get nothing in return from these recipients.

This left-out group might be small enough to be served by charity groups such as we have now. Just as there are charities that care for abandoned animals.

You cannot possibly be naive enough to think the whims of charity could ever replace, morally or practically, a guaranteed income.

It doesn't matter whether it can or not. I'm referring to a very small group of humans who have no functional value and could produce nothing. These should not be included in the "universal basic income" system, because this system should be reserved for people who would perform a function or "earn" their "universal basic income" rather than receiving it free.

However, there would probably be a small group of totally dysfunctional humans, having no value whatever or any ability to perform anything, and it wouldn't matter if anything is done to provide for them. Private charity could take care of some of them. But they should not be included in the "universal basic income" group, who should have to perform some function as a condition to be included.

What is the moral difference between humans who have no functionality whatever and animals? Why is the state obligated to take care of all dysfunctional humans any more than it is obligated to take care of all distressed animals?

What makes humans superior to animals if not their ability to perform as humans? such as to think? How is a human without this ability any more of value than an animal?

This is the reasoning of a psychopath. Those of us who actually have empathy, do not define a person's value by whether or not they are more productive than animals . . .

Whatever you define someone's value as, just don't impose it onto others who may have a different religious belief than yours. You are not entitled to impose costs onto others based upon your mystical theory of what human value is.

. . . and do not accept such reasoning to justify kicking the weakest of us into the gutter.

The weakest ones are non-humans, all of which you "kick into the gutter" just as a racist kicks into the gutter those of a different race.

And of humans, the anti-abortionists are right on this point: the unborn fetuses are the weakest. But I suggest that these should not be included among the recipients of the "universal basic income."

 

[Canard DuJour]

What level of income/wealth inequality is ideal and how much is too much or can there ever be too much?

Just enough that we don't lose all incentive to strive for better. Not any quantity you could measure in dollars or percentages. Certainly way less than now, which has been effected by bludgeoning the losers into hopelessness.

 

[dystopian]

It might be better to help none, if the cost of helping the selected ones is too high. The cost may end up doing more harm to those who have to pay it than it provides benefit to the ones helped.

Flat out impossible. The only way for that to happen is if those being helped rise above those doing the helping in terms of wealth, which obviously wouldn't happen to begin with. In other words, your argument is based on a non-existent scenario.

Your example of the car accident is not analogous to anything proposed to help those in need. The choice of who is to receive the benefits and how much and at whose expense is far more complicated than that of an injured person in front of you. There are millions of victims needing help -- how do you decide which ones must be helped and which ones not?

If you can not help all of them, then you help the ones nearest to you. If you can not help the poor around the world, then you help the poor in your own country. If you can not help all the poor in your own country, then you help the poorest of them first. This REALLY isn't as complicated as you think it is... anyone with empathy would realize this.

As long as you are just providing the help yourself individually, then it doesn't matter. But if you presume to impose costs onto others, then you have to prove that you're going to end up making society overall better off when you're done, and not worse off.

Actually no. As a society we already impose costs onto others, and we do not generally have to prove anything to do so. Any member of society is obligated by *law* to pay taxes; they do not get to arbitrarily refuse to do so unless the government proves to them that society is better off as a result.

If you want to partake of the advantages society brings you (including providing the resources and opportunities that might have turned you from poor to rich); then you will pay back into the system. Period.

And all the schemes cooked up so far probably make society worse off overall.

No evidence or argument to suggest this has been put forth.

It would be more rational to objectively define a victim group and help everyone in that victim group rather than to just help some victims chosen arbitrarily at random while ignoring others. How do we know you won't just pick out some personal friends of yours and say these are the ones who must be subsidized at everyone else's expense?

A) Because I'm not the one picking who gets helped.
and B) This argument is irrelevant in an UBI system, since EVERYONE (including the wealthy) gets the UBI.

As long as you're only spending your own money you're entitled to define any "victim" you wish and provide them with a basic income. But don't impose your scheme onto others and compel them to pay for the "victims" you choose to take care of. And don't assign this task to someone else, because no one is entitled to dictate to others who the "victims" are that they must pay for.

We *will* impose this scheme on others. We *will* compel them to pay for the victims we choose to take care of. And we *are* entitled to dictate to others who they must pay for. We, as society, have this right by law. You are *not* a victim here. The rich are *not* victims because they are being told to give up some of their wealth so others may be pulled up out of poverty. The rich are *not* entitled to the wealth they've gained at the expense of the poor, or which society has *allowed* them to gain. They are wealthy because we, society, allow them to be. Because we are the instrument and system that has enabled them to become wealthy. If we, society, demand that they give some of that wealth back, then they will do so. Period.

We have to leave behind the "jobs" word and come up with some other language to speak about this. There is no end to need.

There is. Contrary to the delusions of some, infinite economic growth is impossible. Demand; need... these things are finite.

There is much "work" that needs to be done. As long as there is anything wrong in the world, there is need. Only when you can say there is nothing wrong in the world can you say there is no more need for "work" to be done.

I find it hugely ironic that you talk about how there's work to be done because 'as long as there is anything wrong in the world, there is need'; but in your previous post you had no trouble stating that it was okay if some people wouldn't be helped because there wouldn't be enough work. I also find it hugely ironic you're talking about working to remove the 'wrongs' in the world, while in the *same* thread arguing that it's perfectly okay to *not* help people if it costs the rich too much. The only way I can reconcile these different statements and implications of yours is if I assume by "anything wrong in the world" you mean "people who aren't either slaving themselves away for their overlords, or dying in the gutter".

The first step is not to look for "jobs" for someone to do, but ask what need is going unfulfilled in the world. This requires an overhaul of the present thinking and rhetoric.

Are you REALLY asking this question in a thread about income *inequality*? Let's see... we live in a world where HALF the total planet's wealth is owned by the richest ONE percent. The wealth of that one percent is more than SIXTY FIVE times the combined wealth of the bottom half. We live in a world where the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the three and a half BILLION poorest people.

The need that goes unfulfilled in this world is the need for fairness and equality. The solution, has already been presented.

There will be lots of needs. If the world ever becomes a perfect paradise with no needs left, then none of this matters anyway. But as long as something is wrong somewhere, there will be need. There are needs now that could be met but that are being ignored. Not "job" openings in the standard sense, but needs that should be met and are not being met.

These needs can only be met by fundamentally altering the way our economic system works. The capitalism that we have no longer lifts people and societies up from poverty towards wealth; it concentrates the wealth in the hands of the few and drains it from everywhere else. If you want to right wrongs and fill needs, you *must* consent to redistribution of wealth; there is no other way. All you've given is vague talking points about making people 'earn' it; utterly failing to either suggesting how they can do so, or how your vague and formless idea *wouldn't* turn into a form of modern day feudal slavery.

Not "jobs" in that sense. But there are and will be needs going unmet which will require vast numbers of humans. And your "reasonable income" requirement is arbitrary. No one can dictate what a "reasonable income" is. We need to drop notions of "income" and instead address the needs that must be met.

We CAN dictate what reasonable income is; and doing so is *not* arbitrary. A reasonable income has already been defined by me, previously, as the income needed to provide for one's basic life necessities as well as to participate in society (meaning having access to the kind of basic luxuries that allow one to do so, such as having TV, internet access, and being able to engage in normal social activity like going out to a club with friends, or see a movie every now and then). How high an income must be to allow this can be calculated objectively. Many governments *already* calculate how high income must be to enable these things.

We should not start out with the premise that we have a great number of unneeded humans we need to find something to do with.

You're the only one starting (or ending, for that matter) with that premise. You're the only one who'd even use the term "unneeded" humans. I don't give a damn whether a person is 'needed' or not. I don't care if they're productive, could be productive, or never will be; it makes no difference whatsoever as to whether or not they qualify for UBI. You're the one demanding that people "earn" their income; you're the one demanding they earn it by filling some need; therefore, *you* are the one dividing people into needed and unneeded categories.

Rather, we need to consider all the needs that are going unmet and consider how those needs could be met.

Except you're ignoring all the unmet needs that have already been pointed out in favor of talking about some vague undefined ones, and I'm proposing the only solution capable of *actually* addressing *everyone's* needs regardless of whether they're explicitly defined or not.

We need to get away from the rhetoric of "employment" and "workloads" and "industry" and "living wage" -- we have to back up and ask more basic questions.

This is political obfuscation. It's the sort of cute soundbite that a politician engages in when he doesn't want to actually address the issue.

The question of a basic minimum income should be addressed outside the tradition of the market economy which is not designed to provide incomes but to serve consumers. Private industry and the market should be left to its good work of serving consumers. Trying to distort it to serve some basic "minimum income" need only distorts it and causes it to function less efficiently.

First of all, there is absolutely zero evidence that trying to get private industry to serve a basic minimum income distorts the market economy and causes it to function less efficiently. In fact, the exact opposite is true; we have more than enough evidence to show that it *doesn't*. The market economy is already forced to serve a basic minimum income; an income that varies considerably in quantity around the world. Unsurprisingly, the countries with a higher minimum income do *not* have market economies that function less efficiently than those with lower or no minimum income.

Try something else.

No no, let the ones in traditional employment have all the jobs they want and work 100 hours per week if they wish

How about no, we're not going to allow people to work more than 14 hours a day, seven days a week? First of all, doing so would be illegal... everywhere. Burundi has the highest workweek in the world, at 50 hours. The vast majority countries do not pass 40 hours. Incidentally, many economic experts are pushing for a 21 hour workweek; in part because of the inequality problem.

or if the employers can get the work done better that way -- whatever best serves consumers is what they should do. Not distort the "workweek" or routine in any way in order to satisfy "minimum income" or "living wage" social theories which only distort business and degrade production.

See, here's the fundamental problem; you think only in terms of what's good for *business*. Coming into a thread about income inequality and taking the position that we shouldn't distort the workweek, or try to satisfy some minimum income or (shock, gasp!) "living wage" because it distorts business and degrades production is kind of like coming into a serial killer survivor support group and taking the position that we shouldn't criminalize murder because it distorts the public image of serial killers and degrades murder statistics.

Incidentally, the sheer sociopathic gall of describing a living wage as a "social theory" that gets in the way of business is almost so stereotypically Hollywood evil capitalist fatcat that I'm having trouble processing the idea that someone could actually hold such a demented position.

Your premise for saying this is that most of these humans have no value to contribute to the society and so cannot "earn" their way. That's based on the present rhetoric about "jobs" and "employment" and the traditional "jobs" that are disappearing because of automation. But there's more to human need or social need than the traditional "jobs" and "employment" and "demand" and "production" of current economics.

No, my premise for saying it is that I don't judge humans by some perceived 'value' they have to society... *you* do.

It is in everyone's interest to have people perform work in return for their "universal basic income" rather than receiving this without any conditions being placed upon it.

Then, as I explained to you, it wouldn't be a universal basic income. UBI is *guaranteed* income, universal and without strings attached. It doesn't work if you place conditions on it.

It is not in anyone's interest for them to receive this free and thus become parasites off others who produce value and get nothing in return from these recipients.

The fact that you would utter the term 'parasites' makes it abundantly clear which of us divides people based on their 'value' to society.

It doesn't matter whether it can or not. I'm referring to a very small group of humans who have no functional value and could produce nothing. These should not be included in the "universal basic income" system, because this system should be reserved for people who would perform a function or "earn" their "universal basic income" rather than receiving it free.

You just keep turning into more of a stereotypically evil character.

However, there would probably be a small group of totally dysfunctional humans, having no value whatever or any ability to perform anything, and it wouldn't matter if anything is done to provide for them. Private charity could take care of some of them.

"Some" of them? I'm almost afraid to ask what you think should happen to the rest.

Whatever you define someone's value as, just don't impose it onto others who may have a different religious belief than yours. You are not entitled to impose costs onto others based upon your mystical theory of what human value is.

Wat?

Are you seriously accusing the position that we shouldn't treat people differently based on their perceived value or lack thereof of being a mystical religious belief?

More importantly, are you seriously so out of touch with reality that you're telling someone who thinks we should treat everyone *equally* regardless of their "value", that they can't impose costs upon others; while you explicitly divide people by their value to society while imposing costs on them in exchange for the right to fucking eat?

In my world, everyone eats no matter what and the only judgement on people's value that matters is their own.

In your world, everyone slaves away for food and those who can't are deemed worthless.

The weakest ones are non-humans, all of which you "kick into the gutter" just as a racist kicks into the gutter those of a different race.

And when exactly, have I said anything that suggests I would do something like that? All I've done is take away the ridiculous argument that we must consider animals above or on equal footing to humans when it comes to taking care of everyone's needs. Never have I suggested we should mistreat them.

 

[4321lynx]

I just did.

1) I don't think we have enough data.

We do.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

Add Cuban Revolution, American Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Chinese Revolution, various South American Revolutions, various wars of independence against colonialism, various "Arab Springs" etc etc etc

A mixture of financial inequality and lack of power leading to "revolution" to gain one or both, whether the revolutionists are "the poor", or (usually) the middle classes; colonials, or "los Criollos colons", middle-class racists in both these latter cases; or "freedom fighters" who fondly imagine they are not racists. There are other complicating factors too - religion - for one, as in Muslim lands and N.Ireland, but the main things are, as has been pointed out, money and power.

Ideally the difference should not be so great as to result in the completely democratic "revolution" of the General Election in Britain in 1945.

Each case will be different, but generally speaking the ruling power/moneyed class becomes arrogant thinking its position is a God-given right and surprise, surprise, suddenly there is blood in the streets. And even warnings are not heeded enough, e.g. the Russian "terror bombing" campaign of the late 19th century together with the failed 1905 Revolution were said by the authorities to be the work of a few evil-thinkers. The powerful overcalculate their power and righteousness and feelings of entitlement and stuff hits the fan if there is no honest democratic way to change things,

How you judge what is enough and when to stop screwing the "downtrodden" is pretty well impossible to say. An intelligent, educated public with honest democratic institutions is a safeguard, but most people don't realize how badly they are screwed especially financially, and it must be said that in many cases of revolution, that "cure" is at least at first and sometimes for decades much worse than the disease. Think of Mao's China, or Lenin/Stalin Soviets, or ISIS "liberated" areas now. And you can see by various high-minded posts in these forums that there is no end to theorists who imagine that they can single-handedly, with only the aid of a few Political "Science" courses, invent and build a "better world".

North America or the USA and Canada part of it is so well off in spite of terrible poverty in parts of it, huge parts of it in the case of USA, people will continue with the same old, same old... for many years yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just did.

We do.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

Add Cuban Revolution, American Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Chinese Revolution, various South American Revolutions, various wars of independence against colonialism, various "Arab Springs" etc etc etc

A mixture of financial inequality and lack of power leading to "revolution" to gain one or both, whether the revolutionists are "the poor", or (usually) the middle classes; colonials, or "los Criollos colons", middle-class racists in both these latter cases; or "freedom fighters" who fondly imagine they are not racists. There are other complicating factors too - religion - for one, as in Muslim lands and N.Ireland, but the main things are, as has been pointed out, money and power.

Most of the revolutions you speak of were due to abuses, not simple inequality.

 

[4321lynx]

One man's simple inequality is another man's abuse.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

By force.

Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

Don't be silly, UBC is not for the 3rd world.

Experience shows that people who can forsee their own survival feel less pressure to reproduce. People who get some recompense for effort and have a degree of security tend to just naturally drop their reproduction back to replacement levels, unless their thinking is disordered by religious prohibitions. They don't suddenly breed to fill the available space, like rabbits, they concentrate on quality of life when freed from immediate survival worries. So why would you say that ^^^^?

What level of income/wealth inequality is ideal and how much is too much or can there ever be too much?

Just enough that we don't lose all incentive to strive for better. Not any quantity you could measure in dollars or percentages. Certainly way less than now, which has been effected by bludgeoning the losers into hopelessness.

Enough equality to remove the possibility of the "haves" being able to farm the "have not"s like so many cattle. Artificially forcing wages and standards lower will be a thing of the past when no-one can use potential starvation and homelessness to force people into work that doesn't benefit anyone except the people applying the force. Or really need doing, if true market forces were operating, but which can be manipulated into making someone heaps of money if they have enough initial leverage. I'm thinking mainly of the hype of consumerism and the push to shoddy goods as opposed to articles designed to last, be aesthetically pleasing and retain value.

Western societies are rich enough that we can afford to provide everybody with a simple living. Certainly, if the people who have most of the resources were suddenly required to contribute via taxation in some fair fashion. There is little evidence to suggest that most people just flop on the couch. Instead, freed of anxiety, they tend to be prepared to take risks with ideas, or art. Those who are prepared to live simply, follow through on their good ideas at a relatively small cost to the community, and a lot of good comes from the ones that work out. Ultimately, left to their own devices, people choose activity and contribution over the opposite. Couch floppers exist, but there is no sign that they can be starved into work. Many of them can be starved into the effort of crime. I prefer that they happily veg on the couch. (Why do I feel as if the last few sentences were anticipating arguments from you, Loren? )

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Who is worth saving and who is not?

It might be better to help none, if the cost of helping the selected ones is too high. The cost may end up doing more harm to those who have to pay it than it provides benefit to the ones helped.

Flat out impossible. The only way for that to happen is if those being helped rise above those doing the helping in terms of wealth, which obviously wouldn't happen to begin with.

But if there is waste in the program to help the ones you are selecting to help, then the money spent, i.e., the cost, may be greater than the benefit that is gained. If your premise is that every government program is efficient and never wastes any money, then you could be right. However, the truth is that every program has waste, and sometimes it's so huge that there is more harm than good, despite the original good intentions.

And the kind of program you're talking about is very vague as to the benefits of it. Also how it's supposed to work. It's easy to sit in your armchair and pontificate on your wonderful program to reduce the suffering in the world. Pontificating it is one thing. Actually doing it and making it work and not waste resources that could have been better spent is totally different.

There are already thousands of tax-paid schemes that are supposed to reduce suffering, and there's little evidence that they have made society better than it would have been otherwise. Just because your great scheme sounds good and makes you feel good and morally superior to someone else who is critical of it doesn't mean it actually produced a verifiable better outcome than would have happened without it.

And obviously the promoters of the programs, especially those who work in them and get paid high salaries, make claims and cite "data" to prove how wonderful their program is, but we have little reason to believe them. Just as you do not believe bankers or investors who claim their kind of business is good for the economy.

Your example of the car accident is not analogous to anything proposed to help those in need. The choice of who is to receive the benefits and how much and at whose expense is far more complicated than that of an injured person in front of you. There are millions of victims needing help -- how do you decide which ones must be helped and which ones not?

If you can not help all of them, then you help the ones nearest to you.

No, actually the most efficient aid programs are those where developed countries send relief thousands of miles away to 3rd-world countries. Those dollars are spent much more efficiently than dollars spent on welfare programs in the developed countries.

Why waste dollars on those near you when you can reduce far more suffering by sending those dollars to relief in Africa or Asia?

The only reason to give the dollars to the ones nearest is that these ones have more power to threaten and intimidate you and make you feel guilty. But the fact is that there is far less return on the dollar for aid to the needy within the developed country than for aid from the developed country to a poor country thousands of miles away.

So right off, your answer shows the subjective and irrational nature of your plan to create more equity in the world. Instead of sending the aid to where it will do the most good, your subjective impulse is to waste those dollars in places where there's less need. This is why we have to be suspicious of schemes to impose social justice and equity and fairness and so on -- it's all subjective with no basis in reason.

If you can not help the poor around the world, then you help the poor in your own country.

You see, you have it backwards. We can do much more to help the poor around the world than we can to help the poor in our own country. The return on the investment is far greater. There are obviously many holes in your philosophy of helping the poor.

If you can not help all the poor in your own country, then you help the poorest of them first.

How do you choose who is the poorest? A brain-dead comatose patient is arguably the poorest. So we should pour a million dollars per year into taking care of each comatose patient. (i.e., $1 million per patient)

Or the poorest might be the mentally-deranged who have to be confined in expensive mental wards.

The cliche "help the poorest" doesn't mean anything. It's subjective. You can go ahead and dictate certain people you choose to help, but you're only imposing your personal feelings onto the rest of society who have to pay for it. There is nothing logical about it. Just your personal subjective feelings.

This REALLY isn't as complicated as you think it is... anyone with empathy would realize this.

So anyone who questions your subjective choices is a villain and a bad person or maybe even an evil demon. What will you do in your utopia with those who question your decrees about who gets first priority for the aid programs? Send them to a re-education camp to instill "empathy" in them?

As long as you are just providing the help yourself individually, then it doesn't matter. But if you presume to impose costs onto others, then you have to prove that you're going to end up making society overall better off when you're done, and not worse off.

Actually no. As a society we already impose costs onto others, and we do not generally have to prove anything to do so.

Oh I think the costs the state imposes are debated at length before they're imposed, and those who promote spending the tax dollars have to prove quite a bit before it's approved. But you want a society where we don't do this and instead you decide what the priorities are and who gets the "aid" and who doesn't? How is it decided if no one has to prove anything?

Any member of society is obligated by *law* to pay taxes; they do not get to arbitrarily refuse to do so unless the government proves to them that society is better off as a result.

So you think the government imposes taxes and spends the money without ever proving that there is a need for the spending? My impression is that the lawmakers devote great effort and time and speech-making trying to prove that society is better off as a result of the laws they pass.

If you want to partake of the advantages society brings you (including providing the resources and opportunities that might have turned you from poor to rich); then you will pay back into the system. Period.

And the lawmakers who take this money from us have no obligation to ever show that "society is made better off" by how they spend it?

And all the schemes cooked up so far probably make society worse off overall.

No evidence or argument to suggest this has been put forth.

Nor any evidence proving that society is made better off. Just preaching and speech-making and guilt-tripping.

It would be more rational to objectively define a victim group and help everyone in that victim group rather than to just help some victims chosen arbitrarily at random while ignoring others. How do we know you won't just pick out some personal friends of yours and say these are the ones who must be subsidized at everyone else's expense?

A) Because I'm not the one picking who gets helped.

But the limited clique who does do the picking, which probably has limited interests, perhaps similar to yours, will subjectively choose certain victim groups based on their personal feelings, and their philosophy, or their religious instincts. And they will hire their friends, who will be paid $200,000-per-year salaries, to help them decide who are the most important victim groups to help.

Why should we believe that this tiny clique of ideologues and crusaders will spend our tax dollars better than it would have been spent if left in the pockets of the taxpayers?

. . . and B) This argument is irrelevant in an UBI system, since EVERYONE (including the wealthy) gets the UBI.

Now you're talking about Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax (or equivalent) or the current "Fair Tax" scheme. I'm not sure schemes like this could really work. It's easy to daydream about everyone getting their "minimum income" check in the mail, but I suspect any such thing will be a disaster, with all the fraud and waste. The cost of it will end up being greater than the benefit.

As long as you're only spending your own money you're entitled to define any "victim" you wish and provide them with a basic income. But don't impose your scheme onto others and compel them to pay for the "victims" you choose to take care of. And don't assign this task to someone else, because no one is entitled to dictate to others who the "victims" are that they must pay for.

We *will* impose this scheme on others.

I doubt that you will succeed with whatever scheme you have in mind. Too many others will have a different scheme they prefer over yours. And you will all claw each other to death fighting over whose scheme is the right one, and whatever scheme finally does prevail, it will probably be one you won't like and probably will not work well, but just cost lots of tax dollars to pay the high-salaries of those who administer it.

We *will* compel them to pay for the victims we choose to take care of.

When all is said and done, the world will be a worse place for it and the total suffering in the world will be greater, not less.

And we *are* entitled to dictate to others who they must pay for.

I'm not sure that you and all the other dictators are going to agree on this. The other dictators may not agree with your subjective feelings about who are the "victims" to be paid. You may have to first do something to eliminate some of those other dictators competing with you. Like the queen bee that hatches first and then kills all the other queen bees before they hatch.

We, as society, have this right by law.

"We"? You mean your clique that seizes power. And you have "this right" without needing to prove that "society is better off as a result."

I have no objection to a legitimate government imposing some laws, but they don't "have this right" to dictate who is a victim and who is not with no need to prove that "society is better off as a result."

The rich are *not* victims because they are being told to give up some of their wealth so others may be pulled up out of poverty.

All taxpayers are "victims" if the state wastes their money on schemes that are not proved to be successful at making society "better off as a result" but are based on subjective feelings and preaching and threats that the rabble masses will go on a rampage unless these symbolic schemes are enacted.

The rich are *not* entitled to the wealth they've gained at the expense of the poor . . .

This is the subjective symbolism and preaching and demagoguery (except in a few 3rd-world countries where it might apply) that underlies most of the schemes. If your scheme is based on such fiction as this, then the end result is that your social scheme to make things better will really make everyone worse off, including the poor. Telling lies to the poor is not going to lead to any solution that will make the poor better off.

The first step is to put away your social scheme and go back to the drawing board to straighten out your narrative by removing the lies you're telling to the poor.

The poor are not a mindless herd of cattle who need a demagogue to preach lies to them in order to get their attention.

. . . or which society has *allowed* them to gain. They are wealthy because we, society, allow them to be.

In a sense. However, if we did not allow them to be, then we would all be poorer. "Society" or "we" could not produce the wealth that has been created as a result of allowing some to be wealthy. Or only a small fraction of it.

We have to leave behind the "jobs" word and come up with some other language to speak about this. There is no end to need.

There is. Contrary to the delusions of some, infinite economic growth is impossible. Demand; need... these things are finite.

My point is that even in another 1000 years, or 10,000 years of human progress, there will still be "need" or "demand" in the basic sense that we speak today. (different form, but the same in essence) And 99% of humans will be needed to help satisfy the demand. And there is a lot of "demand" or "need" today going unmet.

There is much "work" that needs to be done. As long as there is anything wrong in the world, there is need. Only when you can say there is nothing wrong in the world can you say there is no more need for "work" to be done.

I find it hugely ironic that you talk about how there's work to be done because 'as long as there is anything wrong in the world, there is need'; but in your previous post you had no trouble stating that it was okay if some people wouldn't be helped because there wouldn't be enough work.

There might not be "jobs" as we're familiar with today. But there will be plenty of need for people to do things to satisfy the demands. There will not be any point in just giving some kind of guaranteed free "income" to people that they don't earn or do something in return for as a condition.

I also find it hugely ironic you're talking about working to remove the 'wrongs' in the world, while in the *same* thread arguing that it's perfectly okay to *not* help people if it costs the rich too much.

So you think it's OK to make taxpayers pay "too much"? How about too much for Defense spending? That's OK?

I think it's always wrong to pay "too much" for anything, no matter who pays for it. I've never heard of anyone claiming we should pay "too much" for something.

The first step is not to look for "jobs" for someone to do, but ask what need is going unfulfilled in the world. This requires an overhaul of the present thinking and rhetoric.

Are you REALLY asking this question in a thread about income *inequality*? Let's see... we live in a world where HALF the total planet's wealth is owned by the richest ONE percent. The wealth of that one percent is more than SIXTY FIVE times the combined wealth of the bottom half. We live in a world where the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the three and a half BILLION poorest people.

The need that goes unfulfilled in this world is the need for fairness and equality. The solution, has already been presented.

Some change is needed, though we shouldn't obsess on numbers like the above. And the solution to whatever is wrong is not that anyone should be given something for free, at someone else's expense. Rather, those who are to receive something should have to do something in return for it. No adult is entitled to something free that others have to pay for.

Find a way to address the inequality problem without making parasites out of people. To make them into parasites is to say in effect that they are worthless or have no value and are incapable of contributing anything good to others.

The capitalism that we have no longer lifts people and societies up from poverty towards wealth; it concentrates the wealth in the hands of the few and drains it from everywhere else. If you want to right wrongs and fill needs, you *must* consent to redistribution of wealth; there is no other way.

Perhaps. But this should not take the form of giving something free to individual recipients.

One way to legitimately redistribute wealth is to have the wealthy pay for infrastructure that benefits all society, so that the lower-income levels share in the benefit.

But not to give transfer payments to "the needy" as a free entitlement to selected individual recipients. Also, not to target one class, like employers, in order to provide unearned benefits to workers beyond the market value of their labor.

The "redistribution" schemes so far have done more harm than good.

All you've given is vague talking points about making people "earn" it; utterly failing to either suggesting how they can do so . . .

One way they could "earn" it would be to serve on juries. But there's much more. There's plenty of "work" to do.

And your "reasonable income" requirement is arbitrary. No one can dictate what a "reasonable income" is. We need to drop notions of "income" and instead address the needs that must be met.

We CAN dictate what reasonable income is; and doing so is *not* arbitrary.

You cannot prove that your definition of "reasonable income" is correct and someone else's is incorrect. Imposing your ideology onto others is arbitrary if you cannot prove your ideology is correct. Just because it makes you feel good or self-righteous does not make it correct.

A reasonable income has already been defined by me, previously, as the income needed to provide for one's basic life necessities as well as to participate in society (meaning having access to the kind of basic luxuries that allow one to do so, such as having TV, internet access, and being able to engage in normal social activity like going out to a club with friends, or see a movie every now and then). How high an income must be to allow this can be calculated objectively.

There is no need to force anyone to pay anyone else such an income, or to contribute toward such payment. If the one receiving it does something of value in return, then you might have a case for it, but no one owes such a payment to someone else for nothing in return.

If the point is to redistribute some wealth from those who have more to those who have less, then the recipients should be those who have the least, or who have the greatest need, which is obviously not what you're describing. Since your recipients are far from being in that category, you are ignoring the greatest need, and so your scheme is not based on redistributing from the richest to the poorest but on something else.

What theory is your scheme based on? It is just plunder. Your self-righteous preaching doesn't change it into something it is not. If you want to make those at the bottom better off, then find those humans and help them. That's not what your scheme is.

Many governments *already* calculate how high income must be to enable these things.

But what is the reasoning to justify this transfer of wealth? It is just plunder. It is not based on redistributing wealth from those who have the most to those who have the least. Or making humans more equal or reducing suffering. If it were that, you would start with those who have the least and help them, instead of helping people who are already better off than most of the world's population.

(to be contined)

 

[ksen]

(to be contined)

good lord

 

[AthenaAwakened]

(to be contined)

good lord

Jesus can't help you now, you have entered the gates of a place worse than hell

A Lumpenproletariat post.

 

[ksen]

"Abandon hope all ye that post here"

 

[ksen]

Has it been decided yet whether or not lumpen is a poe or not?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Who is worth saving and who is not?

(continued)

We should not start out with the premise that we have a great number of unneeded humans we need to find something to do with.

You're the only one starting (or ending, for that matter) with that premise.

No, you are starting with that premise. I'm saying the people you want to give something free to have a potential to perform a service to society and should have to do something in return for any benefit they receive. But you're saying there is nothing they can do in return, i.e., that there is no need they can fill for society, i.e., that they have no value to society and can only be recipients.

You're the only one who'd even use the term "unneeded" humans.

You also assume it, even if you pretend you don't. You can't pretend something away by avoiding certain politically-incorrect words.

I don't give a damn whether a person is "needed" or not.

It matters whether a person is needed or not. We should give a damn about it. (If there is anything we "should" do, i.e., if there are any "shoulds" at all.)

I don't care if they're productive, could be productive, or never will be.

My premise is different: it does matter if they're productive, could be, or never will be. I think my premise is better than yours. If it is possible to "prove" anything here, I am better able to prove my point, because I start out with the more correct premise, i.e., that it does matter whether people are productive, could be productive, or never will be. So your scheme is "arbitrary" because it imposes a costly scheme onto people which comes from an inferior premise.

it makes no difference whatsoever as to whether or not they qualify for UBI.

Yes, in your scheme that is the rule, and this is based on the false premise that we should not care whether they are productive or could be or never will be. Which is wrong because we should care about this (unless there are no "shoulds" at all, in which case there is no topic here.)

You're the one demanding that people "earn" their income; you're the one demanding they earn it by filling some need; therefore, *you* are the one dividing people into needed and unneeded categories.

And you're branding them as unneeded and therefore unable to ever contribute or be productive.

If you're not branding them as unneeded and unable to ever contribute, then why do you insist that they should not be required to contribute? If they can contribute, then why shouldn't they? Obviously you're saying that CANNOT contribute, i.e., we don't need them, i.e., they are in the "unneeded" category according to you.

Rather, we need to consider all the needs that are going unmet and consider how those needs could be met.

Except you're ignoring all the unmet needs that have already been pointed out in favor of talking about some vague undefined ones, and I'm proposing the only solution capable of *actually* addressing *everyone's* needs regardless of whether they're explicitly defined or not.

No, you're ignoring unmet needs which I pointed out to you, i.e., the needs of millions of poor people around the world who are vastly worse off than the ones you're preoccupied with giving freebies to. If you really want to redistribute wealth from those who have too much to those who have too little, you should start with those who have the greatest needs. Since you're not doing this, it is obvious that your premise is not to redistribute wealth from those who have the most to those who have the least.

So what is the premise for your scheme?

The question of a basic minimum income should be addressed outside the tradition of the market economy which is not designed to provide incomes but to serve consumers. Private industry and the market should be left to its good work of serving consumers. Trying to distort it to serve some basic "minimum income" need only distorts it and causes it to function less efficiently.

First of all, there is absolutely zero evidence that trying to get private industry to serve a basic minimum income distorts the market economy and causes it to function less efficiently.

If it means paying workers more than their market value, then it distorts the market and inflicts more harm than good. Businesses operate best if they pay all their costs based on market value, or supply-and-demand, rather than on ideological theories about "fair" pay and "social justice" and other abstractions which some social planners want to artificially impose onto employers. So this kind of imposition onto private business distorts their performance and reduces the good they produce for the economy.

In fact, the exact opposite is true; we have more than enough evidence to show that it *doesn't*.

We have no such evidence. However, there is one clear-cut case where "fair" wage theories were put to the test and did great damage to the economy. I.e., in Samoa, where the minimum wage increase had enough impact to be measurable, and everyone agrees that it did great damage and it had to be repealed.

This is one case where a real test of socialist income-boosting theory is possible to evaluate and the evidence and outcome are clear. But there is no evidence that such "social justice" schemes have ever produced a net benefit. All claims of such "evidence" or "data" are subjective and disputed and totally inconclusive, because the impact in all the cases is too small to measure.

The market economy is already forced to serve a basic minimum income; an income that varies considerably in quantity around the world. Unsurprisingly, the countries with a higher minimum income do *not* have market economies that function less efficiently than those with lower or no minimum income.

Every country has minimum income laws of one kind or another. And in all cases, the wealthier countries have more generous minimum income schemes for the simple reason that they can afford it. I.e., the country gets rich first, then enacts "social justice" schemes to benefit the lower-income brackets. That is the pattern.

There is no causal pattern to show that the more generous "social justice" schemes produce any net benefit to the country and produce no negative outcome to business that has to pay the cost. In all cases where business is targeted to pay the cost there is a net harm to business, as there always is when extra cost burdens are put on them.

No no, let the ones in traditional employment have all the jobs they want and work 100 hours per week if they wish

How about no, we're not going to allow people to work more than 14 hours a day, seven days a week?

The workers don't need social theory ideologues to make decisions for them about how much to work. They are not crybabies who need others to babysit them.

First of all, doing so would be illegal... everywhere. Burundi has the highest workweek in the world, at 50 hours.

There are millions of Americans who work longer hours than that. And they should work whatever hours they think is necessary to meet their needs. They don't need your ideological theories to dictate these decisions for them.

You make society worse off by trying to impose your nit-picking rules onto individuals instead of letting them make their own decisions. The only reason the labor laws you refer to have done only small rather than great damage to our economy is that they are so flagrantly violated and ignored and also because there are so many loopholes in them that render them meaningless.

The vast majority countries do not pass 40 hours. Incidentally, many economic experts are pushing for a 21 hour workweek; in part because of the inequality problem.

What a huge disaster these laws would be for all those countries if they really were enforced seriously and had no loopholes. They're mostly symbolic and have very small impact. Fortunately companies find ways to circumvent them.

or if the employers can get the work done better that way -- whatever best serves consumers is what they should do. Not distort the "workweek" or routine in any way in order to satisfy "minimum income" or "living wage" social theories which only distort business and degrade production.

See, here's the fundamental problem; you think only in terms of what's good for *business*.

I.e., what's good for consumers. Yes, it's good for business to serve consumers. We should think in terms of making consumers, people, better off. What's wrong with thinking in these terms? It's not good to make people better off?

Coming into a thread about income inequality and taking the position that we shouldn't distort the workweek, or try to satisfy some minimum income or (shock, gasp!) "living wage" because it distorts business and degrades production is kind of like coming into a serial killer survivor support group and taking the position that we shouldn't criminalize murder because it distorts the public image of serial killers and degrades murder statistics.

So in other words, making people better off (serving consumers) means nothing other than imagery and statistics? Why do you hate people so much that you don't want them to be better off and think their welfare is nothing but public imagery and statistics?

Incidentally, the sheer sociopathic gall of describing a living wage as a "social theory" that gets in the way of business is almost so stereotypically Hollywood evil capitalist fatcat that I'm having trouble processing the idea that someone could actually hold such a demented position.

But your "social theory" wage schemes make all consumers worse off by forcing them to pay higher prices, and also by making it more difficult for employers to hire people to serve the consumers better. Why are you taking the demented position that we should make 300 million American consumers, including poor people, worse off because you're obsessed with giving free subsidies to a few million uncompetitive workers you think need to be babysitted by the state instead of making their own responsible choices?

Your premise for saying this is that most of these humans have no value to contribute to the society and so cannot "earn" their way. That's based on the present rhetoric about "jobs" and "employment" and the traditional "jobs" that are disappearing because of automation. But there's more to human need or social need than the traditional "jobs" and "employment" and "demand" and "production" of current economics.

No, my premise for saying it is that I don't judge humans by some perceived 'value' they have to society... *you* do.

But you ARE judging them, and your judgment is that they have no value and can produce no benefit and so are unneeded, and so all we can do is give them freebies because they are too worthless to produce any benefit in return. But if instead you think they can produce benefit and are needed, then why do you insist that we have to give them something for free instead of requiring something of value from them in return?

It is in everyone's interest to have people perform work in return for their "universal basic income" rather than receiving this without any conditions being placed upon it.

Then, as I explained to you, it wouldn't be a universal basic income. UBI is *guaranteed* income, universal and without strings attached. It doesn't work if you place conditions on it.

Then it should be extended to all people everywhere on earth (or to all who can be reached). Poor people in Haiti and Sudan etc. have much greater need. And it is possible to do it. And trying to do it, even if it falls way short of total success, would produce far greater benefit than limiting it to only Americans or to only one country.

Saying they have to be only of this country is attaching strings to it.

It is not in anyone's interest for them to receive this free and thus become parasites off others who produce value and get nothing in return from these recipients.

The fact that you would utter the term "parasites" makes it abundantly clear which of us divides people based on their "value" to society.

It makes it clear that you're uncomfortable with your premise that the people in question are worthless and can never be anything but parasites. My premise is that they could be productive and contribute without leeching off those who produce, while your premise is that they can never contribute and will have to leech off others. If you have guilt feelings about this premise of yours, maybe you should seek counseling.

It doesn't matter whether it can or not. I'm referring to a very small group of humans who have no functional value and could produce nothing. These should not be included in the "universal basic income" system, because this system should be reserved for people who would perform a function or "earn" their "universal basic income" rather than receiving it free.

You just keep turning into more of a stereotypically evil character.

Is it evil to recognize that there are some people who are brain-dead and cannot be productive? Like vegetative comatose patients? We should not talk about these? That's a no-no? pretend they don't exist? Why would these have to be included in a "universal basic income" program? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to include healthy Haitians or Sudanese than brain-dead Ameican comatose patients?

However, there would probably be a small group of totally dysfunctional humans, having no value whatever or any ability to perform anything, and it wouldn't matter if anything is done to provide for them. Private charity could take care of some of them.

"Some" of them? I'm almost afraid to ask what you think should happen to the rest.

So you insist that they have to be included in your "universal basic income" program? Don't claim your selection process is not "arbitrary" if you insist that brain-dead vegetative Americans must be in your program but healthy hungry children in Haiti are excluded even though the cost for the latter would require a tiny tiny fraction of the cost.

Your basic income program calls for providing all the recipients with enough income for them to enjoy a normal lifestyle. How many billions of tax dollars would that require in order to provide it to every severely retarded American?

Your program does include all the severely-mentally retarded, doesn't it? You don't arbitrarily exclude them, do you?

Whatever you define someone's value as, just don't impose it onto others who may have a different religious belief than yours. You are not entitled to impose costs onto others based upon your mystical theory of what human value is.

Are you seriously accusing the position that we shouldn't treat people differently based on their perceived value or lack thereof of being a mystical religious belief?

You have a theory of "value" that says a blob of human flesh that can do nothing but consume food and oxygen has some great human value. Unless you can scientifically describe what that value is, I can only assume it is something mystical or religious.

So do you want to explain what that "value" is? e.g., the "value" to society of a deformed infant with no brain stem? or of a vegetative comatose patient? I suggest a healthy goldfish has more "value" in any measurable scientific objective sense. So what is this non-mystical non-religious "value" you claim a brain-dead comatose patient has and that we should all have to pay the cost for and which should take priority over the needs of poor people in Haiti or Sudan?

More importantly, are you seriously so out of touch with reality that you're telling someone who thinks we should treat everyone *equally* [hungry children in Haiti and Sudan excluded] regardless of their "value", that they can't impose costs upon others?

Of course. Not even a wise all-seeing Pope like yourself is entitled to impose costs onto others based upon mystical cosmic insights you can't make accessible to others through verification or reason.

. . . while you explicitly divide people by their value to society while imposing costs on them in exchange for the right to fucking eat?

And while you divide people by their geographical location and arbitrarily exclude the ones far away out of convenience because your theory denies them the right to fucking eat because we have too many obese children in our own country to take care of first -- Yes, I'm saying that kind of scatter-brained logic is unfit to impose costs onto others.

In my world, everyone eats no matter what and the only judgement on people's value that matters is their own.

So now you're saying you do include the Haitians and all poor people worldwide in your "universal basic income" program?

In your world, everyone slaves away for food and those who can't are deemed worthless.

They're not entitled to something free, with no conditions, that others have to pay for, yes.

Whereas in your world, every blob of human flesh is preserved at whatever cost, to try as much as possible to give it a normal life so it can watch TV and go out to the club and socialize, even if it's a brain-dead comatose patient, AS LONG AS IT'S AN AMERICAN blob of flesh, and all other human lives are excluded.

Your theory is just slogans. You have not thought this through.

The weakest ones are non-humans, all of which you "kick into the gutter" just as a racist kicks into the gutter those of a different race.

And when exactly, have I said anything that suggests I would do something like that?

You have given no basis why some should be excluded from your "universal basic income" scheme. "kick into the gutter" means to exclude from the program. You are doing this if you exclude any suffering entity on the planet from your program. If you have to be selective, then you have to start where the need is greatest and you can make the greatest difference, which you don't do.

All I've done is take away the ridiculous argument that we must consider animals above or on equal footing to humans when it comes to taking care of everyone's needs. Never have I suggested we should mistreat them.

You introduced the phrase "kick into the gutter" as meaning to exclude anyone from the program, as I would exclude vegetative comatose patients from the "universal basic income" program, and as your program excludes (kicks "into the gutter") non-Americans and non-humans.

 

[ksen]

I see, so it has been decided that, yes, he is a poe.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I just did.

We do.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

Add Cuban Revolution, American Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Chinese Revolution, various South American Revolutions, various wars of independence against colonialism, various "Arab Springs" etc etc etc

A mixture of financial inequality and lack of power leading to "revolution" to gain one or both, whether the revolutionists are "the poor", or (usually) the middle classes; colonials, or "los Criollos colons", middle-class racists in both these latter cases; or "freedom fighters" who fondly imagine they are not racists. There are other complicating factors too - religion - for one, as in Muslim lands and N.Ireland, but the main things are, as has been pointed out, money and power.

Most of the revolutions you speak of were due to abuses, not simple inequality.

Yes siree Bob, inequality had nothing to do with say, the Ortegas owning 90% of the wealth in the country, or the nobility and clergy not having to pay taxes in the Ancient Regime, etc.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The US is a capitalist nation.

The US is a mixed-economy nation. Part Keynesian, part corporatist, part monetarist, part welfarist, and even part socialist.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh come on now, it not like two brothers have undue influence on the United States government or something.

Soros has a brother?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The US is a mixed-economy nation. Part Keynesian, part corporatist, part monetarist, part welfarist, and even part socialist.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh come on now, it not like two brothers have undue influence on the United States government or something.

Soros has a brother?

Him too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just did.

We do.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

Add Cuban Revolution, American Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Chinese Revolution, various South American Revolutions, various wars of independence against colonialism, various "Arab Springs" etc etc etc

A mixture of financial inequality and lack of power leading to "revolution" to gain one or both, whether the revolutionists are "the poor", or (usually) the middle classes; colonials, or "los Criollos colons", middle-class racists in both these latter cases; or "freedom fighters" who fondly imagine they are not racists. There are other complicating factors too - religion - for one, as in Muslim lands and N.Ireland, but the main things are, as has been pointed out, money and power.

Most of the revolutions you speak of were due to abuses, not simple inequality.

Yes siree Bob, inequality had nothing to do with say, the Ortegas owning 90% of the wealth in the country, or the nobility and clergy not having to pay taxes in the Ancient Regime, etc.

Abuse often causes inequality.

 

[dystopian]

I see, so it has been decided that, yes, he is a poe.

I *was* going to respond to each of his points... I'm crazy like that... but then I saw that it was mostly just him deliberately misrepresenting my positions and arguments in order to go off on rambling tangents. There really isn't much there to address.

Whether he's a poe or not, there's no way I'm going to manage to puzzle out those two posts and keep my own sanity.

I will only respond to one of his points, and only because he bolded it to stand out:

Whereas in your world, every blob of human flesh is preserved at whatever cost, to try as much as possible to give it a normal life so it can watch TV and go out to the club and socialize, even if it's a brain-dead comatose patient, AS LONG AS IT'S AN AMERICAN blob of flesh, and all other human lives are excluded.

Now why the fuck would I think a dumb-ass thing like that?

Surely it'd be; as long as it's a DUTCH blob of flesh.

 

[dx713]

Has it been decided yet whether or not lumpen is a poe or not?

Given that he was already posting on FRDB on another name, possibly before I even joined (can't remember right now), that's awfully persistent for a Poe.
(at the same time, that's also an awfully long time to still claim such extreme opinion that usually are watered down after a bold youth phase, so YMMV)

Back to the OP, I think the question is posed in wrong terms.
I have no problems with people becoming very rich, I even see some inequality as productive for society (kind of a reward system) as long as:
- the basic social net is in place;
- regulations exists so that they can't take advantage of their riches to claim power for themselves (and eventually dismantle the social net to get even richer);
- regulations exist so they can't privatize or destroy common goods (namely environment) in their quests for riches.

Application of my ideas will necessarily decrease inequality (citizen revenue and universal health care and education and common goods protection have a cost, which will need to be recouped with taxes), but decreased inequality is not the aim, contrary to what the average rightist seem to think when they clamor that leftists like me hate riches/success/job-creators/freedom/work-ethics/whatever-is-their-buzzword-in-your-country-today.