4 ms·

It might help, actually. Your assumption is that what the rich do with their mmonet doesn't actually hurt the poor; but it can. Itcab be used to purchase narrat

It might help, actually. Your assumption is that what the rich do with their mmonet doesn't actually hurt the poor; but it can. Itcab be used to purchase narratives and political influence in ways deeply harmful

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 9y ago
You're still focusing your attention on supposed bad behavior of the rich rather than the wellbeing of the poor. If you think the poor need something, like say more funding for inner city schools, then say that and suggest a reasonable tax, perhaps a tax on luxury goods that would disproportionately affect the wealthy. Or if there's a specific bad behavior, such as pharmaceutical advertising, talk about that. But just complaining about wealth inequality sounds more like hating the rich than caring about the poor.
- your-nanny 9y ago
  But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else. They advocate policies that guarantee they can continue to extract wealth from rents rather than productive avtivities, dragging down the economic well being of all. And the rich are more likely to cheat on their taxes, try to bribe officials, or flat out disregard the law. And the rich have disproportionate power to do so, and work very hard to make it stay that way.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. Do you suppose it's possible for you to advocate for a specific amount of welfare that you feel is "generous" without attempting to villainize the very people you hope to pay for it? >They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else. First, one of the major motivations of achieving success in life is so that your children will be better off. So all you've established is that rich people are good parents. Secondly, you're still just upset that someone has a lot, rather than focusing on a specific problem that some group of poor people has. You're just hating the rich rather than showing an interest in helping the poor. Third, fortunes generally disappear after 3 generations, so it's not as if huge dynasties are being created that last forever. If you're rich, your grandkids get to go to a nice private school. That's pretty much it. >They advocate policies that guarantee they can continue to extract wealth from rents rather than productive avtivities, dragging down the economic well being of all. Yes, things like regulatory capture are a problem. I will hold up a sign and protest it alongside you. But do you see you you're STILL pointing to the "rich" rather than "bad policy?" >And the rich are more likely to cheat on their taxes, try to bribe officials, or flat out disregard the law. I've never met a person who worked for tips that didn't cheat on their taxes, have you? But more importantly, we're back at the same place. Rather than advocating for or against a specific policy, you're just slinging mud. You care more about saying mean things about rich people than you do about issues the poor might be facing.
    - your-nanny 9y ago
      Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds, yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. A society so structured is unjust, fragile, and generally suboptimal. Such societies lend themselves to demogougery and collapse. One needbt even resort to claims of moral and ethical failure on the part of those who have power to conclude this thing, and yet it is also true that power and wealth have deletrious effects on a number of features of that which we might call virtue, including empathy.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        >the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. Okay, let's talk about campaign finance reform. Or is making sure there's no rich people more important to you than making sure everyone has equal political power?
        your-nanny 9y ago
        Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a rather tired narrative, one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
- your-nanny 9y ago
  Sometimes wealth is the problem.
- Frondo 9y ago
  You're free not to care about inequality, so go for it. I haven't seen any convincing evidence-based argument that a high degree of inequality is either neutral or good for society as a whole, nor do I have any philosophical leanings that suggest that it is an acceptable byproduct of an otherwise fair and just society. Going by both evidence (health outcomes, class mobility, etc) and by my philosophical leanings that it don't seem right for so few people to own so much (when ownership itself is a purely fictional thing), I'm going to keep talking about inequality as a Bad Thing to be addressed. Don't like it? You do you, but telling me I'm focusing my behavior on one thing or another is about the least compelling thing to say.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Consultant32452 9y ago

You're still focusing your attention on supposed bad behavior of the rich rather than the wellbeing of the poor. If you think the poor need something, like say more funding for inner city schools, then say that and suggest a reasonable tax, perhaps a tax on luxury goods that would disproportionately affect the wealthy. Or if there's a specific bad behavior, such as pharmaceutical advertising, talk about that. But just complaining about wealth inequality sounds more like hating the rich than caring about the poor.

your-nanny 9y ago
But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else. They advocate policies that guarantee they can continue to extract wealth from rents rather than productive avtivities, dragging down the economic well being of all. And the rich are more likely to cheat on their taxes, try to bribe officials, or flat out disregard the law. And the rich have disproportionate power to do so, and work very hard to make it stay that way.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >But rich people largely advocate against policies that favor poor people, like generous welfare and equitable taxation. Rich people advocate for policies that protect their status and the value of their properties and investments. Do you suppose it's possible for you to advocate for a specific amount of welfare that you feel is "generous" without attempting to villainize the very people you hope to pay for it? >They advocate against redistributive inheritance taxes, so that their own children continue to have enormous advantages over anyone else. First, one of the major motivations of achieving success in life is so that your children will be better off. So all you've established is that rich people are good parents. Secondly, you're still just upset that someone has a lot, rather than focusing on a specific problem that some group of poor people has. You're just hating the rich rather than showing an interest in helping the poor. Third, fortunes generally disappear after 3 generations, so it's not as if huge dynasties are being created that last forever. If you're rich, your grandkids get to go to a nice private school. That's pretty much it. >They advocate policies that guarantee they can continue to extract wealth from rents rather than productive avtivities, dragging down the economic well being of all. Yes, things like regulatory capture are a problem. I will hold up a sign and protest it alongside you. But do you see you you're STILL pointing to the "rich" rather than "bad policy?" >And the rich are more likely to cheat on their taxes, try to bribe officials, or flat out disregard the law. I've never met a person who worked for tips that didn't cheat on their taxes, have you? But more importantly, we're back at the same place. Rather than advocating for or against a specific policy, you're just slinging mud. You care more about saying mean things about rich people than you do about issues the poor might be facing.
  - your-nanny 9y ago
    Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds, yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. A society so structured is unjust, fragile, and generally suboptimal. Such societies lend themselves to demogougery and collapse. One needbt even resort to claims of moral and ethical failure on the part of those who have power to conclude this thing, and yet it is also true that power and wealth have deletrious effects on a number of features of that which we might call virtue, including empathy.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      >the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. Okay, let's talk about campaign finance reform. Or is making sure there's no rich people more important to you than making sure everyone has equal political power?
      - your-nanny 9y ago
        Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a rather tired narrative, one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
your-nanny 9y ago
Sometimes wealth is the problem.
Frondo 9y ago
You're free not to care about inequality, so go for it. I haven't seen any convincing evidence-based argument that a high degree of inequality is either neutral or good for society as a whole, nor do I have any philosophical leanings that suggest that it is an acceptable byproduct of an otherwise fair and just society. Going by both evidence (health outcomes, class mobility, etc) and by my philosophical leanings that it don't seem right for so few people to own so much (when ownership itself is a purely fictional thing), I'm going to keep talking about inequality as a Bad Thing to be addressed. Don't like it? You do you, but telling me I'm focusing my behavior on one thing or another is about the least compelling thing to say.