3 ms·

>The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We d

by phillmv 14y ago

>The moment you enter the game the advantage is already favoring the rich. If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. >My point is how is that default advantage the rich have, a disadvantage to the poor? Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites.

kamaal 14y ago
>> If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. Correct, but I believe that will come through opportunities. The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. And as a rule of thumb, opportunities always present themselves in the form for some work. I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you people have county schools which are free? Don't you people now have some form national healthcare system? Don't you have social security? I would already consider these as very big advantages compared to many other countries. I mean the government can practically support you when you go broke, and then of course its up to you to take it from there. >>Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. True only if the percentage of wealth created at any time static, which it is definitely not. >>Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites. I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy, because that is good motivator to create more wealth.
- phillmv 14y ago
  >I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. It's not a leader overall. It may have the most billionaires, but if you're looking at average outcomes you're probably best off in Norway. >I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Absolutely. It doesn't work nearly as well otherwise. >The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. Responsibility and availability of opportunities. The more opportunities, the more people benefit. We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities. And what are the progressive schemes for doing that?
    - phillmv 14y ago
      Standard social welfare and insurance comes to mind. There are many possible policies, but that's the outlook at least.
  - tomp 14y ago
    > best off in Norway Don't use Norway as an example of a prosperous society. It's an extremely oil-rich country, and while it's doing much better than most other oil-rich countries are, it's not like a non-oil-rich country could emulate its policies. Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland are much more appropriate examples. However, both Sweeden and Switzerland enjoy plenty of cheap foreign labour (I don't know for Denmark).
  - ucee054 14y ago
    I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Huh? Wealth IS the reward. I don't understand why you would reward someone for getting rewarded. Normally, one is rewarded for doing things that lead to desired outcomes. A rational society would reward people for contributions to the environment, public safety, education, whatever society happens to need. No rational society would reward spivs for being wealthy, especially if in the process of gaining said wealth the spivs damage society with undesired outcomes. Which is standard operating procedure. Examples of this abound, including blowing up the housing market then asking for bailouts, corrupting politics through lobbying, polluting the environment or deceiving the public through misleading advertising and public relations, etc etc etc

by phillmv 14y ago

kamaal 14y ago

>> If you're progressive, the idea is to try to level the playing fields somewhat. We don't have to equalize them, just try to improve everyone's odds a little bit. Correct, but I believe that will come through opportunities. The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. And as a rule of thumb, opportunities always present themselves in the form for some work. I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you people have county schools which are free? Don't you people now have some form national healthcare system? Don't you have social security? I would already consider these as very big advantages compared to many other countries. I mean the government can practically support you when you go broke, and then of course its up to you to take it from there. >>Because the more of the total percentage of economic activity gets captured by an oligarchy the less is available for everyone else. True only if the percentage of wealth created at any time static, which it is definitely not. >>Further more, the issue at hand is that across the west we're enacting policies that make tilt the balance even more towards elites. I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy, because that is good motivator to create more wealth.

phillmv 14y ago
>I would believe US is far better of at this than any other country I know of. It's not a leader overall. It may have the most billionaires, but if you're looking at average outcomes you're probably best off in Norway. >I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Absolutely. It doesn't work nearly as well otherwise. >The poor will be given opportunities, but however remember using them and converting them to goodness is really their responsibility. Responsibility and availability of opportunities. The more opportunities, the more people benefit. We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  We're talking about increasing the pool of opportunities. And what are the progressive schemes for doing that?
  - phillmv 14y ago
    Standard social welfare and insurance comes to mind. There are many possible policies, but that's the outlook at least.
- tomp 14y ago
  > best off in Norway Don't use Norway as an example of a prosperous society. It's an extremely oil-rich country, and while it's doing much better than most other oil-rich countries are, it's not like a non-oil-rich country could emulate its policies. Denmark, Sweeden and Switzerland are much more appropriate examples. However, both Sweeden and Switzerland enjoy plenty of cheap foreign labour (I don't know for Denmark).
- ucee054 14y ago
  I think any economic system should reward getting wealthy Huh? Wealth IS the reward. I don't understand why you would reward someone for getting rewarded. Normally, one is rewarded for doing things that lead to desired outcomes. A rational society would reward people for contributions to the environment, public safety, education, whatever society happens to need. No rational society would reward spivs for being wealthy, especially if in the process of gaining said wealth the spivs damage society with undesired outcomes. Which is standard operating procedure. Examples of this abound, including blowing up the housing market then asking for bailouts, corrupting politics through lobbying, polluting the environment or deceiving the public through misleading advertising and public relations, etc etc etc