6 ms·

Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat i

by wffurr 13y ago

Wow. Just wow. Simply amazing you can think that given the distribution of wealth in the world. The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. And yet we don't – instead the vast majority of us continue to work hard to provide that global elite their "due". Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice?

ahomescu1 13y ago
I don't think you understand basic economics. > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Are you sure we have all the fuel and land to feed, house and clothe everyone? And if so, who's going to work for that? If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I'm not working to provide that. The reality is, food needs to be grown, clothes made and houses built. Some people need to work for that. In exchange for that work, they ask some sort of compensation from others, in the form of other services or goods. This has nothing to do with the "global elite", this is just the nature of trade. I think giving someone stuff for free without getting anything in return is a greater injustice than this "instutionalized theft" you speak of.
- mempko 13y ago
  At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?
  - auggierose 13y ago
    You've signed a contract with your employer to provide that help, you are not doing it for free.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    You do that because you have a reasonable expectation that they'll help you back in the future, though. If you have a coworker that always needs help and never contributes anything back, eventually you'll start grumbling and stop helping. (Such coworkers usually eventually get fired in well-performing organizations, or marginalized and ignored in poorly-performing ones.)
- thuuuomas 13y ago
  Are you or are you not included in the group consisting of 'everyone'?
thatswrong0 13y ago
> The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action? > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem? > Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice? Define justice. And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?
- scotty79 13y ago
  > Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Positive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      > I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation. Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        If they're not paying, they're trespassers. Out. They're free to pursue their right to life without violating someone else's, and they've got far more ability to provide for themselves than you're giving them credit for. Charity has its place, I advocate and facilitate it, and am not under any delusion that it comes from compelling others to contribute.
ahomescu1 13y ago
Also, keep in mind that money is not wealth. This "global elite" is not hoarding food, fuel or other basic necessities, they only have the money. New money can be printed, old money can be destroyed, new currencies can be created. The only real wealth is goods and services created/rendered by working people, and this "global elite" doesn't really have a strong grip on that.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Yes. Money is just a way of figuring out how much of the economical output of the whole system each money holder can use. By hoarding money rich don't do much harm. But because they have so much money they can hoard resources. And they do to earn more like so: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-aluminum-pile.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-alu... They also hoard food: http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trading/a-16839350 http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trad... They also can hoard companies. Buy them and harm them. This happens to most acquired startups. The problem is not that they have a lot of money. The problem is what they do with the money. Of course it's not all bad. There are things that rich people made that benefited everybody, but I'm guessing most such things were created on the way to getting rich.
- scotty79 13y ago
  The other thing rich people hoard is real estate. This increases price of one of most basic necessities. This also degrades the real estate resource because more people have to rent, and people who live in their own house tend to care about its state more than people who rent and people who own house just to rent it away.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    In principle, I agree. However, since the bubble crashed a few years back, real estate prices have been going down like crazy in many places (both US and Europe), because of the reduced demand.
    - 13y ago
ctdonath 13y ago
Average world per capita income, world GDP divided by population, is US$12,000/yr (PPP accounted for). That counts as the basic poverty line in the USA. The tiny global elite you impugne does not hoard anything relevant. They are just a hose thru which a lot of high velocity money flows, most of their income flowing right back out to others. Without them, the structure for working for that $12,000 average income would collapse and you'd be working a lot harder for a lot less net return. Take that high density money away from that elite, and you'll discover two things happen. One, you'll be out of a job and relegated to living exactly as a large percentage of world population does: eking out a meager existence from the land to paltry returns; that elite holds the high-wage system together because they profit from it, and without those returns there is little incentive to make such systems work. Two, averaging out all income & wealth so everyone has the same would soon coalesce back into the distribution we have now: those expecting a no-effort living wage produce nothing and get nothing for it, while those enticed by work*risk=profit will find a way and earn that which the others will give to survive. Yes, institutionalized theft: those who work and take risks having their earnings taken by threat of force by those having no moral & economic interest therein or beyond what was contracted for in a competitive market. Go live off the land for a year, excluding any connection to "the elite", and then tell me about the justice of someone taking the fruits of your labors from you simply because they exist (choosing not to produce).
- kphild 13y ago
  And there is zero effort put into figuring out a better system, since those in position of wealth and power don't have an incentive to change what feeds them. With less than 5% people employed in agriculture [1], it must be possible to allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives in jobs. The universal basic income, for instance, would achieve that without abolishing capitalism. The only problem are people who glorify employment. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wba... (I speak of developed countries only)
  - ctdonath 13y ago

by wffurr 13y ago

ahomescu1 13y ago

I don't think you understand basic economics. > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Are you sure we have all the fuel and land to feed, house and clothe everyone? And if so, who's going to work for that? If everyone gets food and shelter for free, I'm not working to provide that. The reality is, food needs to be grown, clothes made and houses built. Some people need to work for that. In exchange for that work, they ask some sort of compensation from others, in the form of other services or goods. This has nothing to do with the "global elite", this is just the nature of trade. I think giving someone stuff for free without getting anything in return is a greater injustice than this "instutionalized theft" you speak of.

mempko 13y ago
At work, do you help your co-worker without asking, or do you have them sign a contract and exchange money?
- auggierose 13y ago
  You've signed a contract with your employer to provide that help, you are not doing it for free.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  You do that because you have a reasonable expectation that they'll help you back in the future, though. If you have a coworker that always needs help and never contributes anything back, eventually you'll start grumbling and stop helping. (Such coworkers usually eventually get fired in well-performing organizations, or marginalized and ignored in poorly-performing ones.)
thuuuomas 13y ago
Are you or are you not included in the group consisting of 'everyone'?

thatswrong0 13y ago

> The only reason the vast majority of us have to work to eat is because the vast majority of the proceeds from our labor go to benefit a tiny global elite. Explain how this works logically. Do you honestly believe that if you simply took most of the money from rich people, that you would be able to sustainably feed everyone else? Have you considered all, if any, of the potential consequences of this action? > For quite a long time now, the technical means have existed to provide the basics of life to every human being on the planet at a modest cost. Again, explain how this works. A major issue with food, for example, is not one of production but instead transportation and distribution. How would making the rich poorer solve this problem? > Institutionalized theft? How about economic and social justice? Define justice. And who on Earth do you trust to take and do well with all of the money taken from rich people?

scotty79 13y ago
> Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Positive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    > I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation. Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      If they're not paying, they're trespassers. Out. They're free to pursue their right to life without violating someone else's, and they've got far more ability to provide for themselves than you're giving them credit for. Charity has its place, I advocate and facilitate it, and am not under any delusion that it comes from compelling others to contribute.

ahomescu1 13y ago

Also, keep in mind that money is not wealth. This "global elite" is not hoarding food, fuel or other basic necessities, they only have the money. New money can be printed, old money can be destroyed, new currencies can be created. The only real wealth is goods and services created/rendered by working people, and this "global elite" doesn't really have a strong grip on that.

scotty79 13y ago
Yes. Money is just a way of figuring out how much of the economical output of the whole system each money holder can use. By hoarding money rich don't do much harm. But because they have so much money they can hoard resources. And they do to earn more like so: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-aluminum-pile.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-alu... They also hoard food: http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trading/a-16839350 http://www.dw.de/germanys-dz-bank-ends-food-speculation-trad... They also can hoard companies. Buy them and harm them. This happens to most acquired startups. The problem is not that they have a lot of money. The problem is what they do with the money. Of course it's not all bad. There are things that rich people made that benefited everybody, but I'm guessing most such things were created on the way to getting rich.
scotty79 13y ago
The other thing rich people hoard is real estate. This increases price of one of most basic necessities. This also degrades the real estate resource because more people have to rent, and people who live in their own house tend to care about its state more than people who rent and people who own house just to rent it away.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  In principle, I agree. However, since the bubble crashed a few years back, real estate prices have been going down like crazy in many places (both US and Europe), because of the reduced demand.
  - 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

Average world per capita income, world GDP divided by population, is US$12,000/yr (PPP accounted for). That counts as the basic poverty line in the USA. The tiny global elite you impugne does not hoard anything relevant. They are just a hose thru which a lot of high velocity money flows, most of their income flowing right back out to others. Without them, the structure for working for that $12,000 average income would collapse and you'd be working a lot harder for a lot less net return. Take that high density money away from that elite, and you'll discover two things happen. One, you'll be out of a job and relegated to living exactly as a large percentage of world population does: eking out a meager existence from the land to paltry returns; that elite holds the high-wage system together because they profit from it, and without those returns there is little incentive to make such systems work. Two, averaging out all income & wealth so everyone has the same would soon coalesce back into the distribution we have now: those expecting a no-effort living wage produce nothing and get nothing for it, while those enticed by work*risk=profit will find a way and earn that which the others will give to survive. Yes, institutionalized theft: those who work and take risks having their earnings taken by threat of force by those having no moral & economic interest therein or beyond what was contracted for in a competitive market. Go live off the land for a year, excluding any connection to "the elite", and then tell me about the justice of someone taking the fruits of your labors from you simply because they exist (choosing not to produce).

kphild 13y ago
And there is zero effort put into figuring out a better system, since those in position of wealth and power don't have an incentive to change what feeds them. With less than 5% people employed in agriculture [1], it must be possible to allocate resources in a way that does not require most people to waste their lives in jobs. The universal basic income, for instance, would achieve that without abolishing capitalism. The only problem are people who glorify employment. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?order=wba... (I speak of developed countries only)
- ctdonath 13y ago