3 ms·

Second, the wealthy are very good at keep their wealth for their families, those who are like them, those who went to the same school, etc. The wealthy take ca

Second, the wealthy are very good at keep their wealth for their families, those who are like them, those who went to the same school, etc. The wealthy take care of their friends and families? And this is a problem? Do you know anyone, wealthy or not that doesn't take care of their family? The worse the disparity in income, the worse the economic mobility and the worse society is as a whole. Debatable. Certainly, an even distribution doesn't fare to well either, especially if you have read any bit of history of the 20th century. What you are suggesting however that the poor, without adequate safety nets, can become a burden to society that is a net negative overall. This may be true, but not what PG is talking about. In Europe, however, you don't trip over the homeless and crazy as you do in San Francisco. Um, what? There are as many homeless and poor to "trip over" in Europe as there are in the US. Ever seen Gypsies?. And those "crazy" folk aren't on the street because they are locked away in institutions that the US - for better or worse - long ago decided weren't good for them. Like I said, I'm not arguing about safety nets, because I think the US could use a few more, and I don't think PG was commenting on that subject either.

david927 17y ago
The wealthy take care of their friends and families? And this is a problem? It's understandable, sure, but it's also a problem. I understand why the Saudi Royal family wants to keep all the oil money to themselves. I'm saying it's not healthy for Saudi Arabia as a whole. Certainly, an even distribution doesn't fare to well either Of course. I'm arguing that the other extreme is also bad -- that strong Capitalism eventually leans towards Feudalism. The trick is to find a balance: to reward achievers but provide sufficient safety nets. Um, what? There are as many homeless and poor to "trip over" in Europe Have you been to Europe? Really? I lived in SF and Berkeley, and I live in Europe now. It's quite simply, empirically, not comparable. And those "crazy" folk aren't on the street because they are locked away in institutions that the US - for better or worse - long ago decided weren't good for them. No, the US didn't decide that; it's a state issue. In Idaho it's quite good, for example. In California, Reagan, when he was governor, shut down a lot of the asylums and clinics to save money. Now, in California, you have lot of McMansions and lots of people who need serious medical help rummaging in the garbage.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  I'm saying it's not healthy for Saudi Arabia as a whole. You should visit the kingdom. Economically, the people there are pretty well off. Democratically not so much. It's quite simply, empirically, not comparable. You're going to have to find something more than anecdotal observations to make a claim that there are more homeless in the US than there are in Europe. Until then, I've got a tough time accepting that claim, even if I think the US would benefit from more safety nets.

david927 17y ago

The wealthy take care of their friends and families? And this is a problem? It's understandable, sure, but it's also a problem. I understand why the Saudi Royal family wants to keep all the oil money to themselves. I'm saying it's not healthy for Saudi Arabia as a whole. Certainly, an even distribution doesn't fare to well either Of course. I'm arguing that the other extreme is also bad -- that strong Capitalism eventually leans towards Feudalism. The trick is to find a balance: to reward achievers but provide sufficient safety nets. Um, what? There are as many homeless and poor to "trip over" in Europe Have you been to Europe? Really? I lived in SF and Berkeley, and I live in Europe now. It's quite simply, empirically, not comparable. And those "crazy" folk aren't on the street because they are locked away in institutions that the US - for better or worse - long ago decided weren't good for them. No, the US didn't decide that; it's a state issue. In Idaho it's quite good, for example. In California, Reagan, when he was governor, shut down a lot of the asylums and clinics to save money. Now, in California, you have lot of McMansions and lots of people who need serious medical help rummaging in the garbage.

run4yourlives 17y ago
I'm saying it's not healthy for Saudi Arabia as a whole. You should visit the kingdom. Economically, the people there are pretty well off. Democratically not so much. It's quite simply, empirically, not comparable. You're going to have to find something more than anecdotal observations to make a claim that there are more homeless in the US than there are in Europe. Until then, I've got a tough time accepting that claim, even if I think the US would benefit from more safety nets.