Och-Ziff Capital Management

People don't starve because tax rates aren't high enough. People starve because no one (including yourself cares). You could help a person who is hungry right now if you wanted to. But you have no intention of helping anyone. You merely want to bash people who make a lot of money.

The rich don't steal the wealth of the poor. In fact they don't steal at all. The go to work and earn money.

Originally posted by quackquack
People don't starve because tax rates aren't high enough. People starve because no one (including yourself cares). You could help a person who is hungry right now if you wanted to. But you have no intention of helping anyone. You merely want to bash people who make a lot of money.

The rich don't steal the wealth of the poor. In fact they don't steal at all. The go to work and earn money.

Just because their activity is 'legal' doesn't mean the rich aren't stealing from the poor. They are, on a massive scale. But they've got the law in their back pocket.

And just because you are poor does not mean that rich person stole from you.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
did it work in the UK?

The UK has a UN Gini Coefficient of 36, the US has a 40.8, Denmark has a 24.7.

So the UK, even after the Thatcherite disaster, is more egalitarian than the US. Denmark is far better.

Originally posted by quackquack
And just because you are poor does not mean that rich person stole from you.

Yes it does.

Originally posted by rwingett
The UK has a UN Gini Coefficient of 36, the US has a 40.8, Denmark has a 24.7.

So the UK, even after the Thatcherite disaster, is more egalitarian than the US. Denmark is far better.

US population, 2010 estimate 308,618,000

UK population 2009 estimate 61,113,205

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant

There are between 500,000 and 700,000 illegal immigrants in Britain.

Between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants are estimated to be living in the United States; due to the nature of illegal immigration, the exact number is unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

Although it is difficult to know how many people reside in the UK illegally, a Home Office study released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000.[60] Migration Watch UK has criticised the Home Office figures for not including the UK-born dependent children of unauthorised migrants. They suggest the Home Office has underestimated the numbers of unauthorised migrants by between 15,000 and 85,000.[61] In 2002 the Home office stated that the figures Migration Watch produces should be treated with 'considerable caution',[62] without any further explanation as to why.

A recent study into irregular immigration states that "most irregular migrants have committed administrative offences rather than a serious crime".[63]

Jack Dromey, Deputy General of the Transport and General Workers Union and Labour Party treasurer, suggested in May 2006 that there could be around 500,000 illegal workers. He called for a public debate on whether an amnesty should be considered.[64] David Blunkett has suggested that this might be done once the identity card scheme is rolled out.[65]

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes it does.

why have microfinance in the 3rd-world only? do they have it in the US?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
US population, 2010 estimate 308,618,000

UK population 2009 estimate 61,113,205

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant

There are between 500,000 and 700,000 illegal immigrants in Britain.

Between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants are estimated to be living in the United States; due to the nature of illegal immigration, the exact ...[text shortened]... nkett has suggested that this might be done once the identity card scheme is rolled out.[65]

?

What has this got to do with anything?

UK illegal population percentage is 0.7 to 0.8 pct.

US illegal population percentage is 4 to 6.6 pct.

what do you think that would do to your coefficients?

also note from the Gini wikipedia page there are problems with using the Gini coefficient to estimate egalitarianism.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why have microfinance in the 3rd-world only? do they have it in the US?

Let's approach this from another direction.

Do you agree that we have the productive capacity to adequately feed every man woman and child on the face of the earth? If so, do we not have a moral obligation to do so? If we have that productive capacity, but we quietly accept a system which allows people to starve, are we not morally culpable for those deaths?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
UK illegal population percentage is 0.7 to 0.8 pct.

US illegal population percentage is 4 to 6.6 pct.

what do you [b]think that would do to your coefficients?

also note from the Gini wikipedia page there are problems with using the Gini coefficient to estimate egalitarianism.[/b]

That's the benefit of living on an island, I guess.

I have no interest in illegal immigration. As far as I'm concerned, the US deserves to be overrun by illegal immigrants. It would be just punishment for foisting Milton Friedman upon the world.

productive capacity won't help you much if you can't get the food to the people's mouths.

Originally posted by rwingett
That's the benefit of living on an island, I guess.

I have no interest in illegal immigration. As far as I'm concerned, the US deserves to be overrun by illegal immigrants. It would be just punishment for foisting Milton Friedman upon the world.

if you're happy with that, you should be happy with an inflated Gini coefficient, as well.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
productive capacity won't help you much if you can't get the food to the people's mouths.

We have the capability of doing both. You know we do. The thing that stops us from doing so is that it can't be done at a profit. People are allowed to starve because there isn't enough money to be made from feeding them.

Do you dispute that conclusion?

Originally posted by rwingett
We have the capability of doing both. You know we do. The thing that stops us from doing so is that it can't be done at a profit. People are allowed to starve because there isn't enough money to be made from feeding them.

Do you dispute that conclusion?

I agree with the conclusion that people starve because it is not profitable to feed them. However, that is a very different argument then what you stated before that people starve because a few ultra rich people treat the rest of society like plantation workers. I live in New York City and there are homeless people (really not that many) and literally millions people pass them each day. We could buy houses for them if everyone contributed their Starbucks money. But average Americans (not just super rich) cannot be bothered.