Originally posted by rwingett There is enormous wealth in the world and yet we have grinding poverty for millions of people. We have the capacity to adequately feed every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, but yet millions starve.
But the wealth required to feed is:
1. Food.
2. Logistics.
3. Education.
4. Good governance.
etc.
Not monetary wealth. I cannot live on dollars alone.
How is it possible to conclude anything other than these evils persist because the available resources are distributed in wildly uneven proportions? It must surely be the case that if the 1,200 billionaires were thrown into a pit and doused with napalm that millions of others would live. And my guess would be that someone would inherit their wealth and nothing would change. How would killing one millionaire for example feed a man in Uganda? It wouldn't. Instead it would cause the US to cut spending on good governance and put it into military spending to deal with the terrorists.
The rich DO stifle the economy. We could produce a superabundance of goods. We could adequately feed everyone. But we do not do either because they cannot be done at a profit. But surely that is the whole economic system, and not the top 1% of richest people only?
The not-so-very rich are quite capable of ending hunger and artificial scarcity. If they would get together, kill the rich and end their private ownership of the world's resources, then it would be done. Killing the rich would achieve nothing. It would just result in a new set of rich people. Surely the lessons of communist countries has taught us that? Instead, we need to come up with a better system that works, and show that it works by some other means than civil war and dictatorship. That always seems to result in the wrong sort of people getting into power and abusing the system all over again.
Originally posted by twhitehead But the wealth required to feed is:
1. Food.
2. Logistics.
3. Education.
4. Good governance.
etc.
Not monetary wealth. I cannot live on dollars alone.
How is it possible to conclude anything other than these evils persist because the available resources are distributed in wildly uneven proportions? It must surely be the case that if the 1,200 o result in the wrong sort of people getting into power and abusing the system all over again.
Don't be a bore. Of course just killing the rich won't solve anything. But it'll make the total transformation of society more entertaining.
If you can figure out how to engineer massive transfers of wealth to the disenfranchised without killing the rich, then be my guest. But all the efforts of all the economists in all the world only seem to make matters worse. The rich get fantastically richer while millions continue to starve.
Originally posted by rwingett If you can figure out how to engineer massive transfers of wealth to the disenfranchised without killing the rich, then be my guest. But all the efforts of all the economists in all the world only seem to make matters worse. The rich get fantastically richer while millions continue to starve.
Now whose being a bore? Do you seriously think economists are trying to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor or in any other way help the world? Any economist worth his salt is working for the rich (or is rich).
Its basic game theory. Some people will always be on top of the pile, and they use their influence to remain there. That includes employing most of the clever people to assist in keeping them there.
The only way to fight it is for those at the bottom to get together and use the strength of numbers. But since most people at the bottom are uneducated, and cant plan beyond tomorrows meal, (actually most don't even plan that far), it needs someone in the middle like you to come up with a plan.
But however entertaining killing off the rich might be, I really don't see how it helps.
Originally posted by twhitehead Now whose being a bore? Do you seriously think economists are trying to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor or in any other way help the world? Any economist worth his salt is working for the rich (or is rich).
Its basic game theory. Some people will always be on top of the pile, and they use their influence to remain there. That includes employi ...[text shortened]... lan.
But however entertaining killing off the rich might be, I really don't see how it helps.
Look, man, you're cramping my style. "Kill the rich" is just shorthand for all the myriad changes necessary to change an unjust system. It's just a catch phrase (but don't tell).
Don't look to me to change the world, though. Any elite only ends up serving their own short sighted interests, not the ones of those they claim to represent. Your bourgeois revolution, with its educated vanguard, is doomed before it even starts. But I don't share the distrust (or contempt) you seem to have for the mass of humanity. It may take a perfect storm of events to rouse them from their slumber, but history demonstrates that such events do happen on occasion.
Originally posted by Palynka Looks interesting, although also potentially mind-numbingly boring.
Why boring? On this forum people repeatedly challenge atheists to come up with a better statement of their values and here is quite an accessible writer offering to do that for us. Obviously not as succinctly as rwingett, but his approach in the article seems entertaining and provocative to me and I have enjoyed other writings by Grayling. As an added bonus he promises not to hammer on about God and religion in the book so you can't accuse him of just trotting out that stuff again.
As for what to expect, I wonder how much he can improve (if at all) on the writings of the Greeks, prior to their being silenced by Christianity?
Hey rwingett (or anyone else), do you think the powers that be want to keep some part of the word poor and hungry? (Prefferably a part of the world that is far away from the people with the cash (the U.S.) )
You think that keeping people hungry and pissed off , as they see others squander wealth on a daily basis that could feed their families for a lifetime, makes for an angry third world and therefore justifies the military budget and hardline views (amongst other things)?
Is there an advantage for the rich to keep this lopp-sided dynamic in this so-called "free world"?
Originally posted by karoly aczel Is there an advantage for the rich to keep this lopp-sided dynamic in this so-called "free world"?
$$$
Read anything the US has done over the past century in Latin America. We've sparked civil wars, contributed to drug wars, interfered with internal economic affairs, started up banana republics, assassinated communist/socialist leaders all in the name of profit.
Originally posted by karoly aczel Hey rwingett (or anyone else), do you think the powers that be want to keep some part of the word poor and hungry? (Prefferably a part of the world that is far away from the people with the cash (the U.S.) )
You think that keeping people hungry and pissed off , as they see others squander wealth on a daily basis that could feed their families for a l ...[text shortened]... here an advantage for the rich to keep this lopp-sided dynamic in this so-called "free world"?
US foreign policy is designed to keep as much of the world subservient to US interests as is possible. Keeping them poor and hungry is the inevitable outcome, but not necessarily the goal.
Originally posted by rwingett But if several million people die each year from hunger because $4.5 trillion is concentrated in the hands of 1,200 people, then from a utilitarian point of view killing the billionaires would be a humanitarian act. For the price of 1,200 people, we would save several million.
ooh goody the philosophy of Mill et all. I'm in, who's first on the list? *cleans and oils gun*
Originally posted by Doward ooh goody the philosophy of Mill et all. I'm in, who's first on the list? *cleans and oils gun*
I'm going to lengthen the list until it includes a number of people on this forum. Of course all Americans will be included as it is ultimately their fault. If it wasn't for the US (supported by its citizens), capitalism and the associated poverty would not have such a strangle hold on the world.
Next I will add all Europeans (because of their protectionist policies).
And Zimbabweans for having a good thing and then wasting it.
Originally posted by rwingett Don't look to me to change the world, though. Any elite only ends up serving their own short sighted interests, not the ones of those they claim to represent. Your bourgeois revolution, with its educated vanguard, is doomed before it even starts. But I don't share the distrust (or contempt) you seem to have for the mass of humanity. It may take a perfect st ...[text shortened]... ouse them from their slumber, but history demonstrates that such events do happen on occasion.
As far as I can tell, you are saying we should get rid of the Capitalist system where we believe we are working largely for our own benefit and replace it with one where we work for the common good. Are you willing to do that personally? Do you currently do that?
Originally posted by twhitehead As far as I can tell, you are saying we should get rid of the Capitalist system where we believe we are working largely for our own benefit and replace it with one where we work for the common good. Are you willing to do that personally? Do you currently do that?
i would also like to add to your post:
Who decides what the common good is? Would it be ok if someone decides you are in contradiction with the common good and need to be "killed"(or whatever he wants to do with the rich)
The Good Book
06 Apr '11 18:18
Back to Top