Posted on 04/09/2017 10:27:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Someone needs to tell ole A.Q. that you could divide all of the wealth in the world up evenly and within 2 years the wealthy would once again be wealthy and the poor would return to being poor. But more importantly, the poor would not see much of an increase.
There are 1,800 billionaires around the globe with a combined wealth of almost 6.5 trillion. There are 7 billion people now inhabiting the world. That means every man woman and child would each get 928.57 (if I did my math correctly 8>).
The count of millionaires range between 15 million to 35 million, depending on who is counting. Let's be generous and say they control 18.5 trillion. So each man woman & child would receive 3,714.28 (from both billionaires & millionaires).
Now of course that would not be equitable because those with the larger families would get more than the single person or even smaller families.
But the point is, the poor would return to being poor because they are either consumers only with little to no skills at one end of the scale, and it would slide up until you got to the people who know how to make & amass money to begin with. Thus it would not last in the hands of others very long.
The central point, however, is this: it is not justifiable to retain vast wealth. This is because that wealth has the potential to help people who are suffering, and by not helping them you are letting them suffer.
Read the article searching in vain for the key to prove this was some "Modest Proposal" satire with a "let's eat the rich" gotcha line somewhere. I, instead, became convinced this guy really means it and that he feels he is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the maximum moral income. The author's premise equating harming someone with not helping them, that to not reverse something is to cause it is logically unsupportable; the last line I quoted here would make God the most immoral being in the universe having the ability to cure all ills and yet letting humans suffer.
Funny that it's immoral to keep the fruit of you labors but a perfectly rational defense of your convenience to murder the fruit of your womb.
I ain’t even gonna read this shit, it is immoral to not do your best to become rich so you can support your family.
Excellent and effectively to the point.
Being rich means never having to say you’re sorry.
All you need to do is understand our banking system in order to also understand that the people who have accumulated great wealth in recent decades most definitely caused widespread poverty as a direct result.
The way to get rich in America today is to steal it.
There’s little more pathetic than someone who has been stolen from attacking his fellow victims in defense of thieves.
> By what moral imperative are those who lack things entitled to take from those don’t lack?
If we are talking stolen property - and to a great degree, we are - that moral imperative is simple justice.
I could drop here name after name after name after name of Americans who have stolen enormous sums from other, poorer, Americans.
See, while it’s not right for the poor to steal from the wealthy, it’s quite a bit less right for the rich to steal from the poor.
“Tax the rich, feed the poor/ ‘til there are no rich no more,”
Even as a kid I wondered if they meant those lyrics (and were stupid) or if it was irony.
My fav - Rush, used the obviously ironic “And the trees were all kept equal by hatchet, ax, and saw.”
I only got a few paragraphs in. Freedom of Speech lets you know who the idiots are. The internet lets every twenty-something with a blog prove it.
I want to say this is satire.
Please say it is satire. I thought Marx died about 100 years ago.
Our pastor told the story of some guy (another church) that was a clothing buyer. The sermon was about “Justice” or something, and the buyer’s thoughts started to wander.
They bought their jeans from Malaysia or somewhere for a few bucks and sold them for over $100. He spoke with his boss, then talked to the manufacturer and asked what the worker’s wages would need to be so the kids could go to school, decent health care, etc.
They all agreed to pay a bit more for the jeans (like $9 a pair) and still made money on them. Of course I didn’t ask my preacher how he knows from the story that the owner of the factory in Malaysia was passing the extra money down to his workers. But - it made the American guys feel better.
AND - if there was a way to verify it - a good idea IMHO.
I read a story years ago about an Indian rat-catcher that with a micro-load was able to buy (and pay off) a $50 smoker device. His rat catch was tripled, and just with that he was able to send his three kids to extended education, and they would not have to be rat catchers.
(Of course it was evil rich guys that came up with the smoker idea, build it, and provide the loans.)
The other thing my preacher didn’t take into account - $3 in Malyasia goes a lot further than in the USA. I had a guy working for me in Indonesia. He got 50 cents an hour, and $1.50 an hour when he was with me (over an 8-hour day and off the site). He said it was the best job in all of Indoneisa. (Well - his room and board were covered by the company). Then the clincher. “In six years I will have saved enough money to build my very own house.” (It took me 27 years to pay off my house!)
Sorry. Just as ridiculous as to say it is immoral to be poor. Actually there is probably a better argument to be made...
Very strange. This concept of immorality, I cannot find in my Bible, the book I use to set morality parameters.
Very strange. This concept of immorality, I cannot find in my Bible, the book I use to set morality parameters.
...”The point of that story is not that wealth is immoral.”...
This writer did not mention the greatest danger inherent in one person accumulating wealth enough to buy his own country or a whole nation of people (slaves). Technology has made this possible for some like Zuckerberg (FaceBook) and Bezos (Amazon and, now Washington Post), how about George Soros, about whom it is said that he has financed professional protest groups to overturn the government of the US. We read that all three are left wingers who have a huge ability to set the political standard in any nation through the influence that money can buy and through the acquisition of the media such as Bezos has done. This is a very dangerous use of wealth for the world at large. Bill and Melina Gates (Microsoft), on the other hand, seem to use their wealth to do far greater good for humanity, through, for example, funding research to cure disease. Wish they would take a look at neurological diseases which are going to pose a crisis for healthcare in the not too far off future ( http://health.usf.edu/medicine/neurology ) A billion dollars to the neurology research at this institution has the potential to relieve some of the most terrible suffering in this world. Instead Bezos and Zuckerberg seem more interested in manipulation of the news and what can go out on social media than on the ugly human suffering which goes on under public radar each and every day. Whether that suffering is hunger, addiction, abuse and hatred or disease, the field are white with harvest everywhere we look. I have heard and some of you may know the specifics of this, that around 8 families own more than 50% of the world’s wealth. If true and I believe it is, this sets up a “shadow” dictatorship that the rest of us live under, whether we are making a lot of money or whether we are living in poverty. In my view something should be done about men or women who can buy whole nations or manipulate whole nations with their wealth. Humanity is NOT for sale. I do not believe in redistribution based on politics, but I whole heartedly believe that some kind of cap should be put upon the accumulation of wealth across the board which puts the whole world in danger.
Spoken like a true limousine liberal. It is okay for them to be rich i.e. Clintons, Soros, and countless others, but is a sin if one is a rich conservative. Makes no difference if he started from scratch and earn it all above board where as the Clintons stole theirs.
Well, it’s obscene and would result in the end of all ingenuity and forward progress in science and technology, art and literature, medicine and agriculture ... so I would say it becoming the Democratic Platform is pretty likely.
Isn’t it funny how easy it is to vilify the wealthy even while desiring to be among their number? Feh...
Pure commie clap ap
I wonder if the author lives in a house and drives a car? Compared to a homeless bum, he's immeasurably wealthy. Sounds like the author needs to give up everything but the clothes on his back and go live in a cardboard box. He's not morally permitted to have anything more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.