Think tank polls support for issues among millionaires and the public, find millionaires shockingly - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44964026]it's pretty stupid to compare an average person & their possessions and wealth to a billionaire and theirs[/QUOTE] Why? Property rights are universal among every human being. Are you saying it's okay to deny people their human rights because they're better off?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964017]How would you feel if someone took your things because they felt you don't deserve it because there are people poorer than you?[/QUOTE] if it actually went towards benefitting those poorer than me i wouldn't give two shits. but yeah as lachz0r said that is such a stupid way to phrase your argument, how many lifetimes without working do you think you could live as an upper-middle class american with a couple billion dollars? now let's say they took away 95 percent of that... and you could still live as an upper-middle class american without ever having to work.. and as a bonus peoples lives get fucking saved because you and your investments don't outweigh the needs of the dying

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964057]Why? Property rights are universal among every human being. Are you saying it's okay to deny people their human rights because they're better off?[/QUOTE] huh weird i just re-read my post and it doesn't look like i said that. it's not denying someone their human rights when you expect them to give more because they can afford to. far out, yes expecting a billionaire to pay a bit more of his pocket change than usual what a denial of human rights [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] are all taxes a denial of human rights now?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964057]Why? Property rights are universal among every human being. Are you saying it's okay to deny people their human rights because they're better off?[/QUOTE] Are you one of those people who thinks taxes are an infringement on constitutional rights or something

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964057]Why? Property rights are universal among every human being. Are you saying it's okay to deny people their human rights because they're better off?[/QUOTE] yeah okay once again though a billionaires bank account being used (even if it was totally illegal!!) to save people who would otherwise die (protecting their RIGHT TO LIFE which last time i checked comes before your right to own a house (most people in the world don't)) is not a "violation of human rights" that should be taken more seriously than.. you know.. lives

pretty sure every or almost every western country already uses a progressive tax bracket so that people with more pay more so i guess we're all currently having our human rights infringed :(

like i know this is america and you'll shoot someone over your fifteen year old crt television because gosh dungit THAT'S MINE but consider that material possessions maybe aren't more important than other humans just because you wrote your name on them [editline]31st May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964017]How would you feel if someone took your things because they felt you don't deserve it because there are people poorer than you?[/QUOTE] i just realized how hilarious it is that this is your response to "i mean, what if i get super rich someday? i don't want some idiots taking half of my potential yacht-fleet away just so some morons who won't even bring me returns can keep polluting the air with their poverty-breath" ~~ugghhh~~~ why can't everyone poorer than me just die already they don't deserve medicine but what if, despite the needs of anyone else [b]I[/B] feel I deserve it more than those dirty poor people?? nevermind the damage i caused worldwide to earn this money (pollution and whatnot) i owe nothing to the world

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44964057]Why? Property rights are universal among every human being. Are you saying it's okay to deny people their human rights because they're better off?[/QUOTE] the concept of universal human rights is itself pretty laughable and an oxymoron so implying anything is a "human right" is kind of BS unless there's a law to protect it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964028]Are they really a byproduct of capitalism? It's not like Socialist or Feudal economies suffered from those exact same problems you described. "Capitalism" (idk how exactly you define it since its often poorly defined) at its core is a set of basic principles regarding how we should best approach the economic question. Strong and healthy market economies require strong democratic institutions with a deep respect for human rights and freedom of speech. You can't have any of those things without excluding the others. You need them all for a healthy society.[/QUOTE] only in capitalism there been such an incredibly high income disparity, which breeds a lot of things, but none them is a "democratic institution with deep respect for human rights/freedom of speech", main reason why nothing is done in relation to climate change is due to priority towards profit, capitalism in a way breeds, promotes and idealizes selfishness(the very idea of seeking profit above all else is selfishness) which is arguably the most damning of all, the many restrictions, guidelines and protections that exist to curtail all that were created mostly due to pressure from the horrible conditions workers had by the workers themselves in the old days and the threat of socialism. you're seeing right here, rich folks think cutting social security is a great thing, you need social security for a healthy society, rich folks don't give a fuck, you still think everything will go that well? people aren't logical, capitalism breeds selfishness, "fuck you got mine", now put 2+2 together, and look at the state of the planet, and tell me capitalism is doing fine.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44964252]only in capitalism there been such an incredibly high income disparity[/quote] I'm guessing the Feudal and Palace economies which constituted the rest of history were somehow exempt from this? Those historically were incredibly inequal. [quote]which breeds a lot of things, but none them is a "democratic institution with deep respect for human rights/freedom of speech", main reason why nothing is done in relation to climate change is due to priority towards profit, capitalism in a way breeds, promotes and idealizes selfishness(the very idea of seeking profit above all else is selfishness) which is arguably the most damning of all, the many restrictions, guidelines and protections that exist to curtail all that were created mostly due to pressure from the horrible conditions workers had by the workers themselves in the old days and the threat of socialism. you're seeing right here, rich folks think cutting social security is a great thing, you need social security for a healthy society, rich folks don't give a fuck, you still think everything will go that well? people aren't logical, capitalism breeds selfishness, "fuck you got mine", now put 2+2 together, and look at the state of the planet, and tell me capitalism is doing fine.[/QUOTE] I don't think we are on the same part here. You've gone on a rambling tangent about such and such without really identifying the core principles within "Capitalism" that specifically makes it fail. What is it? Is it the principle that trade should be largely controlled by private actors in a market instead of the state? Is it that the economy shouldn't be largely directed or directly controlled by the state? Should people be able to set their own prices for goods and services? Who should own the factors of production?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964403]I'm guessing the Feudal and Palace economies which constituted the rest of history were somehow exempt from this? Those historically were incredibly inequal. I don't think we are on the same part here. You've gone on a rambling tangent about such and such without really identifying the core principles within "Capitalism" that specifically makes it fail. What is it? Is it the principle that trade should be largely controlled by private actors in a market instead of the state? Is it that the economy shouldn't be largely directed or directly controlled by the state? Should people be able to set their own prices for goods and services? Who should own the factors of production?[/QUOTE] the core principle is capitalism is "profit", that is what makes it fail and i define capitalism as the same way the rich do, since they represent it , also i don't discount that capitalism works for what it is, increase the wealth, but how do you repart it? when your system is its very nature against it, 85 of the richest folks in the planet have as much wealth as half of humanity... they don't seem to be sharing the wealth. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world[/url] feudal economies and palace economies being unequal at least have the excuse of being from a time when humanity was incredibly ignorant(not that we're much better) and not as technologically advanced, humanity as whole now produces enough food for 10 billion humans, we still have nearly a billion starving, you think they were as unequal?(having poverty =/= unequal). as for your final question, you tell me, what do you think should be done, because what we have now clearly isn't working, its getting worse, and you're defending it. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/10/hunger-population-un-food-environment[/url]

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44964500]the core principle is capitalism is "profit", that is what makes it fail[/quote] So the concept of profit is in itself bad? [quote]feudal economies and palace economies being unequal at least have the excuse of being from a time when humanity was incredibly ignorant(not that we're much better) and not as technologically advanced, humanity as whole now produces enough food for 10 billion humans, we still have nearly a billion starving, you think they were as unequal?(having poverty =/= unequal).[/quote] And yet global capital suddenly arose when mass literacy became a thing? That many of the great enlightenment philosophers supported it for multiple various reasons, and that even Marx and other socialists owe a huge debt to the work of enlightenment philosophers? [quote]as for your final question, you tell me, what do you think should be done, because what we have now clearly isn't working, its getting worse, and you're defending it.[/quote] Well it depends on the specific problem. I don't know what you want, but sometimes you seem to imply something I don't think many people would like. You haven't really identified any major specific problems but I can try some myself. A lot of people are impoverished. There is a lot of environmental pollution. The ice caps are shrinking. Healthcare and social welfare is nowhere near suitable for the majority of the worlds population. Education is lacking and sporadic for millions. Food shortages are common in poorer nations. Housing is often poor. What do I suggest? I'm no great thinker, but I can probably give out a few ideas based on some reasoned principles that other people have thought of. Minimum income to wipe out poverty at the direct source. Increase funding to international organisations. Do more of these: [url]http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/[/url] Encourage countries worldwide to open up to the rest of the world and receive foreign ideas, people, and wealth. Remove tariffs on exported and imported goods. Remove restrictions on the ability of people to travel, work, live, and visit over national borders. Introduce regulations on polluting cars and encourage the development of more efficient fuels, engines, and alternative energy sources such as solar and nuclear. Build high speed railway networks, bus networks, subways, etc in metropolitan areas and bike lands. Discourage the use of automobiles and subsidize the electric or hydrogen cars and public transport. Abolish agricultural subsidies in the West so African farmers can grow crops for us and receive western money they in turn can use to develop their own countries. The list goes on.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964653]So the concept of profit is in itself bad? And yet global capital suddenly arose when mass literacy became a thing? That many of the great enlightenment philosophers supported it for multiple various reasons, and that even Marx and other socialists owe a huge debt to the work of enlightenment philosophers? Well it depends on the specific problem. I don't know what you want, but sometimes you seem to imply something I don't think many people would like. You haven't really identified any major specific problems but I can try some myself. A lot of people are impoverished. There is a lot of environmental pollution. The ice caps are shrinking. Healthcare and social welfare is nowhere near suitable for the majority of the worlds population. Education is lacking and sporadic for millions. Food shortages are common in poorer nations. Housing is often poor. What do I suggest? I'm no great thinker, but I can probably give out a few ideas based on some reasoned principles that other people have thought of. Minimum income to wipe out poverty at the direct source. Increase funding to international organisations. Do more of these: [url]http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/[/url] Encourage countries worldwide to open up to the rest of the world and receive foreign ideas, people, and wealth. Remove tariffs on exported and imported goods. Remove restrictions on the ability of people to travel, work, live, and visit over national borders. Introduce regulations on polluting cars and encourage the development of more efficient fuels, engines, and alternative energy sources such as solar and nuclear. Build high speed railway networks, bus networks, subways, etc in metropolitan areas and bike lands. Discourage the use of automobiles and subsidize the electric or hydrogen cars and public transport. Abolish agricultural subsidies in the West so African farmers can grow crops for us and receive western money they in turn can use to develop their own countries. The list goes on.[/QUOTE] putting profit ahead of everything is, last i checked selfishness is a bad, which is essentially what capitalism promotes, many of the things you suggested, will never be done in most of the planet, exactly because it goes against profit in general.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44964687]putting profit ahead of everything is, last i checked selfishness is a bad, which is essentially what capitalism promotes, many of the things you suggested, will never be done in most of the planet, exactly because it goes against profit in general.[/QUOTE] Just curious do you even understand what I'm for or want or what I even mean? Those things are not diametrically opposed to capitalism. Some promote the development and growth of healthy market economies. Others require gradual reform in combination. In fact I know for a fact they can be done because a lot of them have already been introduced in "Capitalist" nations. A country can be both "Capitalist" and care for the citizens located within it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964653]So the concept of profit is in itself bad? And yet global capital suddenly arose when mass literacy became a thing? That many of the great enlightenment philosophers supported it for multiple various reasons, and that even Marx and other socialists owe a huge debt to the work of enlightenment philosophers? Well it depends on the specific problem. I don't know what you want, but sometimes you seem to imply something I don't think many people would like. You haven't really identified any major specific problems but I can try some myself. A lot of people are impoverished. There is a lot of environmental pollution. The ice caps are shrinking. Healthcare and social welfare is nowhere near suitable for the majority of the worlds population. Education is lacking and sporadic for millions. Food shortages are common in poorer nations. Housing is often poor. What do I suggest? I'm no great thinker, but I can probably give out a few ideas based on some reasoned principles that other people have thought of. Minimum income to wipe out poverty at the direct source. Increase funding to international organisations. Do more of these: [url]http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/[/url] Encourage countries worldwide to open up to the rest of the world and receive foreign ideas, people, and wealth. Remove tariffs on exported and imported goods. Remove restrictions on the ability of people to travel, work, live, and visit over national borders. Introduce regulations on polluting cars and encourage the development of more efficient fuels, engines, and alternative energy sources such as solar and nuclear. Build high speed railway networks, bus networks, subways, etc in metropolitan areas and bike lands. Discourage the use of automobiles and subsidize the electric or hydrogen cars and public transport. Abolish agricultural subsidies in the West so African farmers can grow crops for us and receive western money they in turn can use to develop their own countries. The list goes on.[/QUOTE] wouldn't most of these things be government regulations that would step on the toes of systems corporations use to maximize profits? like, regulations on polluting cars? building public transportation? raising minimum wage?

[QUOTE=innerfire34;44964740]wouldn't most of these things be government regulations that would step on the toes of systems corporations use to maximize profits? like, regulations on polluting cars? building public transportation? raising minimum wage?[/QUOTE] I think you guys are using a much more American definition of the word "capitalism" than Sobotnik is. He's said repeatedly he supports regulated capitalism, not neo-liberal capitalism.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;44961718]that is the only one that doesn't seem too bad[/QUOTE] tldr china and human rights abuses in the workforce: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964714]Just curious do you even understand what I'm for or want or what I even mean? Those things are not diametrically opposed to capitalism. Some promote the development and growth of healthy market economies. Others require gradual reform in combination. In fact I know for a fact they can be done because a lot of them have already been introduced in "Capitalist" nations. A country can be both "Capitalist" and care for the citizens located within it.[/QUOTE] sobotnik, what you're describing is an enlightened way of looking at capitalism, what everyone SHOULD do in theory(which is basically a mix of socialism and capitalism), but don't, those things shouldn't be against capitalism, but they are in practice, people basically suck, people are inherently selfish, capitalism breeds individuality(which is connected to selfishness for better or worse), which makes things even worse, since most interpret as being free to be selfish, if the system doesn't work in taking that into account, how can anyone say it works? this list is a perfect example of that, there is also the fact not everyone has enough education to realize what is best for them, and one can easily acquire ENORMOUS wealth through exploiting the poor, and they WILL use their money to attempt to maintain the status quo, a status quo created by capitalism. brazil is a perfect example of that(folks find the idea of giving $10 dollars a month to people living in extreme poverty(less than $30 dollars a month) communism), the same families have owned almost entire states for generations, nothing changes. you said many times that socialism/communism doesn't work, but you fail the realize how capitalism doesn't work either, its just better at keeping itself hegemonic. [QUOTE=innerfire34;44964740]wouldn't most of these things be government regulations that would step on the toes of systems corporations use to maximize profits? like, regulations on polluting cars? building public transportation? raising minimum wage?[/QUOTE] which is exactly what i said, they'll never be implemented, because they go against "profit". [QUOTE=Helix Snake;44964783]I think you guys are using a much more American definition of the word "capitalism" than Sobotnik is. He's said repeatedly he supports regulated capitalism, not neo-liberal capitalism.[/QUOTE] neo-liberal capitalism is what is spreading, not regulated, the very act of regulating capitalism is seen by many as socialism(Not only in the US).

[QUOTE=innerfire34;44964740]wouldn't most of these things be government regulations that would step on the toes of systems corporations use to maximize profits? like, regulations on polluting cars? building public transportation? raising minimum wage?[/QUOTE] Yes. So? [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;44964808]sobotnik, what you're describing is an enlightened way of looking at capitalism, what everyone SHOULD do in theory(which is basically a mix of socialism and capitalism), but don't, those things shouldn't be against capitalism, but they are in practice, people basically suck, people are inherently selfish, capitalism breeds individuality(which is connected to selfishness for better or worse), which makes things even worse, since most interpret as being free to be selfish, if the system doesn't work in taking that into account, how can anyone say it works?[/quote] Because a lot of people thought of this before you did and introduced several ways to steer the course of economic development that tries to take human fallibility into account. [quote]this list is a perfect example of that, there is also the fact not everyone has enough education to realize what is best for them[/quote] People generally know what's best for themselves. Even uneducated ones. Swiss peasants seemed to do very well with democracy, in spite of the fact they were illiterate subsistence farmers in the middle of Feudal Europe. [quote]and one can easily acquire ENORMOUS wealth through exploiting the poor, and they WILL use their money to attempt to maintain the status quo, a status quo created by capitalism.[/quote] Except Capitalism doesn't have a status quo, which is what makes it so different from the economic systems which proceeded it. It's an inherently unstable system which is marked by constant change. In a capitalist society, the status quo cannot be enforced. Most countries which saw the development of capitalism initially tried to suppress it heavily through legislative means and enforced cultural norms. The price revolution of the 17th century, the printing press, the discovery of the new world, the advent of gunpowder, and the enlightenment would all come together to rapidly dismantle the impediments to capitalism. [quote]brazil is a perfect example of that(folks find the idea of giving $10 dollars a month to people living in extreme poverty(less than $30 dollars a month) communism), the same families have owned almost entire states for generations, nothing changes.[/quote] Brazil has changed massively in the past two centuries alone. I think it would be foolish to say otherwise. A mere century and a half ago it was an Empire that kept slaves and engaged in warfare with its neighbours regularly. [quote]you said many times that socialism/communism doesn't work, but you fail the realize how capitalism doesn't work either, its just better at keeping itself hegemonic.[/quote] Work at what exactly? When it comes to the fundamental economic question, a country like the United States did a far better job of allocating resources efficiently than the Soviet Union did. The fact of the matter is that one society lasted several centuries thus far and has had people immigrating to it constantly while it turned from a collection of colonies run by religious lunatics into a free and democratic society. The USSR meanwhile was a sad continuation of the Russian Empire, eventually breaking apart under the strain of popular discontent. [quote]which is exactly what i said, they'll never be implemented, because they go against "profit".[/quote] People don't think solely in terms of profit. [quote]neo-liberal capitalism is what is spreading, not regulated, the very act of regulating capitalism is seen by many as socialism(Not only in the US).[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964819]Yes. So?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44964403] What is it? Is it the principle that trade should be largely controlled by private actors in a market instead of the state? Is it that the economy shouldn't be largely directed or directly controlled by the state? Should people be able to set their own prices for goods and services? Who should own the factors of production?[/QUOTE] if they're all following the same centralized rules (don't pollute) aren't they all largely being controlled (eg. told what not to develop in all at once) by a state? doesn't a set minimum wage interfere with people being able to charge whatever they want? doesn't eliminating boundaries go against the idea of owning resources ( a factor of production, on a country or personal level)

[QUOTE=innerfire34;44964914]if they're all following the same centralized rules (don't pollute) aren't they all largely being controlled (eg. told what not to develop in all at once) by a state? doesn't a set minimum wage interfere with people being able to charge whatever they want? doesn't eliminating boundaries go against the idea of owning resources ( a factor of production, on a country or personal level)[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy[/url] [quote]In general the mixed economy is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production, the dominance of markets for economic coordination, with profit-seeking enterprise and the accumulation of capital remaining the fundamental driving force behind economic activity. But unlike a free-market economy, the government would wield indirect macroeconomic influence over the economy through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract economic downturns and capitalism's tendency toward financial crises and unemployment, along with playing a role in interventions that promote social welfare.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44961599]Not all of these are bad mind. I can't see any problems to be had from trade relations with China.[/QUOTE] It's questionable - better trade relations actually make it easier to export jobs to china as well and then reimport the goods under a lower tax rate.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;44965417]It's questionable - better trade relations actually make it easier to export jobs to china as well and then reimport the goods under a lower tax rate.[/QUOTE] So to what degree should countries trade with one another?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44965457]So to what degree should countries trade with one another?[/QUOTE] They should all be under one giant socialist federation of labor, duh

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44965497']They should all be under one giant socialist federation of labor, duh[/QUOTE] We're talking about reality here m8

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44965457]So to what degree should countries trade with one another?[/QUOTE] That's obviously a question. But the thing here is, what interests are you as a country trying to promote obviously. If two, similarly or at least nominally similarly advanced countries trade with each other, you aren't seeing real issues. Which is sort of why the EU kinda works internally. Sure there's a lot of inequalities but it's still in some ways so so. Once you approach countries utterly different economically like the US and China you need to generally setup some rules on how you are going to trade and these rules generally have to be balancing for the economically stronger country to protect it's own interests.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;44965557]Once you approach countries utterly different economically like the US and China you need to generally setup some rules on how you are going to trade and these rules generally have to be balancing for the economically stronger country to protect it's own interests.[/QUOTE] How do you mean by this? Should the lesser developed partner thus develop? Investing into these countries is usually going to appear from the outside as though its unpatriotic or something if people live in a highly protectionist society.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44962560]Do I have a right to tell you how you should spend your money?[/QUOTE] The rich do. They tell me how much taxes I have to pay, how much money I need to loan for that apartment I want, how much my education costs, how much it'll cost me if I need a lifesaving surgery.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44961581]The 1% largely want the status quo to stay as it is, who'd have thought?[/QUOTE] That's because int he US corporations have influened the democracy. Apparently in the 1950's the tax rate for the rich was at 90%

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;44970679]That's because int he US corporations have influened the democracy. Apparently in the 1950's the tax rate for the rich was at 90%[/QUOTE] That's nothing new here either, half the politicians at least are in the pockets of the corporates.