The 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295750]To my understanding Keynes advocated for greater government intervention in the economy and higher taxes on the wealthy, in an effort to control the boom-bust cycle experienced by capitalist economies.[/QUOTE] The US is considered a model for Keynesian economics, tell me how well that worked out [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295776]I said socialism not modern socialism.[/QUOTE] Classical socialism didn't work, that's why today we have modern socialism

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295779]The US is considered a model for Keynesian economics, tell me how well that worked out[/QUOTE] Quite well until the policy was replaced by Reaganomics in the 1980s.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295779]The US is considered a model for Keynesian economics, tell me how well that worked out[/QUOTE] Keynesianism hasn't been popular in the USA for decades, monetarism has been more popular.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295800]Quite well until the policy was replaced by Reaganomics in the 1980s.[/QUOTE] Rose tinted goggles, we are living better than ever in 2013

[QUOTE=Eltro102;39295520]but you can't end poverty ever anyway, it's like trying to make everyone better than average[/QUOTE] The majority of rich people are not rich because they earnt it or deserve it Being rich doesn't mean you're "better" than anyone

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295779]The US is considered a model for Keynesian economics, tell me how well that worked out [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Classical socialism didn't work, that's why today we have modern socialism[/QUOTE] Classical socialism was abandoned because it was too unpopular to survive in a democratic system in which whoevers campaign fund is bigger wins. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=teh pirate;39295813]Rose tinted goggles, we are living better than ever in 2013[/QUOTE] You might be, but as the article mentions income equality has increased since the 1990s; the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

The very definition of Poverty is a lack of resources. In the case of Absolute Poverty, it is the lack of essential resources needed for human sustenance. The real solution should be in finding ways to provide people with the infrastructure needed to produce the resources that they need, and I don't think it's economically accurate to state that wealth redistribution is the way to do this. Money is merely a projection of averages, and wealth redistribution would simply lead to deflation, making everyone worse off. Not least the people who actually live in poverty. After all, they will not have the infrastructure necessary to get them out of poverty, as you haven't provided anyone with any incentive or interest to help the poor. I think a dynamic approach to ending poverty is needed. However throwing money at the problem won't work. Money is only worth what people ascribe to it. It is resources and infrastructure that are needed.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39295842]The majority of rich people are not rich because they earnt it or deserve it[/QUOTE] False, you get paid what people think your work is worth. Rich people are rich because they are good at making business decisions, and despite what you'd like to believe they'd still be rich if they weren't able to dodge taxes.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39295878]The very definition of Poverty is a lack of resources. In the case of Absolute Poverty, it is the lack of essential resources needed for human sustenance. The real solution should be in finding ways to provide people with the infrastructure needed to produce the resources that they need, and I don't think it's economically accurate to state that wealth redistribution is the way to do this. Money is merely a projection of averages, and wealth redistribution would simply lead to deflation, making everyone worse off. Not least the people who actually live in poverty. After all, they will not have the infrastructure necessary to get them out of poverty, as you haven't provided anyone with any incentive or interest to help the poor. I think a dynamic approach to ending poverty is needed. However throwing money at the problem won't work. Money is only worth what people ascribe to it. It is resources and infrastructure that are needed.[/QUOTE] I don't think any one is advocating simply "throwing money at the problem" the money taken in redistribution could be spent on infrastructure and job creation, expansion of railways building of new houses etc. Money redistribution would if anything lead to inflation as large amounts of money that had been locked away in bank vaults in tax havens would enter normal circulation within the economy.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295885]False, you get paid what people think your work is worth. Rich people are rich because they are good at making business decisions, and despite what you'd like to believe they'd still be rich if they weren't able to dodge taxes.[/QUOTE] I never said anything about dodging taxes being the reason for them being rich in the first place. What about the CEO's and bankers that continue receiving millions despite making decisions that cause their organisations to fail and having to be bailed out by the taxpayer? The organisations shouldn't be able to give a massive amount to a single person in the first place as an organisation is the sum of it's parts - the man at the top may make some decisions but that doesn't mean he deserves several thousand times what the "commoners" at the bottom get. It seems disproportionate and immoral to me that someone should be in control of such a large amount of capital while others starve.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39295842]The majority of rich people are not rich because they earnt it or deserve it Being rich doesn't mean you're "better" than anyone[/QUOTE] so what your saying is that the people with the money don't deserve it so it should be taken away from them?

keep reading Keynesianism ans Kenyansiansim. makes the thread much harder to understand.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39295509]that's definitely how money works in fact, we should just print enough so that everyone is a millionaire! the perfect plan! I just thought up a neat design for the new bills: [img]http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/ChampkinUploads/Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse(1).jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/54123195/idiotcash.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295885]False, you get paid what people think your work is worth. Rich people are rich because they are good at making business decisions, and despite what you'd like to believe they'd still be rich if they weren't able to dodge taxes.[/QUOTE] What do bankers contribute to society? All they do is manipulate money and earn money on interest. Most people would think the work of a doctor would be more valuable than the work of a pop star but the doctor gets paid far less. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=stupid10er;39295952]so what your saying is that the people with the money don't deserve it so it should be taken away from them?[/QUOTE] Imagine a man with a huge vault filled with food surrounded by starving people, does he deserve the food more than everyone else?

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295965]What do bankers contribute to society? All they do is manipulate money and earn money on interest. Most people would think the work of a doctor would be more valuable than the work of a pop star but the doctor gets paid far less. [/QUOTE] what is your current career? are you unemployed?

[QUOTE=stupid10er;39295952]so what your saying is that the people with the money don't deserve it so it should be taken away from them?[/QUOTE] No they shouldn't have it in the first place. They are bound to have exploited others to get it even if they weren't personally aware of it at the time.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295965]What do bankers contribute to society? All they do is manipulate money and earn money on interest. Most people would think the work of a doctor would be more valuable than the work of a pop star but the doctor gets paid far less. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] Imagine a man with a huge vault filled with food surrounded by starving people, does he deserve the food more than everyone else?[/QUOTE] That's not the fault of the banker or the pop star, it's the fault of the people willing to pay them for what they do. Being either of those things is just opportunism.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39295994]what is your current career? are you unemployed?[/QUOTE] I'm a student.My lack of positive contribution to society isn't rewarded with a six figure salary like that of a banker and the fact that some people are lazy doesn't mean we shouldn't help the poor.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39296016]That's not the fault of the banker or the pop star, it's the fault of the people willing to pay them for what they do. Being either of those things is just opportunism.[/QUOTE] I agree, but why does that mean money shouldn't be taken from the pop star to build more hospitals and improve infrastructure. It's not as if he/she would starve without it.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39296018]I'm a student.My lack of positive contribution to society isn't rewarded with a six figure salary like that of a banker and the fact that some people are lazy doesn't mean we shouldn't help the poor.[/QUOTE] so you haven't paid taxes yet?

If you want to make a positive change, you can take part in an effort to get society at large to fix its priorities. Governments forcing that kind of thing on people is just not right.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39295509]that's definitely how money works in fact, we should just print enough so that everyone is a millionaire! the perfect plan! I just thought up a neat design for the new bills: [img]http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/ChampkinUploads/Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse(1).jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Dr.Evil currency right there.

If you redistribute the wealth it doesn't just fix the problem, but not because of people (as a whole), but exactly because of the system we have in place, the system built by those in power. Money isn't much in itself, it's the control over the flow of money that is important, and the system is designed so the money flows in one direction. In the first world we all typically have to work, for someone else, for 40 hours a week to survive (assuming minimum wage anyway, and you can get by on less, but not much), we then have to work at home probably another 20 hours. They simply have to have money, they decide how much things are worth so they pay us to work their share for them, as well as doing a lot of their own work at home. So not only do they have the money flowing towards them, but arguably more important is they have actual free time, good health, and low levels of stress which are all very important for actually accomplishing things and progressing. The rest of us are just trying to survive and the free time we are fortunate to have we are so stressed out and tired we simply want to relax.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39296095]If you redistribute the wealth it doesn't just fix the problem, but not because of people (as a whole), but exactly because of the system we have in place, the system built by those in power. Money isn't much in itself, it's the control over the flow of money that is important, and the system is designed so the money flows in one direction. In the first world we all typically have to work, for someone else, for 40 hours a week to survive (assuming minimum wage anyway, and you can get by on less, but not much), we then have to work at home probably another 20 hours. They simply have to have money, they decide how much things are worth so they pay us to work their share for them, as well as doing a lot of their own work at home. So not only do they have the money flowing towards them, but arguably more important is they have actual free time, good health, and low levels of stress which are all very important for actually accomplishing things and progressing. The rest of us are just trying to survive and the free time we are fortunate to have we are so stressed out and tired we simply want to relax.[/QUOTE] What? It's not like that at all. You aren't forced to buy a product. If 300,000,000 people didn't want to buy Call of Duty at $60, Bobby Kotick would be in the same boat as "everyone else".

They don't only decide the price of cowapoopy, there's the commodity prices and all that shit too that they gamble on. If we limited income to ~2 million dollars per year via ultra-high taxation on capital gains and the top marginal tax rates, we would drastically improve wellbeing for the poor and for the average person, because we would all be in the same boat. As it stands, wealthy elites live in private bubbles, so they don't have to deal with the ecological/environmental/societal consequences of poverty, lack of clean water, environmental degradation, etc. So the most powerful and well off people don't have an incentive to do shit about real problems for real people. i.e. the US congress [URL]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/incoming-members-of-congress-not-exactly-average-joes/?src=rechp[/URL] Which is itself insane, because property rights are a social fiction in the first place. The only reason people are able to accumulate that much wealth is because we've decided it's illegal/immoral to take property rights with force. In the future, I really hope it will be seen as immoral/illegal to hoard property rights above 2 million dollars per year, when those property rights by all rights belong to the species as a whole and they are actually needed by other people. If we can't end poverty in our lifetimes, when we can instantly communicate with and educate people across the globe for basically nothing...then what the fuck are we doing?

If you come up with a great idea and it catches on and many people are willing to pay outrageous amounts for it even though you're able to produce it in vast quantities you have every right to that money. To be perfectly honest the government has no more right to your money than any other cluster of individuals. If you want to get into flawed ethics, there's one for you: the government exists because the people pay for it it because the government tells them it's the right thing to do. What's the government if not a giant corporation? It seeks to make a profit off of [I]your mere existence[/I] and every governmental system is just a different theory on the best way to keep people from destroying it.

[quote]What's the government if not a giant corporation? It seeks to make a profit off of [I]your mere existence[/I][/quote] It basically is, IMO It's there, like Sobotnik said, primarily to protect private property. And property... is theft.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39296151]If you come up with a great idea and it catches on and many people are willing to pay outrageous amounts for it even though you're able to produce it in vast quantities you have every right to that money. To be perfectly honest the government has no more right to your money than any other cluster of individuals. If you want to get into flawed ethics, there's one for you: the government exists because the people pay for it it because the government tells them it's the right thing to do. What's the government if not a giant corporation? It seeks to make a profit off of [I]your mere existence[/I] and every governmental system is just a different theory on the best way to keep people from destroying it.[/QUOTE] Well actually the state exists to protect private property. If you have no state, there's no effective means to protect property. In turn of course, this means you most likely are a hunter gatherer or nomad.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39296164][/I] It basically is, IMO[/QUOTE] So based on what merit ought the government be able to take a massive portion of what other people give you? You didn't ask for the service it provides, you had no say in its being there or your being placed under it. It's just there and you're expected to work your ass off to pay for its ultimate goal of not having to do anything at all at some point in the far future. Therefore you should only [I]have[/I] to give it the bare minimum of what it needs to protect you individually (assuming it even wants to do that, which many governments do not). The government seeks to manipulate you into feeling like it's doing you a favor; you have to manipulate it back into thinking it's manipulated you so you get its service without having to give too much of your earnings to it. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39296182]Well actually the state exists to protect private property. If you have no state, there's no effective means to protect property. In turn of course, this means you most likely are a hunter gatherer or nomad.[/QUOTE] I'm not challenging this. I think a world without a government would be a miserable one indeed.

It shouldn't, that would be pretty coercive and invasive. But hoarding capital and other shit whilst others starve is just as bad, if not worse. Especially if you've exploited others in order to obtain capital and property to hoard in the first place.