BF2S Forums Material wealth...for the few or the many?

People are stupid.

If you give stupid people a mass of resources they will squander them.

This is the fundamental flaw of socialistic/communistic thinking.


People are not good at heart, people are not smart either.

_{I'm a cynic, can't you tell...}

TrollmeaT wrote:

If we spread the "wealth" out from the richest people of the United States to every american citizen it would amount to about $1.00 something for everyone. Now if we spread it out to the world it would be even less.
The rich creating jobs for people & raising their standard of living is more than enough, stealing all of their money & re-distributing it is an asinine idea.

LOL rich creating jobs, thats hilarious.

Marinejuana wrote:

how about none?

You should all realize that material wealth is not granted with hard work. Most rich people have monopolies of one kind or another.

The American dream is a joke. the % of people that move from poverty to wealth in our country or anywhere is utterly miniscule. Did you know that black people are imprisoned at a rate many times higher than white people (about 8 times more), but crime rates (not arrests or convictions) are within a few percent of each other? You have a better chance of going to prison as a black male in the US than college.

Now if any of you are racist enough to claim that this impoverished class deserves or earns such a status, go ahead. I know you people are out there. I wish I could strip you of your inherited wealth so that you could see how much your "hard work" is really worth on the world market. LOL.

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-541.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o-02.htm
Mauer, Marc (1999) race to incarecerate. The New Press, New York.

Its silly to ask whether we should give great wealth to the few or the many because obviously there isn't enough wealth for the many, and obviously more than a few people deserve wealth.

How about we pose a more intelligent question: should everybody be able to eat? The answer is yes.

Very good post...  +1

Turquoise wrote:

Somewhere in between...  Inevitably, every society will have rich and poor.  However, some societies have a remarkably evenhanded distribution of wealth among the populace (Norway, Sweden, etc.).  To me, the ideal is having a society where the vast majority of people live well, and the richest people may live extravagantly but still don't hold much of the country's overall wealth.

Granted, such an ideal is nearly impossible to achieve in a country as large as America.

Size has nothing to do with it. Corruption is what widens the gap in America. Welfare can close that gap.

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Who would take your trash to the dump?  Maintain water facilities so you could have clean water?  Who would bring the gas to the gas station so you could fill up your car?

If you gave everyone that, nobody would work tough / low paying jobs until a lot of people spent all the money and then needed to work.

With all that capital, there are solutions. Private contractors demanding high pay. Automation. Etc. Besides, the ideal is not that everyone is rich, but that no one is poor.

Agreed... 

Ok.  Then you two go build your Utopia then.  I hear there is still some land down in South America of a former Utopia.

blisteringsilence wrote:

.. The few...

Eh... The other part was just an idea to express the absurdities inherent to notion(s) of being "free."

But what about this thing: "the few?"

Which few would you give this wealth to? A brown colored few or a white colored few or some other few? Who is "the few?"

IG-Calibre wrote:

· There are 46 million Americans without health insurance.

· There are 82,000 homeless people in Los Angeles alone.

·

blah blah blah TBH.  Does that count legal residents only?

IG-Calibre wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

America isn't that far from a "utopia." .

Indeed - in Feb 2006 only about 37 million people are living below the poverty line & many of these people are working 2 maybe 3 jobs - that number had increased by about 5 million (back when the figures came out)  since Bush had came into power.

· The United States has 269 billionaires, the highest number in the world.

· Almost a quarter of all black Americans live below the poverty line; 22 per cent of Hispanics fall below it. But for whites the figure is just 8.6 per cent.

· There are 46 million Americans without health insurance.

· There are 82,000 homeless people in Los Angeles alone.

· In 2004 the poorest community in America was Pine Ridge Indian reservation. Unemployment is over 80 per cent, 69 per cent of people live in poverty and male life expectancy is 57 years. In the Western hemisphere only Haiti has a lower number.

· The richest town in America is Rancho Santa Fe in California. Average incomes are more than $100,000 a year; the average house price is $1.7m.



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st … 65,00.html

I had a feeling this would happen...  I was thinking more in terms of the whole world, not just the First World.

We obviously have some major poverty issues, but most of them are the result of inefficient federal programs and corporate greed.

If we become more socialist on a state level, we can conquer most of the poverty issues here while still reining in the power of the federal government.

So, yes, utopia is a bad word for this, but it's certainly an improvement.

EDIT: Norway is more like a utopia.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-12 10:03:18)

Turquoise wrote:

So, yes, utopia is a bad word for this, but it's certainly an improvement.

EDIT: Norway is more like a utopia.

Utopia means 'no place.' Like, doesn't exist. That was kind of the point of the book.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, yes, utopia is a bad word for this, but it's certainly an improvement.

EDIT: Norway is more like a utopia.

Utopia means 'no place.' Like, doesn't exist. That was kind of the point of the book.

True...  that is the literal definition, but Norway seems to be very reminiscent of an ideal society in its wealth disparity and quality of life.

Of course, like I said before, it's not really possible to structure our society like theirs....

Turquoise wrote:

Blistering, do you believe that many people who are poor (regardless of race) are not able to fully operate at their potential because of lack of access to a decent education?

Personally, I think that's why some people born into poverty never leave it.  While I support privatizing education, I also like the school vouchers idea, since a larger private education market could be developed partially with the help of a welfare-like system.

In other words, you could socialize education for the poor but still have private firms running the schools.

This is a kind of "spreading the wealth" that could end up as efficient (if not more so than) as a system where no socialization is implemented.

No, I do not. I believe that every school offers a good education. That being said, I also believe that you have to work harder to get a good education at some schools than others. I went to college with kids from the poorest, most backwards broke-ass schools in the country. Places that make inner city schools look like palaces.

These kids came from poor, working class backgrounds. But, they rose above the bare minimum of what was expected of them. They worked harder than everyone else, studied at their part time jobs, and got full rides to college.

Perfect example. The guy that lived next door to me, his dad was a line worker at a weed-eater factory, and his mom was a waitress at a diner. They were broke assed poor, lived in a trailer, and the schools there were shitty. Patrick worked harder than anyone from his school, and then worked harder than anyone else at my college. He got one of two full rides given out to medical school.

And he was black.

And you know what? He didn't accept any scholarships that were limited to black students. He applied for, and won, scholarships that were competitions among all people. No income requirements. He wanted it, and he got it.

Beyond that, I do support vouchers. What I don't support is the government making it mandatory for a private school to accept a voucher in lieu of tuition.

Most of all, I believe in the power of people. If someone really wants something in this country, they can and will work hard enough to get it. There is no unacheiveable goal. And that's why I love living here.

ghettoperson wrote:

So I take it no one else yet has arrived at what I pointed out earlier that it would be impossible for everyone to be wealthy? Or are we ignoring that detail?

Ignoring details=DST.