Wealth Inequality

[Arthur]

I think the topic of wealth distribution is not discussed enough in society. It is relevant for most first world countries but especially prominent in the US. I think the situation is pretty bad, but, with an increase in consciousness and evolution up the Spiral, changes are on the horizon.

What is Money?
I love Leo's simple equation of Money = Value. Basically, the amount of money person makes is translated to the goods and services he provides to society. In return, a person can use money to purchase goods and services from other members of the community. A car mechanic might not know how to fix his teeth and need the services of a dentist, and when the dentist's car breaks, he takes it to the mechanic. So the amount of purchasing power one has should be proportional to a one's contribution, right? 

I think to a certain extent that is true, yet, our systems are structured in a way that creates an enormous gap between the wealthy and the rest of society. What's worst, money has a snowballing effect, where having money makes it easier to acquire more money. That notion redefines the original statement to money = more money. The richest member of society can earn a thousand times the average salary of a hard-working individual, yet do they really provide that much value? I can't even name the top 10 richest people in the world (only one or two come to mind). They definitely did not provide any significant value to my life. Even if there is an outstanding company that sold millions of products, it is usually a team effort and not that of one CEO. I did not know that by trading stocks one can provide more value to society than fixing somebody's roof. 

Here is a small video that illustrates this issue:

 

Do you think this dichotomy will change in the future? or maybe my notions of economics are silly.

You are welcome to share your thought on this topic. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Arthur

[aurum]

@Arthur

There's a lot of victim / scarcity mentality around these stereotypical liberal ideas. Don't get too sucked into it.

At the end of the day, rich people have a completely different way of thinking, feeling and taking action than poor people. That's why they have what they have. And it's not some big secret on how they do it, almost every rich people at some point ends up helping others do the same. You could figure it out if you really wanted.

In fact, most rich people I know would GLADLY help poor people. But poor people often don't want to be helped. They are stuck in their beliefs and ways of doing thing.

For all the people who complain about income inequality, how many of these people have actually started a business? How many of these people have actually read a book on marketing? How many of them are willing to put themselves through the extreme turmoil most entrepreneurs put themselves through on a regular basis? Very few.

So my point is that while maybe our economic system does need to change, don't let that become a victim story. The fastest way to make sure you stay poor is to blame / condemn people who are rich.

[Leo Gura]

The rich & powerful rig the game to make it easier for them to acquire more wealth & power. This has been the case since the dawn of mankind. This is just ego 101.

Providing genuine value is important if you want to create self-made wealth. But since this is challenging and slow, many wealthy & powerful people instead just rig the game and exploit the system. This allows for accumulation of vast amounts of wealth without providing much value. If the system was designed better, many such loopholes would be closed.

If you want a more balanced system then you want a more socialistic, a more directly democratic form of government.

[Outer]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you want a more balanced system then you want a more socialistic, a more directly democratic form of government.

Correction, it's social democratic system, not socialist system. The Scandinavian countries are social democratic. Venezuela is socialist/has socialism. The more people who confuse the two including Bernie is going to limit progress.

 

[Outer]

Quote

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy.

Quote

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist, participatory or decentralized planned economy.

Quote

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]

 

[Outer]

Many of the Scandinavian countries are higher than the United States on Economic freedom. North Korea is at the lowest spot, and Venezuela is right before that.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[Arthur]

@aurum Thank you for the great advice.
I'm definitely not trying to turn this into negative belief or an obstacle. 
I don't even hold it too much against society since I genuinely believe it is possible to acquire wealth by providing positive value. It has been proven by Leo and many others. I was just pointing out an observation. 

 

@Leo Gura Do you think we will see a swing towards socialism with the rise of Green politics?

 

@Outer  Obviously we are not talking about the traditional notion of socialism, but rather the transcended version. Socialism that goes beyond the crude Capitalism but includes it. 

[Outer]

Social democrats, good liberals like Richard Stallman do not hate the rich. They simply want a high standard of living for everyone. It's easy to hate the rich. I would love to do it. But what's important is that everyone receives a basic income and basic services, as soon as possible. We need income redistribution asap. The richest will pay for that.

It needs to be done on a global scale, for everyone. In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, different countries in Africa, everywhere. It's going to be a hard sell to tax Apple to give money to Bangladeshis though.  So I expect first we work on this in the U.S with for instance Yang 2020 for President or in your own countries.

People having a basic income and services isn't enough however. Animal welfare need to be worked on and climate change.

2 minutes ago, Arthur said:

  Obviously we are not talking about the traditional notion of socialism, but rather the transcended version. Socialism that goes beyond the crude Capitalism but includes it. 

Socialism is without Capitalism. What you're speaking of is social democracy. It's a right wingers wet dream that people confuse socialism with social democracy.

[Leo Gura]

@Outer I said "socialistic", not socialism per se. I'm well aware of those various distinctions.

In the end, even the Nordic countries may not go far enough if you want to totally level the playing field.

It's a nuanced issue which requires careful fine-tuning.

I am talking here more about what things will look like in 100 or 200 years, not necessarily what we should adopt today. In the long run, society will get more and more socialist in ways that most people today would balk at. But that will take time. It's not something Bernie is gonna just push through. It would require a rewiring of the entire culture.

[Outer]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@Outer I said "socialistic", not socialism per se.

Well sure, but in your video you brought up that right wingers give the bad example of Socialism by mentioning Venezuela and not the good example Scandinavian countries. The reason why they're different is because one is socialism the other is social democratic. Waay different.

socialistic

1. of or relating to socialists or socialism.

2. in accordance with socialism.

3. advocating or supporting socialism.

[Leo Gura]

@Outer Socialism is a flexible and broad idea. Like I said in the video, government and society is by definition full of socialistic elements. We live in a society where certain things are best done collectively.

Most people don't like to think of roads, national parks, the post service, firefighters, food stamps, or the military as socialism. But they are.

It's really just a matter of degree, not kind. The question is, what kind of things should be socialized and which shouldn't? That is obviously up for debate and empirical testing.

There are no simplistic ideological solutions to governance. Each issue has to be considered on a case by case basis.

[Hellspeed]

No awakening, No energy, No happiness = No money. I'm not talking about those who inherit something, I'm talking about those who start from scratch. And yes, Value is Key. 

[RichardY]

As a form of pragmatism, democracy is Evil. I define Evil as deprivation. People consider themselves deprived so they vote. Justifying themselves through consensus, including pragmatism and/or moral relativism. Talking about privilege is itself a sign of depravity or satire..., same thing different form.
 

--------------------------------------- (Mulling over ideas, insanity)

How do you define wealth? Are we talking blood or capital stock, the distinction itself is irrelevant given capita means head of cattle, decapitate....

What about spiritual wealth? Perhaps rarefied BS, or perhaps very real, still listening as if it were. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock"

Instead of Money = Value =...... cocaine? Maybe fixing a value, perhaps is the equivalent of money, ABC "Always Be Closing" (Glengarry Glen Ross). Fixed value = money. "Here babe here's £50." What too much? SLAP!#

Libya formerly large wealth inequality, now more equality hellhole.
Venezuela, same.
Cuba, same.
Ancient Rome, same.
Ancient Athens, same.

Grow up in a hellhole/crackden, with poor sanitation I suppose you wouldn't know the difference.

Society is Evil, The State is a part of society, Evil. Socialism, imposed evil throughout society. Conservatism, conserved evil, worse. Think it would be better if people were assets, rather than liabilities to be looked after. Good old Whigs, cattle herders, never was cattle so exponentially productive and free range throughout history, ever. 

Wherever there is capitalism, there will be socialism and visa versa, there is no light without darkness, no Good without Evil.

The Good?

---------------------------------------

@thehero Seen a few of those videos, satire for a cynical British youth, not so much slapstick American comedy.

 

[thehero]

@RichardY wait i thought i deleted the comment. does it still show

i later concluded the video wasnt progressive. needs more orange flaws

Edited November 20, 2018 by thehero

[Erlend K]

8 hours ago, Outer said:

Many of the Scandinavian countries are higher than the United States on Economic freedom. North Korea is at the lowest spot, and Venezuela is right before that.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The economic freedom index is basically a scam, designed to fabricate a corrolation between prosperity and economic freedom. If you the a look at the algorithm for calculating it, its clear that "economi freedom index" score has little to do with economic freedom. 

"A particularly tragicomic case study is Saudi Arabia: Economically successful despite being a nightmarish dystopia of wahhabist dictatorship. A government led by a nepotistic royal family with tentacles penetrating all sectors of the economy; An unrivaled abuser of international marked power — the very antithesis of free markets; Its bureaucracy, infamously cumbersome and corrupt; Its legal system, Sharia-based; The female half of its population denied even the most fundamental economic freedoms; The male population mostly employed by the bloated public sector, or living off welfare.

One would reasonably expect to find this totalitarian horrorshow’s Economic Freedom score lingering in the murky depths of the scale, wrestling the likes of North Korea for the rock-bottom spot. Its actual score however is a staggering 6,24, comfortably ahead of the likes of Argentina [2.92], Venezuela [4,88], Ukraine [5.38] and Brazil [5,75]. Like any economically successful countries, Saudi Arabia's score is boosted, helping to establish the statistical correlation between EFI and economic success."

https://medium.com/@erlendkulanderkvitrud/the-economic-freedom-index-is-a-steaming-pile-of-neoliberal-bullshit-a35205855e29

[Outer]

That's interesting.

@Erlend K

Thanks.

[RichardY]

3 hours ago, thehero said:

@RichardY wait i thought i deleted the comment. does it still show

i later concluded the video wasnt progressive. needs more orange flaws

 It's gone. Was wrong about it being British, Australian made instead. Although by deleting it, you proved the point of the satire.

-----------------------------

Religion is more powerful than socialism or a social democracy. Any equality, under socialism is impossible, as religion will supersede it. Socialism in fact could be seen as a primitive form of religious paganism, a regression. Given massive declines in birth and death rates, this should not be surprising. As mankind degenerates.

Kalima- Kali ma. Fundamentals of Islam. I don't think it's coincidence it's also the feminine Hindu God of Time & Destruction. A crescent, is a feminine symbol. Also referred to in "Planet of the Apes", & the not so good Indiana Jones "The Temple Doom."

If I were a Arab Sheikh why wouldn't I have stolen the oil infrastructure of BP, for my tribal clan? Then slaughtered heretic Muslim sects on the peninsula, with the help of the west.  On top of that getting to wage "lesser" Jihad by having numerous children. "There is nothing in the desert, and man needs nothing." No one human group has ever expanded faster and more permanently than Islam.

The Spice must flow.

[thehero]

@RichardY meh the video was just orange resisting green. 

 

socialism is looking fine in the nordic countries

8 of the top 10 happiest countries being socialist countries or having a large amount of socialist policies relative to the rest of the world. finland, norway, denmark, iceland, netherlands, canada, sweden, new zealand)

all of which are 1st world countries and all with good ranking on GDP (meaning the theory that socialistic countries wouldnt motivate anyone to work is flawed)

it's not "socialism" that's bad, it's socialism done wrong. china's government and philosophy of its people are radically different than Finland.

world happiness index:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf

gdp by country: 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

 

some basic info on socialism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

 

according to your theory that socialism is impossible and religious states will always supersede it

 

there's something that socialist haters are overlooking. check out leo's videos: stage orange, stage green and deep problem with marketing 
 

according to spiral dynamics, socialism, is a progression, not regression. 

 

note: to anyone reading this, my research is incomplete. i need to study each government structure closely 

Edited November 20, 2018 by thehero