Is the economic disparity in the US that great?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

- Jesus

I thought that quote came from the pope and not Jesus. Wasn't it from the speech where Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the western Roman Empire (those darn barbarians always wanted to play at being Romans)?

[David Floyd]

monkspider,

I think we basically reach an impasse in regards to natural rights and so forth. Naturally you are a strong supporter of them, I am not so much.

In that case, what do you make of free will?

But consider this, capitalism necessitates greed, surely we are in agreement there.

Not at all. Again, all true capitalism is, is allowing people to do what they wish with their property. It is neutral on the subject of altruism/selfishness. People can be altruistic and capitalist, and selfish and capitalist.

I think we would even both agree that, by capitalism's nature, it creates greed as well.

No. If someone is greedy, I don't think that is the fault of an economic system, but rather the fault of the individual.

Capitalism molds a society into it's own image, people who live and grow up in a capitalist society begin to apply the cold logic of capitalism to other areas of life.

Again, capitalism is just a system of economic freedom. That is, you are free to act as you please within it - either selfishly or altruistically.

In perhaps subtle ways. often times, but it undoubtedly does occur. For example, cutting off someone on the highway is very likely a result of learning capitalism's lessons and applying them to every day life.

What? So you are equating bad driving with capitalism? Cutting someone off on the highway could just be a jackass teenager out to impress someone, a ***** soccor mom taking kids to practice, someone who is late for a meeting, or any number of things.

In a society that was all-oriented, rather than self-oriented, that same person who would have cut someone off in a capitalist society would perhaps learned lessons that would taught him to act in such a manner.

Again, I don't agree that capitalism teaches us to screw other people. True, the point of capitalism - true capitalism - is to better ourselves, but ONLY through moral means. A true capitalist would not encourage or condone fraud, for example, because that's not what capitalism is about - it's simply a system of economic freedom. Freedom does not extend to coercing others, because that doesn't make sense. Freedom is the absence of coercion, so how can one exercise freedom through coercion?

In this way, capitalism creates immorality in perhaps subtle ways. Of course, greed by can create immorality in more obvious ways, in fact, greed by it's very nature, is intrinsically immoral.

Ah, here we go. So greed is immoral. Immorality implies sinfullness. However, capitalism did not create greed any more than it created sin. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was not capitalistic, yet the money changers in the temple exercised greed, and Jesus turned them out. When Jacob stole Esau's birthright, again, an example of greed in a non-capitalist society. There are any number of Biblical examples showing that greeds exists absent capitalism.

No, the fact that we all sin - MUST sin, in fact - is a result of our sin natures, which are a result of original sin, which has nothing to do with capitalism. You might even say that the original sin had to do a bit with greed - taking the forbidden fruit can be seen as a wish to maximize one's pleasure/knowledge/whatever at any cost, which is certainly greedy.

But don't try to tell me that greed was created by capitalism. It just obviously isn't true.

Believe it or not, future communism will not trample on your natural rights anyway. Essentially you have always maintained that property is a sacred right that must be upheld at any cost. Taxation, even if for the good of the whole, so you say, is absolutely immoral. You will be pleased to know that there will be no taxation required or no strong central apparatus in the future state. Everything will be given willingly, no coercian necessary. From a certain point of view, this state will be libertarian and communist at the same time.

You know that what you are arguing for is impossible given the sin nature of man. If you want a society without sin, you'll have to wait for Jesus to return. Once Jesus returns, your sinless society will automatically manifest itself.

Therefore, don't argue for an impossible ideal - not just an improbable one, but an IMPOSSIBLE one, according to the Bible. Rather, pick the best humanly possible system, and support that. I believe that a system which protects individual freedom is the most moral system we can create.

The thing is, people will finally realize what they should be doing and live out the philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus, Ghandhi, Buddha, and so on.

Living without being willing to defend yourself is frankly impossible in a sinful society. Look what happened to Jesus, after all. He died on the cross. That doesn't mean that his ideals were wrong, just that they are not possible in a sinful and imperfect world, if you wish to survive.

If someone tries to rob or kill you, your best solution isn't to roll over, but to pull out your handgun and skull-**** them. It's simple self-defense - turning the other cheek is NOT practical, and by the way, if that teaching was as literal as you seem to think it is, then why did Jesus' disciples carry swords? Peter did cut the ear off of the Roman guard, after all. Why did Jesus allow Peter to carry a sword, if he didn't believe in self defense?

promise you that capitalism will be over with within twenty years, maybe as few as 8 or 9 if we are lucky.

That's preposterous. And quite frankly, if I sense this happening, I will quite happily buy an arsenal, get a few buddies together, and take out as many rioting, immoral, thieving bastards with me as I can. If they come after me, tell me I can't own property, or whatnot, then there are going to be some issues, and I promise you, in the US, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I thought that quote came from the pope and not Jesus. Wasn't it from the speech where Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the western Roman Empire (those darn barbarians always wanted to play at being Romans)?

No, that quote is from Jesus himself.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
this is weird... while the income disparity is, in all honesty, pretty reasonable and what would be expected, the change in income disparity is ridiculously in favour of the rich and the wealth disparity is unbelievable huge... any reason why the income disparity would be so relatively small compared to income growth and wealth?

That's because of compounding. Suppose in 1979, you, Albert Speer had 1 million dollars, and a friend of you had 50,000 dollars. Over the course of 20 years, your wealth increased by 42% a year, and his 11% a year. In 1999, you'd have 1111 times what you had started with, or 1.11 billion dollars. Your friend, on the other hand, would have only a bit over 4 million.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My only question about income and wealth disparity is this: Why is it anyone's business how wealthy anyone else is, or how much money they make? Isn't that a private matter?

How could you assert to discuss economic systems on one hand, and claim this on the other?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure, Bill Gates may have a hundred million times more wealth than any of us, but is that actually hurting you? No, of course it isn't.

What world do you live in anyway? Or were you under a rock for the last several years?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Bill Gates deserves his money, on the sole basis that he earned it legitimately.

Your basis is wrong.

[David Floyd]

How could you assert to discuss economic systems on one hand, and claim this on the other?

The point is that people should be free to do whatever they wish, economically, except for fraud/coercion. What they do is really no one's business but their own, unless and until they commit fraud/coercion. When I say "none of your business", I simply mean that it's not your place to try to force them to do something else, not that you can't know about it. Just don't imply that wealth disparity is some problem that needs correction.

As to Bill Gates, wah wah wah. I'm not exactly sure what he did wrong, and I fail to see how anyone was hurt by what he supposedly did. Show me evidence to the contrary and I'll gladly admit to being wrong, but on the other hand, I know the evidence conflcts.

I'll defer to Asher - I'm not gonna argue anymore for or against MS and Gates, as I don't know enough about it.

If it makes you happy, substitute Bill Gates for some other rich guy. It doesn't really matter.

[cinch]

Shi:

Jesus came onto Earth to show us how to live and to save us from our sins, not to tell us how our government should be. Stop using Christianity as a pretext for setting up a government, either socialistic or anarchistic.

I think it could be pretty easily interpreted that Jesus was interested in political reform. He was a rebel on multiple levels; the spirituality was intertwined with the politics.

Jesus told his apostles to shun their material goods and come follow him. Do you really think he'd be a proponent of the buy-buy-sell-sell free market melee?

And I'm not attacking the free market, nor Joshua; I'm simply saying the two don't seem very compatible.

Castro said that, too, but I don't think bringing that up would help my argument, here...

If you are a Christian, why do you put Jesus the son of God right alongside two pagan men?

All he said is that they were good teachers... What's so wrong with that?

[orange]

I feel that the government has failed when a small amount of the people own a quarter of the wealth, and a quarter of the people own a small amount of the wealth.

[Kropotkin]

A thread that started out good with a interesting topic destroyed by people that has to tell everyone about their morals all the time. Surely this is not about morals, it's about economics. And the question is why there's a growing disparity not just in the US but in many other countries as well (although from different situations).

Can this be connected to the changes of the economy since the oil-crisis? Industrial jobs, and to a large extent low-skilled ones have declined. The service sector has a huge demand for "super-skilled" persons but at the same time also for low skilled workers at the bottom. Unlike in the industry, the productivity growth and profits per worker are small. This sets a limit to their wages. A harder situation for the people with little skills and a growing labour market for those who have the right skills might be one answer to the question why income (and wealth) disparities are growing after 1972.

Just two cents, feel free to comment.

[alva]

Originally posted by orange
I feel that the government has failed when a small amount of the people own a quarter of the wealth, and a quarter of the people own a small amount of the wealth.

It's beyond faillure, it's shamefull

[Sava]

I don't understand how you guys can argue logical points using the Bible as a source... It's hardly a credible study on the points you are talking about: human behavior, the history of economics, the concept of wealth...

I'd contribute to this if you guys were discussing this logically.

[monkspider]

Dave- I will get back with you later tonight, long day of work ahead.

Shi- I am not using Jesus, Buddha, etc as a pretext for anything. All I am saying is this, great souls such as the ones I mentioned represent the next stage in human evolution. An evolution that will bring out the divine aspects of our nature. When we reach this level of evolution, the result will be communism. I look forward to you joining us old friend.

[Shi Huangdi]

cinch:

"I think it could be pretty easily interpreted that Jesus was interested in political reform. He was a rebel on multiple levels; the spirituality was intertwined with the politics. "

How so? Where did Jesus demand political reform? If Jesus was interested in changing politics, why didn't he make appeals to the leaders? He didn't talk to politica leaders, he talked to peasants who were of no special importance to their society?

"Jesus told his apostles to shun their material goods and come follow him. Do you really think he'd be a proponent of the buy-buy-sell-sell free market melee?"

No, he wouldn't be a proponent of the free market. Or any other system for that matter. Jesus was having his apostles live their lives in a certain way, to set an example. He was trying to change the economic system, or force people to part with their private possesions(as would nessecarily be a part of a socialist system)

Jesus said that man with two coats should give one to a person with none. He did not say the government should force the man with two coats to have his coat redistrubted.

"All he said is that they were good teachers... What's so wrong with that?"

Because Jesus was much more then a good teacher, he is the Son of God and redeemer of our sin, and so shouldn't just be lumped together with Buddha and Ghandi.

monkspider:

"All I am saying is this, great souls such as the ones I mentioned represent the next stage in human evolution. "

Humans are sinful being, and this age humans will remain sinful. I don't know the specifics of how things will be after the events in revelation take hold, but for this time we have to worry about the present age.

[Sava]

force people to part with their private possesions(as would nessecarily be a part of a socialist system)

you are misinformed as to what socialism is...

[Japher]

Original Sin? Read "Lord of the Flies"