Consider that for a moment.Isn’t something out of balance when the three richest Americans own as much as the poorest 175 million Americans?I mean, do we think that these guys have actually outworked all the poorest 175 million? Or do we perhaps think that the poorest 175 million are actually a bunch of lazy, no good, so-and-so’s? If you’re like me, you know that plenty of solidly middle class folks can be lazy, no good, so-and-so’s. Isn’t there surely something out of balance when just three people can have so very, very, very, very, very much…while 175 million don’t have that much between them?No one is arguing that rich folks shouldn’t be entitled to wealth. Even if they got it through wealth privilege or even luck, that’s fine. But when you realize that a billionaire has enough money to spend…wait for it…
Thinking in that direction you wonder how you are gonna ‘declare them too rich?’Then you drop to my level of thinking, how can ANY athlete be payed multimillions for playing a game and your scientists and Brain Surgeons paid tens of thousands.I think you also should limit how much Miley Cirus makes gettin; nekkid and singing!Of course it seems ludicrous for some to be so rich. But then you must wait and see, or find out how much they GIVE to the poor and other charities.The thinking and solving of such problems are above my pay grade. I think we know that GIVING to humans with no ‘work’ required ruins most incentive to reach outside the Giver.I remember reading of the plight of the Native Americans, take away their way of supporting themselves and give them money.Then we have Johnson’s Great Society, that hasn’t worked too well.Now I realize I am talking government money here. But if the government were to take half of what all people over 10 Billion have and Give it to folk (or raise the minimum wage) (which raises costs, etc) it will be government money because we in the public sector cannot take the rich guy’s money!Seems to be sorta like a vicious circle.Did you read of the multi Billionaire in Saudi in the last few weeks who was hung by his feet and beaten trying to get him to cough up 17 Billion? Ain’t worked so far I heard.YES it is out of kilter, but I don’t think I deserve a penny of Bill GAtes or even Trumps money. (I would not turn down a gift however!) LO________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
One day everyone will have the option to live under a Luxury Communism. All needs will be provided for including a Universal Basic Income. The only drawback will be that you have to pledge allegiance to the one world government leader.
The 3 richest Americans.Who are they and are they Republican or Democrat?I don’t hear anything about them – so they must be Democrat.Also, who said anything about outworking everyone else?Who says everything starts equally?God gives different talents as he sees fit.While I understand it must be tough for you to realize some have no money, or good looks, or intelligence or charm Aaron – it’s just the way it is. Of course – I know you of all people understand this. ________________
The 3 richest Americans.Who are they and are they Republican or Democrat?I don’t hear anything about them – so they must be Democrat.Also, who said anything about outworking everyone else?Who says everything starts equally?God gives different talents as he sees fit.While I understand it must be tough for you to realize some have no money, or good looks, or intelligence or charm Aaron – it’s just the way it is. Of course – I know you of all people understand this. I…I…I…I got nothing.All I can is rebuke you…so…REBUKE!!!
I used to pass most of this off as simple jealousy and the inability to grasp the fact that these super-rich provide many jobs to those complaining about it. But, with the last 8 years, there has been a growing disparity and most of it involves collusion with government in the form of industry regulation and crony-capitalism. Socialism and big-government depend on the old one neck to choke principle in which they’d rather deal with a few very big players than many small ones.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo
youtu.be/1Lz-yhjh1kw
The uber-wealthy have the ear of their Senate and Representatives. They party with them, gift them, communicate with them, etc. They have an IMMENSE advantage over common folks. Their money (and contributions) buy them a seat at the table…and they always look out for their interests.This is likely one element that communism seeks to eliminate (since both capitalism and socialism allow for immense wealth). If a wealthy person doesn’t like a particular bill, they can call their Congressman directly (give or take), while you and I get a form letter reply. As for all the jobs that the rich provide for everyone else, it must also be remembered that without the workers, the rich would be up the creek. BOTH sides are needed.Consider that Sam Walton, if he were still alive, would be wealthier than Bezos/Amazon. Walton’s heirs have, if I recall correctly, approximately $30 billion apiece. But get this: Instead of these billionaires taking a cut off of their riches in order to do better for Walmart workers…well, they don’t. They could be set for life with a measly $5 billion apiece, but NOOOOOOO.It is no jealousy that motivates me. It’s justice. When people can work a lifetime and retire into virtual poverty, while people are buying paintings for $450 MILLION, or otherwise having so much that they couldn’t hardly spend it all, something is wrong.
If it continues – unions will rise up again…and monopolies will need to be busted.Or someone will start getting the better workers by offering them more money…and taking less at the top________________
Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left’s view that there is a single pie and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the everyone starts with $10. They don’t believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution. Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth
There is no real answer to this situation. The scripture says, ‘The poor you have always.’ Vice versa it could say the rich you have always. Some wealthy families are as crooked as a barrel of fish hooks. The same with some poor families.I had a running discussion with my best friend and brother in law. He was a worker, one of the best any company could ask for. I was in business. He would point out, I could take off and to to Alaska or Hawaii. He had to stay on the job. At the time he worked for Beam Electric. I asked him many times what happens if Beam makes some poor contracts and goes broke, what will you do? I will get another job.He could never see that Mr. Beam was a multimillionaire because he did what BIL could not do. Mortgage his home, buy equipment and go into business for himself. He was successful, wise and frugal. Many business men go broke and become depressed and commit suicide. Thei workers go down the street they have no skin in the game. BUT most business men when they fail will be back in the game in a year or two until they make it.How much should they be able to make or amass? The answer differs with most folk. Most wealthy folk did not start out with money, they earned it.In our society there is no answer to the OP.
Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left’s view that there is a single pie and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the everyone starts with $10. They don’t believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution. Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth
Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left’s view that there is a single pie and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the everyone starts with $10. They don’t believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution. Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth
You could have made your post a lot shorter and said the same thing.
One major point that Peterson demonstrates so well is that there really is nothing that can be done to prevent wealth accumulation. Even in supposedly pure Marxist countries such as North Korea, most all the wealth ends up at the top, while those at the bottom and the middle end up with far less (total poverty in most all cases actually). That’s just the way it is. Forced redistribution of the supposedly ill-gotten wealth of the ‘evil’ rich to the supposedly deserving poor (as in the Marxism that Aaron apparently thinks is a good idea), always ends up with far more poor people at the bottom than capitalistic societies ever result in. Marxism also by necessity involves the use of violence to achieve its supposed aim of equality of outcomes. And it always results in a marked loss in productive highly intelligent people in a society, whether by emigration or persecution and murder by government. Peterson is very much opposed to Marxist philosophy, and argues that capitalism is the system that has the most potential to improve the lives of all. There will always be inequity in this present world system, but forced redistribution/Marxism is actually manifestly destructive of capital, of intelligence, and of incentive. Peterson convincingly argues that competition as well as fairness/conscience is built into our nature, and Marxism just tries to eliminate these unalterable fundamental components of human nature (and any humans who refuse to submit to it). The whole premise that total equality of outcomes is or would be the highest good for all in a society is contrary to the hierarchies displayed throughout the animal kingdom and the history of humanity, which hierarchical structure has always (and will always) manifest eventually in any given culture, even in the purest Marxist regime.