What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
112 Comments
- irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -12/+76It's really easy to be worried about inequality when you already have all the money you and your family will ever need.
- stonebear, on 10/11/2007, -8/+71There is an optimum level of inequality which varies depending on who you are talking to. Basically; if wealth is distributed too equally, society degenerates through lack of innovation. If wealth is not distributed equally enough, society degenerates through civil-war/high-crime-rate/terrorism. Maximum and minimum limits need to be established for wealth, but who's limits shall we use? What about people who benefit from inequality, yet don't produce anything? In my opinion, a decent minimum standard of living ought to be available for all citizens, whether or not they can, or are able to, produce anything of value, yet highly productive people should still be allowed additional benefits commensurate with their abilities. A productive society has winners and losers, but not victims. The problem is that there are people who are in both categories; benefiting most from inequality, yet contributing nothing. This class has been allowed to accumulate wealth to the exent it has too much power, and is thus allowed to maximize inequality to absurd levels, to everyone else's detriment but its own.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+53Gates, Buffet and most billionaires have more money then they could ever spend short of purchasing actual countries. That and on some level at least they're aware that they have so much and the rest of the world has so little is why they dabble in philanthropy (in my opinion).
Except Steve Jobs who doesn't appear to donate anything to anybody, and that ***** from IKEA who created a scam charity organisation so he could avoid taxes. - CiXeL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+40the middle class is a stop-gap
it keeps the hands of the poor off the throats of the rich
remove it at your peril. - Easty, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Well, yeah, it is.
Would you rather that people with less money did more to stop inequality? - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30@Stonebear
If I could dig you up twice I would. I have been a huge capitalist for as long as I can remember because, and quite truthfully, I see that capitalism helps most of the people, most of the time. It isn't fool proof, but it is better than many of the current alternatives.
Having said that though, the ultimate goal is that everyone has what they "need", while leaving enough of an incentive to make yourself better.
"A productive society has winners and losers, but not victims."
-Stonebear
Well said, and something that I think is easily doable. - mastercheif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Why? Because if the poor get too poor, they can't afford the products they sell. Give them the money to re-invest it in you. It's like the reparations episode of Chappelle's Show.
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Its pretty easy to think of numerous reasons for this. For one thing, if society ever erupted into anarchy the rich would have the most to lose, so a content and stable underclass benefits the rich. Look at the French revolution. Also, I think the idea that we earn and deserve our own wealth stops making sense when an individuals income surpasses that of small countries. Or maybe most people care about equality and dislike suffering in the world, and some happen to be rich and in a position to influence change.
- gandhirs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19"Capitalism is the unfair distribution of wealth. Communism is the fair distribution of poverty."
Being a capitalist instead of being a communist doesn't mean that you doesn't care about people. It can mean that you believe that capitalism is a better system to generate wealth to the society as a whole.
Digg me down if you wish. - EvilVin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Where can I sign up for your newsletter at?
- LukeSkope, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"First off, wealth isn't distributed, it's EARNED"
Maybe for some, but if you think that hard work is the only determining factor in acquiring wealth you are in fantasy land.
Those that have enormous amounts of money "earning" interest are not earning it through hard work. Those corporations that move their money to offshore accounts to avoid taxes are not earning anything through hard work, those corporations that downsize here to exploit cheap labor in the "developing" world are not earning anything through hard work.
I guess all the lobbying to get laws changed, shifting plants overseas, donating to PAC's and politicans, running for office and getting no bid contracts are hard work, so the system does work.
Basically, wealth is distributed by finding loopholes in the system, such as the exploitation of the 14th amendment to grant corporations the same rights as humans, granting them all the protections humans have without most of the limits (you know, things like death).
By the way, Russia was not a communist state, Russia was a state that was run by the Communist Party, attempting to reach communism. Communism is a destination that no state has ever reached. Communism, Marxism and Socialism are three different things, and there are plenty of resources on the net if you care to research further.
And it's not that the system is completely broken, capitalism can work, but corporations should not be protected by the Bill of Rights. They are not people and the usurpation of the 14th amendment to argue that corporations are people and deserve the same rights has had devastating consequences for human rights and the ability of humans to fight the oppression of corporate greed.
It is not a level playing field so long as this is the case - MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7It ultimatly comes down to keeping us all going really. Poor people can't buy computers, the more people there are in the middle class the richer Gates is. This is why I wonder WTF the finance industries are thinking nowadays. They are driving people into bankruptcy from their short term money grabs. But in the long term, the more money is spread around the faster it flows the more the finance industries would profit. But they can only see the next quarters profit..
- CroqueMitaine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8@Bamont.
Such a place does exist its called Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc...
Social demographics is the only way to go. Its not perfect but ill take having free healthcare and social security over low taxes anyday. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6 I agree completely! I was working as a bell repair and installation technician for a bit it was simply known that there was an inverse law between a buildings income level and the amount of satalite dishes littering the side of the building. It was just a laugh. People couldn't feed themself's, they couldn't function in society but many had 400+ digital channels, endless streams of cell phones, cable internet, etc - ohh and did I mention their cars?
Needless to say, as I had to take a bus for an hour to get to the job, so I can pay the taxes for these bozo's....anyway
As someone pointed out at some time "Those that understand the system will either become so enamored with the profits that can be made, or so depended on the favours of the state, will have no incentive to change the system.".
Which leaves the middle class to support both portions. Is it any wonder that it is the middle class that has historically been squeezed out?
- edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5sure if a person figures they owe X amount to the government in taxes and then say to themselves they would prefer to spend the money in a targeted way for something they really care about.. Then power to them. Also giving away lots of money can get their name associated with a great institution and preserved in history.
Stanford University ( Leland Stanford .. railroad tycoon and gov california)
Vanderbilt University (Cornelius Vanderbilt -- shipping tycoon)
Getty Museum ( J Paul Getty -- big oil )
Ford Foundation ( Henry Ford -- automaker )
Carnegie Mellon ( you get the idea )
and that's just scratching the surface - delafere, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Are you certain that Bill Gates hasn't come to see the world as his personal ant farm?
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"A productive society has winners and losers, but not victims."
"Capitalism is the unfair distribution of wealth. Communism is the fair distribution of poverty."
Thank goodness economics can be explained in pithy phrases like this, or the right wing might never have pulled their noses out of their Bibles.
That whole thing about a camel and the eye of a needle is a confusing mixed metaphor, anyway. - grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Maybe I am just a gullible ignoramus who has drunk too much koolaid, but is it not at least possible that they feel sick when they hear how many people die because of easily preventable water-borne diseases or suffer with diseases for which we have antibiotics. SARS and bird flu get front page news, yet malaria and measles kills so many more people.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12"Maximum and minimum limits need to be established for wealth, but who's limits shall we use?"
If you live in the United States, your idea of a free economy and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property are incredibly skewed. First off, wealth isn't distributed, it's EARNED. The reason why Capitalism is strong is because it gives people the ability to succeed. Take for instance my wife's father, who is an immigrant from Columbia. He came here with nothing, but through hard work, a little bit of luck, and LOTS of smart choices - he now owns a dozen body shops in Florida and lives in a million dollar home. This is someone who 25 years ago was living underneath a bridge. The possibility for people to succeed is here in the United States, whether you are a national or an immigrant.
When I hear radicals talking about "wealth being redistributed" - I immediately think of Socialism. If you want to live somewhere that wealth has been redistributed and the system actually work-..
Oh wait. No such place exists. I wonder why. (Ask Russia) - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sounds like Bill Cosby talking to his kids about their grandparents: These aren't the people I grew up with. These are old people trying to get in Heaven.
- zachlutz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4True, but it's not that simple either. First off, many people are too poor to even consider lottery tickets. Secondly, it has a lot to do with what you're born into.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10"Easily doable"? You must be kidding. If it was easily doable and there was the will, then it would be done. NO government or market system is perfect. Capitalism has its flaws just as Communism does and Socialism does. It is naive for someone to think that Capitalism is the best when they have not experienced any other system. But, this is the gist of this posting.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4 Not really. I don't think he/she is putting the poor down. I think it is just a statement of fact - albeit not a popular statement. We like to think it is the downtrodden that make the changes, but it just ain't so. Without the major power holders(politically) wanting change, there can be no political change. (violent revolution isn't included)
The reason why women got the right to vote isn't because of women, but because enough men(the political power holders) saw the reasoning behind their arguement. The reason why slaves were freed were because of primarily white people that saw the evil in it and joined with the blacks which is what gave them the political power to change.
That said, there will always be those that are materially poor - in relation to someone else. There is nothing anyone can do about that. - Aggaman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Being wealthy doesn't mean you are a bad person. People are wealthy because that is the economic system we have. At present, some version of it is the only feasible option. I tend to prefer the Scandinavian system, since it delivers a better overall standard of living, but it is still fundamentally a market system. Not everyone can be rich, but nobody in a modern country has to be poor to the point of human degradation. The fact that there are people in this situation is a social and political failure, and people like Gates are right to want to do something about it.
Having said that, capitalism is not by any means the one eternal system of human organization. It will alter and change and probably disappear as we know it. The sole concern of economists, political scientists and philosophers should be to make educated guesses as to how it will change in order to avoid a future bloodbath. History tells us that grand economic and political reorganizations can be bloody, but they need not be. - zachlutz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Why do the rich necessarily have to be champions of the free market? Just sayin'...
- fixty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I got a weird vibe while reading that article... kinda seemed one-sided and sycophantic. But then, it was the WSJ...
- emom, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@ Stonebear - great comment to a point - but your last sentence seems to imply that just because people get rich, they maximize inequality.
The same can and must be said for poor people - this is coming from someone who 17 years ago spent 6 months living out of my truck and eating off of food stamps and the Salvation Army. And I care more about inequality now than I did back then. I do agree with Bill Gates that it is the responsibility of everyone - especially the rich - to empower others to have and become more. Poor people have more power and opportunity than they think they do - wealth is first a state of mind before it becomes a state of being. - GRTWHT, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I can't believe that more people don't get it: almost all insanely wealthy people (especially those that have been referred to as 'robber barons' etc and have made their fortunes through questionable means) develop these philanthropic attitudes as they get older.
Quite simply they begin to question how they will be remembered and perhaps begin to wonder about the possibility of an 'afterlife' and decide that they need to do something to make their mark on the world and guarantee their place in heaven.
Research the history of the most notorious philanthropists throughout US history, research their early business practices and their 'change of heart' later in life and decide for yourself. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7The rich care about inequality because that is what ensures that they remain rich.
Bill Gates cares about inequality because he is human and has a conscience. - the6thReplicant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4..because some of them have souls.
- Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Let me ask a very pointed question:
Is it inequality that you're concerned about? Or poverty?
If it's inequality, would you object if everyone in the world made $200,000 a year, but a few special people made $2,000,000? Regarding equality, would the world be better off if everyone were equal on a monetary level? Let's draw an analogy. Blind people cannot be said to be on an equal field as sighted people in today's world. Would we be better off if everyone were blinded so they would be equal? Obviously not.
If you want to rail against poverty, that's excellent. While we should not force anyone to do something about it, I heartily hope that people would do things to alleviate poverty out of kindness. However, don't confuse poverty and inequality; even if inequality gives you something easy to rally around. - zachlutz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I don't think innovation is dependent on disproportionate incomes. Forget money and let every individual do what they want and what they're good at. We're always thinking of better ways to do things.
- alllie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5What an absolute piece of crap. Just the kind of thing the Wall Street Journal would put out, how the poor and lower classes did not fight against inequality though unions, protests and revolutions but how it was all a gift of the wealthy. We fought for what we got though some of the wealthy figured out if nothing was done there would be a rebellion and they would end up like the French aristocrats. FDR did the bare minimum necessary to stop another revolution in the US. Not that I know we would be better off if we had had one, my crystal ball isn't that good, but I do know the rich would grind us under their heels every day of our lives if they could. If they aren’t afraid to do it, that is what they do. Look around the world. Look at history. It is political action by the working classes that change the world, not charity by the rich.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@satan..
I respectfully disagree. What is a human, other than what they were taught? You are who you are, you beleive what you believe, primarily because of what you were taught as an early child. Everything you were taught and shown at that age has coloured everything you have every seen, thought or said.
So to say "Ohh well, nothing can be done - it's just human nature", IMO is intellectually dishonest.
If we started to teach our society respect for others, instead of solely respect for self would go a long way to solving most of the worlds problems. - devila2208, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I also respect Mr. Gates for how much charity work he does and the money he donates. I really respect the fact that instead of leaving his kids with billions upon billions of dollars so they can turn out to be another Paris Hilton, he donates money around the world. You can't say he donates all that money to third world countries (instead of leaving it to his kids) so the starving Africans can afford to buy Vista. It seems like he is trying to do the right thing with some of his money.
- palewook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The concern about inequality comes from a simple worry. If conditions ever get bad enough, some of the sheep in the majority will wake up. Elect a candidate or candidates that favor middle and lower class, wreck the tax breaks the wealthy get or destroy some of the tax-free safe harbors for stashing money in our monetary systems. In short, this has nothing to do with altruism.
- tanto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The only thing that is not universal in this desire to get rich is the actual meaning, or definition, of that term ‘get rich’. After all, is the idea of being rich the same to someone from America as it is someone from Mexico? Someone from a wealthy family and someone from poverty?
Get Rich - What Does It Mean To You?
http://orangtuamurid.info/blog/?p=303 - digger28, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3wealth gap leads to social unrest.
- there, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 Plenty of animals are ruthlessly parasitic in nature. The ideas of theft and killing being wrong are human conventions not natures (where it is usually eat or be eaten at any cost). So taking biblicalisms out of the picture and putting on my Desmond Morris "Human Animal"/Hobbesian glasses.... what we have left is a bunch of highly intelligent creatures who want to survive comfortably so they can effectively pass on their genes on to the next generation.
The bell curve translates into the idea that in any given society some people will be born with a disproportionate mix of situational luck, talent, education, and interest in participating in some area that happens to gather disproportionate resources ....thus becoming disproportionately powerful. The majority will naturally fall somewhere else on the distribution curve and thus will be less powerful. (whatever the shape of that curve may be)
If human beings removed their morals and were perfectly selfish they would simply take all the goods from one another and kill those that resisted. Fortunately for everyone human beings are mostly empathetic social creatures different than the brutal lives of alligators that eat their own young. (which is largely why we have morals in the first place). Therefore poor people aren't usually looking for trouble and are usually smart enough to recognize the benefit of having talented people managing resources efficiently.
Here is where the problems arise.
Some people have little or no empathy for other human beings other then themselves or some racist sub-branch of humanity they feel they belong to. They are a heavy mix of rude, selfish, amoral, sadistic, and egotistical (again according to a bell curve like distribution). My guess for this is a biological attribute of the specific individual's brains.. not anything to do with whether they are wealthy or poor.
Again... according to probability.... a very small proportion of these people are going to match up with what it takes to become powerful. This isn't so bad when enough rich people act in socially sensitive ways to offset them but if too many start behaving like brutes.... inevitable the poor start emulating their anti-social behavior (since they overly simplistically see it as a method to acquire social standing)
The truth is selfishness alone doesn't increase or decrease one's talent, circumstances, nor work ethic. So unfortunately for the poor it doesn't translate into a greater slice of the pie. In fact what actually happens is something akin to the prisoners dilemma. Millions of other people are now counterbalancing their selfish efforts with their own selfishness behavior and the opposite of what they desired starts to happen. The rich get even richer... and the poor proportionally poorer. (since the poor have just made it infinitely easier for the rich to justify their wealth by sharing similar values)
This goes on for awhile until the descendants of the wealthy effectively become the government because they control such vast resources.
Then something interesting happens. Too much self-interest leads to inequities and what used to be empathetic social beings end up creating rising conflict and rhetoric. This wldespread discontent futhrer dismantles moral conventions. Man begins returning to a more primitive warlike animal state as things turn into a unproductive free-for-all of looting and corruption. As new generations are born to this unhappy disaster... they know little about previous generations moralities but they do inevitably take note that some children are born into fabulous wealth without earning it. Since they are disgusted by it they gossip about it and ridicule these children. This sort of thinking eventually leads them to unite against what they inevitably call tyrants.
The powerful of course never view themselves as tyrants. Therefore they often attempt to use their control over massive military/police forces to attempt to protect their power. This works for awhile but as they have to increase the level of bloodshed, prisons and torture.....they become bigger and bigger tyrants. Eventually enough people are fed up. That's were the powerful realize they have no choice but to rewrite laws to ease inequalities.... OR....the poor simply end up flushing their genes down the toilet (and those of all their family members and friends). Thus government has just been reset to some new form.
As best as I can tell that's the mechanics of how civilization works. Its not like we haven't been warned by countless pieces of historical literature about what happens when selfishness goes awry. Unfortunately for some reason every generation thinks its different so the cycle seems to endlessly repeat itself. (and its been going on a long time.. think about the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah)
Who are parasites and or who is being immoral is largely rhetoric .Both the selfish rich and selfish poor are to blame for these bloody situations arising. Maybe the uberwealthy like Gates, Soros, and Buffet who see this cycle can break it and protect future generations of both poor and rich from unnecessary bloodshed or maybe that's just some deterministic way humans behave and we end up nuking each other into oblivion. - goldenbrowngod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2the bigger question reading this is to ask why wouldn't the rich care about inequality?
it seems odd to assume that just because someone is rich they wouldn't care about some of the issues in the world or that they are to stupid to release that the got rich by selling something.
the screw others because I already got mine isn't usually the mindset of the person who earned a lot of money.
No they usually are the people that look at problems and try to find a way to solve it (and of course make a buck off of it) - MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well we aren't talking about perfect equity either here. Perfect equity is communism, and yep it doesn't work. Capitalistic equity is where everyone has a chance at success based on their abilities. Social/Capitalism equity means that everyone has a chance, and we take care of the truly disabled. Of course sadly most Social/Capitalistic societies seem to screw this up and label everyone who doesn't want to work as disabled and diserving of help.. Oh well.
- HsoKinees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2is that a drawing or a grayscale image of Billy? it's bloody good :O
- scrolltom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@Azerael
Without the basic instincts of human, today's society would be very dull and backward. The key and challenge is to find a balance between utilising all the human characteristics that help us progress above mere animals, and the negative tendencies that causes inequality. - EggoTrip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This should be applauded fervently. As shown by the article I'm linking - inequality has become a major problem. Bill Gates has stated that he doesn't want to leave an inheritance legacy to his family and he already is the largest individual philanthropist. As an individual I have tremendous respect for Gates for the things he's done. Like many on Digg I'm a technology geek as well as an Apple user (great since that also means now I run windows apps) - but Steve Jobs as an individual isn't near on the same page as Gates.
Inequility is an issue and if enough of the super rich have the same mentality of electing to help balance it the right way - that is the best possible solution since the government would inevitably be A) unlikely make the effective laws towards a better balance B) politicians couldn't face the backlash of "communistic" ideas
Recently relevant digged article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10wwln-lede-t.html?ex=1339041600&en=7efaadfc7dc03593&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6EAT THE RICH
- fmarkos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3They are afraid of a potential revolution.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1When you get to a certain level of wealth, you're pretty much detached from the issue of the government coming and taking a big chunk of what you earn. It just doesn't matter anymore.
- derforseti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's reasonable to think that "do nothing" people will eventually squandar away their own money, and possibly even their family's fortunes; but as far as the "class" goes, I don't think it will ever wind itself down. New people will rise to take the place of those that fall, so long as opportunity permits. You see this in today's world in the form of dot-com millionaires in the first world countries, and corrupt sovereigns in third-world countries.
Taking both of these examples, my hypothesis is (one reason, anyway): this class is allowed to exist and regenerate itself because of the natural weakness of human spirit that exists in large populations. Internet money-makers often exploit those who themselves are looking for 'get-rich-quick' schemes by selling them expensive 'training' packages for doing online marketing. With such a large population at hand, as the internet provides, it's easy enough to find enough 'suckers' with enough cash to make yourself rich for doing very little of anything that actually benefits society. - mcdaddy1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not giving money to the poor doesn't mean they don't care. You don't improve the situation but just giving money to the poor and they know that.
- The_Dude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Answer: so homegrown insurgents don't cut their heads off and display it on youtube.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is