blogs.wsj.com — "The rich, after all, are supposed to be champsions of the free market, believers in survival of the fittest, and enemies of government involvement that reduce incentives. Why is Gates ? and Buffett and so many other billionaires ? suddenly worrying about the wealth gap?"
Jun 11, 2007 View in Crawl 4
hsokineesJun 13, 2007
is that a drawing or a grayscale image of Billy? it's bloody good :O
ecoronaJun 13, 2007
The wealthy and the poor have always had divergent interests. The wealthy also happen to have the most influence in government and as a result, in the passing of laws that gets them more money at the expense of the little guys like us. I think we'll all agree that the MPAA and RIAA are perfect examples. We have already identified the enemy and how much damage have we dealt? None. We really suck at this. We sure bitch to ourselves about it on Digg but then it stops right there. How many of us saw Spiderman 3? I know I did! I felt like a hypocrite but I did it.
Closed AccountJun 14, 2007
"Such a place does exist its called Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc..."Umm, no. Have you ever actually been to these countries? Wealth isn't redistributed, the same way wealth works here is how it works there - the only difference in somewhere like Norway is that the rich actually pay LESS in taxes.Giving people the ability to be on par with those that spent most of their lives acquiring their wealth, while others squandered in the swallows, is a liberalist method of trying to level the playing field.You can't level the playing field when people who want to succeed will, and those who don't care too will still be the same, poor, blokes they were before.
Closed AccountJun 14, 2007
"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."I've done my research - and had you done yours, you'd realize that The USSR was closer to Socialism than Marxism or Communism. I don't deny that corporations being protectedf by the Bill of Rights is pretty stupid, however - think of how well off the workers in this country have it in comparison to others. Think of how the system is STILL, even with the massive loopholes, setup for those who want to work hard in order to succeed. My idea of success obviously differs from yours, because I don't need to be rich in order to be happy. Being a good husband, a good father, and a good employee are what's important to me. What's NOT important to me are the swallows of the ghetto who think they somehow deserve anything I've earned, or those who got lucky in this system. The money makes itself, such is the nature of capitalism. Again, simply because you can't fathom the idea of a government that doesn't pamper the poor that refuse to do anything for themselves doesn't mean its not humanitarian.
griffin7Jun 14, 2007
An interesting article.I think it comes down to making sure there are people that can buy whatever product or service the tycoon is in business to provide.I see nothing to commend these social engineers for. They do nothing to help people ever have a hope of becoming like them.They are just perpetuating their own businesses health in their own self interest.
shauncorleoneJun 14, 2007
The only problem I have with this is that you're insinuating that these people who have accumulated wealth, the "winners", have not done so through hard work and determination, and it is as if they owe contributions to the "losers", or those on the less fortunate end of the inequality. Aside from that, I agree that the balance must be maintained, but optimally it would be done through the efforts of all mankind rather than be government-regulated. Neither option is realistic, which is why maintaining the economic balance amongst "classes" is always one of the top political platform issues.
lowradsJun 16, 2007
Experienced money managers worry about the "externalities" of doing business moreso than those who have their nose to the grindstone.In just one example, any severe climate adjustment is really going to affect the wealthy just as much as it is going to affect the poor. The fall might be padded, but no one in high places can survive without lots of people below expending energy to maintain a particular social network.
mfabMar 1, 2009
Why the Rich Care About Inequality? Simple.It's a combination of guilt, good PR and belief in pro charity management.Getting rich without feeling guilty is THE THING especially in the times of financial crisis:<a class="user" href="http://howto-get-rich.org/rich-and-poor/27/">http://howto-get-rich.org/rich-and-poor/27/</a>Some older guys want to leave something behind and be remembered.Others realize their wealth cannot be easily cashed in all at once or even over time so it has to be partially dispersed in order to keep its value.