Greta wrote:Veg, the trickle-down effect was always a con. If money consistently gushes upwards, but only trickles down, there can be only one result. It is so obvious that the fact that people never complained about it for decades suggests that they deserve to be controlled and repressed.
I didn't always think this way; I was concerned at the inequity for most of my life. Yet, for decades I've seen average people passionately arguing against their own interests because Murdoch's staff and allies told them so, and often they argued in an aggressive and toxic manner. That looks to me like natural selection. Dumb animals have always been exploited by more intelligent ones and they will either have their resources taken from them or become resources themselves. The dynamic between rich and poor looks very much like the dynamic between humans and other species.
At present the eighty wealthiest people own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people. While this stat is not well-known to the general public, most are aware of extraordinary inequality in their own countries, yet they continue to return "conservative" governments to power whole main aim is to push that inequality further.
You could say that those who are not wealthy have largely been outFOXed by the rich for a long time. In fact, long enough for it to be too late to do much about it. The major parties - the only ones with the experience to govern increasingly complex economies and societies (albeit poorly) - are both in the pockets of multinationals. One party is more extreme in its favouring of the wealthy over the poor than the other, but neither are prepared to push for more significantly balanced wealth distribution. To do so would be political suicide - even though such a move would benefit most voters.
I think the mega-rich would like to think of themselves as the 'cream of the crop'. Imagine a world with only Donald Trumps. They have usually become rich because of the efforts of 'lesser' human beings. The greatest humans and unsung heroes generally made little or nothing from their efforts. Some people are just good at making money and nothing else. I'm not sure that's even something to be admired.
Actually, studies have shown that other animals have an innate sense of fairness. We seem to have lost that at the same time as the rise of 'neoliberal' worship of 'The Bastard.'
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Some people are just good at making money and nothing else.
That is one of the biggest flaws in the system. The money doesn't always flow according to contribution. There is also major undervaluing of natural resources as well as systems that encourage waste.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Some people are just good at making money and nothing else.
That is one of the biggest flaws in the system. The money doesn't always flow according to contribution. There is also major undervaluing of natural resources as well as systems that encourage waste.
Yes. The 'neoliberal' poison has all but ruined my own country. I wonder when people will wake up. The 'trickle-down' effect was always just a cynical lie to silence argument.
FlashDangerpants wrote:How lucky her majesty the queen is to have inherited such a giant contribution that she made to society.
No, I'm not talking about robber barons like the socialist queen, I'm talking about people who get rich within the confines and discipline of the free market.
FlashDangerpants wrote:How lucky her majesty the queen is to have inherited such a giant contribution that she made to society.
No, I'm not talking about robber barons like the socialist queen, I'm talking about people who get rich within the confines and discipline of the free market.
But a doctor who sells bad prescriptions for painkillers to addicts will make more money than a doctor who doesn't, and have more proof of their social contribution in the form of dollars, and has done so under rules freer than those of the free market.
bobevenson wrote:
On a one-to-one basis, like helping out at a soup kitchen, that is definitely a contribution to society, but it isn't proof like a dollar is.
It's self-proving.
PhilX
The only acceptable proof, my friend, is hard, cold cash.
I'm not your friend. And it's acceptable proof to many.
FlashDangerpants wrote:How lucky her majesty the queen is to have inherited such a giant contribution that she made to society.
No, I'm not talking about robber barons like the socialist queen, I'm talking about people who get rich within the confines and discipline of the free market.
But a doctor who sells bad prescriptions for painkillers to addicts will make more money than a doctor who doesn't, and have more proof of their social contribution in the form of dollars, and has done so under rules freer than those of the free market.
No, my friend, a doctor who provides addicts with a fix is providing an actual benefit to somebody, which may be illegal under a tyrannical government, but not a free one.
