Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 185 of 350 (606470)
02-25-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by RAZD
02-25-2011 2:50 PM


Re: Very interesting reading -- but re budget cuts?
Are you a member of a union?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2011 2:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 198 of 350 (606625)
02-27-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by cavediver
02-27-2011 6:09 AM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
cavey writes:
So, again, if stocks never pay dividends, then their value is zero.
Well I don't claim to know anything about this stuff. And I haven't even bothered to google it (because I thought I would ask here instead).
But I had always thought the main point of wheeler dealering in shares was to do with short term selling of them for more than you bought them for. Dividends being a safer longer term thing or (primarily) a way of those who own companies (i.e. majority shareholders?) paying themselves fat packets.
Is it true that no dividends = worthless shares? Doesn't the share price reflect the overall value of the company? Or something like that.....
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2011 6:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by AZPaul3, posted 02-27-2011 8:44 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 200 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2011 10:19 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 213 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2011 3:48 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 246 of 350 (606747)
02-28-2011 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 1:09 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Earlier you said:
Phage writes:
Remember, the productivity of the richest 1% of Americans is going to be a lot larger than might otherwise be expected. All of their invested money counts as effort as well.
If I have understood what you are saying then isn't it inevitable that wealth gets ever and ever more concentrated?
If money itself is equivalent to "effort" then the richest will expend the most "effort" and produce the most and make the most money. Then they will be even richer. So they can put in even more "effort" and produce even more and make even more money. And so on and so forth.
Don't we just end up in a self-re-enforcing spiral whereby wealth is inevitably concentrated almost exclusively amongst a tiny minority?
And if this wealth is then passed down the generations within a family you end up with a situation where the tiny minority of people who own practically everything have never actually put in any real effort into anything.
Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 1:09 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 10:43 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2011 12:10 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 252 of 350 (606780)
02-28-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 10:43 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
If I have understood what you are saying then isn't it inevitable that wealth gets ever and ever more concentrated?
Not necessarily. Its always possible for someone to be an idiot and lose their fortune.
So we are relying on idiocy (or the failure of the rich to invest in financial safeguards) to stop the runaway wealth concentration I described? Short of such idiocy the richest 1% will rightfully just get ever more wealthy as far as you are concerned?
Phage writes:
In the slightly longer term fortunes can be broken up among offspring.
Even if the human population remained static (and it seems generally accepted to be exploding) that would hardly reverse the trend of wealth resource being ever more concentrated in the hands of a miniscule minority that your description thus far seems to all-but inevitably result in. Would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 10:43 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:13 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 256 of 350 (606787)
02-28-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 11:13 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
Short of such idiocy the richest 1% will rightfully just get ever more wealthy as far as you are concerned?
So whats your plan..
I don’t think I have a plan. But I am astounded that you don’t see any sort of problem with things as you have described them. How can the runaway concentration of greater and greater wealth in the hands of a miniscule minority that your description results in be seen as desirable? Certainly it is not good for the vast and overwhelming majority. And one could even argue that it isn’t even healthy for the (admittedly very comfortable but increasingly isolated) financial elite themselves.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
Even if the human population remained static (and it seems generally accepted to be exploding) that would hardly reverse the trend of wealth resource being ever more concentrated in the hands of a miniscule minority that your description thus far seems to all-but inevitably result in. Would it?
Maybe not. But I notice you still haven't tackled the question of what business it is of yours that other people have wealth.
Surely the systems we put in place to control the distribution of limited resources amongst humanity is everyone’s business isn’t it? It affects every single one of us so how can we not be interested?
Phage writes:
Looking at everything that exists and seeing others producing more with their greater resources, and being jealous, isn't a reasonable basis for wealth redistribution.
I didn’t say it was. I am simply suggesting that the ever increasing runaway concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority that you have described doesn’t sound ideal. And when those in possession of that wealth have done nothing to earn that stratospheric degree of wealth other than be wealthy questions of fairness are frankly inevitable aren’t they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:13 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:52 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 258 of 350 (606793)
02-28-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 11:52 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
I'm not sure why you are accusing me of having said things that I haven't said at all.
So do you really think the system you have described is a good one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:52 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:14 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 263 of 350 (606815)
02-28-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 12:14 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
So do you really think the system you have described is a good one?
Yes I do.
So you really do consider the ever-increasing concentration of wealth that arises in the system you have described to be a desirable outcome?
Phage writes:
Being able to make things better for your children is both a central and respectable motive for a person. A long and successful family line leaving the resulting generations many resources is the logical expectation.
OK. But I am bewildered as to why you think that a long and successful family line requires a system where the top 1% are in possession of 40% (and increasing) of the wealth. Is it not possible to devise a system that allows a long and successful family line but whihc doesn't also result in such an intense and increasing concentration of resource?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:14 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 280 of 350 (606852)
02-28-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 2:54 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
If you are going to accuse them of obtaining it dishonestly you have to make your case.
"Dishonestly" is perhaps the wrong word. Whether by luck or judgement the stratospherically wealthy successfully played the system we have in place. The system where significant wealth itself breeds more wealth. A system that results in a runaway concentration of wealth and a system where this is rather controversially deemed to have been "earned" despite no effort on the part of the beneficiary.
But the system we have in place isn't immutable is it? If the system we have is flawed and results in outcomes which were never intended - such as extreme concentrations of wealth where 1% of the population own 40% of the wealth - why shouldn't we tinker with the system to rectify that situation somewhat?
The sort of changes being proposed here as far as I am aware consist of little more than the stratospherically wealthy contributing a bit more to the system that made them that wealthy in the first place.
This is hardly a red revolution and I am not really sure what your objection is exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 2:54 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 4:53 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 282 of 350 (606867)
02-28-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 4:53 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
"Wealth can be applied to enhance productivity."
Whose productivity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 4:53 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 6:31 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 284 of 350 (606872)
02-28-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 6:31 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Does the productivity of the workforce come into it at all? Are they included in your "those who use the wealth"?
Surely ultimately it is the ability of those actually doing the producing whose abilities have been enhanced with new equipment or whatever. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 6:31 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 6:45 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 286 of 350 (606875)
02-28-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 6:45 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
So, do you agree the wealth can be used to enhance productivity of people who use it?
It can - yes.
Phage writes:
(this is like pulling teeth)
Well I am a vampire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 6:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 7:07 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 295 of 350 (606926)
03-01-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 7:07 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Ok, so should those who devote their wealth through investment be able to reap some of the increase in productivity while retaining their investment's value?
That is a rather strangely worded question. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "reap some of the increase of productivity". So I will assume you just mean that they will profit from their investment in the form of increased personal wealth.
The answer to your question surely depends on what we are trying to achieve with the economic model we put in place?
If we want to utilise the motive for personal gain to achieve a society that is skilled, productive, efficent, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content then the answer to your question is arguably - Yes.
But where the system we put in place (e.g. one where wealth breeds ever greater wealth) results in unrestrained accumulation of personal wealth at the expense of the wider aims we are trying to achieve with our economic model I see no harm at all in puting in place counter-measures to restrict these effects.
It's all about what we are trying to achieve with the economic system we put in place isn't it?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 7:07 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 9:50 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 300 of 350 (607028)
03-01-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 9:50 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
It's all about what we are trying to achieve with the economic system we put in place isn't it?
I suppose that is correct.
So what do you think we are trying to achieve?
And is the ever increasing concentration of wealth conducive to that aim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 9:50 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 302 of 350 (607035)
03-01-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 1:36 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
You say that the criticisms being aimed your way are social/political rather than economic. But surely our reasons for preferring one economic system over another are always social and political aren't they? Surely we choose the economic system that we think will best achieve our social aims (whatever they may be)?
Phage writes:
Everyone should have the freedom to allocate their hard-won resources toward whatever ends they choose, including making the future of their children more secure.
OK. But surely this is perfectly achievable without accepting the runaway concentration of "unearned" wealth that the system you have described in this thread seems to inevitably result in if restraints are not put in place to counter this innate tendency.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
It's all about what we are trying to achieve with the economic system we put in place isn't it?
I suppose that is correct.
I am still struggling to see what exactly your problem is with the relatively small degree of redistribution that is being proposed in this thread. Nobody is suggesting a proletariat revolution. Or advocating that Warren Buffet be fed to the hounds.
AbE - Except maybe Xongsmith
The sort of changes being proposed here as far as I am aware consist of little more than the stratospherically wealthy contributing a bit more to the system that made them that wealthy in the first place.
Edited by Straggler, : Xongsmith's militant tendencies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 1:36 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 2:55 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 305 of 350 (607059)
03-01-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 2:55 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
But surely our reasons for preferring one economic system over another are always social and political aren't they? Surely we choose the economic system that we think will best achieve our social aims (whatever they may be)?
Phage writes:
We should choose the society we prefer to achieve our social aims, and the political system to achieve our political goals.
It would be impossible to successfully implement either of those without an economic policy that is compatible wouldn't it? The economic system underpins practically everything else to the point of being fundamentally and instrinsically entwined.
Phage writes:
Why do you say its "unearned"?
What is classified as "earned" or "unearned" is essentially defined by the terms of economic system in place.
Phage writes:
Why do you say its "unearned"? If a ditch digger earns his wages does the person who rents him the use of a shovel not earn his rental fee?
I have no problem with that in principle at all. But as your own example demonstrates you too can see a fundamental difference between the two roles as they relate to the concept of "earning".
Phage writes:
You are still throwing around terms like "theft", or "stolen", or "unearned" wealth without ever saying what the fuck you are talking about.
I haven't used the terms "theft" or "stolen" at all. In fact I actually objected to the use of terms "dishonest" and "illegitimate" earlier in this thread. The wealth we are talking about here is simply a consequence of those who are stratospherically wealthy having successfully played the system we have in place. Whether by luck or judgement. It is all perfectly legitimate by the terms of that economic system. But that system, as you have described it, all but inevitably results in a runaway concentration of wealth if no counter-balances are introduced.
Phage writes:
Well I'm against the concept of taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have not's" purely based upon that difference.
But I am not basing anything purely upon that difference.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
The sort of changes being proposed here as far as I am aware consist of little more than the stratospherically wealthy contributing a bit more to the system that made them that wealthy in the first place.
Then why don't you take a stab at explaining why exactly that would be better for everyone?
In this country we are facing deep and extensive cuts to just about everything from police numbers to provision for the mentally handicapped via libraries, sports facilities, education, refuse disposal etc. etc. etc. I think alleviating some of that would serve society better both now and in the longer term than further increasing the concentration of wealth in the top percentage which is what the system you have described would do if left unchecked.
I guess you think that makes me some sort of bolshevik nutjob?
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 2:55 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 6:04 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024