How much wealth is it ok for a person or organization to have?

[Alceste]

Past an income of a couple hundred thousand dollars, there's really not much more, practically, that money can buy that isn't pure ostentation.

Mansions, expensive cars, private planes, lavish meals and parties, expensive clothes and accessories -- these don't enhance health, comfort, security or happiness. They're just showing off.
They're saying: "Look at me, I can afford to live in a huge house" (that's no more comfortable and considerably more difficult to keep up than a modest bungalow).
"I can afford a $5,000 suit, a $2,000 handbag or $100,000 necklace" (that's no better quality than what you can get in Sears or Tesco, or, in the case of jewelry, pure vanity).

Hah, that reminds me of a time I was out shopping with a friend and she hauled me into French Connection. I wasn't too keen on lingering or trying anything on after seeing the prices, but since she was in heaven I wandered around seeing where the clothes were made. When she came out of the change room asking my opinion, I blurted out "If you want clothes made in China, they're cheaper at Wal-Mart". :foot: Poor thing. Spending way too much on junk is one of her most cherished joys in life. I should have probably kept my opinion to myself.

 

[blackout]

Well, as the "money" itself isn't actually worth anything in and of itself,
and is nothing more than "points" on paper,
with which to trade in for goods and services
(and make you feel secure)....
it really makes no difference how many points you accumulate.
(as more 'points' are made from out of thin air daily)
It's not like gold, where there's only a finite amount to be shared.

So the question really is,

What will you do with all of those points? How will you REDEEM them?

 

[blackout]

I don't think there should be a limit to personal wealth but I do think that there should be percentage caps between corporate levels of employment. So the top level executive can't make 2000% more than the bottom level worker. That way, if the senior guys want to make more money they have to bring the people below them along with them.

I agree. In this case there IS only a finite amount of points to be divied up.

As it takes the life of every person there working together, to make it work,
EVERYONE should recieve a liveable wage and an equal percentage increase of the share... when there is more to share.

 

[Alceste]

It's not like gold, where there's only a finite amount to be shared.

It's not like that, Violet. Money isn't completely abstract (like "points"). It represents the control of actual resources. And there are only finite resources to go around.

Gold is not so different from money - it has no more value to us than a rock or a tree branch. We prize it because it also represents the control of actual resources.

In the analogy, the guy with the big spoon and the fastest arm, who can scoop up the most food, is the guy with the most money (or gold). Not only that, but the more food he puts on his plate, the faster he can scoop. The food is just food.

 

[TheKnight]

I believe in a (almost) completely free market economy. Communism, though it sounds great, ends up with people who don't work hard (unless they're forced to) because they don't have to work hard. Capitalism, on the other hand, is simply fun. This whole "let's stop people from getting super rich" that America has begun to adopt is, quite frankly, government-sponsored theft.

 

[Alceste]

I believe in a (almost) completely free market economy. Communism, though it sounds great, ends up with people who don't work hard (unless they're forced to) because they don't have to work hard. Capitalism, on the other hand, is simply fun. This whole "let's stop people from getting super rich" that America has begun to adopt is, quite frankly, government-sponsored theft.

Chalk that up as another endorsement of "He who scoops fastest at the dinner table is most deserving of the food".

 

[blackout]

It's not like that, Violet. Money isn't completely abstract (like "points"). It represents the control of actual resources. And there are only finite resources to go around.

Gold is not so different from money - it has no more value to us than a rock or a tree branch. We prize it because it also represents the control of actual resources.

In the analogy, the guy with the big spoon and the fastest arm, who can scoop up the most food, is the guy with the most money (or gold). Not only that, but the more food he puts on his plate, the faster he can scoop. The food is just food.

Well, everytime a person gets credit card, for example, they just "make" new money for you.
I don't believe we have only finite resources to go around.
We just have a messed up system, messed up governments, that makes it seem so.

They like to make you THINK it's a battle for the goods.
And in as much as they succeed... you are actually kind of right,
but only in an ILLUSORY sort of way.

 

[TheKnight]

Chalk that up as another endorsement of "He who scoops fastest at the dinner table is most deserving of the food".

That's only true if one owns the dinner table, the utensil being used for scooping, and the food presented at the dinner table.

 

[Alceste]

That's only true if one owns the dinner table, the utensil being used for scooping, and the food presented at the dinner table.

lol - remind me never to come to a dinner party at your house.

 

[Alceste]

Well, everytime a person gets credit card, for example, they just "make" new money for you.
I don't believe we have only finite resources to go around.
We just have a messed up system, messed up governments, that makes it seem so.

They like to make you THINK it's a battle for the goods.
And in as much as they succeed... you are actually kind of right,
but only in an ILLUSORY sort of way.

But we do have a finite amount of resources. Think in terms of what we need in order to survive: food, water, some form of shelter from the elements, and fuel enough, at least, to keep us warm. Millions if not billions of people in the world don't have these basic things. That's not entirely because they live in crappy places - it is also because we (the fastest scoopers) actively intervene between them and their basic necessities in order to have a whole lot more than we need to survive.

Next time you go shopping, take a look at where your food comes from. Wherever it came from, the fact you're holding food from there in your hand means it has had arable land that could be supporting the local population diverted to enrich us instead.

 

[blackout]

But we do have a finite amount of resources. Think in terms of what we need in order to survive: food, water, some form of shelter from the elements, and fuel enough, at least, to keep us warm. Millions if not billions of people in the world don't have these basic things. That's not entirely because they live in crappy places - it is also because we (the fastest scoopers) actively intervene between them and their basic necessities in order to have a whole lot more than we need to survive.

Next time you go shopping, take a look at where your food comes from. Wherever it came from, the fact you're holding food from there in your hand means it has had arable land that could be supporting the local population diverted to enrich us instead.

I can't even imagine how many tons of food are thrown out every day,
all over the place.
Straight from farms, in grocery stores, restaurants...
and why? Because it cannot (for one reason or another) be sold.
It is not lack of resources that keeps people without,
but the VERY SYSTEM ITSELF.

It is the MONEY ITSELF that keeps people in lack,
and the governments (and elite banking families) who control it.
(and us... through it. Down to the way we think. Which really is the key.)

 

[Alceste]

I can't even imagine how many tons of food are thrown out every day,
all over the place.
Straight from farms, in grocery stores, restaurants...
and why? Because it cannot (for one reason or another) be sold.
It is not lack of resources that keeps people without,
but the VERY SYSTEM ITSELF.

It is the MONEY ITSELF that keeps people in lack,
and the governments (and elite banking families) who control it.
(and us... through it. Down to the way we think. Which really is the key.)

Totally agree. Our economic model is: He who scoops fastest deserves not only all the food he can grab, but also the right to beat the other dinner guests away with a stick if they try to get at the bowl. The Tesco by our flat has padlocked dumpsters surrounded by barbed wire. Three guesses what it is they're throwing away.

 

[Valjean]

That's only true if one owns the dinner table, the utensil being used for scooping, and the food presented at the dinner table.

The dinner table is the commons, the shared resources and economic organization of a society. You prosper within the matrix of the commons. It follows that there is some contributory obligation accrued.

 

[blackout]

Totally agree. Our economic model is: He who scoops fastest deserves not only all the food he can grab, but also the right to beat the other dinner guests away with a stick if they try to get at the bowl. The Tesco by our flat has padlocked dumpsters surrounded by barbed wire. Three guesses what it is they're throwing away.

Right. So I guess we agree than after all. lol.

I guess I was just trying to say that it is all contrived.
Illusory. And only "real" in so much as we play by "Money Rules*".

But REALLY it is not in the common man's 'interest'*.

*double entendres intended....

 

[blackout]

Totally agree. Our economic model is: He who scoops fastest deserves not only all the food he can grab, but also the right to beat the other dinner guests away with a stick if they try to get at the bowl. The Tesco by our flat has padlocked dumpsters surrounded by barbed wire. Three guesses what it is they're throwing away.

People... everyday common ordinary people COULD actually work together...
to BEAT the system. TOGETHER.
Live out a new Paradigm.
But they won't.
We are bombarded daily with "programming*" designed to keep us thinking
within the system that has been designed for us. (though not for our benefit)

Who benefits?

Follow the money trail......

It's sad really. We live in our tiny little "nuclear families",
and compete with our neighbors... instead of working together.
It's stupid, and shortsighted.

 

[Ciscokid]

Indeed. Denmark is a great example. I don't think there should be any limit to the amount of wealth you can have, but the more you have, the more you should pay in taxes. For instance, the government shouldn't say "You can only have $200,000 in assets", but they should say "If you make over $500,00, you pay 50% in taxes".

Try to keep in mind Denmark has a much smaller population than the city of New York. I absolutely agree that it appears Denmark found a fantastic way to support/manage their people, but you may be over simplifying in expecting that we could just adopt their ways and things would work out fine.

 

[keithnurse]

Totally agree. Our economic model is: He who scoops fastest deserves not only all the food he can grab, but also the right to beat the other dinner guests away with a stick if they try to get at the bowl. The Tesco by our flat has padlocked dumpsters surrounded by barbed wire. Three guesses what it is they're throwing away.

If Tesco left the dumpster open and accessable they would leave themselves open to being sued by any homeless person who got injured while looking for food in the dumpster, plus the homeless people frequently leave a mess, packages strewn all over the ground around the dumpster, etc. Should they donate unused food that hasn't spoiled to a food pantry or soup kitchen? of course they should, but they shouldn't be criticized for securing their dumpster.

 

[Alceste]

If Tesco left the dumpster open and accessable they would leave themselves open to being sued by any homeless person who got injured while looking for food in the dumpster, plus the homeless people frequently leave a mess, packages strewn all over the ground around the dumpster, etc. Should they donate unused food that hasn't spoiled to a food pantry or soup kitchen? of course they should, but they shouldn't be criticized for securing their dumpster.

Yeah, I think they should be criticized for securing 3 dumpsters full of food that they could be donating to a soup kitchen or giving away at the back door after hours. Frivolous lawsuits aren't very common in the UK, so the justification of being worried about that doesn't really wash. Also, there are unlocked dumpsters all over Truro and "the homeless" (Starbuck and his dog) don't upturn them all and strew trash all over looking for food. The reasoning is that if people can get free food from the dumpster, they won't go into Tesco and buy it. It's petty and cynical.

When I lived in Vancouver and was too poor to buy food, my room-mate and I used to drop by the organic food store at the end of the day to see what they were throwing out, and they never had any issues with letting us rifle through it (before it went to the dumpster) and take anything that was still edible. Not Tesco. The entire area where the food travels out the back door of the store and into the padlocked dumpsters is totally surrounded by a tall barbed wire fence, so there is no way to even strike up a conversation with employees who are on their way to throw it out. Having spoken to people who work there, we're not just talking about a little bit of food here either. We're talking about hundreds of pounds of food every day. Meanwhile, Starbuck and his dog have to beg for change to afford a sandwich.

So I think I'll go ahead and criticize.

 

[keithnurse]

I used to work at a Winn-Dixie store in Florida 20 years ago. At the end of the day we would throw away bread and pastries that had passed their expiration dates and the manager ordered us to poor bleach on the products so the homeless would not be tempted to go in the dumpster for them because in the past the homeless had frequently made a huge mess around the outside of the dumpster leaving wrappers and bags all over the place. In the US we do have a problem with lawsuits so I can see why a US company would need to padlock a dumpster. It is wrong to throw the edible food away instead of giving it to the poor.

 

[blackout]

Yeah, I think they should be criticized for securing 3 dumpsters full of food that they could be donating to a soup kitchen or giving away at the back door after hours. Frivolous lawsuits aren't very common in the UK, so the justification of being worried about that doesn't really wash. Also, there are unlocked dumpsters all over Truro and "the homeless" (Starbuck and his dog) don't upturn them all and strew trash all over looking for food. The reasoning is that if people can get free food from the dumpster, they won't go into Tesco and buy it. It's petty and cynical.

When I lived in Vancouver and was too poor to buy food, my room-mate and I used to drop by the organic food store at the end of the day to see what they were throwing out, and they never had any issues with letting us rifle through it (before it went to the dumpster) and take anything that was still edible. Not Tesco. The entire area where the food travels out the back door of the store and into the padlocked dumpsters is totally surrounded by a tall barbed wire fence, so there is no way to even strike up a conversation with employees who are on their way to throw it out. Having spoken to people who work there, we're not just talking about a little bit of food here either. We're talking about hundreds of pounds of food every day. Meanwhile, Starbuck and his dog have to beg for change to afford a sandwich.

So I think I'll go ahead and criticize.

You were much better off at the health food store anyway.