"Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor"
Politics
| February 11, 2005
| Tim
We are often told about some policy "widening the gap between rich and poor." We are told this is evidence such a policy is bad, and hurts the poor.
You are being lied to, and shamelessly manipulated.
Imagine we have a poor person, P whose net worth is $10, and a rich person R, whose net worth is $100. The "gap" between them is $90. Okay so far?
Now imagine the economy grows and makes everyone 10% richer.
Now P is worth $11, and R is worth $110. Both are richer. Any sane person would view this as a good thing.
Yet what is the "gap" between them? Now it's up to $99! The "gap between the rich and the poor" increased $9, by 10%! How horrible! Never mind that poor ol' P now has 10% more stuff and money than he did previously.
Now, let's go back to the start and implement some awful economic policy which makes everyone 10% poorer.
So now P is worth $9 and R will be worth $90. The gap has narrowed to $81.
And who was hurt most? Probably P. He was having trouble getting by on just $10. At $11, he has some money to re-invest or at least spend on a luxury. But at $9, or $8, it eats into his ability to survive. Meanwhile R is doing just fine, and will be for quite some time. If $8 is what it takes to live, R still has $73 more dollars to go!
The press now talks and writes about how wonderful it is that we're all more equal. But nobody notices that the point we're all "equal" occurs when both P and R are nearly starving to death, with $0 each!
So, next time you hear someone talk about some policy "increasing the gap between the rich and poor", you know (a) that's probably a policy you'll want to support and (b) the person who is talking to you is either grossly ignorant of their pretended area of expertise or is simply lying to you.
Examples
Reuters:
Vietnamese Earn More but Rich-Poor Gap Widens
Vietnamese workers are getting fatter pay cheques but the communist country's wealth gap is widening, state media reported. The average income in the Southeast Asian country has risen 12.2 percent from 1999 to 2001, to around $22 a month....
The United Nations Development Programme said on Wednesday the country's widening gap between rich and poor was now a big problem. "It does raise concerns," Nguyen Tien Phong, head of the agency's poverty and social development section, told Reuters. He said ethnic minority groups tended to be isolated economically and their provinces fell behind those in industrialised areas targeted for investment.
In other words, the backwoods people live as they always have while other people elsewhere are getting better off. So much for cultural relativism and preserving the agrarian way of life, eh? UN people speak out of both sides of their mouth -- the only constant principle is the need to present a crisis apparently only solvable by the consolidation of political power.
Today in the Indianapolis Star:
Ex-NAACP chief decries widening economic gap
People of all races and ethnicities who are disadvantaged and discriminated against need to demand change as the gap between rich and poor in the United States grows, the former head of the NAACP said Wednesday.
"People will try to tell you to be silent, to look the other way," said Kweisi Mfume. "Challenge them." ...
Mfume said lawmakers in Washington have been advancing a "reverse Robin Hood" agenda.
"Economic disparities have grown; gaps between the haves and have-nots have grown," said Mfume, who served as a congressman from Maryland for 10 years. "Blacks, Latinos and poor whites are falling further behind.
So let's bring the rich down! Who cares if that hurts the poor or minorities more?? Be envy-driven! Put me in power!
Today's news from Nepal:
Rise In Average Income: NLSS
The Nepal Living Standard Survey has revealed that the household income has increased, on average, by 80 percent in the period.... The report reveals that although average income and infrastructure access has increased, so has the gap between rich and poor. In this period, the average annual per capita income has increased from Rs 7690 to Rs 15,162. However, the lower 20 percent of population have the meager 6 percent share in total consumption whereas the upper 20 percent consume 53 percent – an indication of stark rich-poor divide.
Notice they don't tell you that the poor's access to infrastructure is also increasing; you have to deduce that from the average.
In the UK, the Telegraph reports:
I'm not in favour of raising top rates of tax, Blair insists
... The MPs, questioning Mr Blair over a growing gap between the rich and the poor and the need for more cash to be invested in education, pointed out that his former aide had suggested a tax rise.
"Did he now? Just give me five minutes. I'll go and sort him out," Mr Blair joked.
"I'm not in favour of raising the top rate of tax, which is what's often talked about in these circumstances. Sometimes figures can be misleading about the gap between the wealthy and the poor."
See, Blair is being cruel to the poor. The newspaper does not tell it's readers, as I just have, how on earth this measure might be 'misleading'.
You get the idea: All around the world, newspapers and left-leaning politicians focus on the "gap" between the best and the worst, rather than focusing on what will improve the conditions of the poorest people, or reporting such improvements when they occur.
All over the world, socialism and increased governmental control is being sold this way, ultimately at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable.
It shows that the established religion of leftism is about smashing the rich, not about charity for the poor. For a better spirit to be expressed in our cultural institutions, the depraved government professoriate must be ripped out and cast down from their establishment in the leftist government schools.
You guys are a bunch of fascists idiots. You are no better than the "terrorists" or "communists."
- You are what is wrong with the world!!
I am a "facist" because I oppose expanding the government? Don't you realize that's a contradiction, as facists want the state in charge of everything? (And don't forget that the founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini, was himself a Marxist, i.e. a leftist.)
Furthermore, I am a "terrorist" because I have published an argument that the "gap between rich and poor" is a deceitful argument which hurts poor people? Apparently, this man views free speech, spoken in a civil manner, as a crime equivalent to blowing up women and children.
Terrorism is punishable by imprisionment -- apparently, a guy with a blog who speaks an unpopular idea (to leftists) should be similarly silenced and punished!
(Is it any wonder I think the left is seething with totalitarians?)
Or perhaps, he justifies terrorists, by implying that blowing children to pieces is no worse than speaking or publishing a short example of economics. Either is a sign of a profoundly twisted moral reasoning.
And of course, I'm an "idiot" too, even though my opponent apparently can't find a hole in my argument. Hmmm...
In reality, what we see here is a person experiencing "cognitive dissonance" -- he has now seen evidence that his favored policies harm, not help the poor.
Does he investigate further? Does he change his mind or his policies? Contemplate the idea he might have been possibly wrong?
No. Robbed of his superior moral position, he instead strikes out against the one who published said information. (Stop up the ears! Shoot the messenger!) It is better such people [me] be put in jail, then that he should have to experience that feeling of let-down, that challenge to his self-image. (And never mind trying to simply adopt whatever position helps the poor the most!)
This is why a sizeable segment of the left is profoundly dangerous and intolerant. They are ignorant, their policies harm people, yet they are uninterested in that damage, and will tolerate no challenge to their alleged moral superiority. They want to justify terrorism, while wanting to punish civil discourse.
All to protect their own self-image as "righteous" people -- as if any of us were righteous.
I think its appauling that any of you filthy rich people have the nerve to say anything about what the poor person should and shouldn't complain about!...I've lost all hope in this country's ethics...so no...you cannot catagorize me with all the rest of the leftist "crazy" people who have the spine to stick up for the down trodden...what do you rich people know about "real" life anyway....my friends...until you've gone into the slums of the neighborhoods YOU created...with your greed...don't post anything defending your insane point of view...most people in those neighborhoods wish they could even GET ten dollars to feed their children....you say you care so much about the children....go to the slums of Brooklyn,Queens,The bronx and any place where your greed has made innocent children suffer. And put a few of those kids through college!...hey...guess what?...if you educate them you won't have to worry about them sucking up welfare funds!
What if socialism is mass murder as an end in itself? The rich are morally questionable for not wanting to share with the welfare populations? How does that compare with the morals of an officialdom and professoriate who advocate aggression against the rich? It is our right not to share with the undeserving, but officials have no moral justification for using aggression. The more money that is taken by official aggression for what is called public education, but is actually free day care and propaganda for racial and other hatred, and for tyranny; it turns out that there is more grabbing of net public subsidy, not less. Instead of honest workers, we get demented slum denizens who have learned to say smash the greedy rich.
greedy rich are not the root cause of monetary inequity - Hillel, Calvin and Max Webber began the foundations for this problem as far back as when Jesus walked in Jerusalem. The disparity can be fixed easily in developed coountries, but it shall take decades to undo what has been done mostly in the name of religion
What if socialism is mass murder as an end in itself?
If one is ever tempted to believe in an evil force behind much of the human suffering in the world, socialism would certainly make a good candidate for one of it's favorite doctrines, no?
The rich are morally questionable for not wanting to share with the welfare populations?
I agree that the rich are morally questionable if they don't want to share. I argue that it's a mistake to put the government in charge of charity, but that doesn't mean I personally would agree charity itself was a mistake.
I believe we have a moral obligation to voluntarily help those who are poor. That's why I oppose putting the government in charge of such. (a) It won't be done well, and (b) it won't be voluntary.
concerned citizen,
I've lost all hope in this country's ethics...so no...you cannot catagorize me with all the rest of the leftist "crazy" people who have the spine to stick up for the down trodden...
I'm not sure if you have some strange kind of reading problem or if you're just being deliberately dense, but in case you hadn't noticed it, the argument here is that it is actually your policies which hurt the poor, and create more poverty.
You can't just refute that by claiming you care for the poor. If you cared for the poor, you would try to make sure you don't embrace ideas which hurt them.
But you don't address the argument, or apparently even think about it for even a moment -- you just change the topic and start accusing people of things. Which suggests you're not interested in finding out if your policies really help or hurt the poor people you claim so much to care about.
Here's the short lesson: Ever hear of the USSR? Ever hear about how many poor people they had, with so many starving to death? That's your policies, in action.
Get this: You are not "sticking up for" the downtrodden. Your policies hurt and make more poor people.
But do you care? Apparently not! You won't even take a few moments to consider if your ideas help the poor or hurt them! You won't even debate the facts -- you simply drop into name-calling.
Perhaps you find the possibility of admitting your own error incompehensible?
Oh, and by the way: You're probably far richer than I am. So don't give me that stuff about "you rich people."
You're very clever, very clever.
Actually on second thought you're probably not that clever at all, it actually seems to me that you believe what you've written and aren't just using your fancy logic to perpetuate the reigning aristocracy. Huh.
My dear friend. There are a thousand entirely different ways that the reigning wealthy in this country are trying to improve their own station regardless of what it does to the less fortunate. - I'll make an exception though. Jews, who are statistically the wealthiest religious group in the country, vote predominantly for those candidates who will help the poor. Thus voting against their own pocketbook. The rest of you are assholes though.
Now, in terms of economic policies of the rich and how greedy and selfish they are, one could quote tens of thousands of examples, but I'll only spend a few seconds here dealing with your original ejaculation of genius.
Okay, so one guy, working minimum wage, is making ten thousand dollars a year and another fellow (the guy he's working for probably) is making a million dollars a year.
Now the economy increases by 150% thanks to the brilliant trickle down policies of our fearless leader. (Of course I'm joking. Bush's policies have made the rich richer and have left the poor with less money, and certainly with less owing to the fact that minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation. But anyway...)
Great. Now one chap has 25 thousand dollars for his year while the other is living on 2.5 million per year. -
Which of the two will have more of a say in terms of who gets elected (by funneling money into that person's campaign?
Which of the two will the elected want to do favors for?
Which of the two will be more able to hire tutors for their kids?
Which of the two will have clout in getting their kid an internship in Washington?
Which of the two will feel left out as he sees that his ten hour a day sweeping job is far from the lives of all of the people he sees on tv, in magazines, movies and everywhere else?
As new technologies come up that help people make more money and help their kids with their education, which will be able to afford it? .....
So yes, my dear asshole, while we're all "better off" because we have color televisions, radios, sneakers and ball point pens (thanks to the growing economy and personal initiative!) - none of us are happier people today because of those things than our grandparents were despite their lack of such things.
What makes a man feel poor - and hence like shit, in a society that values nothing but money - what makes a man feel poor is not whether he has a ball point pen and a color tv, but what he has - or what he does not have - compared to the people he identifies with, the people all around him - the people who's lives are celebrated in the press. a.k.a. the people whose policies you are shoving.
And my dear rich wannabee. You probably know close to nothing about the history of the human race, and that's fine, you're probably too busy trading stocks, but one thing that you should enlighten yourself on is the fact that situations such as the kind that we are fast heading towards, with insanely wide social gaps, are the kinds that lead toward armed revolution. If the democratic party continues its trend toward being the second party representing the rich, the poor will soon realize that they have no voice and the inevitable will ensue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that or calling for it, I'm just telling you the stark exact facts on how humans have acted in the past all around the globe and letting you know to stock up on weapons because it's unlikely that American humans will be any different than our ancestors in terms of finally arising in revolt.
So if you wanna keep your wealth, maybe be a little nicer to the have-nots.
mnuez
Sorry for the delay in responding...
You're very clever, very clever.
Not really: I'm just telling the truth as best I can discern it.
Actually on second thought you're probably not that clever at all, it actually seems to me that you believe what you've written and aren't just using your fancy logic to perpetuate the reigning aristocracy. Huh.
Guilty as charged. Some people are satisified that as long as they're "sticking it to the man", i.e. doing something they think will hurt the rich -- they then must be helping the poor.
I don't care if the rich are helped or hurt. If something helps the poor, I'm for it, even if it also means helping the rich. I think it's stupid to get so caught up in hating "the rich" that you end up hurting the poor even more.
I'll make an exception though. Jews, who are statistically the wealthiest religious group in the country, vote predominantly for those candidates who will help the poor. Thus voting against their own pocketbook.
Actually, the really wealthy don't pay taxes. They either stop being wealthy, or they pass it along to those who buy their products.
So it's easy to say you're in favor of taxes if you're wealthy -- you know a zillion ways to shelter that wealth.
It's far harder to say you care for the poor by actually giving your own money, directly. Easier to vote to have the government do it for you, with someone else's cash.
The rest of you are assholes though.
Not likely. The kind of folks who generally make up "the right wing" are actually the ones who contribute the most time and money to charity. Again, it's much easier to be "righteous" by saying "someone else" (i.e. the government) should take care of the poor than by doing it yourself.
Now, in terms of economic policies of the rich and how greedy and selfish they are...
Well, which is it? Calling someone "greedy and selfish" is a form of judging their character (as bad) -- those kinds of allegations might make you feel good, but they've got nothing to do with economics.
The way I see it, some rich people are good and generous, some aren't -- same as with all people. But I guess it's simpler to look at someone's total net worth than their behavior.
Okay, so one guy, working minimum wage, is making ten thousand dollars a year and another fellow (the guy he's working for probably) is making a million dollars a year... Now the economy increases by 150% .... Which of the two will have more of a say in terms of who gets elected (by funneling money into that person's campaign?
You seem to be assuming only $$ = political power. Okay, going from that assumption, for a moment:
Actually, the poor man will have more political power than before.
Consider: the ratio of their income is unchanged: Before, the rich man was earning 100 times as much as the poor man. Afterwards, the rich man is still earning 100 times more.
BUT: As I pointed out above, before, the poor man was just getting by and had very little extra money. Now he has $15k more than before, some of which he could donate to a candidate, where he couldn't before.
Say we have 100,000 voters and one millionaire. If the millionaire gave 10% of his income to politics, and the poor people gave just $1 each, before it was Poor:$100,000 and Rich:$100,000.
After the improvement you suggest, if the poor just toss in, on average, $9 more out of that extra $15,000, the ratio is higher: Poor:$1,000,000 versus Rich:$150,000. Even at just $9 each, that's a ten-fold increase in influence. Other numbers work out similarly: it's not a trick related to the values I'm choosing.
The key point is that the extra money makes far more difference to the poor than it does to the wealthy, and has a far bigger impact in improving every aspect of their life. And vise-versa when you support policies which hurt the rich and incidentally hurt the poor.
Second, remember that there are campaign donation limits ($2,000 per candidate) which means the rich's influence (should be) even more restricted. In theory anyway. Unless you want to argue campaign donations limits are ineffective -- which is actually a conservative argument. I'd agree, if so.
Third, if you believe money = power, then consider that power corrupts. People increasingly buy government influence because government has increased it's power. If you want to discourage that, make government less powerful: then people will stop trying to bribe it to do everything for them.
Last, although money plays a role, voting does too, thank heavens.
Which of the two will the elected want to do favors for?
In theory, the poor people will notice they're richer and finally learn to vote for policies which helped them.
In real life, they don't seem to do that, and keep electing the same failures they've elected before. Democrats almost universally control inner cities, and in generations of control haven't done a tangible thing for the people who keep electing them -- who remain mired in poverty.
Sad but true.
Which of the two will be more able to hire tutors for their kids?
As I pointed out above, the rich could already hire a tutor for their kids, so nothing changes with that extra $1.5 million. But for the poor, it will make a big difference.
Look, friend, do the math yourself, and stop just emoting about it. Look at the numbers and think, instead of just obsessing about screwing "the rich." Try to think about the poor for once, okay?
Which of the two will feel left out as he sees that his ten hour a day sweeping job is far from the lives of all of the people he sees on tv, in magazines, movies and everywhere else?
It sounds like you think everyone has a lot of envy towards the rich. Does that bother you especially? Then perhaps it's more something you're struggling against than other people.
My view is: Who CARES how wealthy the wealthy are? If they have bad thoughts in their heart, it's up to God to judge them, not me. If a poor person is smitten with envy, then it's not the fault of the person they're envying.
I don't sit around and worry that I work harder than someone else who's rich. When it comes to political policy, it's more important to ask what HELPS the poor than base our politics around our anger toward, jealousy of, or envy of other people.
So yes, my dear asshole, while we're all "better off" because we have color televisions, radios, sneakers and ball point pens (thanks to the growing economy and personal initiative!) - none of us are happier people today because of those things than our grandparents were despite their lack of such things.
Well, people who call other people "a**hole" certainly aren't happy, but you should speak for yourself, then.
Happiness doesn't come from wealth, friend. It comes from having good values and a rich spiritual life. It doesn't come from envying people because they have more than you do, still. There will always be inequalities of wealth and talent.
But for a poor person, it can be a big relief to buy cheaper grocerices, to be able to afford to listen the music or watch the TV they like, etc. If you doubt that, read a bit about history, and what life was like for the poor in other times and societies.
We're spoiled, and that's sad, but I'm still glad our "poor" aren't dying at 20 years old from cholera (contracted from fecal-contaminated water sources), and living with lice-infested bodies. I'll risk letting them watch Jerry Springer on their color TVs for that tradeoff, thanks. Even if you're worried that's a bad choice which won't make them happy.
And envy, well there's a reason it's a sin. If it makes you work to improve your situation, then I suppose it can have a positive effect, but if it makes you overlook the good things you have, compared to most the world, and insist that you'll never be happy until the rich are all eliminated, then it's truly a tragedy. That brings about hell on earth.
And my dear rich wannabee... you're probably too busy trading stocks...
I don't think you know me quite as well as you imagine.
But hey, I've disagreed with you about what helps the poor, so I must be an evil person. It's not possible I could simply be well-meaning but mistaken. Or vise-versa.
So you need to call me names instead.
You probably know close to nothing about the history of the human race, and that's fine, you're probably too busy trading stocks, but one thing that you should enlighten yourself on is the fact that situations such as the kind that we are fast heading towards, with insanely wide social gaps, are the kinds that lead toward armed revolution.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Consider the French revolution. The problem wasn't that there were too many wealthy people -- the problem was that the poor were starving. There were tremendous taxes on everyone, the economy was dead, dead, dead.
France was NOT a business laissez-faire free-for-all.
So if you wanna keep your wealth, maybe be a little nicer to the have-nots.
How? By giving to private charities? Then I'm all for it -- whether we have tremendous wealth or not.
But don't imagine that will eliminate inequalities: it won't. Even if everyone gives to charity, there will also be differences in wealth because people have varying talents and make choices.
But I expect you mean I should support a socialist-lite program of forced wealth "redistribution". If so, you're still begging the question...
I argued that widening inequalities is usually a sign the poor are getting wealthier, not poorer. Instead of refuting this, you simply go back to pretending that the poor will be best off when people are more similar economically.
Look at Revolutionary France, the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea: these societies had/have very little inequality. There were very few very wealthy people, small or no middle or upper class, and lots and lots of poor people. The state was very powerful (you became a noble in France by buying into the government), and most everyone else lived horribly.
We're all equal at zero.
But hey: Yay for equality!
Gmail said it couldn't deliver my response to your email regarding telling me about your response to my comment. Well then, here's said email:
C'mon man! You can't expect me to respond within the post to something I wrote over half a year ago! (oh, and because email often fails to convey the proper tone, I'd put a smiley here if I thought it would do the trick. I think this parenthetical note does it better though ;-)
Anyhow, I read your response and you seem like a nice enough guy and pretty sincere too but, for the love of God (by which I mean Vishnu, of course ;-) you seem like some brainwashed, less than half intelligent, tool. You bought into the arguments of those with the money simply because of some sort of weird tribal feeling, like some dislike for Democrats because they're sanctimoniuos idiots or something like that made you listen to Hannity and like him and then you came to buy anything he had to offer, head, shaft and hairy sweaty balls.
I doubt there's really anything I could say to convince you that the wealthy elite who vote their pocketbook are assholes who should be put down at society's earliest convinience so I don;t see much point in trying. Maybe I'll just make a few tiny points - pointless points really 'cause (though you honestly do seem like a nice and sincere dude) the odds of you actually changing a point of view and thus having to be an intellectual lone wolf rather than a sheepy member of a herd woild seem to be less likely than Vishnu coming down from wherever he spends the winter and revealing himself to us at the Ganges.
- Yah, the communists are assholes. Did you think I'd disagree? Absolute equality would be great except for the fact that a) Mustapha Mond does not live in my heart b) enforcing complete equality requires LOTS AND LOTS of killing c) power corrupts and thus has occured to every Commie leader I've ever heard of (or could imagine) etc.. I'm NOT a fan of Communism, and neither, I think it's safe to say, was the Socialist George Orwell, Mohandas Gandhi, Ben Hecht or a good part of the intelligencia of the post WWI world. Considering your economic options to be either Dubya or Stalin shows a yawning chasm of historical ignorance - something as common in your camp as herpes at a Move On convention.
- Love the math you did with the poor folk increasing their political power through econimc growth. In fact, you have them OUTDONATE the rich! Pretty cool. It's nice to know that even in your Foxiverse ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND poor human beings can outpoliticize ONE rich dude. Your numbers, not mine.
- Didja know that the top 300,000 wealthiest Americans have the combined finances of the bottom 150 THOUSAND?! Didja? Oh, and do you think we can have fair government when out of every thousand people, one dude has the combined influencing power of FIVE HUNDRED people? That aint no democracy, my friend. It is, like I said earlier, a call for revolution. (Which of course won't actually help anything and will only end up getting lots and lotsa folk killed from all classes - but it's an historical human imperative nonetheless. Too bad that it is, but that's kinna how things work. - Were it up to me, which of course it isn't, in place of revolution we'd vote in Orwell, Gandhi and (Bull-Moose-time) Teddy Roosevelt. That would probably work a whole lot better. Of course that will never happen because a) they no longer exist and whatever bones we might salvage probably couldn't get the job done properly and b) none of us have ever even HEARD of their modern equivalents because in our moneyed political system they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being heard of even on a city-councilman level.)
Selah.
Have a happy day,
mnuez
C'mon man! You can't expect me to respond within the post to something I wrote over half a year ago!
Not really -- but I always figure I should give someone a chance to respond if possible (even if unlikely!). Apparently, it wasn't even unlikely.
you seem like some brainwashed, less than half intelligent, tool...
You'll do better at that angle if you actually attempt to refute the gist of my argument. I personally don't mind your insults, but they certainly don't do much to bolster your position.
You bought into the arguments of those with the money simply because of some sort of weird tribal feeling...
"Bought into those arguments"? Right or wrong, they're my own -- I've never seen them printed before. If you have, you're welcomed to post a link here -- I'd love to see how someone else handled the topic.
But you're still not actually answering them -- just trying to avoid the topic by musing about what you imagine my psychology to be.
Which raises some psychological questions of its own, hmmmm?
I doubt there's really anything I could say to convince you that the wealthy elite who vote their pocketbook are a**holes who should be put down at society's earliest convinience...
Are you talking about Al Gore? ;-) George Soros?
Yes, you're right: you probably won't be able to talk me into murdering all the members of one particular social class -- rich, poor, or otherwise. But thanks for displaying the vaunted liberal "tolerance" for all my readers!
Me, I'm dumb enough to believe there are good and bad people at every economic level -- and that it matters what you do with it, not how much you have. Guess I'm not suffering from enough envy.
... though you honestly do seem like a nice and sincere dude...
... "half-intelligent" "tool" though I am ... ;-)
Love the math you did with the poor folk increasing their political power through econimc growth. In fact, you have them OUTDONATE the rich! Pretty cool. It's nice to know that even in your Foxiverse ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND poor human beings can outpoliticize ONE rich dude.
Well, you could point out the errors in my math or logic -- but that part of your argument seems strangely absent, still.
And please remember: it was your example -- I followed your scenario and suggested numbers. All I did was assume a poor person could donate $1 to $10 to a favored political candidate or cause.
I'm so "sneaky" -- I actually listen to what you say and force you to do the math on your own scenarios!
Also interesting that you'd say "Foxiverse" -- since I don't watch it. Your stereotype -- not mine. I pretty much avoid the mainstream media blather.
Yet it's also ironic that you'd raise a point about Fox News. There's only one consistently right-leaning cable channel. Millions of not-so-rich people who have given it ratings which kill its competition. That's an example of the power of free choice, and liberals hate hate hate it, friend.
So yes, it's true: Millions of small people can outweigh one rich one. George Soros has not yet bought the entire Republic, lock, stock and barrel.
Didja know that the top 300,000 wealthiest Americans have the combined finances of the bottom 150 THOUSAND?! Didja?
Yes, actually. And? So what? Bill Gates having a huge house doesn't make my life worse. As I said before, perhaps I'm just not suffering from enough envy -- with which I could be more easily politically manipulated.
Now a few points for you, my friend, which you can ignore as you have the last ones: Did you know that the top 300,000 wealthiest Americans only have 300,000 votes to cast? That's absolutely nothing in comparison to the 300,000,000 or so votes the rest of us have.
And hey, you can relax: these days the wealthy generally lean left and agree with your politics, not mine.
Oh, and do you think we can have fair government when out of every thousand people, one dude has the combined influencing power of FIVE HUNDRED people?
Oh, and by the way: Isn't it cute the way I answer your every point, while you scurry away from answering almost any point I've made? I guess you've tacitly conceded defeat on those, then.
That aint no democracy, my friend.
If "democracy" means that no person can have more influence than another -- the way you calculate it -- then you're just conflicted. One minute you say you hate communism, the next minute you imply that "Democracy" must mean that all people need to have the same "influence" (by which you clearly mean money). Well, which is it?
But I'm weird: I think "democracy" means everyone gets a vote -- not the same "influencing power". You'll never have that. Some of us will make more coherant arguments than others, for example.
Finally, on this point: Look at Glenn Reynolds. Is he one of the richest people in the world? Of course not: he's simply a law professor. But he's one of the most widely-read bloggers, with millions of readers. His hosting fees probably total about $30 per month.
It certainly helps to have money, friend, but you can't convince people of just anything by buying ads. George Soros poured money like crazy into the 2004 election -- and still lost. All it takes to puncture a lie is for one voice to be able to tell the truth -- like the little boy in the crowd who yells that the king is naked.
That's why the "Swiftboat Vets" were so upsetting to the left. They were a bunch of middle-class Vietnam vets who started out with no big backing at all, and who ended up getting lots and lots of little donations (and a few big ones, but the bulk were small) and seriously tarnishing Kerry's war stories. And you could say the same thing for Cindy Sheehan -- though she also had huge media coverage given to her, worth millions of dollars.
And look at me: I'm telling you something NO NEWSPAPER apparently wants you to find out. I'm not "brainwashed", friend -- the exact opposite. I'm swimming upstream, and you're utterly going with the flow.
Think about that a bit.
It is, like I said earlier, a call for revolution... Which of course won't actually help anything and will only end up getting lots and lotsa folk killed from all classes - but it's an historical human imperative nonetheless.
Well, if something doesn't help, and kills a lot of people, then it's a BAD thing, wouldn't you think? It's not an imperative unless you feel that human beings are only fit or destined for living under totalitarian governments.
Is that how you feel, mnuez?
... in our moneyed political system they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being heard of even on a city-councilman level.
Well, we see things differently here too, I guess.
You seem to think "the system" ensures an honest and/or useful politician will never get into office.
You know what I think the problem is? Grab a mirror and stare into it: you. And me too. People like us. Not "the powerful", but people like you and I.
First, I'll pick on me: For example, I supported all kinds of stupid political ideas for years, because I didn't "have the time" to really think about what I was doing.
Now I'll pick on others: People go out there and talk about how bad it is that politicians are spending our money like water. And then they elect the guy who promises to send home the most pork from DC. We're sinful, mnuez, selfish and greedy, and we'd screw everyone else over just as long as we get our share -- and get to feel like we're "good people". Right.
And why do you think they like 'socialism'? Because it means someone -- the government -- will end up taking care of those poor people -- not them! "Don't bother me! I gave at the voting booth!"
And why do you think so many people get upset someone else has more money than they do? Because, deep down inside, they're envious. Rather than supporting what's best for everyone, so many people are content to let their emotions about someone else's wealth -- and some politicians' rhetoric about that -- talk them into supporting policies which are even bad for the poor!
Let's stop thinking with our emotions, eh? Step one is for each of us to work on ourselves. Spiritually, this means rejecting the materialism of this age -- where we become obsessed with who has more money than someone else because we think material power is supreme. And politically this means trying to stop emoting about everything and actually adopting policies which help rather than hurt people.
Are you opposed to that?
I didn't think so.
Now go and think about whether the things I've said about income inequality are true or not. Is it a GOOD or BAD sign -- especially for the poor -- when everyone gets 10% richer?
And, if so, won't you concede I have a valid point here?
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Wacky Packs Are Back |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Must! Find! Gay! Gene! »
|
It shows that the established religion of leftism is about smashing the rich, not about charity for the poor. For a better spirit to be expressed in our cultural institutions, the depraved government professoriate must be ripped out and cast down from their establishment in the leftist government schools.
Posted by: John S Bolton on February 14, 2005 12:19 AM