I mentioned Oprah's billion and Coco mentioned the Gates' loot. I wonder about feeding people for a day versus making them able to fish for a lifetime (or farm, in my philosophy!). There are micro loans which seem to be able to make people independent. I think this is the best use of donated money. I realize that some people need food NOW. But I also believe that whether it's in America or abroad, the very best gift we can give someone is self-sufficiency. I also am curious what others think about famous wealthy folks who have all this dough and it's publicized when they give a million dollars (or less) and the percentage of their net worth is minimal. If I had 10K in the bank (I wish!) and donated $100, would it make the news? Isn't 1 million dollars 1% of a billionaire's total worth?

I also wanted to discuss the rampant materialism in our country today. Even with the floundering economy, the waste and mindless consumption appear to be unabated for the most part. People still fall prey to the desire for the latest cell phone, a tablet when they have a laptop, etc.

Yes, the middle and lower class of society give away much more than the rich in terms of % of income. And if you break that down to disposable income, the percentage is even much greater.

People like Oprah don't give away money for the benefit of the people receiving. she gives away money for publicity sake. If she was really interesting in helping people, she would live much more modestly and give away a much larger portion of her money.

I shan't diss Oprah, 'cos I don't know enough about her charitable work.

We are currently at the worst disparity between wealth and poverty ever in the history of the Republic; we surpassed the Depression Era, finally. So that shoe's dropped. I am increasingly filled with hopelessness about this, because so few people seem in possessed of their basic humaneness anymore, and among the wealthy, they are rarely seen. If I won the lottery, I'd use it to set up two micro credit loan companies; one for green manufacturing and one for general small business loans. Part of the rest would go to green and socially responsible companies as investment. The remainder would go to seasonal charitable outlays. I don't think I'd use more than a percent for me, because I'd prefer to get by on my own merits. Do people with my values win the lottery, though? I am beginning to see that ambition without avarice achieves nothing in this modern era, which means that unless one borders on sociopathy, this society and its economic system no longer have a place for you. We went from being a meritocracy to a who-you-know-acy, and I don't have a word for what we are now. Modified plutocracy? Whenever I consider it from this or that economic position, it becomes a sort of causal möbius strip in my head: every time I think of a way to retrench our Hamiltonian system, my reasoning gets all tangled up--we need to restart manufacturing, but first we need to increase tariffs on importers of goods we can make here, but first we need to penalize offshoring so those goods will be made here, but first we need to raise the minimum wage so those who manufacture the goods can afford to buy them, but first we need to restart manufacturing here, but first we need to . . . as you can imagine, this results in a migraine headache.

yes this is something that has always kinda irked me .. i mean with all these top 100 million/billionaires... doesnt that take out quite a bit of money from circulation if it is being horded?

im afraid i dont know enough about the american monetary system to really comment further it just seems to me the chasm between the rich and poor seems to be getting wider and wider year by year

i make fairly decent money compared to some but even i am classed at this point as the highly taxed working poor ..

im gratefull for the roof over our head ability to keep up on our bills and have food ... but shite happens , they hubby could lose work or get hurt or same to me and then we would really be in a pickle !

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Tamukha: My intent wasn't to bash Oprah and I know that she is involved with various charities. My point was that to be a billionaire means that however much you give away, you still have enough to be a billionaire! As JGunn remarked, the money is taken out of circulation when that happens. Also, it's paradoxical that the more money you have, the less energy it takes to increase because of interest and investments. In the USA "they" demonized socialism and yet the standard of living for socialist countries is at the top of the world. And the people who tend to fall for this lie the most are the workingclass/lower income folk who confuse it with communism and somehow think that it's taking money from them. I am reading a book called "Spiritual Economics" by Eric Butterworth. I go to Unity Church and his books are always mentioned. So far it's very interesting...It's really the idea that our thoughts contribute to our prosperity, but affluence is not simply a money thing.

banana who

I also am curious what others think about famous wealthy folks who have all this dough and it's publicized when they give a million dollars (or less) and the percentage of their net worth is minimal. If I had 10K in the bank (I wish!) and donated $100, would it make the news? Isn't 1 million dollars 1% of a billionaire's total worth?

1) i think its great that they donate their dough
2) i could care less if it is just a tiny percentage of their total net worth
3) if it helps others, its great, period
4) why would anyone who makes less WANT to have their donations publicized
5) it would just make you a target for further and unasked for solicitations from different organizations and unless you can afford to keep giving it away ( like the mega billionaires ) AND be protected from such things ( like having your own personal militia and bodyguard protecting your front lawn and your own being at all times) why would you WANT to be publicized for every cent you give
and yes.. self sufficiency is ALWAYS more desirable than continual dependency however don't tell that to someone who has just endured a tsunami and their entire village/city infrastructure is in shreds or is on their 12th day of having no clean water to drink or kids who have just lost their parents and u have 5 and 7 year olds working harder than any 25 year old in america....

sometimes u just have to gauge the situation
and realize that some relief is necessary NOW and then when the person can get on his/her own feet, they are able to build a system to be totally sufficient later

i guess that is what an education was supposed to be in america
a ticket to self sufficiency
it worked for some

Tamukha says :

<<Do people with my values win the lottery, though?>>

Why wouldn't people with values win the lottery ? The lottery is neutral. You buy a ticket. No one can FAVOR you with the winning ticket and you could be a street sweeper or the king of some country and both could win the lottery if they bought an equal amount of tickets. Then again, we could argue that those who have more money can buy MORE tickets but I was just talking about the scenario where you pay a buck or two once in a blue moon to get a lotto ticket. Anyone can win it whether you are a pathological hopeless shmuck or a mother theresa.



<< I am beginning to see that ambition without avarice achieves nothing in this modern era, which means that unless one borders on sociopathy, this society and its economic system no longer have a place for you. >>

Maybe and maybe not.

Values DO have a place. Would YOU want to do business with a small business owner who refuses to give you a refund for a defective product? She or he would probably lose your business the NEXT day.

Would you want to buy 700, 000 widgets a year from company A who is rude and
deceitful or from company B who is kind and courteous?

Then again I said "maybe" because aside from small companies, the ginormous companies who get their labor and product offshore and can afford to plummet their prices substantially and who is kind of nameless and faceless can and DO get business from those who are closely looking at their budget and taking action according to their purse and not their conscience.

Boycotting Walmart also won't help those who work in sweat shops. They just went from working in substandard conditions for substandard pay to having NO job with NO pay. So, more ingenious strategies must be employed and this is wear the brain comes into play

As far as your comment on " bordering on sociopathy" in order to make it.

This is interesting. Certainly there is some truth to that comment but if one is a sociopath, the individual has already rejected his/her self to some degree which is how the iniquity is spread outwardly as well: in the form of
deception, unconscionable actions deriving not just from avarice but hatred and distrust.

In the future, this system will collapse because it is like a table teetering on one and a half instead of all four legs. Something is going to give.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2010 05:21PM by la_veronique.

Most wealthy people do not take money out of circulation. When someones net worth is valued, it includes their assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. Cash alone makes such a small return on investment that most people would rather invest than horde. This is why when the market crashes, so many people who were rich become broke. Many of them have huge loans to still pay back, but no money to pay it, so they go bankrupt.

Coey,

Not in this era: the truly rich are not taxed; those that are, are not taxed commensurate with value of actual assets. It was recently reported that unemployement insurance has been meted out to hundreds of millionaires, including several worth over 10 million. These people were self employed, and have offshore untaxed accounts in Bimini or wherever that will keep them afloat, in style, to the nth generation. Their collection of UI, while technically allowed, is immoral because their availing of it was fueled by greed rather than need. People like this do not go broke, by my middle class definition of "broke", and they don't buy things that maintain a capitalist economy, and they don't use their personal largesse to build factories or to hire more domestic workers. The descrepancy between wealth and regular people is not just extreme--it is aberrant and actually destructive to a capitalist economy.

The last time this was seen was the Gilded Age, when you could lose an arm in a yarn mill loom, resulting in your family's destitution, and you had no recourse to help, legal or financial. And before that, it was in the Feudal Age. I don't want to live in a 21st Century replica of Britain under King John, and I don't know anyone sane who does, either. I think that's what banana who is getting at.

Yes, Tamukha, the gap between rich and poor is growing (at least in America) and if you go back to the Eisenhower and JFK administrations, look at the tax rate! Off the top of my head I'd say it was around 80%! And in those eras we enjoyed some of our greatest prosperity as a nation. Socialism is bandied around like it's sheer evil, but there is no argument that the countries in the world with this type of system enjoy the greatest standard of living.

I never said the rich were appropriately taxed. I said that their wealth is not entirely horded as previously suggested. Much of it may be in assets instead of cash.

Coey,

Yeah, but oughtn't all assets above x value to be taxed? This would add hundreds of millions of dollars to our tax margins, and matter not a whit to the bottom line of personal worth to the truly wealthy. I consider it as being hoarded if it isn't a.) buying American stuff, or b.) not assisting tax intake. Things would be different if assets were taxes, because the wealthy, in an attempt to avoid taxation, would be impelled to liquify assets and actually use them to create industries and hire domestic workers, thereby avoiding taxes, or lessening their personal tax burden, while increasing the GDP, etc. This is how it worked in the pre-R------omics era, such as back in Eisenhower's day. I think we're probably saying the same thing, only it's such a bee in my little red bonnet that I'm flyin' off the handle. Apologies

Assets do have sales tax unless they are real estate. But you would pay capital gain taxes when you sold it at a profit. What we should have sales tax on is stocks. Even a 1% sales tax would increase tax revenue substantially and stabilize the market by reducing day traders. Taxes are what keep the poor poor and the rich rich. My boss buys an airplanes and gets to deduct 100% of its value from his taxes the first year because it is a business expense! Of course you and I pay rent or mortgage, buy food, clothing, and other necessities of life and we can't write off any of it. Not to mention I have to may taxes for the local school. Why? I don't have children. Charge the parents whose kids attend. Why should I pay to babysit and "educate" their little brats?

Coey,

I'm beginning got doubt your sense of community

A I'm sure you know, not all children are brats, and I don't mind paying taxes to educate others' children because this is better for the greater society, and me personally, in the long run. We all suffer the effects of an undereducated populace, through loss of infrastructure and services because undereducated people cannot work at jobs that provide a civilization-sustaining tax base. Also, I am less likely to get carjacked at gunpoint by someone who's been to school and has managed to find honest, lifestyle-maintaining work for themselves as a result. This is becoming theoretical, mind you, because a civilization built on the middle class is becoming less and less important to the Powers That Be with every passing year.

I am excluding the very rich from my "We All Sink Or Swim Together" view, as the very rich can just move into a security protected gated community and ignore the rest of society. Soon, we will all be living in a real life version of the movie "The Blade Runner." Fun, fun.

My point is that with nearly 7 billion people, people need to stop breeding. Also, as you might have noticed, I put "educate" in quotes because they are not educated, but brainwashed to accept this certain standard of civilization. Anyone can farm and that's what we need to do. We need to progress toward an agrarian society instead of an industrial one. This is the only way our planet will survive out plague.

We have to rid our mindset of growth which is what our whole economy is based on. We need to focus on sustainability. But people want to make more money so they aren't interested in sustainability.

Would it be ok to tax you to take care of my dog?

Wow, don't know where to start here.....

Coey said:

Quote

My point is that with nearly 7 billion people, people need to stop breeding.

Well, from what I heard, there is plenty of room on the planet for everybody. If someone doesn't want to 'breed', that's their decision, but I sure wouldn't want it made mandatory, like in China.

Quote

I put "educate" in quotes because they are not educated, but brainwashed to accept this certain standard of civilization.

Yes, I agree, schoolkids are brainwashed. That's why I think the Dept. of Education should be abolished and should never have been taken over years ago by Big Brother.

And of course Big Ag wants to make it impossible for everyone to farm and grow their own good food.

Tamukha said:

Quote

We are currently at the worst disparity between wealth and poverty ever in the history of the Republic; we surpassed the Depression Era, finally

We are far removed from the desperation and hunger that characterized poverty during the Great Depression....
During the Depression, people couldn't even afford to buy food, and were homeless, whereas now those below the poverty level have cell phones, cars, TV's, air conditioning, Ipods, etc.. The 'poor' here in the US, are on the same level or have more wealth than the Middle Class in the European Countries.

The poverty level is always in flux, always a flow of those in poverty to those in the middle class, to those in the upper class, etc. Like a kid just getting out of school who doesn't have a job will be the lowest level, then he gets a low paying job and then a higher paying job, etc., so it's not stagnant..the poor are always getting richer...

"Govt benefits like food stamps and tax credits are not included in calculating whether a family's income falls above or below the poverty line" --


They've changed (or want to change) the way they define the poverty level or the guidelines to now mean they are measured 'in relation to' those who are above, so the 'poor' are really always getting more well off.

"The Federal Government has spent more than $13 trillion fighting poverty since Lyndon Johnson declared his “war on poverty” in 1965."

Understanding Poverty in America

[www.nationalreview.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2010 08:06PM by KidRaw.

What is "Hoarding"? It seems to be the new buzzword of a certain group....

Anybody who wants to keep their own money, has every right to, and more power to them. If they want to collect or keep or hoard anything, be it jewelry, food, old paper bags, mementos, money, whatever floats their boat, that is their choice and they are certainly entitled to.

Some people want to give everything away and live with almost nothing, I guess they're Minimalists, others want to stash and keep and collect and hoard and save everything -- it's a choice. I'm a hoarder sometimes.

And as far as Materialism - same thing - some people like to collect and buy 'stuff''toys' 'things' whatever. Good for them. Sometimes I like to buy and collect things and sometimes I don't. I like to have a nice comfortable beautiful home in a nice beautiful setting myself. I guess that's not for everybody, though. Some people are into dressing up and having a lot of beautiful clothes - that's not for me, but whatever you want to do with your money - it's up to you....

I think Materialism and Hoarding are just fine if that's where you are in life... oh, this is getting familiar....that's right...materialists are lesser souls on a lower plane than minimalists......I forgot.....we discussed it in another thread...

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Well, from what I heard, there is plenty of room
> on the planet for everybody. If someone doesn't
> want to 'breed', that's their decision, but I sure
> wouldn't want it made mandatory, like in China.
>

Well, you heard wrong.

"The World Hunger Program at Brown University estimates that, with present levels of food production and an equal distribution of food, the world could sustain either 5.5 billion vegetarians, 3.7 billion people who get 15 percent of their calories from animal products (as in much of South America), or 2.8 billion people who derive 25 percent of their calories from animal products (as in the wealthiest countries)."

Now, look at these numbers and tell me we are not overpopulated. And FYI, most Americans are closing in on 50% of their calories from animals products.

Oh, I meant we have enough room or space on the planet for everyone. Of course, the G..T owns 1/3 of the land in the US, and is trying to pile us on top of each other in the cities, so that doesn't help.

So you're talking about a food problem. If we have a food problem, I would think it's because of logistics, not because of population. Like everybody should be able to have a plot of land and grow their own food, and become sustainable, but because the G..t controls us and everything we do, that's not how it worked out. I'm sure way back in the caveman days, some people starved, too, and were poor but that's the way 'life' is.

Well, if the gov't. would keep their grubby mitts off my hard earned cash then maybe I wouldn't have to hoard so much.

KidRaw,

Uh, don't know why any index to be applied to the U.S. would even consider the poverty rate of Albania or Bangladesh. There's that false equivalency thing again; when did this become the argumentative standard for statistics, I don't know. But I don't use it.

Coey,

Totally agree about breeding, which is why I'm a member of VHEMT. Those that say we have pleeeenty of room[rubbing portly belly, simultaneously] for baziiiiillions more humans aren't taking into account: resource location/distribution, human and human corollary waste load, or the existence of other living things. Also, obviously, the debatable ethics of unchecked human reproduction(since I was a wee girl in Lutheran school, I have understood that "Be fruitful and multiply" was an ancient prescription for tribal persistance, nothing more--thank you, Lutheran school teachers!).

Politely remind jk, my dear friend here, that guv'mint takin' your money[taxes] is one of the few things currently keeping barbarism at bay: Exhibit A: the laissez faire paradise that is Somalia; Exhibit B: One Mr. Eugene Cranick of Obion Co. Tennessee. It could be done more fairly, though, which is why banana who started this thread. I wonder what became of her? . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2010 09:14PM by Tamukha.

We are clear cutting rain forests at a ferocious rate. We don't have enough room to grow enough food to feed the people on this planet even with a vegetarian diet. Almost a billion people are starving in this world. Even if we leveled off at 7 Billion people, we would still have to destroy millions of acres of delicate ecosystems to feed them. Overpopulation is the bull in the room that even vegans refuse to acknowledge. It is very selfish to reproduce when there are millions of children that could be adopted.

There is a bit of *misinformation/sensationalism* in this thread, which seems to have strayed far from the original topic, btw. No matter to me, as I am not really that passionate enough about all this to argue/debate pointlessly...

...about the clear cutting of the rain forests...yeah, I really hate to see the "raping" that is going on in many area of this planet - I agree in the sense that man has become a wasteful human being...

but then there is the "transparency" angle again...

If you run the numbers for the rate that they say the rain forests are disappearing at, they would have all been destroyed years ago.

Seems that everyone has an agenda, especially since it equates to money in their own pocket and power over another.

"Politely remind jk, my dear friend here, that guv'mint takin' your money[taxes] is one of the few things currently keeping barbarism at bay: Exhibit A: the laissez faire paradise that is Somalia; Exhibit B: One Mr. Eugene Cranick of Obion Co. Tennessee. It could be done more fairly, though, which is why banana who started this thread. I wonder what became of her? . . ."

Now Tam, my dear...

I am not for abolishing taxation completely, that would be absurd. I am simply referring to the level of greed/dishonesty/runaway spending and so forth.

To force legislation down the peoples' throats when the majority is clearly against said legislation is a crime, plain & simple.

To say any more would get too deep into the political realm, and debate/argument rarely changes anyone's mind.

We all have our own ingrained set of morals/ideals/beliefs which we rarely stray from or change.

Here & there a few folks may become enlightened along the way...

...and the Mr. Eugene Cranick of Obion Co. Tennessee situation? That is a completely ridiculous, unbelievable story. Isn't that an extreme case? I mean, I don't hear of that happening every day on the news.

Over half of the rainforests are gone. No agenda, just pure fact.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is "Hoarding"? It seems to be the new
> buzzword of a certain group....
>
> Anybody who wants to keep their own money, has
> every right to, and more power to them. If they
> want to collect or keep or hoard anything, be it
> jewelry, food, old paper bags, mementos, money,
> whatever floats their boat, that is their choice
> and they are certainly entitled to.
>
> Some people want to give everything away and live
> with almost nothing, I guess they're Minimalists,
> others want to stash and keep and collect and
> hoard and save everything -- it's a choice. I'm a
> hoarder sometimes.
>
> And as far as Materialism - same thing - some
> people like to collect and buy 'stuff''toys'
> 'things' whatever. Good for them. Sometimes I
> like to buy and collect things and sometimes I
> don't. I like to have a nice comfortable
> beautiful home in a nice beautiful setting myself.
> I guess that's not for everybody, though. Some
> people are into dressing up and having a lot of
> beautiful clothes - that's not for me, but
> whatever you want to do with your money - it's up
> to you....
>
> I think Materialism and Hoarding are just fine if
> that's where you are in life... oh, this is
> getting familiar....that's right...materialists
> are lesser souls on a lower plane than
> minimalists......I forgot.....we discussed it in
> another thread...

"Buzzword of a certain group?" LOL- and who would that be, pray tell? You are a raw fooder, no? Or at least like me, wish to attain to a high-raw or all-raw lifestyle? I just ASSumed that most people of that ilk led more simple lives. Sorry if I got confused for a moment. If you look at my original post, I meant hoarding money, not people with OCD who are packrats. You say that people who like stuff should have stuff and I took that to also mean that people who make enough money to be able to afford "stuff" have every right to spend it as they choose, correct? But how about people who inherited money earned in nefarious ways (slavery is a good example)? They hand that money and land down thru the generations and keep the wealth in that way. Likewise, people with enough capital to start ventures may exploit their labor force via under-paying and keep most of the profits for themselves when their peons did most of the heavy lifting! So please don't come at me with this idea that people earn their money fair and square. My partner works with his hands and has seen enough crapola from contractors to last a lifetime.

jk,

Don't really disagree, but the point about Obion County, TN is that this actually happened, it happened for the reason reported, and why this happened is a trend, meaning we will start to hear more and more about previously inconceivable things like this happening as those who favor eliminating fiscal support for infrastructure take over. Where I live, we pay for fire services out of our taxes, gladly pay, because we know what the horrific alternative will be, not may be, will be, if the current system is exchanged for another. And the wealth that has arisen artificially through the subversion of our original system, is at the vanguard of this change, which would affect those of us that aren't rolling in lucre disproportionately adversely.

You're right--it's tricky to discuss this without breaking rules, so that's it from me!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2010 01:26AM by Tamukha.

I happen to be of the belief that one way to prevent a lifetime of poverty is not to procreate when not materially able. I shocked a college class once when I asserted that having children is a privilege and not a right. My professor even told me afterwards that I couldn't say such things. I think that's nonsense. While it would be lovely if everyone could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to, I think that knowing our limits (which are only temporary, after all) is important. And also to think about not taking too much for ourselves. It's not a question of whether or not it's sustainable, but what do I really NEED?

Have you seen "Idiocracy"?