Re: The Great Divide
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 07/31/04
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Next in thread: jim blair: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: jim blair: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: Mark Monson: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: Mark Monson: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:26:57 GMT
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:49:35 -0400, "Mark Monson" <m_monson@ztech.com>
wrote:
>"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:j0lfg0hgrdmg440nova8v5sqfci5ina47g@4ax.com...
>> The Great Divide
>> Some day if you are lucky or clever or thrifty enough, you may amass
>> enough financial wealth to cross the Great Divide. That is where your
>> investment income exceeds your living expenses. Then you can live a
>> life of leisure, calling on the labor of others while you clip
>> coupons, cash dividends, or collect rents. Wealth begets wealth.
>> Beyond a critical level, like a chain reaction it generates more than
>> is consumed.
>
>Only if you invest in rent seeking.
Certainly rent accounts for the overwhelming bulk of unearned income.
But there is also such a thing as taking the risk of investing in
productive capital and reaping the merited rewards.
> Yet unequal wealth is an
>> inherent aspect of a market economy and the capitalist system.
>
>Not necessarily. Capitalism will work better without the rent-seeking free riders.
Yes, but there are also natural variations in productivity that would
presumably result in inequalities of condition even in the total
absence of private rent collection privileges.
> Its
>> redeeming feature is that everyone is equally eligible to become a
>> capitalist.
>
>Of course, everybody can't be a parasite. Some of us have to be hosts.
Yes, I don't find that much of a redeeming feature. It's like saying
the redeeming feature of war is that one side gets to be the victor.
IMO a more plausible redeeming feature would be that the system lifts
the average condition so much that almost everyone is much better off
than under other systems.
>> There is little doubt that our entrepreneurial capitalist system is
>> responsible for the general growth in standard of living, and benefits
>> nearly everyone.
>
>Real capital investment that aids production is responsible for increases in
>standard of living.
Yes, and it should be appropriately rewarded. The problem is that the
returns to ownership of money and productive investment alike are
currently artificially inflated by the need to compete with the return
to rent seeking privileges, especially land titles.
> The real issue then is whether the political power
>> that accompanies great wealth will lead to such serious inequities
>> that it ultimately destroys the system which creates that wealth.
>
>The wealthy rent seeking parasites have the time and money to devote to influencing
>government, academia, and public opinion to serve their interests. Their political
>program of less regulation of monopolies and lower taxes on rent has been quite
>successful.
Very successful, as recorded by the proceedings of this ng.
>What's interesting is how working people have bought into the American dream of
>parasitism. The fellow who works in the factory feels he has common cause with
>Donald Trump, and supports things like cuts in capital gains taxes because he sees
>himself crossing the Great Divide someday and wants the law to be favorable when he
>gets to the other side.
Yes, it's almost a lottery mentality. People focus on the dream, and
forget the cost, as well as the near certainty, of never getting that
winning ticket.
>In this culture, honest labor is just something you do until you can find a scam; a
>way to get something for nothing; a way to achieve "financial security".
>
>If you could choose one, which would it be?
>
>1. To be a multi-millionaire in the present system and never have to work again.
>
>2. To be a regular working person in an alternative reality. One without poverty,
>crime, prisons, or ghettos. A place where cities are beautiful, where air and
>water are clean, where wages are high for even the least skilled workers, and higher
>yet for the harder working and smarter working. A place where children are healthy
>and safe, where schools are good. Communities with great parks, museums, theatres,
>and cafes. Cities where you can walk to work, walk to great restaurants, shows,
>etc. No bad parts of town so no need for ugly suburbs and boring commutes. Great
>housing is affordable and plentiful. Radio and television have interesting,
>entertaining and diverse programs without commercials. Movies have great variety
>and excellent quality.
I suspect many if not most people would choose #1. There is some kind
of human desire to feel superior to others, the desire that drives
racism, religious intolerance, jingoism, etc. as well as lotteries,
crooked business practices, and all the other manifestations of greed.
As Gore Vidal put it, "It is not enough to succeed. Others must
fail."
>I'm not saying anything about the real world possibility of the second option except
>that it represents an alternative dream. One that is not focused on ownership but
>on community. It's a totally different way of looking at life. It's answering the
>question, "What sort of community do I want to live in" rather than, "What sort of
>things do I want to own."
>
>Without making a moral judgment one way or another, but choosing purely from selfish
>motives, which option will deliver the most satisfaction to the individual making
>the choice?
Ah, but how enviable, to be the object of envy....
Perhaps a better question, though for men only: would you rather have
Hefner's money, or his girls?
-- Roy L
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Next in thread: jim blair: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: jim blair: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: Mark Monson: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Maybe reply: Mark Monson: "Re: The Great Divide"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
