Wealth creation vs wealth distribution...

TheVat said:
It was that the translated term, faggot, is a nasty slur for gay people in the United States. If you didn't intend a homophobic slur, then forgive the "wow."
Click to expand...
Теват, гей - это "педераст" по русски. А нехороший персонаж - это "пидорас".
 
Seattle said:
You can afford it, right?
Click to expand...
No, I am destitute financially and supported by friends. That doesn't make what I posted wrong. If you don't agree with it one might think you have no empathy. And it doesn't mean to make everyone equal in resources, but to make everyone adequate.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Working from ability and earning from ability creates the latter parts of the line itself. It's the default position. Little work and little earning equates to much much less. Greater work and greater earning does the same. Communism isn't socialism. The line seems more capitalistic than charitable. Taxes do play a role, obviously. The more you earn, the more you would pay in. Less earning equates to lesser tax obligations.
Click to expand...
I see the line as being more human.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
I see the line as being more human.
Click to expand...
I can understand the appeal of your take on it. It seems fair and understanding at face value (maybe), but how does it work in application and what prevents people from choosing complacency over a more ambitious effort oriented lifestyle?
 
ThazzarBaal said:
The aim is (was) to become more perfect, better and to increase the general well being of our population across the board.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We were chasing perfection. We knew we would never get there, which is why we did not say "in order to form a perfect union." But as long as it was "more perfect" we were going in the right direction.

What makes one better than the other?
Click to expand...

Poor people need food, and they need to fix the brakes on their car, and they need their broken windows fixed, and they need basic things like rent. That goes to local businessowners.

Gamblers give their money to casinos. Casinos are owned by multibillion dollar corporations, and thus the money is more likely to go into investor's pockets.

Neither is "better" than the other from a morality point of view. But poor people will put more of that money directly into the local economy.
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
I don't think it is anything for us to judge anymore than me judging you for your car or house. Does it matter if they are luxurious?
Click to expand...
I think you are forgetting what you posted. You asked "what is considered luxury in that case?" In that case it was a personal jet. It does not mean you should judge them on it if you don't want to. It just means it is a luxury.

Most private jets do carry people and it generally makes economic sense or they wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Of course. Indeed, no current private jet can fly without people.

People buy $1.8 million bottles of perfume, too. They make economic sense since they are able to sell them. And they are also luxuries.

If it just carries Musk is it different than if it carries 10 top executives of a smaller business than Musk's?
Click to expand...

Yes. Having your own jet to fly wherever you like is more luxurious than sharing a jet where everyone has to agree on the destination. It's the difference between having your own limo to take you anywhere you want and renting a bus.

This isn't hard. Not sure why you are trying so hard to misunderstand.
 
Olga said:
This is face-to-face training, only the material is explained by a good teacher via video, and not a shitty one standing at the board.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I was talking about. And it does not work as well. We learned this during COVID. Even an excellent teacher is not as effective over video. Sorry.

So what if someone wants to have a plane? Did he steal it? No, he earned it honestly. Why the hell should someone tell him how to spend his honestly earned money?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. He or she can buy any luxuries they like. Gold plated toilets. Servants. Whatever. But they are luxuries, even if you hate that word.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
I can understand the appeal of your take on it. It seems fair and understanding at face value (maybe), but how does it work in application and what prevents people from choosing complacency over a more ambitious effort oriented lifestyle?
Click to expand...
I think how you determine need and ability to take care of oneself and set up the program based on those and other factors if they apply.
 
TheVat said:
High school isn't free, either. Maybe we could start charging tuition for that? But there seems to be some societal consensus that a good education is something we should all support with our taxes because it helps to make an educated and productive citizenry. To further that worthwhile social goal, we should extend that free school to undergraduate education at public universities (especially since the first couple years at an American state university devotes a fair amount of time to mending the deficits of failing or deficient public school systems).
Click to expand...
So the free high school system is deficient and you want to extend that further? Who is the comedian here?:)
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
No, I am destitute financially and supported by friends. That doesn't make what I posted wrong. If you don't agree with it one might think you have no empathy. And it doesn't mean to make everyone equal in resources, but to make everyone adequate.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, why are you where you need to be supported by others?
 
billvon said:
I think you are forgetting what you posted. You asked "what is considered luxury in that case?" In that case it was a personal jet. It does not mean you should judge them on it if you don't want to. It just means it is a luxury.



Of course. Indeed, no current private jet can fly without people.

People buy $1.8 million bottles of perfume, too. They make economic sense since they are able to sell them. And they are also luxuries.



Yes. Having your own jet to fly wherever you like is more luxurious than sharing a jet where everyone has to agree on the destination. It's the difference between having your own limo to take you anywhere you want and renting a bus.

This isn't hard. Not sure why you are trying so hard to misunderstand.
Click to expand...
So the game today it being literal about the word luxury. Why do we care about that? Musk is the head of several companies. If he goes somewhere on a jet or 10 executives from a company travel on a jet, there is little meaningful difference.

You can call it all luxury if you like labeling everything as luxury or not but it's rather pointless isn't it?
 
Seattle said:
So the game today it being literal about the word luxury.
Click to expand...
Apparently. I don't know why you focused so hard on that word, but here we are.

Musk is the head of several companies. If he goes somewhere on a jet or 10 executives from a company travel on a jet, there is little meaningful difference.
Click to expand...

Comparing 10 Musks to your example of 10 executives is a difference of 9 airplanes (and pilots, and fuel, and ATC support etc)

You can call it all luxury if you like labeling everything as luxury or not but it's rather pointless isn't it?
Click to expand...

?? Perhaps. But one wonders why you were so adamant to define it accurately in that case.
 
Seattle said:
So the free high school system is deficient and you want to extend that further? Who is the comedian here?:)
Click to expand...
A work in progress, maybe but has been somewhat effective for millions of people. To extend free education to higher academics, I think instead of looking at it as a luxury, it would work better to have it mandated to all citizens. Public universities vs private universities may at least offer appropriate credentials, the education needed to compete, and open the doors up for greater opportunities. Beyond this, it would help us as a nation stay competitive in the global arena.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
No, I am destitute financially and supported by friends. That doesn't make what I posted wrong. If you don't agree with it one might think you have no empathy. And it doesn't mean to make everyone equal in resources, but to make everyone adequate.
Click to expand...
Adequate is a great term, but how would resources accomplish this? Education helps, skill training helps, resources help, artistic expression, music creation, literary skills, crafts, etc. But again, how is adequate accomplished through these channels? If it's about a better life, then certainly ... Resources might create adequate environments, but what then?
 
ThazzarBaal said:
A work in progress, maybe but has been somewhat effective for millions of people. To extend free education to higher academics, I think instead of looking at it as a luxury, it would work better to have it mandated to all citizens. Public universities vs private universities may at least offer appropriate credentials, the education needed to compete, and open the doors up for greater opportunities. Beyond this, it would help us as a nation stay competitive in the global arena.
Click to expand...
Free health care has now made going for a doctor visit unaffordable to many who don't have it. Before widespread insurance, it was affordable for most people to go and see a doctor. The better approach, in that case, IMO, would be to have universal catastrophic coverage (hospital).

In higher education, it was more affordable before all the loans. Now many consider a 4 year degree as a HS degree and it hasn't done much for many. In the US we have $35 trillion in debt. We are obviously spending more than most any level of taxation could cover so that's a bigger problem that affects everyone, especially the poor.

Free like insurance, just hides the cost. Using just GoodRx, anyone can get cheap generic drugs. If you have insurance the insurance cost will be higher. Prices are bloated and just hidden. That isn't good for anyone, other than the insurance and drug companies.
 
Seattle said:
Free health care has made made going for a doctor visit unaffordable to many who don't have it. Before widespread insurance it was affordable for most people to go and see a doctor. The better approach, in that case, IMO, would be to have universal catastrophic coverage (hospital).

In higher education, it was more affordable before all the loans. Now many consider a 4 year degree as a HS degree and it hasn't done much for many.
Click to expand...

Competing as a nation with other nations, where do you think a less educated population will take us? Would it help us keep up, or would it hinder us as a whole? While healthcare may have become more expensive due to it being more available to our citizens, I wonder also where a less healthy population might take us. Many seem to favor preventative measures, which I think is great. Although, and while I am a tobacco smoker, I am still relatively healthy at 54, mostly due to my outdoor activities, no longer smoking indoors, and increased exercise. You know, typical preventative measures.

Edit: I should probably mention Heather diet, also. I forgot that one.
 
Last edited:
ThazzarBaal said:
Competing as a nation with other nations, where do you think a less educated population will take us? Would it help us keep up, or would it hinder us as a whole? While healthcare may have become more expensive due to it being more available to our citizens, I wonder also where a less healthy population might take us. Many seem to favor preventative measures, which I think is great. Although, and while I am a tobacco smoker, I am still relatively healthy at 54, mostly due to my outdoor activities, no longer smoking indoors, and increased exercise. You know, typical preventative measures.

Edit: I should probably mention Heather diet, also. I forgot that one.
Click to expand...
It's not about being less healthy or being less educated. Before all the loans, it was actually a lot more affordable to go to college. Before insurance a typical doctors visit was more affordable. Getting the government involved just raises the price. That helps no one.

If you have more people with college degrees working at McDonald's that helped no one either.

You also know that not smoking would help you a lot more than outdoor activities. Going to see a doctor for free isn't going to fix any smoking damage.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top