Redistribution of Wealth, and changing American "values"

Cap and Trade

The concept of "Cap and Trade" can easily be used to fix the current economic problems in this country caused by Wall Street and Corporate America's greed.

It was originally used to legislate an environmental policy that delivers results with a mandatory cap placed on admissions of air pollution while providing the sources of those emissions the flexibility on 'how' they comply.

The government does not tell anyone "how" to do it. It simply sets a cap on the amount of pollution allowed to be made.

The same principle must be legislatively enacted to create an atmosphere of financial stability and financial equality that benefits all people, not just the wealthy and/or greedy.

The average American Politician mentality

Redistribution of Wealth

It also has become a major "necessity" for government to ensure financial equality and stop the greed factor from completely collapsing this country.

It has been a social necessity to mandate a "minimum" wage for the working class but Corporate America has managed to keep it suppressed to a bare minimum while prices of commodities rise to a level of being only accessible to the wealthy.

There is no need to "redistribute" the wealth, as the dooms day predictors cry, but there IS an urgent need to put a cap on future wages to put a halt to the hogging (voracious hoarding) by a few.

There is no-one on this planet that needs to accumulate billions of dollars in their personal coffers, while fighting for minimum wages to be eliminated, or kept stagnant.

Limiting "maximum" wages to:

  • One million dollars per year, for individuals, is not punishment by any means.
  • Limiting Corporations to one billion dollars per year in 'net' profits is not punishment either.
  • Further mandating that individual Corporation earnings in excess of one billion dollars per year be distributed back to the employees who make it possible to earn those profits in the first place. This can be done in the form of benefits or bonuses, and certainly is not a punishment to corporations by any stretch of the imagination.

While the government cannot tell corporations "how" they must disperse such excessive profits they can "cap" the amounts going to the top executives, and the corporation itself, at the expense of the "minimum" wage earners who are forced to live in poverty when the cost of living exceeds their minimum wage earnings, while the corporate executives, and the crooks on Wall Street, live in luxury.

Limitations of Life

We put limitations on our children to "teach" them something, but throw all limitations on avaricious adults to the wind.
Without "limitations" being set on people in general it can lead to nothing less than the destruction of our economy and environment that we see happening all around us today.

Idealism versus realism

Although we live our lives like it will never end, it does not negate the fact that it will inevitably end for every last one of us.

How we live our lives and the impact that we make on others and the planetary environment must be a realistic consideration on how we view ourselves in concert with each other and our planet.

Allowing a few to hoard to the point of causing harm to the majority is not a realistic, or idealistic, goal for anyone to be "allowed" to do, without restraints.

We take "criminals" off the streets for hurting other people, but we allow corporate criminality to go unaddressed and/or unmanaged by society as a whole.

And in many instances even 'reward' this adverse behavior with even more power and control over people by corporations.

Mandating Morality

We (some of us) try to mandate "morality" on other people when the scope and purview of morality itself is shrouded in personal interpretations, myths, and fairy tale stories.

We have discarded humanitarianism as a way of life to accommodate the greed of a few.

We, as a society, try to deny our sins of creating and allowing mass poverty caused by a few greedy people, by sweeping it under the rug to hide it from view.

And we watch many of the grossly undeserving wealthy flaunt their money and power every day in the public sector.

We allow the Supreme Court of the U.S. to further corrupt the government by allowing them to make decisions to protect their wealthy benefactors while putting more hardships on the poor and struggling middle class.

Who owns the world?

Source

Who "owns" What?

Or perhaps the question should be - should anyone "own" anything that deprives the majority from financial security in this world?

Greed must be eliminated to bring back humanitarianism to this world.

Love and compassion must be promoted to replace the hatred and distrust we have of others and of our very government that is supposed to protecting the people they serve, not sucking up to the rich and powerful.

Religions and their superstitious superfluousness must be re-examined and treated as the brainwashing business enterprises that they are and kept out of politics as intended by our fore fathers.

The 'debates' over the need for reform, and encouraging the 'cap and trade' extension to income equality; will be incessantly filled with opinionated rhetoric.

But we must first keep in mind that there is a vast difference between {decency, humanitarianism, equality} and {communism, socialism or theocratic rule} and the first set has nothing to do with the latter.

by: dwilliam 06/09/14

Let's take a poll

Do you think it is feasible, equitable and just, to put a cap on Maximum wages as we do on Minimum wages?

  • yes - definitely
  • No - absolutely not
  • Don't know and don't care - this does not affect me
  • No - we cannot punish the wealthy
  • It is certainly something for government to consider
  • This is a better solution than "re-distributing" the wealth
See results without voting

© 2014 d.william

More by this Author


Comments 24 comments

tirelesstraveler profile image

tirelesstraveler 2 years ago from California

Good morning. Interesting ideas you put forward. I will think on them.


d.william profile image

d.william 2 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

Tireless:

Thanks.

There ARE solutions to the world's problems if people care enough to pursue them. But anything that betters mankind will always be met with tough resistance from those who profit from things being kept the way they are.

Inequality, and exploitation of others, are very profitable for those in charge and they intend to see it stays that way - at least until the majority of people finally stand up and say : we have had enough.


IndependentMind profile image

IndependentMind 2 years ago

Great article. Well articulated and with some great ideas. Perhaps more of a fantasy than reality, but it offers much food for thought.


d.william profile image

d.william 2 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

Thanks for the comments


mio cid profile image

mio cid 2 years ago from Uruguay

great hub!!! this measure that would benefit the country in so many ways and ultimately the whole planet and which was implemented first by republicans has an opportunity once the crazies finish destroying the republican party and the adults take charge again .


d.william profile image

d.william 2 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

mio cid:

We can only hope that the GOP can recover from the dissemination by the tea party members. Then we need to see them contribute something to the betterment of this nation instead of adopting a strict and narrow obstruction policy to everything the ruling party proposes.

But the main change they must make is to return to representing the interests of the American public not the interests of Corporate America.


mio cid profile image

mio cid 2 years ago from Uruguay

well said.


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 2 years ago from Earth

Let me put it this way. Redistribution of Wealth is theft. You advocate theft. Thieves, like any thugs, should be tried, convicted and imprisoned. Anyone who supports your position, also advocates theft. That is your immorality: stealing. Explain it anyway you like, but just remember, if you take from another, without their permission, your stole.


Seto 23 months ago

Given that American attitudes to aolsmt everything hostile to their capitalist interests usually provoke a far greater political backlash than such stances would provoke in Europe, I think Obama has shown a lot of courage in taking on some pretty deep seated sacred cows' in breaking the mould of approach to the likes of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.It is easy to get carried away with American leaders who appear to be the hope of the world (as in the case of Kennedy) but I think Obama is deserving of our support and good will, and let's hope actions are as effective as his words


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird:

Thanks for reading and taking the time to leave a comment. My apologies for taking such a long time to respond.

Although, your comments are appreciated, your interpretation of what i wrote is misguided either by your not reading the article as it was intended, or you are blinded by your political party's conservative tunnel vision of how the corporate world should be acting in concert with the actual needs of the majority and not simply living in a bubble of greed and avarice without any regard for anyone but themselves.

I was very specific in pointing out that i do not advocate the "redistribution" of wealth, but rather placing greater restraints on anyone's (individual or corporate) ability to take more than their fair share out of the economy at the expense of destroying the middle class and causing economic disasters as they have certainly done over the past couple of decades. Greed is not a pretty thing, and it is one of the 7 deadly sins. And yet, people advocate it like is is some kind of badge of honor. We don't allow murder, or other kinds of abuse toward other people, so why are we, as a people, allowing this kind of hardship being forced on the lower class simply out of the sick need of greed and self serving?


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

Seto: thank your for reading and leaving your comments. It is evident that you actually read the article, instead of simply responding to the words "redistribution of wealth".

In spite of the right wing hatred of seeing a person of color doing more for the American people than any other old white bigot in our history, we ARE heading in the right direction. At least for the time being. If the radical right wing party takes over this great nation, we will regress back to the dark ages of slavery, and discrimination to the point of abuse. They are already trying to take all rights away from women, treating them like second class citizens who can't think for themselves, and trying to undo civil rights, equal rights, buying votes, destroying our food supplies, etc....

There is truly no logic at all behind the right wing fighting to give more to the wealthy than they deserve, and further destroying the middle class in order to do so.


Mel Carriere profile image

Mel Carriere 18 months ago from San Diego California

I don't really think it is necessary to put a cap on what individuals earn or what corporations earn. I think there is plenty to go around, and a living minimum wage would suffice without destroying the profit motive. I don't believe that innovators should be punished for having good ideas, I just think that these innovators require the labor of us down here at the bottom of the ladder to make their products a success, and we should be adequately compensated for it. Great hub, I agree with most of it on principle.


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 18 months ago from Earth

d.william -

One can only interpret involuntary redistribution of wealth one way. There is no other 'side' to the issue. Taking from one to give to another, without specific permission of that one, is immoral – it is theft. But it is interesting how you think I am blinded, when you do not define terms. My political party? I have none – well, I am an Objectivist – but they will not win any time soon.

And what is meant by a corporation acting in concert with the needs of the majority? What needs? Who defines them? Does not the minority – the individual have a right to define his/her own needs? A corporation wants to earn a profit and under a freer system (the USA is not free – but a mixed economy) customers would voluntarily purchase offered products. Coercive monopolies would not exist in a freer economy, since all would be allowed to compete and never be allowed monopoly powers as provided by government edicts. What is wrong with a corporation looking after its own interests, so long as it does not use the majority rule to create unfair advantages – which they do now. If corporations had no such advantages, they would actually have to 'beg' for your business. Now? The Health Insurance companies remind you that Obama and his 'Party' 'ordered' you to buy a policy. Nice.

The is no such thing as a fair share out of the economy. Define that. How does a corporation 'take', in a freer system? It can't. It must sell and you must voluntarily buy. There is no 'economy' in the sense in which you speak. The economy is not stagnant. It expands and contracts, especially given the fiat money supply offered to us by our government. We cannot use sound money. We are tied to government paper. A corporation (in a freer system) does not take – it earns. Only governments take. Only governments take your hard earned dollars and give them to Google so they can make Solar Power Plants in California. Only Congress can provide loans to car companies – loans underwritten by you and I, but without our permission. Corporations, in a freer system, can never take.

Corporations causing economic disasters? That is a big debate. Since the economy is centrally controlled, money is expanded and contracted at will – by Uncle Sam, corporations have zero control over it. You must be thinking of China or perhaps Cuba? However, we also know that bad players exist in the corporate world, just as they do on Capitol Hill. Both sides have snakes. Corporations buy favors, eliminate competition, repackage mortgages like that quasi-governmental agency Fannie Mae and all with the tacit approval of an ever encroaching government. But I submit that it is this mixed economy that causes all the problems in the first place. The economy and the government should be divorced – amicably.

Greed is a Sin? Sorry I am not religious. Greed, so long as one voluntarily buys or earns what one wants is fine. If I buy all the cars in Vermont, I would make a lot of car dealers happy. I would put food on the table of many a family. What evil have I done? On the other hand, if I require you to pay for my retirement - now that would be greed and theft. It is done every day. In the U.S. it is called Social Security.

Is it a badge of honor to advocate freedom? If so, thanks. I'll take it. It is better than the partial-slave society advocated by millions – and you.

We do not allow murder, but you apparently think that lower classes are forced there? Who forces them? The high taxes? No, the poor have tax-credits, free education, free housing, free medical care – paid for by the rest of us. We actually have to buy our stuff. But it's better that being rich – they pay most of the taxes.

Self-Serving? Everything one does is self-serving. You cannot – yet – live outside of your 'self'. Have you tried it?

The primary reason I have an issue with your post is because of its generalities, without substantiation. You toss 'words' around. Greed, hogging, hoarding. You demand maximum and minimum wages. You require submission. You advocate slavery.

Good luck, but the people – the good ones – will fight you and you will lose. Just as every little dictator loses in the end when good people do 'something.'


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

Mel: I understand your point of view, but when the quest for higher profits goes so far beyond anyone's worldly needs so as to infringe and harm society as a whole - there must be restrictions placed on how far anyone (including corporations) should be allowed to go.

On the other side of the spectrum, people fight to suppress minimum wages that barely afford the average person to maintain life for self and family while the top tier enjoys massive personal profits - there is surely something wrong with that concept.

My point is that greed must be reined in when it infringes on a persons ability to support themselves just so the wealthy can get wealthier.


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird.

Thanks for commenting. We certainly view the world from different perspectives. I see the world as it should be: humanistic - people helping people. You seem to see the world as it is: 'Greed is good' so it's OK to step on the heads of other people to get all you can get out of them for the least amount of money.

And perhaps you have a point about my comments regarding "redistributing" trillions of dollars beyond the needs of any person simply for the sake of their personal greed satisfaction. This was only meant as a confirmation of the need to practice humanitarianism in lieu of greed.

Your relating my comments about greed being sinful to religion is also incorrect. I do not belong to any organized religion, but i do believe that there are sins against humanity perpetrated every day by those who aspire to take every last dime for their personal coffers.

Man helping man to help himself is a far cry from advocating forcing others down to poverty levels to take more than one's share. That act in itself creates slavery. Once a person gets to the bottom, there is no way out for them because all doors are closed to them by an uncaring society that sees hardships as a personal failing.

This kind of attitude saddens me to the core.

your comments: "...And what is meant by a corporation acting in concert with the needs of the majority? What needs? Who defines them? Does not the minority – the individual have a right to define his/her own needs? ......

The ideal workings of a capitalistic society would have corporations providing a service, or goods to people in general, but the people who create those services, or goods, being paid beneath the poverty levels just so the corporate leaders can live in luxury is certainly not very appealing to anyone but themselves.


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 18 months ago from Earth

d.william -

We certainly do see the world from different perspectives. I see the good in humans. You see the bad. I see that humans have a right to produce and earn, not at anyone else's expense, because that is a fallacy. You see the 'bad' in profit, only out to destroy, but you never say how this is done. You seem to see 'earning' as 'stealing'. Work and effort are punishable in your world. In my world, great efforts and hard work are rewarded – if the customer voluntarily buys products/services.

Sure, humans need to be free to help each other, but humans should not be 'ordered' to help. That is slavery. Some humans make more money by becoming CEO's or doctors. This does not make them evil or greedy, necessarily. To cap their wages is slavery. Slavery is bad – have you heard?

A doctor helps by healing. But you want the doctor to take a pay cut. Why? By what right? There is only one way to do it. You must enslave them. What kind of perspective is that? I submit it is an immoral one.

And how do you get the 'most' from people? Get all you can out of them for the least amount of money? You ask them. "Hey would you like to clerk at the Grocery Store for minimum wage?" No? Why not? You want to become a plumber and make big bucks? Well, get to it then.

My point? People choose their own wages. You decide. If you don't like low wages, get a better job. If you want to force the company to pay higher wages, because you think you can run Walmart better – then start your own company and pay your employees higher wages. But – if you force the company to pay higher wages – you are courting what you do not want: Involuntary Servitude. You are creating a Slave Society. How do you rationalize this? In what world?

Greed is not the problem. Slavery is. Stepping on heads? Slave Masters do this. Are you talking 'figuratively' again? That figures. It's called inflammatory speech and it is as empty has Hitler's rants – but emotionally moving to the dimmed masses. I'll call you on it – again.

You want to substitute force for greed. Take from the successful people, because they want stuff. Because they earned it. Did the poor earn it? The rich – most of them – never stole their money, but earned it. Yes, some companies obtained special government grants (tax dollars), subsidies, loans etc., and that is wrong. But earning your wealth does not equate to stealing it.

If I sell a billion Ipads, because people want them and I buy a Yacht and sail the Seven Seas drinking expensive wine – that is a good thing. Not Greed. I did not force anyone to buy my stuff. I put sailboat builders to work, winemakers to work etc. The wealth spreads – unless I shove it under my mattress. How does that hurt anyone?

If I force an Ipad CEO to hand over his cash, after he earned it, after customers bought a million Ipads, because you feel he has too much – that is Greed and theft.

Again...how is one 'forced' into poverty? Who does the forcing? Walmart? Please. Remember – be the plumber! Poverty is not slavery. It is a choice in many circumstances. Nobody orders you to live poor. If that was the case – it would be slavery. Circumstances may leave one in poverty, but it still does not give a poor man a right to steal from his fellow man – even if his fellow man in Bill Gates.

And who defines 'fair share'? Fair share of what? The money? How will you take yours? By confiscation? Suppose you cap the doctor's salary, but more patients come and pay for his/her service. The doctor works 100 hours a week to keep up, but lo – he has 'over-earned' in your book. His money must be forcefully taken. How long do you think the doctor would work under such 'guidelines'? Will you force the doctor to continue his long hours, but refuse to pay him? By what right?

And spare me the darned lies. There is always a way out of poverty. The churches tend to the infirm – voluntarily. Charities spend billions. The poor get free medical care – free homes – cheap food. The money for this was lifted from the pockets of the rich. Even the Middle Class pays less than the rich in taxes. The poor can go to school and become electricians, policeman, teachers or welders.

When I saw a guy with one arm (no legs) become a multi-millionaire, after a bad accident – fall from a building – after his wife left him with the kids...I knew that people had depths of spirit I could not even begin to fathom. I helped install an alarm system in his mansion. Made good money on that job – but hot attics suck. He had never been poor – even when he was broke.

Your attitude does not sadden me. Your attitude scares me. You want to trade security for freedom...slavery for some alleged, unclear, peace of mind. It reminds me of what Lenin wanted. What Karl Marx imagined. What that nut it North Korea...is doing. These are all inhumane attempts at humanity. They end badly.

And remember when I put money in the bank, when a CEO with a Golden Parachute buys his mansion, when Bill Gates buys property (in the U.S.) we all profit. The bank lends more, the workers have to build that mansion, and Real Estate Agents earn commissions from Bill. It's when guys like you succeed when that wealth evaporates. When the Bill's and CEO's and the rich refuse to 'invest' - when they take their hard earned cash and leave – that is when the 'fit' hits the 'shan'.

It is the hatred of the good for being good. That seems to be your motto.

Just saying.


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird: This discussion is pointless when you use terms like slavery to describe humanitarianism.

There is a great difference between doctors, real estate agents and huge monopolies, and wall street manipulators who are unscrupulous. The only way that saying the middle class pays less taxes than the wealthy is in the total amount of taxes paid. But the major difference is that the middle class pays 33% of their gross income and the wealthy pay 10% or less. (give or take a percentage or two)

''...poor people get free medical, free homes, and cheap food? ...'' Not in my world they don't. That is why there are record numbers of homeless people in this country, and millions who are starving in a country that throws away food every day. There is no more compassion, or empathy left in our society. If you have ever been in the position of having some catastrophe in your lifetime and lose your minimal wage income for just a few months, you would understand that it is not by choice that most people end up on the streets. This kind of argument is generally made by those who have never experienced hardships, or had their fortunes handed down to them by their parents, or learned how to manipulate the system to make billions+ dollars without ever doing an honest hour of work in their life (wall street & lobbyists).

Without social security (which does NOT come out of tax money by the way) the majority of retired folks would be living on the streets as well.

This video by the GOP/Tea party saint - Ronald Reagan explains that fallacy in a matter of seconds.

https://youtu.be/mgn2LP1_YpA


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 18 months ago from Earth

d.williams -

When any one person requires another person to guarantee his income, without that person's permission, when even that person cannot guarantee his/her own income, it is never humanitarianism. It is Involuntary Servitude. Just tell me...by what right is this done? Name that right.

A company, in a laissez faire capitalist system, under a Constitutional form of government with basic rights (Life, Liberty and Property – property defined) can never order anyone to do anything. When one is 'ordered around' one is a slave.

Define a Wall Street Manipulator? If I sell stock in a company, is that bad?

If you argue percentages of taxes paid – that the middle class pay a higher one – then I would agree. But isn't it the real dollar amount that counts? Why must a billionaire living in a modest house, with all of his money in gold and stocks, pay more? He has the same needs. He requires police, a fire department, national defense, jails, prisons, courts – just as you and I. Sure the billionaire with the castle pays more for fire protection – he has more to protect! But why must he/she pay more simply because he/she has more? Why must you take his money? Greed?

In the U.S. any destitute citizen can walk into a Clinic and by order of Congress under President Reagan, the Hospital is ordered to treat. They can also volunteer to treat – and most of them did that before the order came. There are food stamps, WIC and all kinds of programs, from the government, which give food away. But somebody has to pay. The tax payers pay. Charity should be voluntary, never forced. Forced charity is slavery.

The Homeless. Many exist through no fault of there own. I have 'worked' with many. Many are mentally challenged, alcoholics or addicts. Some are criminals on the run. Some end up in Group Homes. The point is, if they would choose to go to a Church, a Charity or even the government – they would be housed and fed. Economic troubles can make one homeless, but there is help if one chooses to look. The Homeless problem is overblown in the U.S.

And I have helped the Homeless. Taken them from the streets, placed them in Halfway Houses, fed them, clothed them – all voluntarily. I was never ordered to do it. I once 'dried out' an expectant mother, whose husband was a 'crack head' - and her child was not addicted from the whom. I used any and all methods at my disposal and you know what – I found a charitable institution to do it. Not a government facility. No tax dollars helped her son come into this world with a chance to live un-addicted.

The government does throw food away. The government takes tax dollars and pays farmers to not-plant in order to keep prices high. In some cases the government buys cheese and packs it away in warehouses - to prevent low prices in the market. This is wrong. This is the fault of Government and Business getting together. They should be separated. This is not the fault of Capitalism, but a mixed-Socialist system.

Something you wrote: "There is no more compassion, or empathy left in our society." There is plenty in the U.S., but it won't necessarily find you. You'll need to look for it. Try churches, charities and neighbors. Your life is your responsibility.

Something else you wrote: "If you have ever been in the position of having some catastrophe in your lifetime and lose your minimal wage income for just a few months, you would understand that it is not by choice that most people end up on the streets." I have lost more than my job in the past. I've lost my business – during the bust. I also went belly-up when a shyster robbed three companies I was selling for. They caught him, but the money was gone. I got off of my arse and went back to work. Not on the dole yet.

I always think of that one-armed (no-legs) multimillionaire, I met. I have no excuses compared to him. None. I can stand up and walk – still. He use to grab a steel ring over his bed to lift himself onto his wheelchair each morning. He had no nurse to help him then. Now he can afford it, without the 'assistance' of Uncle Sam. Before he became wealthy, making an honest living – selling stuff over the phone – the neighborhood kids use to play a joke on him. They'd wait till late, when he was in bed – and ring his doorbell. Think about that. Kids can be cruel. He had to grab that ring over his bed, drag himself onto his wheelchair, navigate to the front door – only to find nobody there.

And what is wrong with fortunes handed down? Why must anyone be required to experience hardships? Must I break my arm to know that it's painful? If you give me a billion dollars, why is that dishonest? Unless you stole it. What is honest work? Do you mean digging ditches? If I was an accountant or a computer programmer or a Wall Street Trader – would I still be honest? If not, why not? You use charged words, but fail to back your emotional positions. It is emptiness.

How is the system manipulated? By big businesses asking for handouts. By the poor getting handouts? By naughty Congressman? Is this the only problem? Heck no.

Lobbyists who give money to Congressman to vote a certain way ought to be jailed. I'm with you there.

You wrote "Without social security (which does NOT come out of tax money by the way) the majority of retired folks would be living on the streets as well." Social Security taxes are collected from current workers and sent out to current retirees. The problem is that there are too few workers to sustain that forced redistribution of wealth. Certainly, they are generated from our taxes. Where else do they come from? Any ditch digger can show you his pay stub – in the U.S. "There", he will say "there is where they deduct for Social Security! Can't you see it? No? Do you need eyeglasses?"

I advocate the elimination of forced Social Security – slowly. I would not take a crack-head off of his drugs cold turkey – it could kill him. For that reason, Social Security should be fazed out. You are then in charge of your own money and no longer would you be allowed to live off of the back of others. I suggest a savings account. In the long run, you'd do much better, so long as Uncle Sammy does not take your money.

And to say that people would live in the streets if Social Security did not exist is incorrect. In America, Social Security does not pay enough. Most Financial Planners in America, worth their salt, advise you not to count on it. They advise you to save. Unfortunately, as we save and the government rapidly devalues our money and gives away billions of tax dollars to everyone – we are caught up that old nasty creek without a paddle. Hell, we don't even have the boat anymore. How do retirees cope? They get jobs at grocery stores. At McDonalds. At the Bowling Alley. I see them all of the time. Unless they were the smarter ones – the ones who invested wisely and pinched their nickels – the rich ones etc.

You wrote: "This video by the GOP/Tea party saint - Ronald Reagan explains that fallacy in a matter of seconds." I watched the video. I miss Reagan, but he pulled the wool right over your eyes. The Social Security Trust Fund, that alleged great big pile of money hidden away somewhere – does not exist. It is only an 'accounting' label. Social Security, like I indicated before, is a "pass through" mechanism. Current workers pay current retirees. So long as there are plenty of workers, the money keeps coming. But the parity is shrinking. Soon the government will once again raise the retirement age or reduce benefits. Either you are being purposely deceitful or you simply didn't know. But that is okay – most people do not know. Consider yourself enlightened. I hope you feel good about that.

Just saying...


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

Jgshorebird:

Odd reasoning to be sure. You are the cynical one here. You talk about the evils of being forced to put money into the S.S. retirement fund as if it is a bad thing, when it was designed to make sure people did not live in abject poverty in their old age.

The social security fund was to be kept separate from the General funds until some politicians found a way to "borrow" some of (or most of it) it for other purposes.

You also lump people with millions of earned dollars with the objections to corporate wealth, and manipulated wealth of wall street when in fact they are entirely separate entities.

If one thinks as you do, then it should never be mandatory to have a driver's license, auto insurance, or home insurance mandated by the lending institutions, etc...

My article on wall street might 'enlighten' you some:

http://hubpages.com/politics/The-History-of-the-Ne...

Selling stocks in a company and wall street manipulation are like comparing oranges and apples. I try to view things on a larger scale and can easily see how the 1% hoarding trillions of dollars without having the necessity just because they can do so by law is unconscionable.

Your rhetoric seems to fit the ramblings of the tea party people who offer only criticism and obstructionism without any logical or rational alternatives.

No, this is not a perfect world, or worse a corrupt government, but dismantling the government and destroying the planet for profit and greed is a worse alternative.

The average American has never learned how to manage his money, or manipulate the system for profit. But worse than that, being paid a stagnant wage when the cost of goods skyrockets annually prevents most people from ever being able to provide for retirement or even provide for their family's needs on a short term basis. And the people in the 1% bracket are enjoying record profits to add to their trillions.

I thank God for the benefits of social security in this country and hope it never goes away in spite of the hateful attacks on its institution by uncaring politicians who want that $$$ in the pockets of their benefactors and not in the pockets of the needy. I will keep my guardedly optimistic hopes for the future of humanity rather than simply accepting the continuation of the exaltation of greed by that 1%.


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 18 months ago from Earth

d.william -

Social Security was designed to force you to pay. That is not odd, but obvious. Try not to pay it. I will come and visit you in the Federal Pen. The design of a thing does not mean anything. That is like saying the ends justifies the means. If I can steal Warren Buffet's cash, I can give it to the poor – but I would be required to 'steal' it. That is the part you ignore. Some how, some way, as long as it is done for the alleged good of all – it is okay to live off of the backs of others. No it's not.

It is not mandatory to have a driver's license – unless you drive. You are not required to buy auto insurance if you take the train. You don't need to buy homeowners insurance, unless you own a home. There are ways to go around things – freely, but you are now required to have health insurance.

The 1% hoarders, as you call them – those that earned their wealth – well, it is theirs. So long as they did not steal it – you have zero rights to it. Lumping all of the 1% in as hoarders is the same thing Adolf Hitler did – well against the allegedly evil Jews. Do you recall what happened? The Russians did the same thing.

A law that allows people to own and keep what is rightfully theirs is moral. A law that takes from people without their permission is immoral. You advocate legalized theft.

I am no Tea Party person. They are a mixed bag. I am an Objectivist. I wish to obstruct the thieves. A rational system is readily available. It is called freedom. Freedom to trade freely. Freedom to live and not be killed. Freedom to pursue living, without being jailed for speaking out against the den of thieves. Freedom to earn, paint, sing, spit and curse. But don't spit on the sidewalk. That's kinda nasty. Someone might slip on your spit and then you will be rightfully sued.

I do not advocate dismantling the government – wow. How did you reason that one out? I merely wish to revisit the Bill of Rights. I think we need government for one thing – to stop the use of force between people and peoples. In other words we need courts, national defense, and jails and a way to administer it – on a national level. We don't need government schools, government health care, government retirement, and government money. If the government was smaller, it would be cheaper. Maybe a National voluntary lottery could pay for it then.

The point is – the government is too big now. It has wormed it's way into nearly every facet of our lives. We have a number from birth. We are tagged, labeled by race, categorized by income levels, and taxed to death; and after death.

We cannot save the planet – yet. Only our small slice of it. When you see that big company dumping toxic waste into the pond – you can take them the court. In corrupt countries – well, just keep your mouth shut. Lawyers in the U.S. lay in wait to make a names for themselves – a chance to expose the wrongs. But at the same time, those lawyers and doctors often keep quiet when it comes to telling folks like you that 'stealing' is wrong. That Welfare, enforced by law, is fraud. Thomas Jefferson said as much – and yes I know he owned slaves. Nobody is perfect – not even you.

The average American can't manage his money? Where? In South America? In the U.S. there is a bank willing to rip you off and offer you government money every second. Banks that manipulate the money supply with fractional reserve banking – as ordered by government. Go figure. So is it the banks or the government? Let us see – what if we separate the two? Tell the banks that you better hold sound money (backed by substance) or we will put you in the Federal Pen. Sounds good to me. But first you must de-slave the banking system and allow people to bank where and how they please.

Your point about stagnant wages and price increases is/are true, but have you chanced upon why prices continue to rise seemingly forever? It's called inflation. The government injects dollars into the system. The more injected, the less they are worth. The less they are worth, the more of them you will need to buy stuff. But given the new money – the electronic dollars – even the government is unsure just how much e-cash is out there. Uncle Sam has got your number. Not.

Do you know what form of money has never lost it's value? Gold and silver. They are still worth essentially the same. Even the average nickel is worth more than 5 cents. Pennies after what 1983? are now zinc – no longer copper. The devaluation continues, thanks to Uncle Sam. So it is not stagnant wages, but inflation, caused by government. Businesses must raise wages to keep up with the inflation, but there is a lag between the injection of money by government and the prices of goods/wages. During that time frame, we all lose. Even the rich dudes – unless they own things and not electronic dollars.

Why would anyone care if there were billionaires with gold bars in their bathtubs – so long as they earned them? It is not the wealthy destroying America, but the government. The wealthy, the ones who do not take tax dollars, who do not take government bail outs – they are not evil. The ones who do manipulate our government, are bad. But you cannot lump them all in.

I hope one day that Social Security is repealed and in place of it we require that you save your own money. It is more honest. These attacks are not hateful. These are efforts to right a great wrong. No one should be required to live for the sake of another. Need I name it again? Slavery.

And I think you have it backwards. Your immorality is based upon the use of force in social relationships. You see the accumulation of great wealth as Greed. But you have yet to say why. You remind me of the kid in the school yard asking if I would share my candy bar. The answer is no – go and buy your own. There are many candy bars out there. In fact, you can even make your own!

The exhalation of great advancements, inventions, computers, medical science - was done in order to accomplish a task and obtain the potential reward for doing so. What on God's earth is wrong with that? If your reward is cash or you give all your money away – the point is it was your reward. Society has no right to you or your stuff. Unless you are a subject, a serf, or a slave.

Politicians have no right to steal from me to give to the needy, by the way. That is theft.

Honesty is the best policy - haven't you heard?


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird:

You are correct in much of your assertions, and you are a formidable opponent for progressive minded people. The bottom line of it all is that in its present state our economy cannot sustain itself indefinitely. So we will see an inevitable crash that we cannot recover from.

My other pet peeves are the destruction of our planet by the oil/coal barons who want to take every last ounce of coal and oil out of the ground at any expense to make sure they get the last dollar for the last drop of oil and that last chunk of coal. Instead of looking for alternative and sustainable sources of power the oil barons and the government refuse to change course. They will win out for the length of their life times, but what will they leave the next generations as a legacy?

Greed is never good. Without proper government control over things we would devolve into anarchy with the NRA ruling the left over world with guns.

Without proper restraints put on those who live high on the hog at the top of the food chain, they will rule the planet and the 'commoners' like me will work til we die for a nominal fee whether we like it or not. Everyone cannot belong to the wealthy controlling 1%, so what is left is lords/masters and their servants/slaves. Only a strong government of the people can stop that from happening. We know that the current government is NOT that entity, ergo, we must know the inevitable ending for the next generations of those who will be born simply to serve the wealthy few.

Great conversations and thank you for your input in this article. It is well appreciated. Live long and prosper.

Dee


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 18 months ago from Earth

Last words...

Yes, the current state of the U.S.Economy is precarious. But we are not alone. Europe, Asia, the Middle East – all have problems.

But the oil producers only produce to fill a need. If nobody wanted oil, they would not exist. It's not them – it's us. And I seriously doubt that these alleged "barons" would or could remove all the coal. People would stop them. Look at New York. No Fracking allowed. Some of the land owners are angry because they lost money. It's the same in parts of Europe.

Oil, coal and shale are not just used for 'energy' but so many other things I cannot list them all. Clothing, plastics, medicines, computers, cell phones, lubrication etc. A new source of energy would not stop the need for oil. We would need to find a new source of plastics – an inexpensive one. Sure we can use corn and other plants for oil and plastic, but the processes are inefficient. There are even debates about using a food source for fuel. Could cause shortages, price increases, however.

So far, nobody has come up with a reliable alternate source of energy. Once that happens, that person will become very rich – unless he/she is a government employee. Government has no business in business, so they are not there to look for alternative anything, in my opinion.

We cannot stop all advancements, all attempts at progress, in the name of environment or the needy or wages or those greedy rich people. Worrying about the the air quality, global warming (or cooling), rising ocean levels is important. The only way out, however, is forward. With people caring about the planet, but not stopping desire of humans to improve and satisfy the needs and wants of everyone.

Humans will make mistakes, but humans want to live. Most humans do good, else our population would not be exploding across this planet, like a flower – not a virus. We would not be discovering new medicines, how to extend our lives, or even how to increase the gas mileage in our cars. Progress means survival. We need to solve the problems, but not by outlawing current technologies, such as drilling for oil or even 'safe' Fracking. Living can be tough and dirty work, but it beats the other thing.

Progress can be dirty, it can harm the environment, but then we complain and filters are placed on smoke stacks. The days of choking smog are going away. Not so in China. There, you must choke. No good way to redress your grievances in Bejing. A place where very corrupt officials are in cahoots with the oligarchs. At least in the U.S. it is not yet that bad.

About Greed. You never define it. Is it the when one takes from another? That is theft, not greed. Is it when one produces a million Ipads, sells them and makes billions? That is production, success – not Greed. Is it when Warren Buffet makes billions trading stocks? That's trade, not greed. Does Warren need a billion extra dollars? That's none of our business.

Trading stocks and owning companies is not (usually) theft, just like trading marbles is not stealing. Are there only so many marbles? Maybe. Does that fact give anyone the right to a 'fair share'? Nope. You must trade for your marbles. Even in the playground, you cannot approach the kid, the best marble player and demand a few marbles – you'd be smacked. You'd better polish up on your marble skills or go home and pout. Perhaps your parents will take you to Walmart and buy you a few marbles. Maybe you can get a marble loan or some charity marbles, but don't go door-to-door, with a group of thugs (a majority of people in a dictatorship-democracy) and demand a few marbles from each family – simply because you have less.

Greed is one of those vague words. It can mean so much and so very little. Avarice, power, an unquenchable desire for marbles etc. It is a broad stoke paint brush, charged with emotions that has little use in debate – for that very reason. One must be more specific. Again, if one just applies the definition in greed to mean the 'super desire to be rich' – so long as you voluntarily 'trade' for you wealth – you have not harmed anyone. If you used the government to eliminate all competition and create a monopoly for yourself – well then you have done wrong. So there is good and bad greed – hence it is a virtually useless word, but fun to debate.

To say that the government must control things is yet another very vague idea. Must the government tell the Bill Gates's of the world to stop programming or to do it for free? Bill is too rich right? He has too many marbles. He must be arrested? No – we just need to get into his 'marble bags' and redistribute. It's only fair. Fair to who or whom? Not to Bill – since you just made him a slave, so you could confiscate a new bag of marbles. Sounds pretty immoral to me. Bill might just take all of his marbles and leave the playground then.

The NRA ruling if the government didn't control 'things'? How would that ever happen? A lot of Americans own guns. Most are not NRA members. I'm not. I own weapons. If the NRA attempted to take over America I'll guarantee you one thing: it would be one hell of a fight.

And what is "proper government control"? Governments are not supposed to control anything. Governments are only supposed to "protect". Governments do this by passing laws and executing them, but these laws must be reviewed by the representatives of the people and the courts. No law can (should) order anyone to do anything. That would be the initiation of force. Laws should only order people not to kill each other, not to steal from each other, and not the kidnap each other – protection. Police, Armies, Courts and Jails. That's the idea. Laws which order Peter to pay Paul are immoral, if Paul just wants a 'fair share' of marbles.

Living "high on the hog"? It is not immoral to be rich. The rich spend money and help support the economy. They have been unable, so far, to rule our planet, but many governments have tried. Even Hitler, who was a billionaire (he stole his wealth) tried it - but he was the government.

The top of the food chain? Bad comparison. We are not fish in America. We can start a business any time we like and become rich. Or we can save over a lifetime and retire in comfort. It is a choice. We are not yet forced to remain poor, but the government is working on it.

The 'law of the jungle' only exists in less free countries, such as China – where the rich corrupt government officials who then make immoral laws. Laws which cannot be reviewed by anyone. China has a 'food chain', but in America not as much.

Commoners will suffer? Possibly – if governments grow unchecked.

We do not serve the wealthy – we serve the government. The wealthy must use 'law' in order to get you to serve them. Force you to buy health insurance for example. You think that Health Insurance companies are not raking in the profits? Just wait until the government gets the bill in a few years. They will then order – if ObamaCare is not repealed – doctors to reduce care. Insurance companies, doctors, pharmacies – could all be 'changed'. How would you like to go to your doctor's office and it be like the DMV or the highly efficient (sarcasm) Post Office?

A strong government is the path to serfdom, if by strong you mean "large". Russia and China both have 'strong' governments – but the people are far less free. Nazi Germany had a strong government. We don't need a "strong" government, but a small efficient government. We need to "cull the herd" of Federal Agencies wasting trillions of dollars. We need to get back to the basics, not grow a behemoth we would never be able to control.

The 1% are not taking your dollars and devaluing them. The government is. They are making us all poor. The government is adding substitute marbles to the bag. Substitute marbles made from rolled up toilet paper. Actually, the government made us throw our real marbles (gold) away many years ago. That way they are free to create this 'fantasy wealth'. Have you ever tried to play with paper marbles? They don't last long. Don't worry – now Uncle Sam will e-print marbles right into your bank. Faster and faster...until what??? Hyper-Inflation?


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird: thanks again for you comments.


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south Author

jgshorebird:

To comment on your comments that i did not define greed you might want (or not) to read the hub i published a couple of years ago:

http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Anatomy-of-Greed-...

I hope this clarifies this false characterization you have adopted toward my views.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working