Desiderata (Excerpts).
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story.
Many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.
No less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
Keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
--- Max Ehrmann, 1927
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The wealthy deserve their wealth??
Kia-ora
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
Those at the top, got there, mostly, because of A) inherited wealth, B) the old boy network. (The real advantage of private schooling). C)total psychopathic self interest and disregard for others. (Called theft when done by those at the bottom).
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.