The Economic Gap has Exceeded the Tolerance Limit

[tulusikhlas]

You are correct if this is measured by the reality of life in some developing countries as well as developed countries. There is still an overlap between the two groups of rich and poor people, so that equality of life will never be achieved at any time. It has become a cycle where the rich and poor will need each other. Rich people need poor people to work and complete the work given, then the poor people also need income to survive.

[coupable]

Did anyone read it all? Das Kapital is an academic book and not a simple book that can be understood by anybody. Me myself i am not an economist netheir a politician, but i read other books written by Marx or Engles or both of them like "The comunist Manifesto" with few books of Lenine. Honestly, i think i can resume the whole theory from a non-ideologic view point.

A lot of poeple did, I know myself others besides me that did.
Don't know their motivation but for me, it's quite the fun, although I dislike socialism as much as humanly possible. But that didn't stop me from reading it just how being on atheist level considering my relative's ideas didn't stop me from reading the Bible or the Quran, or how I read Mein Kamf despite believing Hitler to be an idiot.
No, even if some indeed are referring to it as an academic book, first of all, Marx was not really an economist, he was more a philosopher, so don't expect anything too deep there, second, remember this was written almost two centuries ago by a guy who's education was completed exactly two centuries ago   so a lot of things he said there should be treated with the same seriousness as Noah's ark.

I think it's amazing to read Das Kapital. I did always want to read it but i ignored it because i didn't found a good translation to my native language. And as i didn't read it, i can't discuss it in details, but i have general idea about marxisme and dialictic.
If i can resume my journey with marxism books, and from the bboks i read, i can't tell that Karl Marx had spent his life writing bulshits. Maybe you analyse his thoughts with a mind in 21 century while you should put yourself in his time (back to 1800) and see if this was a revolutionary phylosofy or not.
I respect your point of vue, but i really don't think Marx writings can considered in the same category as Noah's ark (mythology) .

And within the same op context, i also thought about natural ressurces who are only exploited to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in a global economy by which we should all have to natural ressources in a fair way.

You see, this is why I asked you if you've read it.
Marx was never actually concerned with the natural resources, nor how are they exploited and definitely not the impact, as there was no such thing then as peak oil or global warming. Quite interesting also he completely denied Malthus's theory, probably because unlike Malthus who died before seeing a tractor Marx was quite familiar with the advancement in manufacturing, which of course posed a different problem for him.
So unfortunately none of those concepts you refer to can be found in Marx's theories because simply put, those were not the problems of the 19th century.

Yes i can undertood how you understood my point. Maybe i didn't succeed to express my ideas in the right way. Sorry i am note a native English and still face few difficulties to practice it .

[fiulpro]

Definately.

I do remember the time when we had political science in schools and we were introduced to cartoons based on reality. Apparently one made a huge impact on me. The one where there was a rich person with a huge bag full of money and holding it, whereas the poor person was sitting next to a crack in the ground. It was written *the rich keeps getting richer and the poor keeps getting poorer*

What I do think is that the only way this might work out for the people who are poor/ middle class is when the government would finally change their ways, their laws, their laws are centered around rich people and due to corruption they are also made by the rich people as well, therefore at the end of the day I do believe, this needs a lot of evolution for the long term. Plus education should be considered a basic right for everyone.

[Cnut237]

Equality is a strange thing.

Those who don't want to work. Who take no risks, make little effort to educate themselves or develop specialized skillsets. Feel they deserve to enjoy the wealth and prosperity which comes from working hard, taking risks and becoming wealthy as a result. They wish to create a society where there are no winners or losers in society. Everyone receives a participation trophy. No matter if they worked hard. Or didn't work at all. No matter if they made good decisions or bad decisions.

One narrative behind abolishing meritocracy. Punishing winners and billionaires. Is to create a society where laziness, ignorance, immorality and bad decision making are rewarded. It could represent a regressive trend.

There's a difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. It's inequality of opportunity that needs to be addressed. I don't think many people would advocate for absolute equality of outcome irrespective of talent, skill, ambition, risk-taking, ingenuity etc. But I believe most people can see that it is unjust that some people are basically guaranteed success from birth, whilst many others are all but guaranteed failure. I mean, most of the political leaders in my country over the last hundred (and more) years went to the same fee-paying school as kids, the self-perpetuating elite, born to rule.

If someone from a poor background breaks through and becomes a success, they're rightly lauded... but the entire reason it is newsworthy is because it's such a rare occurrence.

I think much of the anger in society stems from people feeling cheated, not that they never got a reward, but that they never got much of a chance. Disparities of outcome is a secondary issue.

[kryptqnick]

I agree that it's not fair, and that redistribution is very important. The gap has been widening over decades, and that's not supposed to be happening when society is getting more prosperous. That's why it's important to adjust tax legislation to ensure that the richest people in the world can't get away with paying low or zero taxes. It's also important to change the culture itself, so that it's considered a matter of prestige not to own tons of houses, planes and cars (for instance, due to the environmental impact), and to pour your extra wealth into socially responsible initiatives of your choice (donating to human rights organizations, opening schools and hospitals, setting up scholarships for the least advantaged people). I think more people should read Rawls and consider his approach to justice, where justice (realistically) is when the most advantaged help out the most disadvantaged to balance the system out.

[henmark]

I agree that it's not fair, and that redistribution is very important. The gap has been widening over decades, and that's not supposed to be happening when society is getting more prosperous. That's why it's important to adjust tax legislation to ensure that the richest people in the world can't get away with paying low or zero taxes.

The gap is widening for many reasons; if a lazy man and his family suffers due to poverty then we cannot do anything about that but if a family suffers due to inefficient or corrupted government then I agree redistribution of economy worldwide is more important. In my opinion, all the human across this globe must get same level of opportunities and then they will build their wealth up to their efforts.

But, I am not ready to agree that gap in economic is not exceeding the tolerance limit; because we do have this same kind of situation for years and nothing major happened due to this. At the same time, rich are becoming richer and poor becomes more poorer. So, some initiative we must need right away.

[Sterbens]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

It isn't. And I think I've already grown to a certain age and probably seen enough of how humanity works that I consider anybody raising this issue as naïve. I mean, the issue is legit, of course. It calls for action. We, as individual persons and collectively as human beings, should address it.

Alas, fairness is an abstract word which might prove to be impossible to expect from humans in real life. The intolerable economic chasm within humanity is already the sum-total; it is already the general illustration. It is already the bigger picture of how it is actually impossible for humans to be humans. If we go down to the second-to-second, minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day interactions between one human being to another human being, you will realize that fairness is a helpless concept.

We are not God who can create endless justice. But we are endowed with reason to make a path of justice at least one second for many people to feel. For example, a few months ago in early January I went to a place where a natural disaster was flooding, which was caused by the felling of trees without selective logging by factories protected by the government (damn) resulting in rainwater not being absorbed by the trees and consequently affecting the residential areas of surrounding communities. For almost 1 month distributing aid from donors in the form of food, drinks, clothing and temporary shelter to accommodate victims who lost their homes and all their valuables.

We can't create justice that makes them happy forever, but we have a duty to cheer them up so that they can at least smile for a short time and feel like there's still someone out there who cares. That's when the rich people's economy is tested and should be able to care.

[Darker45]

~snip~

~snip~

We are not God who can create endless justice. But we are endowed with reason to make a path of justice at least one second for many people to feel. For example, a few months ago in early January I went to a place where a natural disaster was flooding, which was caused by the felling of trees without selective logging by factories protected by the government (damn) resulting in rainwater not being absorbed by the trees and consequently affecting the residential areas of surrounding communities. For almost 1 month distributing aid from donors in the form of food, drinks, clothing and temporary shelter to accommodate victims who lost their homes and all their valuables.

We can't create justice that makes them happy forever, but we have a duty to cheer them up so that they can at least smile for a short time and feel like there's still someone out there who cares. That's when the rich people's economy is tested and should be able to care.

While I am not saying that human beings are necessarily bad and unjust and unfair, the problem with us is that we always want to be pleased. So when we lend a hand, it is almost always to please ourselves more than pleasing others. The direction would always be inward or toward us. There's oftentimes a helping hand, especially in times of disaster, but the primary consideration would always be that it shouldn't be too bothersome. Or if it is, at least there will be a kind of compensation in whatever form. Humans always ask first, "what's in it for me?" We always have motives.

I've been involved in a number of disaster projects in the past, and the common thing when disaster strikes is that, except those who are hapless victims to the tragedy themselves, people are joyous. When disaster strikes, there's money overflowing; there's opportunity for tax discounts plus free promotion; there's a huge demand for goods; and so forth.

[Cnut237]

I've been involved in a number of disaster projects in the past, and the common thing when disaster strikes is that, except those who are hapless victims to the tragedy themselves, people are joyous. When disaster strikes, there's money overflowing; there's opportunity for tax discounts plus free promotion; there's a huge demand for goods; and so forth.

This is quite a depressing revelation. I have never been close to a disaster zone, and have no experience of such a situation. Do you think an element of the joy might be poorly-expressed relief from the survivors that they themselves could have been victims, and are thankful for having a narrow escape? Or is it really merely an absence of empathy?

[Mauser]

I understand your frustration and fully agree with you, its not fair. There is no real argument why any one person needs more than 1 bn USD. How can you spend such kind of money in a lifetime? I wish we as ordinary humans could do something, unfortunately it's not realistic at the moment. In my opinion society is not ready to make policies on a global level. When it comes to Super rich we can't just change the laws in one country. Let's say in USA, China or Europe we would create a wealth tax of 25% above 10 million net worth, then the rich would just find ways to circumvent the law. First of all rich people like to put their money in trust and not in their personal names. So it becomes hard to proof that one person owns all that money. And we still have plenty of tax havens in the world. As long as small countries compete against each other to attract the most rich people in the world it is not going up work. Also the most trastic way is for the super rich to get out of some form of wealth redistribution would be to return their passport and become a citizen of a different country.

[davis196]

This reality isn't fair,but guess what?It isn't supposed to be fair.
Capitalism isn't fair,but do you think that feudalism was fair?Do you think that the slave-ownership system that was before feudalism was fair?I don't think so.
Communists and socialists were promising a fair world,but their totalitarian regimes weren't fair and they failed miserably.
The human civilization exists in a system that cannot be changed-a rich minority dominates over the poor majority.Any attempt to change that system ruins everything.
Perhaps the people in North Korea are equal,but Kim and the party elite are privileged and control the entire country,so there's no equality even in a communist country.

[Darker45]

I've been involved in a number of disaster projects in the past, and the common thing when disaster strikes is that, except those who are hapless victims to the tragedy themselves, people are joyous. When disaster strikes, there's money overflowing; there's opportunity for tax discounts plus free promotion; there's a huge demand for goods; and so forth.

This is quite a depressing revelation. I have never been close to a disaster zone, and have no experience of such a situation. Do you think an element of the joy might be poorly-expressed relief from the survivors that they themselves could have been victims, and are thankful for having a narrow escape? Or is it really merely an absence of empathy?

People in ground zero are expected to be devastated. When I said there's actually joy in disaster, I was referring to majority of the government agencies, politicians, private companies, NGOs, and other organizations and agencies that are responding to it. They may seem to be the good Samaritans, but most of them are actually just exploiting the opportunities provided by disasters.

There's so much money during disasters. Calamity funds are released. Strict procurement laws could be waived. All kinds of grants and aids are coming from all directions. There's also a spike in the demand of certain goods and services. Infrastructure and all kinds of projects abound. Corruption almost always accompanies disaster response efforts.

So whenever the rich helps the poor, it does not necessarily mean the rich means it. It could simply mean that by helping, the rich gains something.

[DrBeer]

Everything sounds nice, but there are a couple of points:
1. The income and "assets" of the listed people are not money! Imagine ! They don't have a warehouse with wads of money! They have a market value for their tangible and intangible assets.
2. Secondly, they earned them and paid taxes. And they gave jobs to many people. And they built a lot of things - for people.
Now the question is - why should they take, sell all their factories, factories, patents, and give money to those who have been fed with the whole world for decades so that they can eat it again?
And let's add a tax to you and the rest of the citizens - will you just give 25% of your income to feed those people? Or at least 10%? Do you agree?

[RealMalatesta]

This reality isn't fair,but guess what?It isn't supposed to be fair.
Capitalism isn't fair,but do you think that feudalism was fair?Do you think that the slave-ownership system that was before feudalism was fair?I don't think so.
Communists and socialists were promising a fair world,but their totalitarian regimes weren't fair and they failed miserably.
The human civilization exists in a system that cannot be changed-a rich minority dominates over the poor majority.Any attempt to change that system ruins everything.
Perhaps the people in North Korea are equal,but Kim and the party elite are privileged and control the entire country,so there's no equality even in a communist country.

Why do you believe about socialism to be something that is only happening in the bad parts of the world? I mean yeah China, NK, USSR, and the likes all had dictators and communism and it was a bad situation. However if you look at Europe, they have way more socialism than USA and even UK to an extent and they are doing fine? It is not even about countries like Norway or Sweden anymore because they have been miles miles ahead of everyone else in politics, they are literally the best nations when it comes to politics.

However nations like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and many others are still doing it better than USA as well. They have free schools, free healthcare and many other things and they are surviving. Ones like Italy and Greece have national debt and near bankrupt levels, but they are using euro currency and saved, USA has tons of debt, more debt than any other nation AND not have free education or healthcare.

It is clear to me that socialism does work, just in small doses. Does France have McDonalds? starbucks? Sure they do, they are semi-capitalist that way, but they have free education and healthcare as well along with it. Just because you have one doesn't mean you suddenly become USSR.

[TheEconomists]

Op, what do you mean by being fair as no one has restricted any body from becoming rich but it is by individual efforts and plans that one has for his life. The money is still out there for whoever has the initiative to make out of it and can even become more richer than those numbers you mentioned.

[stompix]

Why do you believe about socialism to be something that is only happening in the bad parts of the world? I mean yeah China, NK, USSR, and the likes all had dictators and communism and it was a bad situation. However if you look at Europe, they have way more socialism than USA and even UK to an extent and they are doing fine?

 It is not even about countries like Norway or Sweden anymore because they have been miles miles ahead of everyone else in politics, they are literally the best nations when it comes to politics.

But lets' do talk about Norway and Sweden.
First, the interesting fact, they have more billionaires per capita than the US.
Sweden is for example the top 6 country in the world by the numbers of millionaires per capita. Hardly socialist!
Oh wait, they are not even socialist in the first place, do I have to post again the statement from their politics stating clearly they all are capitalist countries with a free market economy?

Also, there is one major important fact!
Unlike Venezuela who was a wealthy country that turn socialist and into ruin, nordic counties which have implemented social welfare (not socialism) to a higher degree than other countries were wealthy before that!
Let's look at other angles, what's the minimum wage in Sweden? Oh wait, they don't have one! Hardly socialist again!

So, bottom line, what makes in your opinion any of the nordic countries socialist?

Does France have McDonalds? starbucks?.Sure they do, they are semi-capitalist that way, but they have free education and healthcare as well along with it.

China has McDonald's, so does Belarus, and guess who...Venezuela!
So I have a feeling you don't have a clue what capitalism really means.
You're messing economic models with forms of goverment.

[DrBeer]

This reality isn't fair,but guess what?It isn't supposed to be fair.
Capitalism isn't fair,but do you think that feudalism was fair?Do you think that the slave-ownership system that was before feudalism was fair?I don't think so.
Communists and socialists were promising a fair world,but their totalitarian regimes weren't fair and they failed miserably.
The human civilization exists in a system that cannot be changed-a rich minority dominates over the poor majority.Any attempt to change that system ruins everything.
Perhaps the people in North Korea are equal,but Kim and the party elite are privileged and control the entire country,so there's no equality even in a communist country.

Why do you believe about socialism to be something that is only happening in the bad parts of the world? I mean yeah China, NK, USSR, and the likes all had dictators and communism and it was a bad situation. However if you look at Europe, they have way more socialism than USA and even UK to an extent and they are doing fine? It is not even about countries like Norway or Sweden anymore because they have been miles miles ahead of everyone else in politics, they are literally the best nations when it comes to politics.

However nations like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and many others are still doing it better than USA as well. They have free schools, free healthcare and many other things and they are surviving. Ones like Italy and Greece have national debt and near bankrupt levels, but they are using euro currency and saved, USA has tons of debt, more debt than any other nation AND not have free education or healthcare.

It is clear to me that socialism does work, just in small doses. Does France have McDonalds? starbucks? Sure they do, they are semi-capitalist that way, but they have free education and healthcare as well along with it. Just because you have one doesn't mean you suddenly become USSR.

Nobody says that socialism is bad! It is bad that such antihuman regimes as in China, Russia and the cesspools they created such as DPR / LPR / PMR, Abkhazia, North Korea and the like. But they have nothing in common with socialism - there is quite ordinary, anti-human totalitarianism, with militarism.
For example, the inhabitants of the USSR lied for decades that they live in socialism and communism is ahead They lived in poverty, wretchedness and backwardness. Developing habits that a beggarly life is good. A well-fed, well-to-do, thinking citizen is not beneficial to totalitarian regimes. An extremely narrow-minded, stupid population is needed, with one question - how to survive and eat.

[Cnut237]

When I said there's actually joy in disaster, I was referring to majority of the government agencies, politicians, private companies, NGOs, and other organizations and agencies that are responding to it. They may seem to be the good Samaritans, but most of them are actually just exploiting the opportunities provided by disasters.

Thanks, yes, I understand what you mean now, and agree completely. There are always people who will try to make money out of anything, no matter the situation, there are plenty of people who see human suffering not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity.

no one has restricted any body from becoming rich but it is by individual efforts and plans that one has for his life. The money is still out there for whoever has the initiative to make out of it

You are assuming that everyone has a fair chance in life, which is certainly not the case. Would Trump, for example, have become president if he had been born into a poor family?

[DrBeer]

It is clear to me that socialism does work, just in small doses. Does France have McDonalds? starbucks? Sure they do, they are semi-capitalist that way, but they have free education and healthcare as well along with it. Just because you have one doesn't mean you suddenly become USSR.

I will have to upset you - in the USSR there was neither socialism, nor FREE education and medicine. Moreover, they were not "the best in the world" as we were told. I myself lived during the Soviet era, so I have something to remember and talk about. For "free" everyone paid a price much higher than paid education and paid medicine in the West. Of course, propaganda in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries worked well ... But the inhabitants of the USSR always wanted "capitalist disadvantages" rather than "Soviet advantages"

[Congyang]

this is indeed a bitter irony but indeed things like this will definitely not be eliminated because surely things like this will always exist, especially for countries with very high mobility.
Social inequality like this cannot be avoided and there will always be barriers for the rich and the poor.
although not everyone thinks and thinks this exists, some people still make caste a circle and between the rich and the poor it is very difficult to become a circle.