Its Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich

[L. Coyote]

If this were a societal value, Trump would not be president.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/03/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

A reminder that people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty…
by A.Q. Smith

Here is a simple statement of principle that doesn’t get repeated enough: if you possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people struggle because they do not have much money, you are an immoral person. The same is true if you possess hundreds of millions of dollars, or even millions of dollars. Being extremely wealthy is impossible to justify in a world containing deprivation.

Even though there is a lot of public discussion about inequality, there seems to be far less talk about just how patently shameful it is to be rich. After all, there are plenty of people on this earth who die—or who watch their loved ones die—because they cannot afford to pay for medical care. There are elderly people who become homeless because they cannot afford rent. There are children living on streets and in cars, there are mothers who can’t afford diapers for their babies. All of this is beyond dispute. And all of it could be ameliorated if people who had lots of money simply gave those other people their money. It’s therefore deeply shameful to be rich. It’s not a morally defensible thing to be.

To take a U.S. example: white families in America have 16 times as much wealth on average as black families. This is indisputably because of slavery, which was very recent (there are people alive today who met people who were once slaves). Larry Ellison of Oracle could put his $55 billion in a fund that could be used to just give houses to black families, not quite as direct “reparations” but simply as a means of addressing the fact that the average white family has a house while the average black family does not. But instead of doing this, Larry Ellison bought the island of Lanai. (It’s kind of extraordinary that a single human being can just own the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, but that’s what concentrated wealth leads to.) Because every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others.

Note that this is a slightly different point than the usual ones made about rich people. For example, ................

[Jonny Appleseed]

1. I agree but if I were rich I wouldn't agree and use all means I have to make others feel the same

[sarcasmo]

2. Greed is a disease.

The super wealthy can't stop at 10 million, 50 million, 500 million, or a billion. Coming from nothing, why does one need 55 billion?

[Initech]

46. It's an addiction.

The uber wealthy are completely addicted to their wealth and they just want more and more. They're bleeding us dry and getting obscenely rich in the process. Our wages are declining and their wealth is increasing. It's fucking sickening.

[Orrex]

3. America worships wealth and sanctifies income disparity

The wealthy keep reminding the serfs that they're ultimately worthless, and the serfs piss on other serfs every chance they get. In discussions of you'll find no one more passionately opposed to boosting public assistance or raising the minimum wage than people already living in the lower income brackets.

[L. Coyote]

7. Wealth disparity seems to be the cause of civilization collapse over and over again.

In the case of Rome, one thousand years passed before the Enlightenment finally arrived, and 500 years later, people are still doing all they can to prevent it and restore slavery.

[Orrex]

9. Great (and tragic) point

There might be something to that whole "love of money is the root of all evil" stuff after all...

[dawg]

4. Yes, but keep in mind that ...

almost *all* of us here are "rich" by the standards of the struggling people of the world.

[SarahPalinSucks]

8. Yup nt

[greytdemocrat]

20. Send me all your $$$

Dammit!!!

[Stargazer99]

77. How rich are you when your loved one dies because there isn't enough money to pay the doctor?

[dawg]

81. Not very, which is why I can't blame people for wanting to build or maintain a nest egg.

I have family members who depend on me. It's very possible that one, or more, of my children might never be able to hold a decent job that would pay enough money to provide for their needs.

My assets (mostly inherited) would qualify me as "rich" by most people's measures. But my family's financial need is so great that it still isn't enough. We are drowning in bills - medical and drug bills in particular. My financial assets are gradually dwindling, and I do without lots of little luxuries that "poorer" people can often afford, in order to slow the decline.

It's not evil for me to try and maintain the money that I have. I have good reasons for doing so.

[Stargazer99]

82. when family dies because there isn't enough money for doctors

I would not call that rich

[dawg]

85. I agree with you. I am "rich", but I'm still struggling.

I just think it's wrong to make a blanket statement that it's immoral to be rich, because until this country starts actually taking care of it's people, the only "moral" thing to do is to hang onto every dime that you can, so long as you have people who depend on you.

[beachbum bob]

5. Success should not be villified....Nor discouraged..

But fair share of cost can be discussed..

[PETRUS]

13. Don't be ridiculous

The Nazis succeeded in killing millions of Jews. White people successfully enslaved millions of Africans. And a small percentage of the population succeeds in capturing quite a bit of the value produced by people working for wages and salaries. Why shouldn't we vilify such things?

[Major Nikon]

21. Should you be vilified for having a full stomach while almost a billion people go hungry?

[PETRUS]

24. That's absurd.

There's nothing here to suggest that survival is morally suspect.

[Major Nikon]

31. That's disingenuous

Not talking about survival, but having anything more than you need while others do not.

[kcr]

68. Nice move of the goal posts there. You need to eat to survive. n/t

[Major Nikon]

108. So you only have as much as you need to survive and nothing else?

The goalposts aren't mine, btw. I'm just trying to understand where they are.

[Marengo]

71. Do you consume a calorie more than is absolutely necessary for survival?

[Stargazer99]

83. wealth goes beyond adequate food and shelter..one needs more?

[Major Nikon]

107. That was my question

If those who have more should be vilified for no other reason than having more than what is adequate, then that includes virtually everyone who lives in the US.

[Stargazer99]

78. the monetary system is the problem it is not being used for the good of all

[Yo_Mama]

6. Hillary Clinton is not rich???? Her child isn't rich? Her husband isn't rich?

There were many arguments that held for Hillary in the last election, but this is the poorest I've ever seen.

[Adrahil]

10. There is nothing wrong, IMO, with seeking wealth, per se...

As pointed out by others, even poor Americans have it much better than most of world. And I personally seek a comfortable and enjoyable life for myself. BUT....

We MUST have a way of counteracting the tendency of a capital-based economy from concentrating wealth and starving the general population of the capital they need to establish long term economic stability and wealth, even if its modest. We need ways of ensuring that the working and middle classes remain vital.

Some economic inequality is good for an economy. It helps drive ambition and innovation. But left unchecked, it can strangle the life right out of it.

[radius777]

16. agree, and as you outlined, wealth is relative.

those of us who live in the industrialized west (the 1st world) are the 'one percent' relative to the rest of the world, not just in terms of economics but also in terms of rights, opportunities and quality of life. most of us have leisure time to watch tv, go online, eat our favorite foods, go outside and take a walk, and basically do whatever we wish. most humans in this world have no such freedoms and luxuries.

wealth is merely a form of power/status, of which there are many types/forms that all tend to distribute unequally. in many ways this is simply how life is. status/power is not inherently bad, it is what one does with it that can be good or bad.

i guess i have more of a center-left perspective on this. capitalism can be a good thing that (as you stated) that helps to advance humanity forward. but of course it can also be destructive and oppressive. a balance that prioritizes the middle class in this world (and not just the middle class in the west, after all we live in a global economy) is what is needed.

[jmg257]

11. How much can one make before they just suck?

Is that total net worth?

[grossproffit]

17. Good question.

[Yupster]

22. Yes, good question

I have quite a bit.

I'm trying to decide if I have enough to retire. It's hard to say with inflation and stock market crashes in the future. I want to have enough that even with those things I will not be a burden to anyone else no matter how long I live.

If you've got a number for me, it would be a help.

[X_Digger]

93. $1 more than the author, of course. n/t

[milestogo]

12. Bill and Melinda Gates are very wealthy

but they do spend most of their time using that wealth to help others.

No they aren't perfect, but they are a good example who want to use their wealth to make the world a better place. And they are not the only ones.

[PETRUS]

14. Maybe so, but maybe not.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/philanthropy-charity-banga-carnegie-gates-foundation-development/

[Kentonio]

102. That article kind of annoys me.

The whole piece is basically suggesting that because Bill Gates isn't directing the money towards things the author thinks he should be, that someone there's no real good being done. Those snide little jabs at his donations to schemes run by the likes of Vodaphone and Mastercard completely ignore the reason for the donations. It's not about giving free money to big corporations, its about encouraging powerful corporations to engage in programs that could help small companies and people in poor countries gain access to tools they don't currently have, which would help them lift themselves economically. It's basically little more than an advanced version of 'give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he'll eat for a lifetime'.

Given the vast number of billionaires who contribute squat to the world, I get kind of angry when people look for ways to run down the likes of Gates and Buffet who are spending tens of billions trying to improve the world. Their solutions might not be the ones that previous charity groups have tried or prefer, but so what? I'd rather see the outcomes from innovators and blue sky thinkers to see what actually might be possible, instead of just trashing anything that doesn't suit everyones preference.

[HughBeaumont]

15. For every one of them, there are 10 Sheldon Adelsons.

And for every one that's down a monetary tier from the Gates family that agrees with the Gates, there are 100 below Sheldon that agrees with him.

This disproportionate mindset runs this nation.

THAT'S the problem.

[brooklynite]

33. Of course, the OP doesn't call out exemptions...

[QC]

18. I wish they would stop meddling with education. n/t

[LAS14]

19. I would happily be a pure socialist and share my...

... higher than average "wealth," if a structure were created to make it work. I believe in the sincerity of the Gateses and Clintons and Buffets when the work for laws that would increase their own taxes.

We all have to work for change, even incremental change.

[onenote]

80. You could give away everything you have that exceeds the "average" wealth, whatever that is.

[LAS14]

88. To whom?

[onenote]

91. one or more persons who, upon receipt of your giveaway, would not exceed "average' wealth.

[ProudLib72]

23. Isn't it a sin to covet your neighbor's goodies?

Sorry, but this rant is doing exactly that through a lens of social concern. Take the liberal elitist argument that has been going around and turn it into monetary elitist. You can control only your own actions. If you are truly concerned over economic disparity, find a way to make more money so you can distribute it how ever you'd like. Just don't decide what everyone else MUST do with their money.

[JCanete]

54. you automatically assume that a billionaire has it because they earned it all, not because,

the system in part helped them to achieve it...not because luck had anything at all to do with it. Wanting it for yourself is coveting. Wanting it not to be hoarded so that people in places don't starve, is not. Human rights are continually, continuously, being violated. People are being exploited, and in too many ways, the people who have billions, have benefitted from some exploitation or another. "When you make it you can distribute it however you like?"""""""

What the hell? You do know what that sounds like don't you? Its not like its just about what they do with their money according to the law of the land, it is about the fact that they literally shape the law of the land so that it protects their money, so that other people can't get a piece, so that people have a hard time even suing against injustice, etc. etc.

As a society, that is what we do. We decide what our laws regarding wealth are going to be. That is our job. There is no such thing as a meritocracy. There is no such thing as a purely free market. There is no such thing as EARNING everything you had on your lonesome. The system helped you to do that, or hell maybe it fought you every step of the way and you overcame it until it stopped fighting you and started helping you and kept fighting others. I'm not willing to accept the notion that those who have so so so so much and have it because the system worked for them, have rightful ownership of all of it, and those who have so so so little have no right to even the basics. But apparently you disagree.

[ProudLib72]

95. Nope, I didn't say they earned it

If you want to change the tax codes, fine by me. I totally agree that they need to be changed to tax the shit out of the wealthy. If you want to set caps on people's salaries, fine by me again. The CEO of a major insurance should not be making $187K per day. Super PACs? Fuck them!

However, when you start telling people what they must do with the money they have left after taxes, then I have a problem. Let me put it this way, since I am sure that I make less than you then I get to tell you that you must put half of your pay toward a certain charity of my liking. Don't like that? Tough! I'm impoverished, so I get to decide. And you think that is democratic?

[JCanete]

96. sounds reasonable. I'm certainly not into morally villainizing people, and thought the title

Last edited Wed Apr 5, 2017, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

of the op was a little problematic for sure. I guess I understand the impulse to ask though, these people have so much, and could literally, with a certain ease, reduce suffering in places and still be quite well off, so how can they sit by the sidelines and not do that thing?

It is certainly more complicated than that though, and I don't actually think they are bad people for not doing what they could. That just makes them people really.

[meadowlander]

59. Only in a book written by Bronze Age "neighbours" with lots of goodies they wanted to keep.

If you are truly concerned over economic disparity stop fucking other people over.

Nobody becomes a multi-billionaire without screwing someone over somewhere or inheriting the money from someone who screwed someone over somewhere.

To accumulate that much you are either screwing over your customers by charging them more than you should or screwing over your workers by not paying them what you should or screwing over your tenants by gouging them or screwing over taxpayers with sweetheart government contracts or screwing over future generations by exploiting finite public resources for personal gain.

And "everyone else does it and it's legal" isn't really a good excuse.

[treestar]

98. Just as Ayn Rand said

[Foamfollower]

25. I couldn't disagree more.

I want to acquire wealth and success. It's not immoral. It's ambition.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Are you willing to harm and exploit others to become successful?

If you do become wealthy will you contribute generously to charities for the needy, or will you hoard it all for yourself, far beyond what you need to live comfortably?

[unblock]

28. all that is fine, that's not what the article is about.

the article doesn't say there's anything wrong with earning great wealth, having great success.
feel free to get as much of this as you can.

the article doesn't even say there's anything wrong with keeping wealth up to a certain point.


all the article asserts is that after that certain point, *deciding to keep* excess wealth means depriving someone vastly more needy of resources.

what that point is isn't clear, but it certainly seems unseemly for ultra-rich people to simply buy huge islands when they could be feeding massive numbers of people instead.

i think the article is certainly interesting food for thought.


certainly if i managed to earn vastly more money than i needed, i would hope i would find something rather more socially useful to do with it than to buy myself a big island.

[Foamfollower]

29. I refused to read the article because of the title.

I continue to refuse to read it, too.

[unblock]

34. well best of luck with that learning strategy.

[Foamfollower]

35. If somebody writes a completely stupid title for an article, they should expect many hits.

[unblock]

37. headlines and titles are often at least a bit off. they're not always written by the same person.

but please keep on avoiding any further reading.

enlightenment sucks, really.

[Foamfollower]

38. When you say something compltely stupid like "being rich is immoral"

Fuck 'em, they don't deserve my time to read their stupid shit.

[unblock]

39. lol, in the time and effort you've spent talking about avoiding the article....

[Foamfollower]

40. And yet, I still won't read the piece of shit article because it is completely stupid.

[unblock]

41. insightful analysis, considering it's based on not reading it.

[Foamfollower]

42. Stating "being rich is immorral" complete stupidity.

No need to read further into the idiocy.

[unblock]

43. and yet great need to protest.

[Foamfollower]

44. No protest. I expressed my opinion. You responded, thus I responded.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. How do you know it's stupid if you haven't read it?

[Foamfollower]

63. Because the title gives the premise as "being rich is immoral"

There is absolutely no need to go any further than that. The title is prima facie evidence of the stupidity of the article.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

67. The title is stupid, but the author might not have written the title.

The article itself might, indeed, be stupid too, but you don't know that until you've read it for yourself. And anyhow, prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence; it's merely evidence that can reasonably be accepted as true unless rebutted. Since it's something you seem to feel strongly about, why don't you read the article and explain why you think it's stupid?

I also believe the premise as stated in the title is stupid, or at least ridiculously oversimplified, but I'm not much inclined to stick my neck out and dismiss this or any other article as stupid or wrong or anything else without having actually read it.

[Bonx]

70. The quoted text is also stupid.

[treestar]

86. You don't really know that

Not having read it.

[Foamfollower]

87. All I needed to read was the stupid as fuck headline.

That was it. No need to go any further than that idiocy.

[WillowTree]

47. Who gets to decide what that "certain point" is beyond which it becomes "unseemly"?

[unblock]

50. Meeeeeeeee!!!

As with most morality, people decide for themselves in the context of societal norms.

The thing is opening society's eye's and maybe changing the expectations.

[treestar]

99. Congress

I suppose it would mean revising the tax laws.

[WillowTree]

100. Sorry. I'll take a pass on that suggestion.

I barely trust Congress as it is. Not willing to give them that unholy amount of power over my life. No Thank You.

[treestar]

101. In theory a congress of Bernies would

pass laws that a liberal POTUS might sign. Congress does have authority over your life - you can't say no to the law, unless the courts decide they are unconstitutional. Most liberals want taxes raised on the rich (even rich ones).

[Squinch]

27. Nah. I'm not buying that.

[Warpy]

30. Define "rich."

If it means being able to sit on your arse and not work, then I'm rich. I'm also retired and ill, so there's not a choice there. If I didn't have enough money to live on, I'd still have to sit on my arse and not work. So there goes that definition.

Does it mean that you have more than you can spend in an ordinary lifetime? A lot of people fit that definition but I'm not sure you can consider them to be rich if they're using all that extra money to give their kids a start in life.

Then there's the "obscenely rich." You know, the men who never have enough and keep hoarding more as they try to fill that empty place where a heart is supposed to be. The ones who underpay people around them, buy legislators to keep wages and taxes low, and generally look for ways to make themselves richer by depriving people around them. Now that's the kind of "rich" that's immoral since those guys go out of their way to hurt other people. We know who those guys are, Mercer, Pope, Koch, Adelson, and the Orange Horror, who cheats people for the fun of it.

Then there's the "obscenely rich, part II." You know, the guys who fell ass down in a tub of butter and caught a new industry just right. Unused to extreme wealth and in possession of a functioning heart, they look for ways to give away much of the money they know they'll never need. They don't always give it away wisely, but they do give it away. That would be Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett. Can we call them immoral?

Money is a tool, and so is wealth. Just like an axe can be used to fell trees to build a cabin or murder your inlaws, wealth can be used wisely or destructively.

My right wing father always said this country was great at creating wealth, absolute shit at distributing it fairly. That was at odds with his consistently Republican voting pattern to lower his taxes. However, it's one of the things he said that was aboslutely true.

[unblock]

45. the article talks about some level of morally sufficient wealth.

it doesn't begrudge wealth per se, only excessive wealth; and what that point is is not clear.

but it seems reasonable to say that at some point, keeping a few extra dollars doesn't serve to increase a rich man's life, but could save a poor child's life. at that point, it seems that it would be immoral to refuse to give to charity.

then the question becomes, how much charity, etc.

buffett, i believe, last year gave away an astounding amount, something like $25 billion, yet the increase in value of his remaining holdings managed to eclipse even that huge sum, so he's even richer now than last year despite the huge charitable giving.


i think that the problem is our society defines "success" almost exclusively in terms of hoarding wealth. we'd be better off if we had more of an emphasis on charitable giving.

i'd like to see a forbes 100 list of people who have *given* the most to charity rather than the list of people who have hoarded the most.

[meadowlander]

60. Being so far beyond the stage of being able to provide for all of your material wants and needs

and your childrens' material wants and needs that you begin to contemplate things like buying a gold-plated car, or iPhone or toilet.

People who don't blink at buying $20,000 bottles of wine on the regular and own homes they don't visit for years because they don't have time with all the other homes they own and have fleets of private jets.

[brooklynite]

32. How do you define "rich"?

My wife an I are 1%ers; are we "immoral"?

J.K. Rowling has assets of $750 M, because people chose to pay her for her books. How about her?

[JHan]

55. yes you are immoral, you need to be strung up and made an example of...

(Sarcasm)

I hope folks in this thread realise that to spread wealth you must create wealth. That enterprise and a social dividend go hand in hand... but what do I know.

[killbotfactory]

61. Do you roll your eyes when workers ask for 15 bucks an hour?

Or when when they insist that healthcare is a human right?

Or that college tuition should be free?

Do spend your 1% money making sure these political movement are shut down, or brought to heel? Or spend your spare time deriding any politician giving voice to these concerns?

[brooklynite]

73. No - but you're applying conditions of behavior, as opposed to the OP.

[Xolodno]

36. Income inequality can be rooted..

...to the causes of the French and Russian Revolution. Hell, even the American Revolution to an extent, why pay equal taxes with Great Brittan when you get treated as second class citizens?

But the sense of "entitlement" among the wealthy infects them like a disease. I've seen it with some wealthier family members. When our Grandmother passed, her children were to get an equal share. But some relatives tried to railroad my mother into less, one even said because she is "used to a higher standard of living" she deserves more. I got the lawyers on them ASAP and man did they cry like whiny babies. In the end, my Mom got her share (sort of)....that was known on paper.

I could have probably sued in behalf and should have. But I wanted to be done with the mess. They failed to comply on the date my mom was to receive her check, the date they STATED if we fulfilled the conditions, I shit you not, the "Trustee" decided to go on vacation rather than hand her the check (and the rest of her siblings had gotten theirs by then). I immediately contacted our lawyer...who probably contacted theirs...and boom, despite living over three hours away, suddenly the back-up trustee was willing to drive all the way out to deliver the check (yet we were in the area, specifically to receive it prior). One of relatives had the nerve to confront one of my brothers and say "we'll get that money back, you just wait". I could have refused the check and went to court, but again, just wanted to be done with the issue and walk away from people who I thought were family.

Later I found out, after they sold a large property, a relative told me my Mom had a larger check than the rest, because, they had already allocated some of the liquid assets of her share. Again, I should have went after them.

There are still some assets of which my mom receives a share of the rents. Technically, the trustee is required to sell them and distribute, but since its an income for my disabled mom, I won't pursue. But funny as hell, the very relative who made the comment about "standard of living" is the one who made sure I knew (they consulted a lawyer) we now have legal standing to sue to have the properties sold (they want the money and the share of rents isn't up to their standards). Apparently I had earned a "legal respect" during the fiasco...and some of the family thinks I will lead the charge to liquidate the remaining assets and want me to expend my resources (so they don't have to). Obviously, that isn't happening, but needless to say, I'll be watching like a hawk when they do sell the assets.

But that gives an insight to those who are "wealthy". Having a huge home, so much cash in the bank you never have to budget much, etc. Always crave more.

Funny thing is, the "trustee" never even finished high school. The rest of my cousins have never even completed college (I got my degree and a few letters behind my name). And I've lived a fuller and better life than all of them combined. But they are all consumed by obtaining "more", as if its a competition. Makes no sense.

[taught_me_patience]

49. Some of the worst clap trap I've ever read on DU

The question that immediately pops into mind is what level of income is "morally acceptable" to the author. The answer is at the very end of the article... 250k as long as a single person is in poverty in America. This is seriously one of the dumbest most patronizing thing I've read all year.

[diva77]

51. On a related topic, some sociologists say happiness is maximized at $75K per year

How Much Money Does It Take to Be Happy?
Sociologists Calculate How Much Money It Takes to Maximize Happiness


By Joshua Kennon
Updated March 03, 2017

It isn't unusual for people to ask themselves the question, "How much money does it take to be happy?"

snip...It Turns Out, Most Investors Don't Need to Be Rich to Be Happy

The truth is, most people have no desire to be rich when it really comes down to it. This was backed up in a major peer-reviewed study by Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton from the Center for Health and Well-Being at Princeton University that proved money does buy happiness up to $75,000 per year.

In other words, once you make $75,000 per year, your day-to-day experience doesn’t improve very much as your income grows. Your "life satisfaction" does — that is, how you feel about what you’ve accomplished. The degree to which you love your work is icing on the cake. It seems rational that most new investors should focus on how to earn that much each year, if they don’t already...snip

[madville]

52. Black families were given a bad deal

They have been forced into situations the last 30 years where it is viewed as an advantage to be a single mother, black single parent families have gone from 20% in the 1960s to 70% nowadays.

[Hoyt]

53. Not sure about that. But am sure we need some kind of wealth tax, increased income taxes, estate tax

I'm not talking about a 10 percentage point increase, but something significant.

[melman]

56. This is a ridiculous article

'every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else'

this shit reads like parody.

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

57. I'd refrain making posts like these

If you live in a rich country while others in poor countries suffer. Don't end up with foot in your mouth.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

58. I've long since come to the conclusion that there needs to be some dollar amount

for a cap on income A maximum wage, analogous to the minimum wage. I'll propose one million dollars per year as the maximum, and every penny above that is taxed at 100%. If you cannot live on a million dollars a year, there are consumer credit companies that can help you out.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Karl Marx was just as much an unimaginative, zero sum absolutist as Ayn Rand was.

I have little use for either of them.

[Adrahil]

64. Can't quite agree...

Marx's analysis of capitalsmis pretty spot on. But in the end, his "solutions" fail. But at least he offers a functional critical framework. Rand offers notjing but utter nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Well, Rand couldn't stand religion and thought authoritarianism stifles creativity.

So like Marx she may have gleaned an insight or two.

But like everyone who insists on imagining that there's only one lens through which to view reality, their maps are of real limited utility. In my opinion.

[Adrahil]

75. But neither of those ideas were novel.

Plenty of people have criticized religion and lots of folks recognize the dangers of authoritarianism. Doesn't take a genius for that. Her supposed "contributions" were about the supposed benefits of pure self-interest. In opther words, it's not only okay, but morally mandated to always act in one's own self-interest. It is a philosophy of evil.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Here's the thing-

and I'd be lying if I said I've ever sat down and read Das Kapital or (shudder) Atlas Shrugged cover to cover.

So I'm basing this on what may very well be my limited understanding of both thinkers.

First off, on Marx and his "structural analysis" of capitalism- as I understand it, he saw it as a blind machine that was doomed to destroy itself. So, really, for the dedicated Marxist, the only thing to do vis a vis Capitalism is wait.

Personally, I tend to see economies- "pure" capitalism being as unlikely to exist in the wild as "pure" communism or pure anything else- as operating based upon a series of algorithms, wherein there are likely a variety of "sweet spots" which include things like public spending, wherein the system operates fairly smoothly and wealth creation sits in relative harmony with wealth distribution.

but drilling down to the moral arguments, here- and this is my point about zero sum thinking; both Rand and Marx saw both economics AND human interaction as zero sum affairs. Selflessness and Selfishness at loggerheads. Self-Interest "bad" and Altruism "Good", or vice versa.

These are really almost philosophical distinctions, and they originate in what I believe to be the Western Monotheistic worldview which posits dichotomies between mind/body, spirit/matter, nature/technology, me/you.

Ignoring the fact that sometimes helping others and helping oneself are not only compatible, but operate synergistically. Neither selfishness nor selflessness is inherently "wrong", each has their place.

Short answer, though, when it comes to macroeconomic public policy I probably align with Keynes more than anyone else.

[moondust]

66. The problem is OBSCENE wealth and inequality.

There were "rich" people in the 1950s-80s during the postwar "golden age"--before Reagan and Thatcher steered the world economy toward neoliberalism, globalization, and financialization using the ridiculous premise of "trickle down economics." Back then a family of four could often live comfortably on the salary of one working parent, buy a house, trade for a new car once in a while, and basically live happily ever after. It wasn't necessary to screw your neighbors out of their good-paying jobs, screw the environment, screw the public in general to satisfy greedy shareholders chasing multibillionaire status around the golf course.

[TheFrenchRazor]

89. correct, because it generally results from extreme screwing of workers and customers. if workers

if workers were paid a salary that more closely matched the value of their work, and customers charged a cost that more closely matched the cost of production, then the profit at the very top would not be obscene, it would be reasonable and fair.

[kcr]

69. It's so funny how much this website supports Bernie Sanders

To the point you cannot insult his pinky toenail without getting a post removed. Yet look at the responses to this post.

Fucking hilarious!

[JCanete]

97. there's nothing wrong with his toenail!!! nt

[Rustyeye77]

72. Communism or Muerte !!!

Comrade Fidel

[TheFrenchRazor]

90. there actually is a degree of zero-sum-game in the economy, but not completely. the balance is impor

important. i don't think greed will ever go away; there will always be people who justify paying workers a salary that is greatly less than the value of their work, in order to maximize their own wealth. IMO, gov't "of, by, and for the people" should try to balance this situation, and make things more fair for the masses of working people.

[stonecutter357]

79. what a load of crap. #fakenews.

Its Basically Just Immoral not To Be Rich.

[onenote]

84. Who the fuck is A. Q. Smith?

Can anyone find anything about the author of this piece, because I sure as hell can't. It would be nice to know whether he practices what he preaches. Did he go to college? Was it one his parents could afford if all they had in the world was $250,000 and they "gave away" the rest?

And speaking of that $250,000 "maximum moral" wealth (for a family of three): exit polls indicate that voters with incomes of more than $250,000/year split pretty much evenly between Hillary and Trump. Does that mean that a bunch of immoral people voted for Hillary or that maybe wealth/income isn't such a hot measure of immorality.

[sarcasmo]

94. Kick.

[bedazzled]

103. I believe karmically those who have more are expected to give more

It's not evil to accumulate wealth if it is used for purposes of helping others (that is, as long as no one is hurt by the accumulation process...)

Each of us has a certain comfort level. Reaching a reasonable comfort level, with some to spare to help others, would be ideal I think...

[randr]

104. My aid to gain perspective of wealth is simple

I can count to a thousand in about 8 minuets.
I can count to a million in 138 days.
I may count to a billion in a little less than 16 years!
Anyone who is worth more than a billion that does not wake each and every day thinking how they may enrich the lives of the people of the world is mentally ill.

[L. Coyote]

106. Agreed. Anyone who doesn't think first about how they would help others shouldn't become rich!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Wealth isn't the problem. Greed is.