Forum Post: Who Decides Who Pays? Who Receives?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 7:16 a.m. EST by toonces
(-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It seems to me that to demand the government make "fair" the distribution of money grants inordinate power to those who will decide the distribution of money.
I am interested in knowing:
Why the uneven distribution of power is okay while the uneven distribution of money is not?
Why the banker who works and earns their money is considered "greedy", but those who carry a sign that demands the money be taken from them is not "greedy"?
Is holding a sign in a park going to pay as much as being a senator? Corporate CEO? Movie star? Doctor? Auto worker? Mason? Waitress? 7-11 clerk? Pizza delivery guy?
If we all have a "right" to equal pay, would we not all have a "right" to a Mercedes? Mansion? Caviar? Gasoline? Perhaps everyone will have a "right" to the Eskimo delicacy of whale blubber, is everyone allotted an equal portion of whale blubber?
Just a few of the things that will need to be noodled before we revolution into a people who get paid to sit in a park holding a sign.
How are bankers "earning" their money? By paying crooked politicians to give them breaks in taxes, regulations, AND buying get out of jail free cards when they blatantly steal our money with fraudulent financial instruments? Personally I don't care about "wealth distribution". Let the criminals go bankrupt and lose everything first.
[Removed]
It is not necessarily wrong to be wealthy. It is, however, wrong to accumulate wealth at the expense of the well-being of others. A king who sells his kingdom's crops to neighboring nations so that he can accumulate mass amounts of wealth while this action causes his people to starve is clearly wrong.
[Removed]
A banker is not a "king". A "King" is a government position. Barack Obama is positioning himself as a king. Doing end runs around congress to try to enact controlling laws that could not pass into legislation is wrong. A banker cannot "take" your money. Your government is doing just that now. Your issue is with government, not bankers.
Bankers just take your house after selling you predatory loans, grouping them, giving them fraudulent ratings, and betting against each other to see who's crappy cdo would flop first. Then after they take your home. They dress up like hobos on Halloween and mock in a celebratory fashion the very people they foreclosed on. Yeah, we got nothing against bankers.
The government MANDATED the bank give those loans to people who had no hope of affording them. The people took them knowing the terms and knowing when the loans reset, they had no hope of affording them. The government then made rules to allow the banks to bundle the loans and count them as assets.
Your issue is with government, not the bankers.
Don't presume what my issues are. My issues are my own. Which happens to be the whole fucked system! Including the moron bankers. Including moron zombie consumers who went shopping on Black Friday. Including moron people who try to tell my what to think.
including morons who are lead around by their noses and do not ACTUALLY THINK for themselves. Its easy to be part of something without knowing the facts and just follow what others say,isnt it?
I don't know what a 'baround' is. 'Who are lead' is just bad grammar. And I have trained my pet chihuahua to do all my thinking for me because he is clearly smarter than you.
WOW.....I do not know what baround is either...bad grammar huh,well sorry I did not knowwe are here for a spelling bee or a essay contest,sorry. Let me guess you spent 10 years in college on mommy and daddys money or on the govts free money to figure out how to write properly. Pet chihuahua to think for you THANK GOD and it is obvious. You do know what they say about people that curse insult,rant and rave...those are ones that can not form an inteligent answer,response to an issue so they just act out like a child or animal to get their point across, You will be ok Jaded I see now its not the govt you are mad at its society as a whoe for shunning you as a kid. Lay down,get your baba and take a nap come back when you can play nice with people
You want me to engage you in a fair debate, then quit presuming you can tell me that the government is my issue and respect the right that I can come to my own conclusions and opinions about bankers. Otherwise, I will continue to respond in kind. At no time in my first comment did I tell you anything other than my opinions, which I'll admit are filled with disgust, for bankers, who piss me off because their bankrupt of morals. Have you ever watched the documentary Inside Job?
Yeah and I also watched other movies that were as the writers and editors see it called documentarys how factual can something be when the people involved have their own personal agenda out to the public prior to their "documentary" I saw one that said cuba is better medical for their people yet all of them come here to escape cuba and nobody is running their to live there. I will not use a movie as a basis for an argument or debate.. I bet you still beleive in santa clause dont you well I know its not real cause the easter bunny told me so
From my vantage point, anything that attempts to inform the public, whatever form it takes, has their own personal agenda. So you have to be picky what you believe in. And I already told you my pet chihuahua does my thinking for me - not the easter bunny.
FOX NEWS VS AKRE Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Pass Ill leave the chihuahua abuse to OWS purpose save fur.
I'll take your non response to the issue in favor of more insults to mean that I'm correct. Good Day to you.
I'm sorry, I took you at your word when you listed things you considered important.
I guess some people here are just posting contradictory and inflammatory comments to try to stir up trouble. I am actually here to try to discuss issues with the posters here and have no wish to enter into any argument with someone who feigns indignation at some manufactured indiscretion.
Live long and prosper.
I'm not here to stir things up. Things are already stirred up. People don't go out into the streets to get pepper-sprayed and arrested for no reason.
If you think the bankers are not an issue, I respect your right to your form an opinion of the facts as you see fit. All I ask in return, is that you give me the same benefit and restrain from further attempts to brow beat me into submitting to your views.
If you can respect that, then I have no harsh feelings.
Any distribution of money going on ? Sorry but I did not read this post. I could ready two words only "Money" and "distribution" . Please email me if there is any kind of money distribution, where and when. Thanks
There is no right to the product of another's labor even if there is abundance. But it would make sense for the person that creates abundance to share the excess among others that would in turn return the favor.
Money is simply a social contract designed around the belief that other people are greedy self-centered individuals. It is a contract used in place of true social currency, which is one's ethical behavior and social skills.
We have the technological capacity to create abundance. But the true question is do we have the emotional maturity to allow unrestricted access to that abundance? Are people mature enough to understand how that contribution to society benefits everyone including the individual that produces that abundance?
Are people ready to acknowledge that money is a useless substitute to trust and ethical personal responsibility? When will society mature enough to make these social contracts enforced through fear and threats of legalized violence obsolete?
To answer the OPs title when enough people finally decide to live ethically then the decision will fall upon the giver.
How much "excess" do you have?
How much "excess" have you created?
How much of your "excess" have you shared?
In what form has your "excess" been shared?
Until "enough people finally decide to live ethically", who decides who pays and who receives?
I have little excess. (in terms of material ownership) I give away what excess I do have to my family, friends, and neighboring community. I create excess abundance through a family garden, teaching/coaching, and obtaining useful information. But more than just generating abundance limiting excess waste as much as possible ‘creates’ or maintains abundance. E.g. preventative healthcare, making informed purchases, and continuously learning
The sharing comes in the form of helping neighbors with their house projects (free of charge), sharing the produce grown in my yard, sharing information (such as healthcare information, basic electronic repairs), donating to local sustainable community projects, and most fulfilling of all repairing relationships.
Everyone has something of value which they can contribute to others even if it isn’t to everyone. Begin sharing with family, then work on it with friends, then with the community and the truly brave can try it with the dreaded in-laws.
As for payment, this relies on the scarcity of a need. A mutual price must be created by the consumers and the producer which determines the value of the labor contributed.
However, many items produced today only satisfy a want (e.g. designer clothing, sports cars, surround sound speakers, etc) and so that is a little more difficult to determine. As both the producer and consumer have greed in their decision-making. The producer is likely only selling the product for money and the consumer want the good for as little as possible. Then successful advertising programs consumers to desire the product even more.
This is why some CEO’s make over 10x what scientists researching a cure for diseases make. People in our culture want so much more than they need but it’s hard to blame them with the social affluenza going around.
Needs (including emotional ones) can easily be satisfied through automated technologies and smarter lifestyles freeing up labor to be completely voluntary. Wants however can not and it requires the coerced slave labor of unwilling participants looking to make a buck.
Until people begin to live ethically (starting within their own families/homes) according to their needs, individuals will fight and manipulate each other for money and/or fleeting superficial desires.
John McMurtry has been doing some interesting noodling (nice term!) about stuff like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McMurtry
What do you want from OWS?
I would like to see them go after the government instead of the private sector. I would like to see them realize that demanding government control the open market is a disaster. I would like the OWS movement to understand the threat that too much government poses. If we get the world OWS seems to want, we will have liberty crushing oppression. We will lose individual freedom.
I would like to see them go after the government instead of the private sector.
Well, that isn't what OWS is about, it's about going after the collusion between the two. Instead of trying to co-opt OWS, why don't you go start your own movement? This would seem more rational and honest to me.
The private sector has no power. The government has the power. Punishing the private companies for obeying the rules put in place for them to follow is like beating a child for obeying a parent.
There is a movement I am much more comfortable with; The Tea Party. They are much more concerned with reining in the power of the government and promoting the rights of the individual as outlined by the Founders in the Constitution... without the rapes and intimidation and vandalism and communism and Marxism. As well as the greed of those who want to take from others what they feel they are justified in taking.
IMO the uneven distribution of power is just as unjust as the uneven distribution of money.
If any job worth doing is worth doing well is true, it should also be true that a job worth doing is worth a living wage. It should make the necessities of modern life affordable. Food, housing, healthcare, information, transportation, information and energy for example. We do however, need to define what a living wage is.
If the banker is making his money unethically, and exploiting people when his needs are being met.. that's greed. If the person carrying the sign has his needs met and is asking for more..That's also greed.
I think that we should have the right to equal pay, for equal work. I don't think pay should be the same across the board, but excessive pay for CEOs, movie stars, doctors, lawyers and auto workers is just as wrong as pay too low to survive for waitress', convenience store clerks, and the pizza guy.
As far as luxury items, and non-essentials..Of course not. I see no need for equal access, and I don't think anyone expects this.
I'm not so sure. Lots of discussion about tuition debt and mortgage debt forgiven. I worked two and sometimes 3 jobs to pay off my mortgage and put my daughter through college so she would not have any debt when she graduated. If the OWS debt is forgiven, who do I contact to get all my money back? No fair that I paid for something and now you don't have to. I don't see anyone thanking the Corporations and weathly individuals for the new hospital wing or library expansion that they paid for and you use to save your life or get an education. The hundreds and hundreds of millions that the rich give to charity and local food banks that feed the poor day after day. There are lots of things that need to be changed but there is also a lot of good. I think that OWS should agree and focus on two or three key items (campaign reform, term limits, etc or whatever) that will provide the most bang for the buck. I can't keep up with the seemingly endless list of demands that change every day. Most of the posts on these boards seem more like a thesis than anything constructive. If you want the minimum wage to be $18/hour or $135,000 a year, present a business case on how you will accomplish that. Merely saying 'tax the rich' ain't going to accomplish your goals. The government doesn't exactly have the best track record of handling money so why give them more.
I also don't see anyone thanking me for the thousands that I've given away, both to individuals, and to taxes by not itemizing. Neither do I expect it. I mostly dismiss what corporations "give" away, as they normally take a tax deduction for it anyway. I don't, and I earn quite a bit less. Why would you be so concerned w/ getting your money back if you managed to accomplish your goals? You obviously had the determination, means, and discipline to do what you needed.
The government certainly doesn't have the best track record for handling money, but neither do corporations. I'm guessing that the bank and auto bailouts might be an indicator.
I also agree that most of these posts aren't constructive. However, considering that we're in this mess at all, I'd guess that neither the corporations, government or myriad other "experts" actually have a clue on how to create and run an effective economic system for the long term. This IS a global problem, not just a problem in the U.S..
[Removed]
Great sane comment. BTW, this government decided distribution of money thing, tried for years in Russia. The only folks that had an opportunity to advance there, the politicians. Mmmm, didn't they have to give it up and move to a more capitalistic approach? Not sure I want to go backwards. I wish this thing was occupy white house or occupy capital hill. Better yet occupy non voter homes. Our politicians believe things must not be too bad as we continue to re-elect them. Only 50% of age eligible voters vote in a presidential election year. That's the real issue that needs to be solved
WOW such truth the REAL problem(s).Thank you
[Removed]