Income inequality - is it a problem?

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
I saw the mistake in the post and edited it.

The point of saying blame was how can you(as in man in general) require someone else to give you(you can mean many things) what they have earned out of a so called denial of opportunity. I wasn't refering to you when I said you. I was using it like when someone says "You cannot even buy an oven these days without paying $40 dollars." That was a reference to a situation where a person would claim such a thing it rather than saying you blamed people. I should have not used the word you during hypothetical speech. I did not mean that you yourself are blaming people although it probably sounding exactly like that. It was merely vague wording that made it appear that way, I was using a custom defination..... Next time that will be different.

No problem, pal.

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
If someone inherts a company and is ineffective that company is going to have a difficult time dealing with other ones. You could argue that the person may get lucky with effective workers however this is like the rare chance of winning a sweepstakes. Every system is flawed and has mistakes which occur. Capitalism does also however it is less flawed than socialism in my opinion.

Yeah, but than again, look at what I said in my post. It’s possible that an complete incompetent man inherit a company, makes it loose a monstrous amount of money – but not enough to demolish it – and live like a king for his entire life spam. At the same time, a highly talented person may be born in a completely horrible environment, and live in poverty all his life. There is plenty of injustice castrating talent in this world.

My usual example is this: do you think Bill Gates would be Bill Gates if by random chance he were born in Cuba?

Nonetheless, I agree that the capitalism practice is far less flawed than the socialism practice, that’s why I said that there are no viable alternatives for it now… being sure to point, though, that we must keep looking for those alternatives.

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Generally if a person is highy skilled they can get a high paying job. If a person with an important job is dumb that weakens the company against more effective ones. Although the dumb companies do not die instantly they will lose profits however. The book "Atlas Shrugs" has good examples of what can happen and how it happens.

Referring again to my Bill Gates example, ask yourself how many people are prevented to become highly skilled due to circumstances beyond their control. How many Einstein-like brains were killed by hunger in Africa? How many people there live and die without ever having had a single chance of success in their life?

Remember that the world is what it is, but it does not mean that it could not have been something different.

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
I did not think you did. I did read where you said you did not. I was trying to use your ideas to prove my points for capitalism and against socialism and/or a mixed economy. Perhaps that was not the most appropriate thing to do(the quick and easy is not always the best). If capitalism is flawed and there is not a better system it will be used despite the flaws. I need to use the word you less often since it can lead to what seems like offense speech .

Nah, I didn’t feel offended, specially because I do not think that being called socialist is a offense (Stalinist sure would be), even considering that I’m not one.

But I repeat again… there is nothing better than capitalism now. We have to keep looking for something that is. And when we find it, we have to look for something better than that. And on, and on, and on, until we find something perfect.

Perhaps we will never find any of it… but the responsibility to search for it remains.

Regards .

 

[Free Enterprise]

We agree on the fundamentals it seems. There is plenty of injustice as there has been. If there is something better than capitalism it would have to involve univerisal enlightenment(I don't think communism can do this though) of some type or motivation would have to be increased to encite people to produce more and develop more technology.

 

[Richard III]

Back when I started this thread, I was still living with my girlfriend and the idea of an invasion of Iraq was considered an absurd fantasy.



and it lives!

 

[Pongui]

I don't mind the very wealthy so long as they're working for me just as hard as I'm working for them. When the tool of wealth we've given them becomes just a living, I resent it. For this reason that class of people who have wealth to play with but are still essentially consumers I find offensive. The really wealthy I can appreciate, though.

 

[gael]

Quote Richard III:
'Let's say the poor are getting richer, but the rich are getting richer faster. Is that good enough? Is that a just system? Is it a healthy system? Or for capitalism to be what is aims to be, do all boats have to rise with every tide?'

I don't know anything on sociology or economics, but I think your statement here is probably a lot more realistic than,
'the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer'

If your born into money your going to have more of an advantage over those that have less, but that dos'nt stop the poor who are able using the talents and abilities they have to rise above the level of poverty that they were born into.

I suppose it all depends on the country and its social programs within its capitalist economy. If everyone is given the same opportunity for education and government loans to go with it, each person has the oportunity to rise to the level in society that they are able and willing to achieve.

Poverished families have more problems than the more privilaged though when it comes to the basics of living, and i think that this maybe holds a lot of poor people back when it comes to actually putting in the time to get an education, when they need the money quick for a basic standard of living.