Inequality is dangerous

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The inequality in wealth held by the Steve Jobs family, for example, is very very dangerous indeed. It means Apple sold us a 1000's and 1000's of train loads of stuff we really wanted to buy more than anything else in the world.

This huge volume of new innovative stuff must have been so superior (how else did they sell us so much) that it was changing our world very quickly. Thus, the danger is in the runaway, wild, or rapid progress that accompanies huge wealth inequalities. Therefore, we would be better off with less dangerous product innovation, slower growth, more stability and less income inequality.

 

[g5000]

What?

 

[SniperFire]

Easy for a freeloader to say.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What?

Steve Jobs had wealth inequality. This is dangerous. He got the wealth because he sold us too much and destabilized the world.

 

[g5000]

What?

Steve Jobs had wealth inequality. This is dangerous. He got the wealth because he sold us too much and destabilized the world.

Wealth inequality is not in and of itself dangerous. Wealth inequality can be a symptom of a dangerous economic condition.

Not all wealth is acquired on a level playing field.

It is the unlevel playing field in some economic sectors which allows the concentration of wealth into a few hands which is dangerous.

Just because Steve Jobs had great wealth does not mean he acquired it by unfair means, nor is it evidence that improperly acquired wealth in other economic sectors is not dangerous.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What?

Steve Jobs had wealth inequality. This is dangerous. He got the wealth because he sold us too much and destabilized the world.

Wealth inequality is not in and of itself dangerous. Wealth inequality can be a symptom of a dangerous economic condition.

Not all wealth is acquired on a level playing field.

It is the unlevel playing field in some economic sectors which allows the concentration of wealth into a few hands which is dangerous.

Just because Steve Jobs had great wealth does not mean he acquired it by unfair means, nor is it evidence that improperly acquired wealth in other economic sectors is not dangerous.

1) I did not say it was unfairly acquired just that his wealth was a sign of danger in that it represented rapid dangerous economic growth

 

[Unkotare]

I'll bet the guy who sold you those drugs had wealth inequality over you too.

 

[The T]

The inequality in wealth held by the Steve Jobs family, for example, is very very dangerous indeed. It means Apple sold us a 1000's and 1000's of train loads of stuff we really wanted to buy more than anything else in the world.

This huge volume of new innovative stuff must have been so superior (how else did they sell us so much) that it was changing our world very quickly. Thus, the danger is in the runaway, wild, or rapid progress that accompanies huge wealth inequalities. Therefore, we would be better off with less dangerous product innovation, slower growth, more stability and less income inequality.

Wealth envy much?

 

[Zander]

I think the OP was being sarcastic.....


At any rate. I am for equality..... "Equality of opportunity". The problem with the liberal progressive crowd is they want "equality of result".

 

[Baruch Menachem]

sarcasm fail.


What he is trying to point out is that if you dislike inequality, than you prefer poverty, stagnation and monotony.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

sarcasm fail.


What he is trying to point out is that if you dislike inequality, than you prefer poverty, stagnation and monotony.

Yes, imagine if everyone was average and folks like Steve Jobs were not allowed. Imagine if we required all our scientists to be average with no Einsteins allowed? It would be like reversing evolution.

 

[Katzndogz]

Don't buy those products.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't buy those products.

yes that is one solution, live in the stone age so Jobs and Gates don't get so unequal.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That guy who put that sharpened piece of obsidian on the end of a spear is obviously a crank and must be stopped.

It is not fair he is getting all the game

 

[Unkotare]

Harrison Bergeron

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The inequality in wealth held by the Steve Jobs family, for example, is very very dangerous indeed. It means Apple sold us a 1000's and 1000's of train loads of stuff we really wanted to buy more than anything else in the world.

This huge volume of new innovative stuff must have been so superior (how else did they sell us so much) that it was changing our world very quickly. Thus, the danger is in the runaway, wild, or rapid progress that accompanies huge wealth inequalities. Therefore, we would be better off with less dangerous product innovation, slower growth, more stability and less income inequality.

Total equality is so much better.

 

[auditor0007]

The inequality in wealth held by the Steve Jobs family, for example, is very very dangerous indeed. It means Apple sold us a 1000's and 1000's of train loads of stuff we really wanted to buy more than anything else in the world.

This huge volume of new innovative stuff must have been so superior (how else did they sell us so much) that it was changing our world very quickly. Thus, the danger is in the runaway, wild, or rapid progress that accompanies huge wealth inequalities. Therefore, we would be better off with less dangerous product innovation, slower growth, more stability and less income inequality.

Wealth envy much?

Actually, I thought he was being sarcastic which makes his post just as stupid from a different POV.

 

[Douger]

sarcasm fail.


What he is trying to point out is that if you dislike inequality, than you prefer poverty, stagnation and monotony.

Yes, imagine if everyone was average and folks like Steve Jobs were not allowed. Imagine if we required all our scientists to be average with no Einsteins allowed? It would be like reversing evolution.

......which is exactly what you're witnessing. Return to the planet of the apes ! Turn on the "news".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The inequality in wealth held by the Steve Jobs family, for example, is very very dangerous indeed. It means Apple sold us a 1000's and 1000's of train loads of stuff we really wanted to buy more than anything else in the world.

This huge volume of new innovative stuff must have been so superior (how else did they sell us so much) that it was changing our world very quickly. Thus, the danger is in the runaway, wild, or rapid progress that accompanies huge wealth inequalities. Therefore, we would be better off with less dangerous product innovation, slower growth, more stability and less income inequality.

Total equality is so much better.

yes just like in Cuba or N.Korea or Red China before they switched to Republican capitalism and everyone got rich.