Zone1 Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?

[BS Filter]

The sytem is rigged against poor people. There are no benefits to the status quo.

Agree. There will always be poor people. Not everyone has intelligence, common sense and a good work ethic.

 

[sartre play]

Agree. There will always be poor people. Not everyone has intelligence, common sense and a good work ethic.

That's true, but what's wrong with the rest of us?

 

[BS Filter]

That's true, but what's wrong with the rest of us?

I don't know. Doesn't mean there's something wrong with you. Someone won a billion dollar lottery Friday night. Doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the rest of us.

 

[initforme]

We hopefully will be seeing more workers banding together standing up for themselves. It's long long long overdue.

 

[Red Front]

He made his point and your argument is to tell him to make his point, then follow up with multiple snide and passive aggressive back handed comments. You're trying to win through attrition.

Honestly I'm surprised he has bothered to respond to you as much as he has because you seem to have no interest in anything except being right by any means necessary.

Really? What was his point? Explain.

 

[Red Front]

Agree. There will always be poor people. Not everyone has intelligence, common sense and a good work ethic.

There don't have to be homeless or hungry people, due to their lack of intelligence. The work ethic in this country is determined by those who exploit human labor. It's in everyone's interest to eliminate poverty.

 

[Red Front]

We hopefully will be seeing more workers banding together standing up for themselves. It's long long long overdue.

Are you British? I believe a law is being past through their parliament that makes it more difficult for workers to strike or protest, is that correct? Here in the US workers aren't protected from their employers as much as they should be, from being fired if they unionize. They should have more protection.

 

[BS Filter]

There don't have to be homeless or hungry people, due to their lack of intelligence. The work ethic in this country is determined by those who exploit human labor. It's in everyone's interest to eliminate poverty.

You can't eliminate poverty. We tried for years and spent trillions and it's worse.

 

[Red Front]

You can't eliminate poverty. We tried for years and spent trillions and it's worse.

We haven't done what is required to eliminate poverty. What have we done? You define that and then I will comment. Provide us with an explanation of what the US has done to eliminate poverty.

 

[BS Filter]

We haven't done what is required to eliminate poverty. What have we done? You define that and then I will comment. Provide us with an explanation of what the US has done to eliminate poverty.

I did. I said we had the "Great Society" of President Lyndon Johnson and spent trillions and there is still poverty. Now you tell me what we have to do to eliminate poverty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We haven't done what is required to eliminate poverty. What have we done? You define that and then I will comment. Provide us with an explanation of what the US has done to eliminate poverty.

It is not the governments job to eliminate poverty. While it is nice to help others and I would if I could I do not support FORCING someone to do it.

 

[sartre play]

NOT healthy for our country, when the people making the rules have the kind of money that they personally do not even know what the cost of a gallon of milk cost, & they have never even had to go to the store and buy that gallon.

 

[Red Front]

It is not the governments job to eliminate poverty. While it is nice to help others and I would if I could I do not support FORCING someone to do it.

What do you mean by the government forcing you to eliminate poverty? The government's "job" is whatever those in power want it to be. If we're living in a country with a democratic government where the people actually rule then it's up to the public to decide what their government can and can't do. If we live in a plutocracy, ruled by wealthy elites, then they decide what our government's job is.

Eliminating hunger, homelessness, and unemployment in America, and providing everyone with healthcare and an education is easily achievable. We haven't done much to do that.

 

[Red Front]

I did. I said we had the "Great Society" of President Lyndon Johnson and spent trillions and there is still poverty. Now you tell me what we have to do to eliminate poverty.

Well, we have two options, one is more radical than the other, but will resolve the problem of poverty in America quickly if people were willing to implement it. I will begin with the easier, less controversial option available today that will effectively eliminate poverty until technology requires the adoption of the aforementioned "radical" option in the future, which will create a society of radical abundance, where everyone enjoys a very high standard of living.

We don't need to raise income taxes for the less radical option, however, imposing a 2% tax on all stock market trades would contribute several trillions of dollars yearly to this plan. That tax wouldn't be imposed to fund the US federal government but it would help reduce the possibility of inflation and it would maintain the value of the USD. Even though our federal government doesn't fund itself with taxes, taxes still have a positive role in maintaining the value of the dollar and preventing inflation.

So in brief, our federal government would need to re-open the government-run rehabs and psyche wards i.e. mental institutions, that were closed down in the 1970s, creating much of the homeless and substance abuse problems we have today. Deinstitutionalizing all of those people who needed psychiatric care, made homelessness and the abuse of hard drugs, endemic. We can't effectively house the homeless without the national infrastructure in place to address the substance abuse and mental illnesses i.e. medical needs of that population. So we house the homeless in their own private housing, but they must receive regular services from social workers, case management specialists, and mental health professionals, in order to address whatever substance abuse problems they might be grappling with. They should be regularly tested and if it's proven that they are using hard drugs, they should be forced into drug rehab or the psyche-ward, whichever one applies.

They would have the incentive to stop abusing drugs, because they would have housing, they would keep their children or have their children returned to them by the state, they would have food, a basic income, access to healthcare, vocational job training, and a right to employment in the public sector. So if they have a considerable, noticeable gap in their work history that may prevent them from finding a job in the private sector, they will have a job in the public sector. Sanitation, maintaining city parks, the public works department, public transit..etc. Many different jobs that they can work, for a living wage with good benefits. Getting rid of poverty begins with the homeless, those who are at the very bottom financially and otherwise.

We should establish a Bill Of Economic Human Rights, for all American citizens. Everyone in our country, in our society, who is a citizen or a legal resident, is born with the economic, human right to food, housing, healthcare, an education and employment in the public sector. The basics are provided, upon which people can build their lives from a stable, sure foundation. Everyone needs food, housing, healthcare, an education and employment. It's up to each individual to use those resources to make something of their lives. A few odd balls will opt to live with the basics, but most people, if given the opportunity to improve their lives, will do that and won't just be satisfied with the bare minimum. People have aspirations, dreams, passions and they will have all of the resources and tools available for them to actualize their potential and create a wonderful life for themselves. No one has to remain living in the basic housing units provided by the government, once they improve their finances. They can move on to something better.


Milton Friedman and other well known icons of capitalism, were in favor of providing citizens with a basic income:

​

Welfare, as it is organized today, doesn't get people out of poverty, because it takes away their welfare as soon as the person finds a job. The person remains on welfare, without looking for a job or improving their finances out of fear they will lose their food, housing, healthcare..etc. Under our current welfare system and government, people don't have a human right to the basics of life. There's no foundation upon which to build a productive life if one is born and raised in poverty, under our current welfare system.

Unlike what I just mentioned above, which can be implemented within our current capitalist-run economy and system, the radical option completely replaces the current sociopolitical order, with another one that is more compatible with our modern age and technology. Under this new mode of production and economic system, we would adopt a non-profit form of production. An economic model that employs advanced 21st-century automation technology, with all of the robots, autonomous machines, artificial intelligence, super-computers, and self-driving vehicles. etc. We don't need markets, money. etc, just modern, high-tech infrastructure, with all of its resources and components in place to produce all of the goods and services that we use. This is the only true, assured way to avoid the so-called "tech apocalypse":

​

The billionaires, the ruling elite in this country, pretend that it's the working class who are in trouble due to advanced automation, but it's actually their socioeconomic class that is up the creek without a paddle, not the working class. All that the working class has to do is take ownership of the technology and means of production (raw materials, facilities, robots, machines.etc), and produce everything. We could all work 20 hours weekly and we would all get everything we need and want. We would keep our homes, our toys, our ...everything. The computers would do the accounting and we would simply take what we are entitled to from the store/s. For example, you worked 20 hours last week, so you have the right to three gallons of milk, X amount of pounds of meat, and you have the right to two new pairs of shoes every two weeks. The system, this society, would be generous and will make sure everyone is well-provisioned and enjoys a high standard of living. Advanced technology will allow us to transcend markets, the need for money, profits..etc.

Everyone will have the right to housing, maybe even two houses, in different cities. Everyone will have the best, most modern healthcare, with the latest technology. Everyone will have access to a great education. Everyone will have all of the tech devices and toys that they own and enjoy today. It will be a high-tech world, without the need for wages, money, markets, and profits. The alternative to the above is techno-feudalism. A new form of slavery where only the rich elites own the factories, robots, artificial intelligence, mines and mining equipment..etc, and everyone else will be consigned to abject poverty and eventually the compost heap. The rich ironically will adopt a marketless, non-profit system of production, and will no longer need money. So essentially, they will become the high-tech, modern communists or socialists, and the working class, will be rendered worthless because the rich don't need to hire them anymore. The vast majority of people i.e. the members of the former "working class" will be thrown away like trash by the new tech lords. I prefer for the vast majority of people i.e. the working class to be in charge, not the wealthy elites who will flush everyone down the latrine.

 

[BS Filter]

Well, we have two options, one is more radical than the other, but will resolve the problem of poverty in America quickly if people were willing to implement it. I will begin with the easier, less controversial option available today that will effectively eliminate poverty until technology requires the adoption of the aforementioned "radical" option in the future, which will create a society of radical abundance, where everyone enjoys a very high standard of living.

We don't need to raise income taxes for the less radical option, however, imposing a 2% tax on all stock market trades would contribute several trillions of dollars yearly to this plan. That tax wouldn't be imposed to fund the US federal government but it would help reduce the possibility of inflation and it would help maintain the value of the USD. Even though our federal government doesn't fund itself with taxes, taxes still have a positive role in maintaining the value of the dollar and preventing inflation.

So in brief, our federal government would need to re-open the government-run rehabs and psyche wards i.e. mental institutions, that were closed down in the 1970s, creating much of the homeless and substance abuse problems we have today. Deinstitutionalizing all of those people who needed psychiatric care, made homelessness and the abuse of hard drugs, endemic. We can't effectively house the homeless without the national infrastructure in place to address the substance abuse and mental illnesses i.e. medical needs of that population. So we house the homeless in their own private housing, but they must receive regular services from social workers, case management specialists, and mental health professionals, in order to address whatever substance abuse problems they might be grappling with. They should be regularly tested and if it's proven that they are using hard drugs, they should be forced into drug rehab or the psyche-ward, whichever one applies.

They would have the incentive to stop abusing drugs, because they would have housing, they would keep their children or have their children returned to them by the state, they would have food, a basic income, access to healthcare, vocational job training, and a right to employment in the public sector. So if they have a considerable, noticeable gap in their work history that may prevent them from finding a job in the private sector, they will have a job in the public sector. Sanitation, maintaining city parks, the public works department, public transit..etc. Many different jobs that they can work, for a living wage with good benefits. Getting rid of poverty begins with the homeless, those who are at the very bottom financially and otherwise.

We should establish a Bill Of Economic Human Rights, for all American citizens. Everyone in our country, in our society, who is a citizen or a legal resident, is born with the economic, human right to food, housing, healthcare, an education and employment in the public sector. The basics are provided, upon which people can build their lives from a stable, sure foundation. Everyone needs food, housing, healthcare, an education and employment. It's up to each individual to use those resources to make something of their lives. A few odd birds will opt to live with the basics, but most people, if given the opportunity to improve their lives, will do that and won't just be satisfied with the bare minimum. People have aspirations, dreams, passions and they will have all of the resources and tools available for them to actualize their potential and create a wonderful life for themselves. No one has to remain living in the basic housing units provided by the government, once they improve their finances. They can move on to something better.


Milton Friedman and other well known icons of capitalism, were in favor of providing citizens with a basic income:

​

Welfare, as it is organized today, doesn't get people out of poverty, because it takes away their welfare as soon as the person finds a job. The person remains on welfare, without looking for a job or improving their finances our of fear they will lose their food, housing, healthcare..etc. Under our current welfare system and government, people don't have a human right to the basics of life. There's no foundation upon which to build a productive life if one is born and raised in poverty, under our current welfare system.

Unlike what I just mentioned above, which can be implemented within our current capitalist-run economy and system, the radical option completely replaces the current sociopolitical order, with another one that is more compatible with our modern age and technology. Under this new mode of production and economic system, we would adopt a non-profit form of production. An economic model that employs advanced 21st-century automation technology, with all of the robots, autonomous machines, artificial intelligence, super-computers, and self-driving vehicles. etc. We don't need markets, money. etc, just modern, high-tech infrastructure, with all of its resources and components in place to produce all of the goods and services that we use. This is the only true, assured way to avoid the so-called "tech apocalypse":

​

The billionaires, the ruling elite in this country, pretend that it's the working class who are in trouble due to advanced automation, but it's actually their socioeconomic class that is up the creek without a paddle, not the working class. All that the working class has to do is take ownership of the technology and means of production (raw materials, facilities, robots, machines.etc), and produce everything. We could all work 20 hours weekly and we would all get everything we need and want. We would keep our homes, our toys, our ...everything. The computers would do the accounting and we would simply take what we are entitled to from the store/s. For example, you worked 20 hours last week, so you have the right to three gallons of milk, X amount of pounds of meat, and you have the right to two new pairs of shoes every two weeks. The system, this society, would be generous and will make sure everyone is well-provisioned and enjoys a high standard of living. Advanced technology will allow us to transcend markets, the need for money, profits..etc.

Everyone will have the right to housing, maybe even two houses, in different cities. Everyone will have the best, most modern healthcare, with the latest technology. Everyone will have access to a great education. Everyone will have all of the tech devices and toys that they own and enjoy today. It will be a high-tech world, without the need for wages, money, markets, and profits. The alternative to the above is techno-feudalism. A new form of slavery where only the rich elites own the factories, robots, artificial intelligence, mines and mining equipment..etc, and everyone else will be consigned to abject poverty and eventually the compost heap. The rich ironically will adopt a marketless, non-profit system of production, and will no longer need money. So essentially, they will become the high-tech, modern communists or socialists, and the working class, rendered worthless because the rich don't need to hire them anymore, are thrown away like trash. I prefer for the vast majority of people i.e. the working class to be in charge, not the wealthy elites.

Cool. You should run for office.

 

[Red Front]

Cool. You should run for office.

Hehehe I'm a communist, so the odds of me holding office in the US at this time is a big ZERO. The tech apocalypse has to be seen on the horizon, for people to listen to what I'm saying. When they see the robots taking their jobs in mass, in about seven, eight years, the writing is on the wall for capitalism. We will have to, in the not-too-distant future, say within the next thirty years or so (I'm being very conservative), adopt a non-profit system of production. I won't call it what it is, because it's a scary word. We'll just call it a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY. It's fully automated, high-tech, where everything is produced to meet human needs and wants. No wages, no markets, no money, no profits, all of that is superfluous when advanced automation technology makes production highly efficient and easy. Extreme abundance, no more scarcity or poverty. That could be our future, the future of our children if we really want it.

 

[BS Filter]

Hehehe I'm a communist, so the odds of me holding office in the US at this time is a big ZERO. The tech apocalypse has to be seen on the horizon, for people to listen to what I'm saying. When they see the robots taking their jobs in mass, in about seven, eight years, the writing is on the wall for capitalism. We will have to, in the not-too-distant future, say within the next thirty years or so (I'm being very conservative), adopt a non-profit system of production. I won't call it what it is, because it's a scary word. We'll just call it a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY. It's fully automated, high-tech, where everything is produced to meet human needs and wants. No wages, no markets, no money, no profits, all of that is superfluous when advanced automation technology makes production highly efficient and easy. Extreme abundance, no more scarcity or poverty. That could be our future, the future of our children if we really want it.

Just run as a Democrat like the other communists do.

 

[there4eyeM]

Power without wisdom is certain bad news. It never ends well. Those with such immense economic sway must be very wise indeed in order to navigate the coming times.

 

[Red Front]

Just run as a Democrat like the other communists do.

Sure, look what happened to Bernie Sanders, and he isn't even a communist. He's a social democrat, not a real Marxist. No communists run for office in our country. Things are going to have to get really bad before people realize their need for democratic communism. It's not going to happen in the next few years, it's going to be in about twenty years. When a significant % of people are unemployed due to advanced automation and AI. The situation is going to get hairy in the late 20s, or early 30s.

 

[BS Filter]

Sure, look what happened to Bernie Sanders, and he isn't even a communist. He's a social democrat, not a real Marxist. No communists run for office in our country. Things are going to have to get really bad before people realize their need for democratic communism. It's not going to happen in the next few years, it's going to be in about twenty years. When a significant % of people are unemployed due to advanced automation and AI. The situation is going to get hairy in the late 20s, or early 30s.

Probably. Thank God I'll be gone.