Why does this greatest nation of ours have so much disparity regarding wealth?
Are we to glorify the fact that 400 individuals have more wealth than 150 million combined at the bottom of the ladder?
The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members. This has been stated many times throughout history, by the likes Ghandi, Churchill, the Pope,etc....Sometimes I think we either don't get it or don't care.
___
I would not be able to a judge a country’s greatness or moral condition based on wealth disparity; I find no evidence to support this reasoning as merit of humanity. I would judge it by the amount of freedom that each citizen had been afforded in which to achieve what they deemed necessary for their own happiness. If a country had one person with 99% of the wealth and the remaining wealth was held by 1%, provided there were no restrictions, laws or underlying “evilness” to prohibit or restrict people from earning more, then I would have no problem with the morality of the country. Left to their own devices and equal application of law, people will gain different levels of property based on many factors, none of which can be controlled by legislative means outside of lawful protection of rights.
Quote: Why does this greatest nation of ours have so much disparity regarding wealth?
Are we to glorify the fact that 400 individuals have more wealth than 150 million combined at the bottom of the ladder?_____
I cannot define greatness in terms of wealth or the lack thereof; only in terms of the amount of freedom and liberty the citizen has to attain it.
I have numerous ways in which to approach my answer and can find no other way to convey them without simple numeration.1 – I do not believe that wealth is finite; there is not a set amount to be gained or created; there is an infinite potential. Understanding that, someone becoming rich, gaining wealth, does not take away from my wealth or ability to create my own wealth. By them becoming rich, I have not had wealth removed. Bill Gates becoming a Billionaire did not take away from my ability to become wealthy; I had as much chance before his first billion as I did after his 40th billion. People under the poverty line are not there because the rich took their money. People in the middle class are not there because Bill Gates became a multi-billionaire. Mr. Gates helped to make many many people very wealthy, some fabulously so. The people of the Silicon Valley certainly have enjoyed the fruits of his labor.
[Interesting that Bill Gates formed his own charity and now gives 4+ billion a year to his charitable endeavors. He talked Buffet into a joint venture as well. The list of wealthy business men and their return of wealth to the citizen is long and true, not complete mind you. Having grown up in Pittsburgh, I thank the Mellon’s and Carnegies.]2 - I would find greatness in this country; that a person can start from nothing and make something of themselves, rise to a great level of success and achieve great amounts of property and become what he or she could not become in many other countries. Within the law, mind you, a person can become rich and wildly rewarded here, like no other country. So on this list of wealthy, just because there happens to be 400 at the top who have achieved more than others is no concern of mine and no foundation of scorn or moral decline.
3 - Is there no disparity in England? France? Venezuela? Cuba? Would “you” (metaphorically) like to place the value of property of this country’s poor against the value of the poor in any other country? And if Europe does not have big enough disparity levels, tell me why there are so many apartments in Monaco? Would you like to look at the wealth of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Kim Jung Ill in comparison to the “people”? Wealth disparity is present in all places, even in places where socialism has been able to run as full a course as it is able. Argue that it is larger here and you are just playing percentages. Compare the average middle class value with any in the rest of the world to see the effects of the success of its roots.4 - Why is wealth disparity seen as a bad thing? “You” (metaphorically) would like it to be more equal? More fair? Unless those individuals are / were breaking the laws, then in what way have they removed wealth from me in order to gain wealth for themselves? Them being rich has not made me poor. I know it sounds “moral” to believe that you should only be allowed to have so much when others have less, but there is really only one word for that system: theft, be it enforced by law does not make it right. Unless laws are made to remove wealth from those able to create and earn it, you can’t keep motivated and prosperous people from achieving it. And if you warrant any type of seizure of property for the sole sake of “fairness” then again, that is theft for some moral idea determined by men against other men.
5 - Am I proud that anyone in this country is capable of achieving great success? - Yes. If they gain this wealth at the expense of another? - No. As I have spelled out many times, the first and foremost item of any free society is the protection of one from another, period. Bring the full force of the Law as clearly laid out in the Constitution to bear upon the individual or company that seeks to harm or cheat the consumer.[There is no doubt that the D.o.J. has laid low and lax in this regard. We can all sit back and say punishment should meet the crime. How often have CEO’s, companies paid fully for their error or risk at the expense of the consumer and / or citizen. Make people, companies, CEOs, CFOs liable for their transgressions of public trust and watch how quickly change comes to bear. Allow them to hide behind money, lawyers and constant judicial loop holes and you will have higher risk of us for the chance of reward for them. Why did so many companies get away with their actions in the financial crisis? Why did I them bail them out after they did what they did? Wealth disparity? They increased the divide and I paid them for it!]
The wealth disparity does not bother me.Quote:
The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members. This has been stated many times throughout history, by the likes Gandhi, Churchill, the Pope,etc....Sometimes I think we either don't get it or don't care.I guess my question is who cares more? Or perhaps a better question, how best to care for those in true need of a helping hand. Do we better serve the greater good of lesser fortunate by sending our tithe to our Uncle and having him dole out as he sees fit? Is that the best we can do? How does he know what the people of my city need? How does he best enable and distribute wealth to care for these people? It is a “way”; I just do not think it is the most efficient or rewarding “way” for those in need. Any time money is large and free flowing, the efficiency decreases and the corruption increases.
In the end:How, outside of lawful theft or seizure or labor and property, do we as a nation close the divide? It is not something we should seek to do out right using social engineering, regulation and legislation in an effort to achieve “fairness” and equality. We should seek to continue to uphold the Constitution and defend freedom and rights from their removal and ensure that people can raise their social economic station in life without undue restriction based on their ability to do so; not a legislated stroke of charity to one at the expense of another.
I would start with the Tax code, then to career politicians and finally less Federal control.
No comments:
Post a Comment