The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Actually if we use hemp and concrete there's probably enough for everyone to have a mansion.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Actually if we use hemp and concrete there's probably enough for everyone to have a mansion.

Hemp, concrete and a pinch of saffron.

We'll call it saffhempcrete.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,

So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?

For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?

I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell

Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.

No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.

So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Sparkymedic

This statement pretty much proves to anyone how full of # you are. I don't think you could be anymore disingenuous if you tried.

Thanks. Would you mind elaborating? What are you even referencing?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Sparkymedic

Oh come on give me a break.

You certainly deliver a lot of single sentence, dismissive, imperious posts.

Care to share ?

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: stevieray
If you took all the money from the 62, and gave it to the lazy fools around the world, it would be back in the hands of the 62 in 5-10 years.

The lottery proves it every day. As do the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB.

There's a reason that the 1% has all the money....they earned it, and they aren't idiots, lazy, or more into the booze, dope, and flesh than being productive.... like the majority of people on the globe.

That would be about it. Socialism and communism were invented out of pure jealousy and overriding laziness, people (marx) who needed an excuse for their sloth and a method to steal something back from the ambitious and smart.

I'm not one of the 1%, but I have worked for 40 years to build a comfy retirement and happy family. So as soon as the flotsam and jetsam of society steal everything from the truly rich, they'll be looking for me next.

You make an absolutely asinine assumption that everyone is born equal and therefore all have equal opportunity to become one of these 62 people. Therefore, what you state is baseless, thoughtless and practically immature calling everyone who isn't a billionaire, lazy. Feel free to tell that to all the people in this world who literally put their lives on the line for others, everyday...and do so not so much for a paycheck, but because they, at the very least, are their brothers keeper.

Altruism is priceless.

I said nothing about born equal, everyone non-billionaire = lazy, anyone who puts their lives on the line, and so on.

Other than that, your post is wholly inapplicable to the discussion ! Too funny.

Gates, Waltons, Buffet, Jobs, Zuckerberg all came with nothing but good ideas. Woops. And then you have your classic liberals / progressives / RINOs like the Kennedies, Clintons, Rockefellers, Roosevelts, Kruschevs, Ceausescus, Castros, etc. They all love the "one world tripe". Woops.

I crafted an algorithm when I was 14 valued at 1b $. I've put together multi-million dollar companies since then and even given them away for free because I have too many.

Being a Billionaire is more than skill based. It's a personal desire involved with that. You can say no one would ever give away a billion dollars but I'm living proof you can easily make a billion dollars and just not accept it in the first place.

Zuckerbergs website is one of the most unmiraculious websites ever. From a technical standpoint.

Everyone should be conscious of the economic burden they have on others in their surroundings. How can I live peacefully with $1,000,000,000 when 40 million holds so much stratification with every single person I've ever met?

Personally, I don't believe that there are billionaires hanging around conspiracy (or any other) websites, selling the socialism. Call me a skeptic. So I must simply reject your claims and resulting lecturing.

I Don't disagree with you on Zuckerberg. He stole a silly teenybopper idea from others, right place right time. But he did have the wherewithal to position and tweak it correctly to become what it did. Besides being a silly social free-for-all, it is now a great platform for businesses, good causes, reuniting people, for the whole world.

Same with Gates. Stole most of the single concepts from people who had already invented them. But again, he had the wherewithal to put them together systematically, and deliver the system to the business world, then the social world around the globe, that standardized our products and methods for everyone to have one mode of communication.

Thus, they made (absolutely earned) billions for making something that the whole world wanted, whole world made good use of. Just like the oil, railroad, automobile, aircraft, chemical, food barons before them.

Also, it's not zero sum. Somebody's 50 billion takes nothing out of anybody's pocket. Facebook doesn't impinge on anything else, take anything from anyone. It's something brand new that occupies no other niche. Zuckerberg's 50 billion is new money, taking not one penny from anyone else. If Facebook never happened, that concentration of money never exists in any other form. Maybe it killed the Polka Party ?

Maybe Gates hurt the envelope industry, lol. Do you want to go back and retroactively save the horse and buggy ? Or the musket industry ?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,

So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?

For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?

I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell

Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.

No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.

So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.

Every single one of those cars will fill a niche. Some will sell, making the lot owner money. Next they will go to auction, where another type of business buys them and sells them differently. Some will get sold again by individuals.

Only in collective govts do things get junked brand new to rust away, because they might upset some social goal or policy.

In a capitalist society, you can bet that every car will be sold in some fashion or another. Varying levels of cost and profit, but all will get bought eventually.

As far as the food, again, the most egregious examples of food rotting in the field or on the dock, have always been in collectivism. Where centralized planning failed logistically, or couldn't go against a strict social policy.

We have more than enough help for poor in the world, including food. The only thing that stops it is bureaucrats and gangs wanting their cut, or starving their enemies. Most of the time in failed, fascist socialist states.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: stevieray

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing out my inability to read.

Sometimes dyslexia is hilarious, other times, it isn't.

Not sure what you mean. I was just talking about your collection of tangents that didn't really relate to my post.

I don't get any laughs out of dyslexia, or autism, or ADHD. I know people with each of these.

Well, there is that one Gary Larson cartoon.

a reply to: stevieray

They were a collection of tangents, because I had misread what you said. Had I not misread, and you said what I thought you said, they would not be tangents. It was a genuine comment, no sarcasm.

Gary Larson, My favorite is the "gifted" kid pushing on the "pull" door at the school for the gifted.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,

So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?

For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?

I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell

Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.

No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.

So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.

Every single one of those cars will fill a niche. Some will sell, making the lot owner money. Next they will go to auction, where another type of business buys them and sells them differently. Some will get sold again by individuals.

Only in collective govts do things get junked brand new to rust away, because they might upset some social goal or policy.

In a capitalist society, you can bet that every car will be sold in some fashion or another. Varying levels of cost and profit, but all will get bought eventually.

As far as the food, again, the most egregious examples of food rotting in the field or on the dock, have always been in collectivism. Where centralized planning failed logistically, or couldn't go against a strict social policy.

We have more than enough help for poor in the world, including food. The only thing that stops it is bureaucrats and gangs wanting their cut, or starving their enemies. Most of the time in failed, fascist socialist states.

Have you ever been out back of your local supermarket or restaurant? If not, I highly suggest you check it out. They throw out perfectly good food, ALL the time. Why? Because they are interested in profit. Not sustainability. Empty looking shelves with perfectly good food on them do not sell. As for restaurants, well...they just don't want to run out of the quarter-pounder meal that everyone wanted yesterday, but doesn't want today. I'm not saying they HAVE to serve it all, but at least donate what you aren't going to use. OR just buy X amount of food and when you are all out, you close down for the day. But again...where is the profit margin for that?

On to vehicles, they are none the less wasteful as is. Why a new model every year? Why not a model that will last 100+ years? Clearly it isn't sustainable for business and profit. But it also isn't sustainable to make a new model of a car year after year just to give it a new look or add a new feature. Indeed cars are always getting safer, so long as corners aren't being cut and tests aren't hidden and lied about - which has happened, and will likely continue to happen so long as car companies have shareholders to answer to.

Planned obsolescence is a staple to capitalism. The cars NEED to break down. Car companies don't really make their bread and butter from sales. They make it in the service dept. Much like aircraft and their engines. When you buy an aircraft, you get the engines for "free". Thing is, you have only ONE place to get parts for it. This is where those companies make their money. Mind you with all of the counterfeit, EVERYTHING, out there these days, you probably aren't even getting what you paid for. Just ask the USAF how totally screwed they are in terms of counterfeit parts for the aircraft!

If budgets didn't exist, yet all the resources we have now still exists, we could easily have such things as cars and aircraft lasting WAY longer than they do and being MUCH safer and MUCH more efficient. As per the NASA engineers who developed the Space Shuttle, that thing was the most dangerous vehicle on the planet. But not due to a lack of engineering know how, but due to budget restraint. The one's who win the contracts for such things are ALWAYS the lowest bidder.

I'm sticking to my original point, which while it may not have come across as such, the majority of material goods in a capitalist monetary economy are essentially to some degree or another manufactured in the cheapest way possible and sold at the highest price possible. Thus making them junk or near junk. Which is essentially the same as saying they are WASTEFUL.

When your product is food, yes, some will go into the garbage. As with every possible business and product.

There are also lots of great programs like Second Harvest, which make the efficiency of the food business better.

But it can't be perfect, no program is.

It's not a business's fault that they do their best to project sales and it's not always perfect, mostly due to customer behaviors. You do realize that their goal is to sell everything they make or put out, right ? So they're actually trying to do that every day ?

At this point, it seems like you're simply saying that selling food is bad, it should be dispersed by a magical world-wide system that is magically prescient and perfect in it's distribution.

I promise you.....magical collectives waste more than businesses whose entire goal is to be lean and reduce waste close to zero. The communist or socialist czar couldn't care less about waste or starvation. That's only been proven many times in real life, in history.

a reply to: stevieray

No, I'm truly not saying what you are implying. I'm saying monetary economics are limited and totally unsustainable on a global level. Of course stores want to sell everything. But they don't, EVER. And they never will. The stocking of shelves to the point of having everything "squared away" and replenished weekly if not daily is not only for the simple fact of restocking inventory but also for appearances/ marketing. And THAT is wasteful! What is Second Harvest? Ill assume it's likely a charity. Probably a nice thought, but likely also just a drop in the bucket. You make it seem like, "hey food sharing/ banks exists, everything is good now". Food security is very important, all over the world. Not just where you are.

Food security is frail in many parts of the globe, for many different reasons. Most of which money will never solve, but can still be solved with actual technical solutions aka "magical world wide systems" (I.e. The Internet). We have the technical abilities to solve many global problems. What stands the the way of these solutions are money and budgets and apparently at least 62 people with half the world's wealth, as useless as it all is at the end of the day.

I'm not suggesting a shift to one of the ism's like you mentioned. None of them work as they ALL use (at least historically) a monetary economic model. Money, is the reason for all of this mindlessly wasteful behavior our society is experiencing in the first place.

If you missed it a few posts back this is what I was bringing up: Money isn't real, but imagined and totally invented. Yes, it was most definitely necessary to have to get us to where we are today, but I doubt highly it will take humanity much further. If anything it'll probably kill off the human race due to greed/ competition. The monetary system CLEARLY works for the few. And in doing so, promotes scarcity and wastefulness in an attempt to garner profits for the few who have the capacity to bother with it all in the first place. And those profits aren't even useful in an effort to sustain life. They are only useful in sustaining dominance and control of the status quo. You can't eat money and you can't drink gold...well...you can, but...anyways...they are uselessly useful items of man's creation.

And the people who obey the status quo are the workers, who profit to a point as well. Victims and agents of the system. Though, they make only enough to sustain daily modern living, or there abouts. Most living off debt I'm sure, to secure an unpredictable future of unforseen circumstances and consequences. But hey, thats not your problem. It's up to them to be in the competition for a better way of life, right?

Why do we accept competition as a way to success in life? It breeds abhorrent behavior like jealousy, revenge, greed, crime, etc.

Indeed competition can be accredited to great successes and discoveries in human history and everyday life. But for the most part, a massive amount of people have suffered and continue to suffer, needlessly, because of it.

Why do we want a system of climbing ladders while kicking in the teeth of others on our way up to "success"?

Where is this getting everyone? What is the end game?

You can bring your savings to the grave, but it'll just sit there as you are eaten by worms, doing what it's always done. Nothing.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

As long as Wall Street investors are Profitting off the labor of others our economy will never sustain. There will be a growing chasm between investors and workers until it collapses.

a reply to: onequestion

Indeed. I agree. And it's probably going to collapse sooner than later.

But I bet there will be an attempt at QE4 before that happens. Although, I won't be surprised if it doesn't happen.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,

So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?

For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?

I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell

Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.

No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.

So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.

The market dictated that food be grown. To accommodate the rising demand, supply was expanded.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

If everybody demanded those cars they would be sold. You are putting the cart before the horse. Customer demand is the ultimate last word because it is the only word. Attempts to subvert any aspect of it hamper the ability of the free market to provide a competitive environment. It doesn't become instantly unfree, just progressively less free.

Entrepreneurs never really go away, they just alter their investments according to the likelihood of confiscation.

a reply to: greencmp

You're acting like artificial scarcity designed to drive prices up isn't a thing.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

No. This is stupid.

Even if you wish to claim that Capitalism has reduced abject poverty, it still exists. In many cases, engendered by Capitalism, not solved.
Or does "the world" only consist of the people you know?
Are the poor not included in "everybody?"

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: greencmp

You're acting like artificial scarcity designed to drive prices up isn't a thing.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

No. This is stupid.

Even if you wish to claim that Capitalism has reduced abject poverty, it still exists. In many cases, engendered by Capitalism, not solved.
Or does "the world" only consist of the people you know?
Are the poor not included in "everybody?"

What's fascinating about food, grains in particular, is that the US has been responsible for feeding much of the world.

What I think you are referring to are the many examples in bread basket farming restrictions and subsidies paying its growers not to grow too much of anything.

That is the agricultural aspect of socio-economic interventionism, subsidies to sponsor favored monopoly producers as indicated by regulators.

These are examples of interference with the market and they always result in harm.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
CNN Money - The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

The world's 62 richest billionaires have as much wealth as the bottom half of the world's population, according to a new report from Oxfam International.

The wealthiest have seen their net worth soar over the five years ending in 2015. Back in 2010, it took 388 mega-rich people to own as much as half the world.

Oxfam released its annual report ahead of the World Economic Forum in the Swiss city of Davos, a yearly gathering of political and financial leaders. The study draws from the Forbes annual list of billionaires and Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Databook.

To help counter inequality, Oxfam is renewing its call for global leaders to crack down on tax havens, where the rich have socked away $7.6 trillion, the group estimates.

Let that sink in for a minute. In 2010, the richest 388 people had as much as the bottom half of the world's population and over the past five years, so much wealth has been amassed at the top that now 62 billionaires at the top have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion people at the bottom. If rumors about Putin's secret fortune are true, that number is actually lower and possibly closer to 50 than 60.

Doesn't seem like a trend that bodes well for the future of the global economy does it?

Meanwhile "certain people" are programmed to blame the fruit pickers and Welfare queens (with their lavish $140 a month) for the scarcities that WE ALL FEEL.

We are programmed to believe that this is a product of excellence, that wealth is a byproduct of hard work. I challenge a billionaire to do a day of fruit picking and all their shills too.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,

So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?

For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?

I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell

Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.

No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.

So you would think we would have an economy which can fluctuate with said scarcity. But we don't. Monetary economics as we all know and see it, doesn't (seriously) take into account finite resources of the planet. Only profit, at any cost.

Ever see a parking lot at a car factory? Usually hundreds of brand new cars of that years models. These aren't made to order. There is a significant amount of waste, thus causing, "natural scarcity" in monetary economics.

Scarcity of resources is manufactured by the economy. Finite resources are natural to our planet.

There is in fact an abundance of food, yet people still starve on this planet. That is scarcity. Not a result of finite resources.

The market dictated that food be grown. To accommodate the rising demand, supply was expanded.

It was capitalism that has fed the world and lifted everybody out of abject poverty.

If everybody demanded those cars they would be sold. You are putting the cart before the horse. Customer demand is the ultimate last word because it is the only word. Attempts to subvert any aspect of it hamper the ability of the free market to provide a competitive environment. It doesn't become instantly unfree, just progressively less free.

Entrepreneurs never really go away, they just alter their investments according to the likelihood of confiscation.

My problem with the market is it is an inanimate construct that does not possess a brain, a conscious or any logic.

I think basing whether or not a person will eat or parish on a construct is not a firm basis for morality, society or governance. This is not to say that the market is not important, rather, that the market is worshiped like a god, it is the sum of chaos, greed and competition, base constructs IMO.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Sparkymedic

As long as Wall Street investors are Profitting off the labor of others our economy will never sustain. There will be a growing chasm between investors and workers until it collapses.

I think it is inevitable unfortunately. However, I think those of us who see it for what it is should try to progress our politics and find ways to beat the "private market" at their game by establishing business's that are designed to sustain peoples lives, not greed and opulence. There is a way to do it and I hope one day lefty politicos will realize we need to get in the game.