Wealth gap is at critical mass

#226
#226
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

This is a summary of a very interesting paper written by an economist stuck in a WWII POW camp. Each man was given the exact same ration, yet economies developed and prisoners made and lost fortunes on the various black markets that thrived inside and outside the camp. I think it’s a really interesting study on what happens when things are “fair”. They are “fair” until the moment you press the play button and individual humans do what they do to better themselves. Some win, some lose. But even with the exact same resources humans will invariably gravitate to a state of haves and have nots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and FLVOL_79
#227
#227
SpaceCoastVol said:
inherited wealth is unethical?
Click to expand...

No I don't think it is unethical in and of itself. I included it because there were posts talking about how these wealthiest people all built themselves an industry from scratch. Some of them did, but some of them stood on parents' or grandparents' shoulders. Either way, it does add to the wealth gap. And again, a wealth gap isn't bad unless it occurs in a framework where the wealthy can use their wealth to buy politicians to craft laws to freeze out competition. That framework is in place in many countries (including the United States), unfortunately.
 
#228
#228
DancingOutlaw said:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

This is a summary of a very interesting paper written by an economist stuck in a WWII POW camp. Each man was given the exact same ration, yet economies developed and prisoners made and lost fortunes on the various black markets that thrived inside and outside the camp. I think it’s a really interesting study on what happens when things are “fair”. They are “fair” until the moment you press the play button and individual humans do what they do to better themselves. Some win, some lose. But even with the exact same resources humans will invariably gravitate to a state of haves and have nots.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But I am saying that when you concentrate such enormous wealth into the hands of

26

such that it equals the wealth of

3,600,000,000

that's an enormous problem waiting to happen.
 
#229
#229
LouderVol said:
I dont think everyone wants the military. And ours has gone far beyond self defense.

With the glut that is our military spending and the fact that our troops spend more time in classrooms than on the yard or the range I would say there is plenty of wasted socialized money there.
Click to expand...

Negative ghost rider. The military hasn't went "far beyond self defense". Politicians are giving those orders.

Military spending.....again, politicians. Truth is we spend and budget too much money on ******** and not nearly enough money on training and preparedness anymore...still doesnt mean we dont need our uniforms protecting us.

Seems like your gripes about it could easily be fixed by good ol voting booths.

I promise you that the men and women in uniform know when they are in a place that's needed and when they are not.

But somebody has to call the shots on big ops. Again, voting is the way to get rid of the waste.

Also, I feel sorry about anyone who doesnt want the military. After all, we got a whole "extreme" religeous sect running around telling everyone that americans need to die....but maybe the ones who dont "need" the military have some secret plate carriers that are magical. 😒
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#230
#230
newarkvol said:
686 billion worth of security (2019)
2.4 trillion to "liberate" Iraq so democracy could flower in the Mideast.. .ya..amurca!
Patriotism really is the last refuge of scoundrels... anyway I hear the 4th should be a humdinger in d.c. ---donny boy planning the shindig
Click to expand...

You do realize when you make remarks like this , you are *****ing on good people right?

Or maybe you just don't care. Hmmm
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#233
#233
volinsd said:
You do realize when you make remarks like this , you are *****ing on good people right?

Or maybe you just don't care. Hmmm
Click to expand...
??... I would not characterize Rumsfeld nor Cheney as "good people"....manipulative-Yessirr.... I think Cheney lost count of his deferments
 
#234
#234
lawgator1 said:
Again, you are not getting it. It's not about right or wrong, wise solution or no. It is about recognizing its a problem to begin with.

It is as though I'm describing an asteroid 3 weeks away from destroying Earth and you are willing to let it hit us just because you don't think firing nukes at it will work well.
Click to expand...
If its only going to destroy China and India......well, bye. I don't think that the piss poor 3.6 billion you are talking about are a planet killing asteroid, more like a meteor that burns up on the atmosphere.
 
#235
#235
DancingOutlaw said:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

This is a summary of a very interesting paper written by an economist stuck in a WWII POW camp. Each man was given the exact same ration, yet economies developed and prisoners made and lost fortunes on the various black markets that thrived inside and outside the camp. I think it’s a really interesting study on what happens when things are “fair”. They are “fair” until the moment you press the play button and individual humans do what they do to better themselves. Some win, some lose. But even with the exact same resources humans will invariably gravitate to a state of haves and have nots.
Click to expand...

And some folks may even get beyond the simplistic human nature/predilection to acquire unnecessary/excess resources

"Man differs from other animals in one very important respect, and that is that he has some desires which are, so to speak, infinite, which can never be fully gratified, and which would keep him restless even in Paradise. The boa constrictor, when he has had an adequate meal, goes to sleep, and does not wake until he needs another meal. Human beings, for the most part, are not like this."
B. Russell
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#236
#236
volinsd said:
Negative ghost rider. The military hasn't went "far beyond self defense". Politicians are giving those orders.

Military spending.....again, politicians. Truth is we spend and budget too much money on ******** and not nearly enough money on training and preparedness anymore...still doesnt mean we dont need our uniforms protecting us.

Seems like your gripes about it could easily be fixed by good ol voting booths.

I promise you that the men and women in uniform know when they are in a place that's needed and when they are not.

But somebody has to call the shots on big ops. Again, voting is the way to get rid of the waste.

Also, I feel sorry about anyone who doesnt want the military. After all, we got a whole "extreme" religeous sect running around telling everyone that americans need to die....but maybe the ones who dont "need" the military have some secret plate carriers that are magical. 😒
Click to expand...
Any military includes the command chain. The whole command chain. Including those in suits not stars.

I am willing to bet there are enough warhawking generals in every branch to fill out the star spangled banner.

Spending is spending. It doesnt go to socialized spending only when the military is chasing towel heads in some new sandbox. Its socialized everywhere. Socialized cant be used as a distinction between the military spending you are not ok with vs the spending you are ok with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Grand Vol
#237
#237
DancingOutlaw said:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

This is a summary of a very interesting paper written by an economist stuck in a WWII POW camp. Each man was given the exact same ration, yet economies developed and prisoners made and lost fortunes on the various black markets that thrived inside and outside the camp. I think it’s a really interesting study on what happens when things are “fair”. They are “fair” until the moment you press the play button and individual humans do what they do to better themselves. Some win, some lose. But even with the exact same resources humans will invariably gravitate to a state of haves and have nots.
Click to expand...
People who think life needs to be fair and everyone gets the same stuff live in a fantasy world where Utopia isn't a ludicrous and unattainable thing but their mental disease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and tennvols77
#238
#238
LouderVol said:
Any military includes the command chain. The whole command chain. Including those in suits not stars.

I am willing to bet there are enough warhawking generals in every branch to fill out the star spangled banner.

Spending is spending. It doesnt go to socialized spending only when the military is chasing towel heads in some new sandbox. Its socialized everywhere. Socialized cant be used as a distinction between the military spending you are not ok with vs the spending you are ok with.
Click to expand...

Again...voting matters.

Are you saying we should not spend any taxpayer money on the military and we should scrap it?
 
#239
#239
volinsd said:
Again...voting matters.

Are you saying we should not spend any taxpayer money on the military and we should scrap it?
Click to expand...

I'm retired military.

There is a lot of waste in the military budget and fat that could be trimmed in the service. The military budget system should un-**** itself first, then we can look at cuts if needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol, marcusluvsvols, Septic and 1 other person
#240
#240
volinsd said:
Again...voting matters.

Are you saying we should not spend any taxpayer money on the military and we should scrap it?
Click to expand...
No. Just that it is socialized. Socialized defense or offense. Whatever you want to call it. If its paid by taxes it is socialized by its nature.
 
#241
#241
hog88 said:
We’ve always have had the haves and the have nots and we always will. You could confiscate all the wealth in the world and distribute it equally to everyone and witching 5-10 years those that had will have it all again.
Click to expand...

Do you really think Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka could do it all over again starting from nothing and inheriting nothing? Ditto with Jared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
#242
#242
lawgator1 said:
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But I am saying that when you concentrate such enormous wealth into the hands of

26

such that it equals the wealth of

3,600,000,000

that's an enormous problem waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
So what's the point? Mega-wealth has always existed. What is inherently wrong with it as long as the rights of others aren't infringed upon? Do you think the masses will rise up purely due to envy?
 
#247
#247
Here's a prime example of wasteful spending in the military budget. Something utterly simple.

Uniforms.

It used to be easy, four services wearing common uniforms with distinct service dress (Class A if you will) signifying their branch. Two major patterns, woodland and desert, that worked reasonably well. They weren't perfect, but they worked well enough. So, we had a common battle uniform across the services only separated by the service tape and various accouterments. However, the USMC decided it needed to update it's uniform back close to 20 years ago. Spent a lot of money designing and testing three distinct patterns, finally fielded two (desert and woodlands) and they work exceptionally well since computer technology was a part of their design, the first time that had ever been done. The functionality of the uniform was debatable, but overall, it worked fairly well.

The Army, not to be outdone, says they need a new one as well. Because who lets the Marines outdo them, right? Test all sorts of patterns and all sorts of designs. Finally settles on a pattern that doesn't quite work in any environment, though the major colors are supposed to blend into urban, woodland and desert environments. Functionally, the uniforms are quite nice with body armor in mind and pockets in the right places.

Problem is, the camouflage scheme is and continues to be a horrid disappointment. The so called "Universal Camouflage Pattern" royally sucks in damn near every environment. Billions of dollars wasted only to turn around to purchase and issue a color scheme they already tested a decade prior that already showed it was a better camouflage design and already was in use by other nations and in general service in Afghanistan after they figured out their camouflage sucked and the soldiers deserves some form of concealment.

Of course, the USAF can't be left behind. Can't learn from the Marines (two distinct, but awesome patterns) or the Army (extremely functional) and design something that blended the best attributes of the sister services. Nope, let's design a uniform that's basically takes the worst attributes of both the Marines and the Army and add a fourth color, a slate blue for distinctness, in a pattern that doesn't work for ****. Oh, and now we have to use another camouflage pattern for special operations since they flat refused to use that abomination.

And the Navy...never to be outdone, take the digital camouflage pattern of the Marines and makes it into shades of blue...

Yes, blue that blends in with nothing but...water. Helpful like. And by the way, issue two other patterns entirely to the special operations forces because, again, they would refuse to wear that abomination.

Four services, four different combat uniforms, billions of dollars wasted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and FLVOL_79
#248
#248
evillawyer said:
Do you really think Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka could do it all over again starting from nothing and inheriting nothing? Ditto with Jared.
Click to expand...
naNEzNm.gif
 
#250
#250
GAVol said:
They'd have a pretty good shot based on their education and experience.
Click to expand...

He said starting from nothing.

Heck, If Eric were to start from an upper middle class family - I'd still give him a ceiling of Papa Johns night shift manager.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top