Iostream

It truly is. If all the wealth on the planet were equally distributed everyone would have more than enough to live comfortably, but without poor people, and a gap between rich and poor, capitalism would die, and many men in power wouldn't be too happy about that. They'd all be murdered if they weren't coward ass pussies with body guards to protect them from the poor people they keep down, and employ for minimum wage. The dream of equal distribution of wealth will never come true though, because there will always be power-hungry individuals who rise to power and become corrupt, and must keep many people down to keep themselves up. Like a pyramid, there can be no top without the bottom. And the farther down the pyramid you go, the more bricks there are. The lowest level has the greatest amount of bricks. Unfortunately, theses bricks metaphorically represent people.
That's why communism is so unsuccessful on earth, because of the powerful hags at the top who greedily hoard money that is supposed to be equally distributed. The following is the definition of communism as it functions on planet earth as used by human beings: The powerful bastards take the majority of the wealth, and then the equal distribution comes in. After they have sucked the national finances dry, then everyone else gets the remaining small amount of money distributed equally among themselves. The following is the definition of ideal communism: Everyone, even the national leaders make the same amounts of money and everyone does their job to keep the nation running. But ideal communism won't ever work on earth because there will always be greedy pieces of shit who want it all.
Because of this, capitalism is better here on earth. With capitalism, everyone makes money according to how hard they work, however much rich ass they kiss, who they know, how much money their parents have, or who their parents are. The people who don't make money are either unfortunate because they weren't born in a rich family, they don't know any rich people, they have dignity and don't kiss ass, or in some cases, they are just too lazy to work their way to wealth. But with capitalism, no one can ever be equal, there must be underlings and minions. There is no "ideal" capitalism because there will always be people who are fucked and at the bottom of the food chain who only want to feed their children and are forced to slave all day for minimum wage for a bastard boss who is off on a nice vacation soaking up the sun and enjoying his large amount of money generated on the backs of hard working people who can barely afford to eat.
There is no solution to poverty. It can, however, be weakened. If there were more genuine rich people who gave up their wealth to the poor, that would really help the destruction of poverty. It pains me to know that there is nothing I can do because I have no money to give and no way to make money to help people. All I can do is sit back and watch the world rot, watch mothers struggle to feed their children, watch people get arrested when they are only stealing to survive, and watch corporate greed expand infinitely until the end of the human race.

Kazikli Bey

Iostream, i think i really, really like you (and btw, welcome to the forum, great way to open)

__________________

selachi

If all the wealth in the world were evenly distributed you would still have the rich and the poor. Look at lottery winners, who go bankrupt in a matter of years. They spend and spend, instead of using the money wisely, investing, starting businesses etc.

So what happens when some people spend all of their money, yet others have used the money wisely? Do you take the money from those people and distribute it again to the irresponsible ones?

Pretty soon everyone would see that spending is the way to go, instead of investing. Why create a business to produce something when you have no chance of doing better for yourself? Why bother to work at all if you will end up with just as much money as the guy busting his ass? Very soon we would have a world of welfare recipients with no one creating anything, or even working at all.

Now, I am not saying welfare is a completely bad thing, there are people who are infirmed, either mentally or physically who NEED to have help, but there are also many who are completely capable of working and yet do not, because it is much easier to stay at home than get a job.

Finally, the office of the company I work for has been in the same place for 50 years, the area of town is now a very low income area. We have break-ins constantly, with company trucks being ransacked doors and windows to the shop kicked in, and copper mostly being stolen. The ones stealing this are drug users, not stealing to feed families, but to pay for drugs. I have not seen or heard of many, if any stories of people stealing to feed their kids, have you?

iTaliAN_ICe

I believe Selachi shot down that argument quite well...

FRYandBENDER

Wealth is not, and should not be distributed. Wealth is earned.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

dahermit

Is this always true? How about Paris Hilton? Helmsley? Helmsley's dog? Lottery winners? All who inherent? The class systems of England and other places? The children of privilege in the US?

Also, the idea that all people who succeed have benefited from "hard work" instead of cleaver politics is more likely to come from people who have not experienced or studied organizational dynamics (FEMA's Brown who's expertise was in horse show production). Consider the robber Barrons or the early 1900's with coal mine owners paying with company script instead of cash and 10 year old children rock pickers crushed to death after falling asleep because of the long hours. In this context (and more modern examples) the "hard work" mentioned is that of the workers, not those who benefit from their labor.

If it was true that wealth was always earned we would have a much better world. However, such a statement are more likely the rhetoric of Conservatives than the reality.

Iostream

I have actually. My friend from Peru tells me that it is very segregated by class there and nearly every time a rich Peruvian gets robbed by a poor one, they will sincerely apologize to you while they hold you at knifepoint saying they need to feed their families and that is why they have gone to such desperate measures.

When I say "equal distribution of wealth", I don't mean that everyone is handed an equal share of the wealth continuously. I mean that everyone makes the same wages as everyone else no matter what they do. So if they piss away their money, they don't just get it back. This way, people won't be motivated towards a career based on money. They can do it according to what they are passionate about.

So I wasn't saying that people who don't work should get money. I was just saying that everyone who does work should get equal wages. You misinterpreted my statement. I see no reason why this should not work.

iTaliAN_ICe

That wouldn't work. People would simply choose the easiest job they could find and we'd have shortages of workers in key industries. It would mean economic failure. Plus, it isn't the government's place to dictate wages. Set limits on wages? Maybe. Actually set the wages? No. That's un-capitalist.

selachi

If everyone made the same wages as everyone else, what would be the motivation to go to school for 4-10 years in order to become a Doctor? And in your system would these people get school free? Or would they pay for it themselves? Also, why would I start a company with my own money when I run the risk of losing that money, for the same wage as the people working for me? Or, does the government own everything and we are just workers for the government?

Lastly, who would strive to be a ditch digger, or a plumber, or a farmer, or a janitor, or the guy on the trash truck. While all very necessary, anyone would agree these are not glamorous jobs. Everyone would want to be a guy sitting at a desk, or a park ranger, or an actor, or a rock star.

While I can see the point you are trying to make, you have to realize two things.

1)It is a very idealistic, and in any form of free society, completely impossible.
What you are describing is a commune.

2)It has been done already, in the USSR, and that didn't seem to work too well for the Proletariat, who stood in line for hours to get toilet paper.

You will always have rich, middle class and poor. This doesn't mean each class deserves to be in the position they are in, but in the USA at least, each person has the chance to rise above their current position.

Finally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but my son (who is 15) and I were having a discussion along these lines just this past week. I explained to him why true communism, while sounding good, cannot work. It goes against human nature. You will always have those who work harder than others.

Say there is no money, you only trade services between the different people out there. So I make shoes, you make shoes, Italian Ice makes shirts, etc. If I want a shirt I get one of his shirts, and he gets a pair of shoes. But you make much better shoes than I do, so everyone wants your shoes, not mine. Now you are working twice as hard as I am, because the demand for your shoes is higher, yet I am getting exactly what you are getting in trade.
Now is this fair? Will you feel upset about getting home 5 hours later than I do, for the same wage? Now you may say, well I will only make so many shoes, and you will have to also, but then what about Italian Ice, who gets inferior shoes, while making superior shirts? Now he feels he is being slighted, and by all rights should receive the good shoes, as he is on his feet all day making shirts.

By the way, I am very much enjoying this conversation, and my apologies to Italian Ice for making him part of my scenario.

iTaliAN_ICe

No apology necessary.