Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth (1 Viewer)

[CBusAlex]

if the vow of chastity is for real, I'd say we have a cherry pope

Dude wasn't always a priest.

Still, he's probably at least a vanilla pope.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Shouldn't the pope be calling on the rich people to donate more money to the poor, rather than calling on governments to hammer the rich so governments can redistribute to the poor? Why is the inefficient middleman government part of the popes equation? To be consistent, shouldn't he be calling on all middlemen such as the mafia to donate more money to the poor?

And you can bet that only about 5% of that confiscated wealth would ever make it to the poor.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

 

[NCCommish]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

 

[jonessed]

The pope need to start leading by example if he's serious about any of this. Let's pop open those Catholic vaults!

 

[tud_duke]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

No it isn't. But I agree with your second statement. I don't think Americans are qualified to define the term "poor" when speaking globally and your first sentence is a good reason why. Are you seriously saying that our poor are suffering comparatively to the countries he just listed?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

And it's largely incidental. A lot of the well paying middle class manufacturing jobs are gone, that doesn't mean that those who would have had those opportunities are restricted in 2014. It means they have to seek education and work harder, but nothing in the U.S. is impossible. A lot in India is impossible if you are born to nothing. Two of our last three presidents have come from humble beginnings, that doesn't happen many places.

 

[msommer]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

Which non capitalist societies have been shown to have everyone equally poor?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

And it's largely incidental. A lot of the well paying middle class manufacturing jobs are gone, that doesn't mean that those who would have had those opportunities are restricted in 2014. It means they have to seek education and work harder, but nothing in the U.S. is impossible. A lot in India is impossible if you are born to nothing. Two of our last three presidents have come from humble beginnings, that doesn't happen many places.

Nearly every study that looks at economic mobility has shown the U.S. to be in the middle of the pack or worse compared to other developed nations, and this trend has gotten worse over the last few decades. That said the U.S. probably still offers the world's easiest access to unrestricted and safe capital, proximity to the world's largest and richest consumer base, and the most accessible and deep higher education system. So people with significant talents are likely to do better here than anywhere else in the world.

Conversely we invest less in social spending than most other developed economies, which tends to reinforce the gap between those who can afford to cover that investment at a family level and those who can't.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

And it's largely incidental. A lot of the well paying middle class manufacturing jobs are gone, that doesn't mean that those who would have had those opportunities are restricted in 2014. It means they have to seek education and work harder, but nothing in the U.S. is impossible. A lot in India is impossible if you are born to nothing. Two of our last three presidents have come from humble beginnings, that doesn't happen many places.

Nearly every study that looks at economic mobility has shown the U.S. to be in the middle of the pack or worse compared to other developed nations, and this trend has gotten worse over the last few decades. That said the U.S. probably still offers the world's easiest access to unrestricted and safe capital, proximity to the world's largest and richest consumer base, and the most accessible and deep higher education system. So people with significant talents are likely to do better here than anywhere else in the world.

Conversely we invest less in social spending than most other developed economies, which tends to reinforce the gap between those who can afford to cover that investment at a family level and those who can't.

I thought this was interesting

Children growing up in America today are just as likely — no more, no less — to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.

Even though social movements have delivered better career opportunities for women and minorities and government grants have made college more accessible, one thing has stayed constant: If you are growing up poor today, you appear to have the same odds of staying poor in adulthood that your grandparents did.


The landmark new study, from a group led by Harvard’s Raj Chetty, suggests that any advances in opportunity provided by expanded social programs have been offset by other changes in economic conditions. Increased trade and advanced technology, for instance, have closed off traditional sources of middle-income jobs.

The findings also suggest that who your parents are and how much they earn is more consequential for American youths today than ever before. That’s because the difference between the bottom and the top of the economic ladder has grown much more stark, but climbing the ladder hasn’t gotten any easier.

Those findings add up to a surprising take on the status of the iconic American Dream, and they cast Washington’s roiling debate about the consequences of economic inequality in a new light.

Having lived in Europe for over a decade, I can say that while things may be closer to the mean from rich to poor, opportunities are still largely restricted based on family connections and socio-economic class you were born in to. Again, people still flock here from Western Europe for the opportunities so I'm not all that sure economic mobility is looked at in the correct manner for Americans.

Things are certainly unequal, inner city kids are at the greatest disadvantage, but poor rural folk have similar issues. But in the U.S. you can drive around roadblocks, in those developed nations you mentioned that's not always the case unless you go full board socialism like in the Nordic countries. I don't disparage that approach, but it's comapring apples to oranges talking about economic mobility in Sweden vs economic mobility in the U.S. In Sweden things are planned for you, in the U.S. you make your own way. I'll keep the latter, and I'm definitely not Chet.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

And it's largely incidental. A lot of the well paying middle class manufacturing jobs are gone, that doesn't mean that those who would have had those opportunities are restricted in 2014. It means they have to seek education and work harder, but nothing in the U.S. is impossible. A lot in India is impossible if you are born to nothing. Two of our last three presidents have come from humble beginnings, that doesn't happen many places.

Nearly every study that looks at economic mobility has shown the U.S. to be in the middle of the pack or worse compared to other developed nations, and this trend has gotten worse over the last few decades. That said the U.S. probably still offers the world's easiest access to unrestricted and safe capital, proximity to the world's largest and richest consumer base, and the most accessible and deep higher education system. So people with significant talents are likely to do better here than anywhere else in the world.

Conversely we invest less in social spending than most other developed economies, which tends to reinforce the gap between those who can afford to cover that investment at a family level and those who can't.

I thought this was interesting

Children growing up in America today are just as likely — no more, no less — to climb the economic ladder as children born more than a half-century ago, a team of economists reported Thursday.

Even though social movements have delivered better career opportunities for women and minorities and government grants have made college more accessible, one thing has stayed constant: If you are growing up poor today, you appear to have the same odds of staying poor in adulthood that your grandparents did.


The landmark new study, from a group led by Harvard’s Raj Chetty, suggests that any advances in opportunity provided by expanded social programs have been offset by other changes in economic conditions. Increased trade and advanced technology, for instance, have closed off traditional sources of middle-income jobs.

The findings also suggest that who your parents are and how much they earn is more consequential for American youths today than ever before. That’s because the difference between the bottom and the top of the economic ladder has grown much more stark, but climbing the ladder hasn’t gotten any easier.

Those findings add up to a surprising take on the status of the iconic American Dream, and they cast Washington’s roiling debate about the consequences of economic inequality in a new light.

Having lived in Europe for over a decade, I can say that while things may be closer to the mean from rich to poor, opportunities are still largely restricted based on family connections and socio-economic class you were born in to. Again, people still flock here from Western Europe for the opportunities so I'm not all that sure economic mobility is looked at in the correct manner for Americans.

Things are certainly unequal, inner city kids are at the greatest disadvantage, but poor rural folk have similar issues. But in the U.S. you can drive around roadblocks, in those developed nations you mentioned that's not always the case unless you go full board socialism like in the Nordic countries. I don't disparage that approach, but it's comapring apples to oranges talking about economic mobility in Sweden vs economic mobility in the U.S. In Sweden things are planned for you, in the U.S. you make your own way. I'll keep the latter, and I'm definitely not Chet.

One of the other major differences between the U.S. and Europe is the amount of purely demographic growth that has happened here over the last century-plus. That reduces some of the friction against entrenched wealth that you describe, since the entire economy needs to grow to supply goods and services to a growing population.

My main criticism of U.S. policies is that I think we can do a better job of creating a better "floor" or minimum platform from which our lower social classes can build from. That probably means more redistribution of income than we do today, but it also means having safety net programs that are more efficient and not designed in a way that they end up reinforcing the class stereotypes they are supposed to be addressing.

 

[PIK95]

This Pope is starting to get a little uppity. Acting like he's God's gift to mankind.

lmao!

 

[Apple Jack]

The pope need to start leading by example if he's serious about any of this. Let's pop open those Catholic vaults!

Hey now.

 

[Parrothead]

The pope need to start leading by example if he's serious about any of this. Let's pop open those Catholic vaults!

if he does that they will hang him.. he'll end up as a pope on a rope

 

[DiStefano]

Since the average world salary is about $18,000 a year, let's all of you who favor redistribution start off by sending your excess over that amount to the world's poor.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Since the average world salary is about $18,000 a year, let's all of you who favor redistribution start off by sending your excess over that amount to the world's poor.

I like this idea a lot. We'll start with the pro-distribution group and if they can prove that they can walk the walk instead of talk the talk then they'll convince me.

We should see who the TRUE believers really are and those who just want to re-distribute everyone else's wealth.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

Which non capitalist societies have been shown to have everyone equally poor?

On the extreme end of the scale, North Korea is a good example that springs to mind.

 

[Riversco]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

Which non capitalist societies have been shown to have everyone equally poor?

On the extreme end of the scale, North Korea is a good example that springs to mind.

China might be an example of unfettered capitalism. There are no labor unions no welfare state, nor a true democratic process in China. The living standards have improved marginally but the people are still very poor. But I'm not sure if Francis is trying to criticize China and North Korea or criticize Europe and the US? He doesn't seem to name names when it comes to countries having problems.

 

[timschochet]

China is NOT unfettered capitalism or anything close. Hong Kong would be a better example.

 

[NCCommish]

There are many countries where the distribution of wealth is appalling. Nigeria, India, and Russia among the economic powers come to mind.

Despite my liberal leaning social approach, this is not a problem in the U.S. There are of course barriers to becoming wealthy, but they can almost always be overcome. That's why everyone wants to move here.

Yeah it is. American mobility has taken a huge hit over the last 30 years.

No it isn't. But I agree with your second statement. I don't think Americans are qualified to define the term "poor" when speaking globally and your first sentence is a good reason why. Are you seriously saying that our poor are suffering comparatively to the countries he just listed?

I don't compare my country to banana republics. I compare it to other first world countries. We are not doing well.

 

[aesclepius]

Chile was a country languishing in the middle of Latin American economies until Pinochet threw the Socialists/Communists out and freed up the economy, based on market capitalism. In the last 40 years Chile has become the leader in per capita income and has joined the developed world. Unfortunately, Pinochet was a dictator. But there is no doubt that market capitalism raises living standards faster than any other system.

 

[Deepster]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of greed and waste in the Catholic Church, but to act like they don't have skin in the game is ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the largest charity organizations in the world and has been for a very long time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of greed and waste in the Catholic Church, but to act like they don't have skin in the game is ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the largest charity organizations in the world and has been for a very long time.

The pope addressed the car issue last year also, but not sure what can stop a priest from buying a Lincoln Town Car. They make $30k a year, probably don't spend a whole lot of their money on anything of material value, so I'm not sure I have an issue with it.

“It hurts me when I see a priest or a nun with the latest model car, you can’t do this.”

“A car is necessary to do a lot of work, but please, choose a more humble one. If you like the fancy one, just think about how many children are dying of hunger in the world.”

 

[msommer]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

Which non capitalist societies have been shown to have everyone equally poor?

On the extreme end of the scale, North Korea is a good example that springs to mind.

Pretty sure that fat kid they have running the show is not as poor as a farmer

 

[Smack Tripper]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

Many times these cars are gifts as well. Now we can extrapolate that and perhaps rightly question that practice and say could the gift not be better dispersed elsewhere with a more modest car but that is a different discussion from the gifters

 

[msommer]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

Many times these cars are gifts as well. Now we can extrapolate that and perhaps rightly question that practice and say could the gift not be better dispersed elsewhere with a more modest car but that is a different discussion from the gifters

sell them and buy smaller replacements

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Notice that key adjective "legitimate." It leaves the issue of what, by whom, and how much is going to be redistributed very much up in the air.

I also took particular note of this sentence.

"Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted," he said.

Do you think he might be talking about abortion?

Among other things.

 

[Deepster]

Here's a novel idea, Mr Pope.

Designate 1 Sunday a year where everyone who attends a Catholic mass puts exactly what they always put into the collection basket.....and you direct 100% of that money to a country's government or designated relief fund.

You don't ask anything above and beyond of your congregation and you put some skin in the game yourself. One week out of 52 is 1.9% of your overall take. Seems reasonable to channel off less than 2% when the Catholic church sits on billions and priests drive Cadillacs and Lincoln Town Cars in my state.

Many times these cars are gifts as well. Now we can extrapolate that and perhaps rightly question that practice and say could the gift not be better dispersed elsewhere with a more modest car but that is a different discussion from the gifters

Isn't there a vow of poverty taken by some/most sects of the Catholic Church? Gift or not.

 

[Otis]

We could redistribute wealth today and make it even for everyone, and it wouldn't take long for the unequal distribution to start mounting again. Some people will work harder or smarter and earn more, and others will kick back and enjoy. This is the steady state.

 

[dparker713]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

 

[Otis]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

 

[dparker713]

We could redistribute wealth today and make it even for everyone, and it wouldn't take long for the unequal distribution to start mounting again. Some people will work harder or smarter and earn more, and others will kick back and enjoy. This is the steady state.

The steady state of the last several decades in the US has been the flow of money into the hands of the richest of the rich. There's a thumb on the scale.

 

[dparker713]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

 

[Christo]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

 

[tri-man 47]

Francis urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all.

"Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted," he said.

Well there ya go. This might take a couple of years.

 

[Soonerman]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

Not true necessarily. I have gone from a recent college graduate to having $1M net worth over the last 30 years.

 

[dparker713]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

It dumbfounds you because I'm appealing to his sense of decency and humanity. Things you've established repeatedly that you lack.

 

[Otis]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

Exactly. Good for him.

 

[Otis]

We could redistribute wealth today and make it even for everyone, and it wouldn't take long for the unequal distribution to start mounting again. Some people will work harder or smarter and earn more, and others will kick back and enjoy. This is the steady state.

The steady state of the last several decades in the US has been the flow of money into the hands of the richest of the rich. There's a thumb on the scale.

There always will be. Certain people are just better at and more focused on earning money. Rebalance the scales today, and you will just have to do it again later. And repeatedly throughout time.

 

[Christo]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

It dumbfounds you because I'm appealing to his sense of decency and humanity. Things you've established repeatedly that you lack.

 

[dparker713]

We could redistribute wealth today and make it even for everyone, and it wouldn't take long for the unequal distribution to start mounting again. Some people will work harder or smarter and earn more, and others will kick back and enjoy. This is the steady state.

The steady state of the last several decades in the US has been the flow of money into the hands of the richest of the rich. There's a thumb on the scale.

There always will be. Certain people are just better at and more focused on earning money. Rebalance the scales today, and you will just have to do it again later. And repeatedly throughout time.

Except for the fact that hasn't always been the case, you've got a point.

You act like the only options are socialism or the current setup. The dice have been loaded for quite some time, maybe its time to switch them out.

 

[dparker713]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

Exactly. Good for him.

I don't think you want to use Bill Gates as the poster boy for hording money.

 

[Christo]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

Exactly. Good for him.

I don't think you want to use Bill Gates as the poster boy for hording money.

So, you'll let Bill keep his money?

 

[FlapJacks]

Most of the western countries already redistribute wealth to a a certain extent....(social programs, earned income tax credit etc)

 

[humpback]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

One class will just find its way back to poor. Another to rich. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being the world isn't going to start paying janitors like CEOs, or CEOs like school teachers.

The top 0.1% in wealth has seen their share of the pie grow substantially since the 80's, meanwhile the next 0.9%, the remainder of the 1%, has stagnated. Broken down even further the 0.01% has quadrupled its share in the same timeframe.

Basically Otis, you are treading water, maybe even losing ground, relative to where you would have been 30 years ago. And there is no reason to have policies and laws that lead to the bottom 90% having merely a quarter of the wealth in this country.

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

It dumbfounds you because I'm appealing to his sense of decency and humanity. Things you've established repeatedly that you lack.

Telling Otis that he's treading water or losing ground is appealing to his sense of decency and humanity how exactly? It's a silly "appeal" to begin with considering Otis seems to have it pretty good.

 

[eurotrashman]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

Link?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

Which non capitalist societies have been shown to have everyone equally poor?

On the extreme end of the scale, North Korea is a good example that springs to mind.

Pretty sure that fat kid they have running the show is not as poor as a farmer

Yeah. I didn't mean that literally everybody was equal. Pick any random Warsaw Pact country and you could find people living relatively better than their peers. But the bulk of their country is poor as hell compared to otherwise-similar nations.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.