Wealth Stratification

[utgibbs]

Because he is an unjust bourgeois hypocrite that secretly hates the poor and wants to oppress them.

Not enough. He is also requiring them to work too much. If he were really consistent with the ideals he espouses, he'd let them sit in houses he had bought for them, pay all of their bills, and give them all the "walking around money" they wanted.

Of course according to his theories on wealth creation, his business would be just as effective and healthy.

MG is fond of saying so, but revolutionary action sometimes has to come from within the system. There were 12 Fidelists in the Sierra Maestra, and it worked.

12 UTgrads in the Sierra Nevadas will not work to make a sane and sustainable culture. Having said that, the job of a Revolutionary is to make Revolution.

I'm not sure how these notions of uniformity jive with the idea of substantive equality.

 

[utgibbs]

notice you didn't answer any of the real questions. nice

What were the real questions?

 

[therealUT]

Gibbs steps up to the plate with yet another weak argument from authority.

It would be appreciated if you ever even attempted a MP, MT, HS, or DS argument, Gibbs. Instead you just name drop and thow conclusions out there that you somehow derived from reading said authors (though, I would be willing to bet these are conclusions you are plagiarizing from other radicals that they attribute to some non-contextual interpretation of one sentence out of entire volumes of said authors' works).

Rawls, Faust, Don Quixote, Don Giovani, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Marx, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Friedman, Nash: 14.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

If the new guys aren't massively overpaid and underworked hippies, Gibbs is a two bit hypocrite on top of the loony he plays on this site.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

What were the real questions?

a) why didn't you hire more?

b) how much are you paying them and what benefits are your providing?

 

[utgibbs]

Gibbs steps up to the plate with yet another weak argument from authority.

It would be appreciated if you ever even attempted a MP, MT, HS, or DS argument, Gibbs. Instead you just name drop and thow conclusions out there that you somehow derived from reading said authors (though, I would be willing to bet these are conclusions you are plagiarizing from other radicals that they attribute to some non-contextual interpretation of one sentence out of entire volumes of said authors' works).

Rawls, Faust, Don Quixote, Don Giovani, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Marx, Kant, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Friedman, Nash: 14.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Three of those guys are fictional characters, realUT. :hi: (whoops!)

BTW, I thought you wanted monosyllable answers to your "hypotheticals." When you were given a thorough answer, you made it very, very clear you were blissfully unaware of your philosophy 101. Which is evident now. In fact, your OP was just a restatement of Aristotle so very long ago (again, blissfully unaware of your plagiarism).

And you don't know HOW much I would appreciate getting the board to the level of logical fallacy. Usually, I have to try and correct the pure (puerile?) fantasies.

Speaking of which - I notice when you were challenged on your OP, you haven't produced a monosyllable. Remind me who is richer and more free.... I didn't hold my breath, because I knew the result.

GSM

 

[utgibbs]

If the new guys aren't massively overpaid and underworked hippies, Gibbs is a two bit hypocrit on top of the loony he plays on this site.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Why do they have to be hippies?

MG is fond of calling me out as a hypocrite, but Engles too worked for a revolutionary society while in manufactures in Manchester.

 

[n_huffhines]

The whole notion of "fairness" is weird to me. The word "fair" doesn't have a direct translation into other languages. They have words "just" and "equitable" but not for "fair".

‪Experimental Economist Bart Wilson on the Meaning of "Fair"‬‏ - YouTube

 

[therealUT]

Three of those guys are fictional characters, realUT. :hi:

(whoops!)

BTW, I thought you wanted monosyllable answers to your "hypotheticals." When you were given a thorough answer, you made it very, very clear you were blissfully unaware of your philosophy 101. Which is evident now. In fact, your OP was just a restatement of Aristotle so very long ago (again, blissfully unaware).

And you don't know HOW much I would appreciate getting the board to the level of logical fallacy. Usually, I have to try and correct the pure (puerile?) fantasies.

Speaking of which - I notice when you were challenged on your OP, you haven't produced a monosyllable. Remind me who is richer and more free.... I didn't hold my breath, because I knew the result.

GSM

Was that th Homesteader v. Waitress question? The waitress today has more real wealth than the homesteader of the 1840s. The waitress today can easily take her paycheck and move to India, build house, and live (off of a months paycheck) in less squalor than the homesteader of the 1840s.

So, technically, the waitress today has more wealth and more freedom.

Price of food in India:
Coffee: 2 rupees
Chowpatti: 5 rupees
Serving of rice: 1-3 rupees
Coconut: 10 rupees
Banana: 1-3 rupees

The only land that is relatively expensive in rura India is land for cultivation; in any rural village, it is quite easy to build a one room home next to any of the other homes.

The waitress might die from illnesses; however, many homesteaders faced the same such problems of typhoid, dysentary, malaria, smallpox, etc.

Your historical examples are bunk. I am also well aware of the fact that Faust, Don Quixote, and Don Giovani are fictional characters; however, you routinely refer to the first two and I figured I would throw Don Giovani in there due to its connection to Don Quixote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Was that th Homesteader v. Waitress question? The waitress today has more real wealth than the homesteader of the 1840s. The waitress today can easily take her paycheck and move to India, build house, and live (off of a months paycheck) in less squalor than the homesteader of the 1840s.

So, technically, the waitress today has more wealth and more freedom.

Price of food in India:
Coffee: 2 rupees
Chowpatti: 5 rupees
Serving of rice: 1-3 rupees
Coconut: 10 rupees
Banana: 1-3 rupees

The only land that is relatively expensive in rura India is land for cultivation; in any rural village, it is quite easy to build a one room home next to any of the other homes.

The waitress might die from illnesses; however, many homesteaders faced the same such problems of typhoid, dysentary, malaria, smallpox, etc.

Your historical examples are bunk. I am also well aware of the fact that Faust, Don Quixote, and Don Giovani are fictional characters; however, you routinely refer to the first two and I figured I would throw Don Giovani in there due to its connection to Don Quixote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I respectfully disagree. A waitress today could easily be considered to be living in poverty. After paying for rent, food and other CoL items they are likely living paycheck to paycheck and may even be in debt. Many would not have the money to even pay for travel to get to India.

On the other hand, the typical homesteader in the 1840's at the time would not be considered to be living in poverty. And if we can magically move his homestead much like you moved the waitress to India, then lets assume his homestead is in Sacramento as part of the gold rush, or maybe just London proper.

I would think the homesteader would have much more freedom and wealth.

 

[sjt18]

MG is fond of saying so, but revolutionary action sometimes has to come from within the system. There were 12 Fidelists in the Sierra Maestra, and it worked.

12 UTgrads in the Sierra Nevadas will not work to make a sane and sustainable culture. Having said that, the job of a Revolutionary is to make Revolution.

I'm not sure how these notions of uniformity jive with the idea of substantive equality.

Like I said, an unjust, bourgeois hypocrite... or else just a trolling fraud.

 

[n_huffhines]

I respectfully disagree. A waitress today could easily be considered to be living in poverty. After paying for rent, food and other CoL items they are likely living paycheck to paycheck and may even be in debt. Many would not have the money to even pay for travel to get to India.

On the other hand, the typical homesteader in the 1840's at the time would not be considered to be living in poverty. And if we can magically move his homestead much like you moved the waitress to India, then lets assume his homestead is in Sacramento as part of the gold rush, or maybe just London proper.

I would think the homesteader would have much more freedom and wealth.

Relative or absolute?

 

[utgibbs]

Relative or absolute?

realUT makes the (common) mistake of attributing the gifts of the Enlightenment to wealth. Especially with the health angle which even bourgeois economists concede can be done without billions.

Waiter wouldn't get the plane ticket, I'm afraid.

At $8000 / acre in today's money (national avg, I believe) and 150 acres and a diet filled with meat, you tell me who is living in "squalor".

The reed shanty the waitress can erect will be bona fide though:

I know which one I would choose:

 

[utgibbs]

Like I said, an unjust, bourgeois hypocrite... or else just a trolling fraud.

How am I unjust? I've already covered the hypocrite angle, btw.

 

[therealUT]

I'll post my pictures of what rural India actually looks like when I get back to my computer; the slums are where the urban poor live. The rural poor are much better off and the average price of land is a number that is inflated by the urban demand and foreign investment and industry. land within rural villages that is not suitable for cultivation is dirt cheap.

For $3,000 (the resale price of most cars...heck, the amount of money our government would pay to buy a clunker), one could fly to India, build a one room concrete house, and eat for two weeks to a month.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

How am I unjust? I've already covered the hypocrite angle, btw.

You are requiring work for pay. You have become "the Man" keeping those poor folk down. How are you using a single payer system btw? The money has to be the product of their labor, right? Therefore you are still riding their backs.

Yes. You covered the hypocrite angle by totally affirming it with the rationalization that it is OK for you but not for others.

 

[utgibbs]

I'll post my pictures of what rural India actually looks like when I get back to my computer; the slums are where the urban poor live. The rural poor are much better off and the average price of land is a number that is inflated by the urban demand and foreign investment and industry. land within rural villages that is not suitable for cultivation is dirt cheap.

For $3,000 (the resale price of most cars...heck, the amount of money our government would pay to buy a clunker), one could fly to India, build a one room concrete house, and eat for two weeks to a month.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You mean these guys in rural India?

Farmers' suicides in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.counterpunch.org/sainath02122009.html

I suppose its part of that "bunk history" I've been telling you about. :hi:

Glad you had a good time in India. Keep on trying harder.

 

[utgibbs]

You are requiring work for pay. You have become "the Man" keeping those poor folk down. How are you using a single payer system btw? The money has to be the product of their labor, right? Therefore you are still riding their backs.

Yes. You covered the hypocrite angle by totally affirming it with the rationalization that it is OK for you but not for others.

My health care bills would go down greatly with a single payer system.

Never once in going on 7,000 posts on VN have I ever said work was unnecessary. Never, ever.

Certainly the revenues we earn are ABSOLUTELY the surplus value of labor. Their is no other source of value. The CEO, as it happens, does his time on the shop floor too. The multiplier between CEO salary and lowest paid worker is also WAY, WAY below national average.

Like Engles, I've got to work in the system I want to revolutionize.

 

[therealUT]

You mean these guys in rural India?

Farmers' suicides in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P. Sainath: The Largest Wave of Suicides in History

I suppose its part of that "bunk history" I've been telling you about. :hi:

Glad you had a good time in India. Keep on trying harder.

I have already referred to the Farmer Suicides in other threads, Gibbs; it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Anyway, here is what rural India looks like, and what an American with $1,000-1,500 can easily afford to buy:

 

[therealUT]

A couple more:

 

[therealUT]

I would choose these just as quickly as a homestead.

 

[IPorange]

This conversation is off on a bizarre and relatively meaningless tangent.

 

[KiffinKiller]

agreed.

 

[BeecherVol]

This conversation is off on a bizarre and relatively meaningless tangent.

Open your mind IP. Homestead farmers and rural India shacks is interesting stuff.

 

[utgibbs]

This conversation is off on a bizarre and relatively meaningless tangent.

The pictures are really great, realUT. I think few on here would realize how a rich and rewarding life could be had in such conditions.

But the homesteader is still richer.

As for you, IP, the conversation is hardly meaningless. It exposes a fallacy prevalent in the modern mind - that somehow the economy is responsible for things that, actually, are the gifts of the Enlightenment.

In fact, bourgeois economists of all flavors have indeed shown that health, cleanliness, and livelihoods do not need G8 economies. In other words, the elimination of squalor was knowledge gleaned from the Enlightenment, and it requires no special economy. In fact, the proliferation of squalor is often directly tied to an economic model - the dominant one of our historic age. The transformation of Cuba from the stratified gilded palaces alongside destitution and squalor is evidence 90 miles off our coast.

Indeed the proliferation of squalor has been a sad fact of the last forty years.