Fair enough. I see both points of view. But I do tend to agree with Jefferson in the idea that an aristocracy of the wealthy is just as dangerous to freedom as an aristocracy of the "divine" right of kings. However, I am aware of the fact that Jefferson and many of his anti-Hamilton allies were the beneficiaries of inherited wealth themselves.
Which didn't preclude him from having opinions on inherited wealth. I actually think the estate tax is a good idea (and makes total sense from a tax law perspective due to the step up basis rules that no one likes to talk about) but the idea of inherited wealth itself is a good one. The more you encourage people to think long term, the better.
Yep, they are people too. Except that government is people who can tell you what to do. IRS orders you pay taxes, report your income, and sends you a refund check; these government things have nothing to do with faith or confidence. It's just a mechanism of regulating the society. Good government and I have no conflict of interests because government is me or for me, the people - the only purpose why it's being existed.
So noone outside of a mud hut is allowed to even discuss whether the accumulation of wealth is unjust? Understood. That's fvcking stupid, but it's understood. Using Segroves logic, unless you're posting with a DD-214, spare me your assessment of what's un-American, particularly given the current shortage. Yes, that's just as fvcking stupid as Segroves criteria for who can talk about wealth accumulation, but if noone's going to challenge that, than it's just as coherent a notion to submit that unless you've joined the Armed Forces, you have no right to talk about what's "American" or not. It's interesting that you, alone, have made the decision, on your own, to tie together a discussion about wealth accumulation with feeling guilty about wealth accumulation. It's as if you've ceded the unfairness of it, but refuse to respond to that unfairness; a kind of "I'm taking my ball and going home" that can only come from someone who doesn't really know about anything other than going for self. That is, I know, from how you post, that you don't have a wife, any kids, or a community of which you are a part (in terms of stewardship of that community). Excuse me if I, as a result, marginalize your comments to that place that gung-ho white boys looking for their piece of what thye think they are entitled to, by "lineage"/right find themselves...having managed that type before, I've continued to find "insights" for your demo to be, at the time and over time, less than wise, and wholly navel-oriented. Hard to believe, but this conversation isn't just about you and how you feel. I mean come on; you FEEL that Jefferson isn't American, and you expect us not to laugh at you, being you, saying something that ********ing ironic. In other words, you're a wanna-be; that mostly white, mostly male artifact of the corporate age that will work harder than owners in that age to keep the system the way it is in fervent hopes of making the leap and being able to leave the unwashed behind, separated from you by the gated communities that currently keep you from your masters. I'm ALL FOR business; just not corporate business. I like partnershipas and proprietorships where communities can look and see, very easily, who is responsible for the things that small business does, and the owner must, due to size, be in fundamental relationship with the community in ways that have to do with all KINDS of things, not just the factors surrounding the economic extraction from such which is ITSELF indicative of the profit primacy legally codified INTO the corporate person, a not-so-sbutle denial of the tenets of community offered in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments - trust, loyalty, community, manageability - offered at a time when what we've ALLOWED in terms of corporate capital would have been thought utterly retarded, ESPECIALLY by men LIKE Smith. But you keep shilling, buddy. Maybe one day you'll "win," and not have to feel guily about even discussing the frame on events that lead to such shallow "winning." Not really; In 1990, Dodson argued that by the end of 1991, property (land, houses, stocks, bonds, annuities, etc.) worth over $925 billion will be handed down through inheritance, that the 64 million people born during the baby boom generation of 1946-1959 will inherit wealth worth almost $7 trillion. the Adam Smith Institute, however, submits in "Facts About Millionaires" that "...[O]f millionaire fortunes worldwide, only 20 percent came from inherited wealth." To me, what's far more "telling" a set of statistics are to be found here, in the main because inherited welath is couched in a context. But it means reading, which I know (along with extended) listening, is not the way in which folks here like their political discussion/engagement. A rebuke I could fairly offer to those who, when presented with information that make it clear that their initial, seemingly intuitive angle on an issue is less than rigorous, or is being wrongly applied to a dynamic is naturally NOT intuitive, hide behind "I'm at work! Fvck all that reading/listening, and get a job!" instead of taking the time to actually know anything about anything, which, I'm realizing, is not what many use this board FOR. Teddy Roosevelt - who I hate, overall, but not for this - called for "sweeping regulation and reform of business and a new communitarian ethos." Your "education" has prepared you NOT for authentic knowing or critical thinking, but, apparently, only for advocation of and insertion to the corporate cog. Go oil the gears of such, and plan for your "winning."
So, let me get this straight. The above consideration of wealth accumulation is the launch, IYO, of a bad thread that inspires no thinking. Is that correct? Wow. Okay, I get it. This thread's initial ideas are neither worth talking about, nor are they to be talked about outside a mud hut. I'll leave it alone.
I'm completely dumbfounded that this thread has gone three pages without a mention of either major political party or fellatio.
Here, I'll try.... Most adherents to the tenets of the first post are surely Democrats, but at least they're honest enough to admit they like fellatio. There.
What did you expect these quotes to accomplish. If you post quotes about how wealth inequity is unfair, how can you not associate that with the implied guilt it suggests. I have a wife and a community that I love. I also donate thousands of dollars per year to charity and I am now in the prcess of designing renovations for a church and community center, free of charge. No you are not excused for your racist diarrhea. For your information, my Colombian immigrant wife fully agrees with my position Why did you ask for our thoughts and comments then? I certainly did not. I said that Jefferson based his reality on his reasoning, while Hamilton based his reasoning on reality. You seem to think like TJ. I see things through AH's eyes. That's all. I am an owner. I work for noone but myself and my family. Whoa, boy did you go off in a different direction. The thread is about wealth redistribution, not multi-national corporations. The fact that I get so angry about wealth redistribution is that it is stealing with a pretty face on it. You must be one of those people that think Robin Hood was noble. i find him to be a common theif. Your "education" has prepared you for a life of idealistic letdowns. Enjoy thearapy
Geez, now that that we are racially stereotyping, what does that make you? The pissed off, bitter (damn whitey holding me down) wannabe version of Spike Lee?
Eh; just speaking from substantive experience, all over the nation and across the pond; take what applies and ignore the rest, doesn't change my local truths; all exceptions I know of prove my rule, but I'm willing to acknowledge that my truth ain't The Truth... Corporate form still is murderous; wealth as channeled, forward and backward, through that form kills just societies.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t read a 69 page academic dissertation conjured up via Google. You've already acknowledged that the vast majority of the wealth, at least in this country, is first generation, so I see no need to have the government redistribute that income to maintain a vibrant economy.
Rest replete then. Others know that the standard you set, and satisfied yourself with, skims the surface of the question, like most analysis of this issue. Whether or not you choose to engage the fuller dynamic has nothing to do with its reality and effect upon the situation, just your awareness of it.
I concur. Like I said, I was done with this thread pretty much when it was asserted that the topic was neither provoking of any thought, nor was it suitable for discussion if one didn't live in a mud hut. Other than you at least asking a question about something worth something, and Sobearcal responding with critical thinking (albeit misplaced, b/c I'm not anti-capitalist, just anti-corporate capital) we've gotten guilt-centered rebuke, and various and sundry bullsh!t. Maybe it's no problem at all. Maybe wealth accumulation is the sign of a healthy America. Maybe income gaps greater than Mexico and equal to Brazil signal the Golden Age of America.
Curious: what do you mean by the "Corporate form"? Every non-profit is a corporation. Many really tiny businesses are corporations. And most of these organizations are not murderous. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of corporations have never engaged in anything either of us would consider murderous. I'm in the vast minority here, but I like this topic. Probably no one to the right of Jerry Rubin c. 1968 agrees, but I think it's interesting to talk about the inherent nature of wealth from a skeptical point of view. If you have an aim in starting this thread, addressing this, rather than those who dismiss the premise out of hand would probably go further in forwarding that aim.
IMHO, the income gap is the result of a system that benefits those at both extremes of the wealth spectrum and rewards consumption over saving.
Publicly traded corporations; giving the rights of a person to a legal entity legally bound to maximize profit over everything else that comprises life and living is weird; making it the primary actor in one's systems of consideration is pathological. Like I said, I have no problem with naturally sized for-profit enterprise owned by folks willing to be liable for that which their for-profit enterprise does. THAT is the natural size of profit-based business. The publicly traded corporation, thus, is unnatural. Personhood is natural. An unnatural corporation having the same status in a society as a person is an abomination. I don't want public life as an extension of the marketplace; corporations run amok as we have in the nation, work to do just that. If we agree that democracy is predicated on a vital public life, then, in our current model, political persons are beholden to economic elites. Instead of finding a place along the spectrum of societal and democratic renewal, the corporate form aggregates power (toward the end of its fiduciary duty to always increase profit), influence and authority, corporatizing democracy. I just simply don't believe that a corporation should ever - EVER - have the ear of a representative of the people over any citizen. What do we have today? I just simply do not believe that the market way of life IS the human way of life; I don't believe that "human" is defined as "economic (wo)man." I believe that the market is good for alot of things, but that you don't leave the market alone, that you place it into context of building the just society, the corporate form as the central form of doing business becomes, by nature, corporations run loose and dangerous over the land. I'm 100% against that. I know that places me in the minority; NOT of people who think this way, but of people who have considered the corporate nation at all.
I believe that the growing income disparity is alarming and potentially dangerous, however any methods of addressing this issue must be done through organic means that are in lockstep with American freedoms and values. The above quote flies in the face of this. Meritocracy should not be judged on sums of accumulated wealth, but for the essential economic opportunities made available to American citizens. If one was to follow through with meritocracy based on redistribution, one would have to toss aside the vast majority of American values and freedoms that we have cherished for almost 230 years. Namely, one would have to establish a socialistic state to determine the policies. And this is categorically wrong and a non-starter. You and I disagree on most political issues, but I think we see eye to eye on most intellectual debates. I respect what you post, but I think here you have fallen below the bar, which you yourself have rightly set high for yourself.