Forum Thread

addendum to Feb 23

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Re: we must advance into survival of system-earth (and we who dwell thereon/within)
    Edit Post Reply on Mar 2 2014 7:42 PM
    To one specific respondant to my last-week's . . . . and all others who read this week's . . .
    Agreed, greed is a species problem. Uniquely our species. The "alphas", dominants, leaders of other critters function for the benefit of the herd or flock or pride or gaggle or whatever gathering. But we see through history that even the most depraved and demented and destructive (of their whole populace and realm) ascend to positions of prominence and persecution and privilege and possessing so much that there's
    only starvation left for the masses to eat (short of worst-case-scenario of each other).

    At least the modern world has philanthropy and charity and governmental-global interoperations in cases. And in this country the significant disparity of wealth-control (the 2% of the $98%) still allows that all but the few "through the cracks" have roof, food, and generally even a standard of poverty that would be unimaginable luxury to vast populations in the rest of the world.

    Absolute equality (wealth-distribution) would pay but a pittance to each of the billions of us. And ere long there would be those by creativity or covetousness, ambition or con, connivance or collaboration, would be the inception of the next cycle of those wealthy and those not. Thus, the value of graduated taxation which distributes dire disequilibriums of dollars. And if not for the provision to amass wealth, capital would only derive from "bubble" bonanzas (speculations) . . . and philanthropy and grants and such benificences
    (even post-facto-excess aggrandizements) would not have funding. Capitalism works, as long as the entire spectrum of populace is provided for. Greed is gathering for the harvest of humanity's breadth of incorporation, so to speak. Taxes on corporate "windfalls" are dispersed into socio-economics' fields of function and endeavor.

    But in the actual,even drastic, differences of wealth possession the problem and solution for the population (especially jobless) doesn't lie. Again, take away everything everyone's worth and divvy it up evenly so eachof our 200+ million fellow-Americans gets the same . . . . and we'd end up with pittance beyond pocket change.Think the Bush tax rebate bonanza as a bottom-out, not bonanza. Yes, the ultra-rich should make less take-home
    and want to pay more into the system through higher taxes. If I were making even a mere couple million a year I'd gladly settle for an after-tax one million to try to survive on . . . . so that I could pay-into ("proportionate dues") a decent share for living in this country. But the solution to providing income for those who can't get jobs thus
    paychecks . . . must be a government program (and economic infusion) that gives (even forces) people able to function in various positions, occupations, even professions.
    It took perhaps the most massive "socialistic" intervention imaginable to keep the global economic system from a domino-demolition of its deflated delusions. So what if it seems socialistic (even "Rooseveltistic") for the Fed. to become the entrepreneur and provide the venture capital and jobs and . . . . .

    Gee, that money that workers make from whatever "domain" of enterprise . . . it's the fuel of the private sector system cause for damned sure the government ain't about to be running Walmart or Apple or Gap or Sears or Such.