Going back to Brian's comments, parts of this thread stuck with me as well, while offline. And thought almost word for word about tangents, and how related (and, to me, quite valid) issues are raised and discussed.
I think some of you need to be careful to not lump wealth with neglect of benevolence.Brian your statement above is basically calls out all the mega rich as only being concerned with earning more money. Maybe that is the case with some ,but who are we to judge without knowing them as individuals?
This us vs them shit is kinda stupid.We all have good and bad and do what we can based on our resources. Take Oprah for example.She has bukoo bucks,billions.Does she only worry about her empire and bottom line or does she put her money where her mouth is building schools and infrastructure in Africa and else where.Or does she not count because she backs Obama? What about Gates?See not so cut and dry.How about Buffet or Allen? All do and give so very much.What makes us better then them?
Gimme,How much $$ did the Koch brothers and there companies or holdings give toward charities or worthy causes.I don't know the answer,but you should if your going to make those statements.I bet it's a fucking shitload.So I ask you,would you rather have the evil empire fund billions in help for those that need,while still profiting,or would we be better off without them and their charitable "blood" money?
And BSL,the flow of Ideas and opinions is what makes a convo flow.Everything discussed is a tangent to the original thought process.Again,relax a bit,let it unfold.It will be ok.
rr, I'm not judging any individuals. And it's not strictly us against them. We vote at the ballot box and we vote with our dollars (both politically and environmentally) and with our own personal actions. But it is the small collective of very rich and very powerful who have the greatest impact. And the point is that unless they are going to shoot themselves to Mars and live there, they too will have to live with the consequences of a ruined planet and crashing civilization. So yes, I do expect more out of them. But again, I'm not criticizing any one in particular. We all play our part in this.
As far as simply giving monies to charities, that in of itself is not impressive to me. First of all, much of that is done simply for tax write offs (I almost said tax evasion). Secondly, I personally have become more selective and try as hard as I can to scrutinize which charities I give my dollars to. The more I look into it, the more I believe many charities are a waste of money (or waste my money). I don't want to bad mouth any of them in particular here but I recently wrote a scathing letter to a major environmental group because they have repeatedly sent me this physically huge mailings that use a great deal of paper. (And I reminded them that recycled paper consumes energy). I had to write to them twice and email them once to get them to stop sending me this crap. I also stopped supporting two of the biggest and best known environmental groups because I became aware of how much money they spend on their own internal bureaucracy and that those at the top are giving themselves large, inflated salaries. And what I'm describing here is more common than many people realize. It take a lot of investigating to find organizations that spend dollars wisely. Do you suppose the Koch brothers spend much time doing this? I wonder.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
And BSL,the flow of Ideas and opinions is what makes a convo flow.Everything discussed is a tangent to the original thought process.Again,relax a bit,let it unfold.It will be ok.
Yet not nearly attempting to answer the OP's questions. Going off on tangents related to, yes.
Again, getting personal? What is it with some of you and the need to get personal?
I'm not sure how on-topic this has all been. What I'm mostly seeing here, after being gone all day what I'm mostly seeing here is posts about expensive sporting event tickets and an argument about weather or not capitalism is the problem.
The problem, as I see it and as is implied by the premise of this thread, is that people with the greatest amount of wealth and power are more caught up in their accumulation of power and wealth than they are in doing what makes sense which (at least the way I see it) would be to start getting down to the work of reducing the negative human impact on the environment and find some way to create better social harmony. And why this isn't happening is puzzling to me.
I saw a friend today who is fascinated by conspiracy theories and I asked her what she thought of all this. She believes that the planet is going to be made uninhabitable, that the powers that be are planning to exterminate most of us and then go underground and live in these big underground places that are going to be connect from coast to coast in the U.S. as well as throughout Russia by underground railways systems. She also believes there are giant's held captive in remote corners of the Grand Canyon. She also happens to be one of my best friends so go easy here.
Now of course I don't buy any of that but it makes about as much sense as what is happening which is that the people with the most money and power seem oblivious to the detrimental impact humans are having on environment, the idea that our species has reached the critical point as described by ecological sciences as "carrying capacity", the fact that we use up our annual allotment of resources each year by mid-August, that nuclear annihilation will only make cockroaches happy, that endless war has no purpose and that widespread social unrest will only lead to more chaos and unproductive conflict.
So who is more out of touch, my friend, me, or the majority of wealthy and powerful people who seem to be ignoring these problems? I'd say the latter, myself.
Not everyone is for progress and change Brian. Sadly, we need someone progressive to lead this country and for the rest of the world to get progressive about saving this planet. But as long as we live in fear of change, the lack of the ability to see the truth and the world for what it is, and refusing to move forward with progress, we go nowhere.
And BSL,the flow of Ideas and opinions is what makes a convo flow.Everything discussed is a tangent to the original thought process.Again,relax a bit,let it unfold.It will be ok.
Yet not nearly attempting to answer the OP's questions. Going off on tangents related to, yes.
Again, getting personal? What is it with some of you and the need to get personal?
you took this as a personal shot? Your kiddin right?
And BSL,the flow of Ideas and opinions is what makes a convo flow.Everything discussed is a tangent to the original thought process.Again,relax a bit,let it unfold.It will be ok.
Yet not nearly attempting to answer the OP's questions. Going off on tangents related to, yes.
Again, getting personal? What is it with some of you and the need to get personal?
you took this as a personal shot? Your kiddin right?
but why should a person be limited in what they achieve? I'm not saying I think it's necessary, I personally don't get it (I make a fairly meger living compared to most people my age, I just don't care about a big house and nice car), but don't you think it's a cornerstone of a democratic society to allow people the freedom to accumulate whatever they want? and as someone else mentioned, many of those super rich probably give away more than I'll ever make (whether it's out of philanthropy or just plain tax breaks is irrelevant). so they, in fact, are actually doing more for the poor than I ever could.
I don't really think a person should be limited to the amount they can accumulate. I think people should limit themselves. The freedoms that we enjoy in a democratic society are often the very ailments that plague us. Individual freedom is our greatest and most admirable principle as a species, but it is beyond obvious that it holds our species back from achieving true peace and prosperity as a whole.
I agree with this. I am pretty much a Socialist after all. I believe in as even a distribution of wealth as we can possibly reasonably manage (which isn't very even in the best conditions, let alone the current condition of our current society).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
In third world countries if you told people they could get ahead by hard work and good choices they would either give you a funny look or think, "Yeah, maybe I can eat today!"
This takes me back to the original question. It's unfathomable to me that the small percentage of people in this world with the majority of the power and the wealth aren't strongly focused on doing what it takes to bring stability in the world, both socially, economically and most importantly, environmentally. Instead, to a great degree, we have wars, starvation and an environment that may become inhospitable in many or perhaps all regions for human habitation. This doesn't make sense to me.
Can I ask why you feel it's unfathomable? Because I think it's typical. The story of Mr. Scrooge and seeing the error in his greedy ways, coming to terms with it and promising to be better to his fellow human seems to just be a nice story. Maybe it happens to a few, but it doesn't really happen. Of course it doesn't make sense to you, you are a caring and empathic person, you don't identify with those who place greed ahead of everything else.
Not to mention that in our capitalistic nation, the idea of taking care of each other - socialism - is a dirty word.
But not to me. I know we live in greedy times, so I'm going to give however I can. Because one person can make a difference and you alone can too. Don't let the world get you down, just do what you can to make a difference on a personal level. Because that's great in itself.
that's one thing I've always found interesting.......the amount of people, and I will say this cautiously, USUALLY, right wingers/republicans, that have an issue with living in a socialist society, with regards to obamacare, etc. Yet, how many services are social in nature already? too many to count.
what I really think is that they aren't so afraid of socialism at its core, they just don't understand it. and if it hadn't been part of the acronym for USSR, they wouldn't be so afraid of it. LOL. I get such a laugh out of people calling me a "commie" for thinking that "health care for all" is a good idea. LOL.
I'd have a big problem living under a socialist /communist society.No thank you.
Socialism and Communism as it's practiced aren't even close to the same thing. One is a wonderful thing in theory and practice (though so far unachieved), while the other is synonymous with Totalitarianism in practice.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'd have a big problem living under a socialist /communist society.No thank you.
Socialism and Communism as it's practiced aren't even close to the same thing. One is a wonderful thing in theory and practice (though so far unachieved), while the other is synonymous with Totalitarianism in practice.
Exactly.
Communism definition: International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.
Socialism definition: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.
Not to mention, if one really wants to understand the basis of communism - not what the Bolshevic revolution and Lenin did to it - read Animal Farm by Orwell.
Comments
So well said, rr!
As far as simply giving monies to charities, that in of itself is not impressive to me. First of all, much of that is done simply for tax write offs (I almost said tax evasion). Secondly, I personally have become more selective and try as hard as I can to scrutinize which charities I give my dollars to. The more I look into it, the more I believe many charities are a waste of money (or waste my money). I don't want to bad mouth any of them in particular here but I recently wrote a scathing letter to a major environmental group because they have repeatedly sent me this physically huge mailings that use a great deal of paper. (And I reminded them that recycled paper consumes energy). I had to write to them twice and email them once to get them to stop sending me this crap. I also stopped supporting two of the biggest and best known environmental groups because I became aware of how much money they spend on their own internal bureaucracy and that those at the top are giving themselves large, inflated salaries. And what I'm describing here is more common than many people realize. It take a lot of investigating to find organizations that spend dollars wisely. Do you suppose the Koch brothers spend much time doing this? I wonder.
Again, getting personal? What is it with some of you and the need to get personal?
Communism definition: International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.
Socialism definition: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Not to mention, if one really wants to understand the basis of communism - not what the Bolshevic revolution and Lenin did to it - read Animal Farm by Orwell.