Wealth - which is the bigger societal problem? - Binary Poll w/no "Other"

Wealth is a relative term. Issues of wealth are indeed global is scope. But they're also relative. Our world is not and never will be utopian. It is, at best and at worst, imperfect.

For this poll, the realm of consideration is our country - The United States of America.

The issue is wealth. Some look at wealth intrinsically and find fault. Some look at it and find security. Some look at it and see entitlement or influence.

Keep those concepts in mind as you consider the two choices in this binary poll.

Choice one is "Wealth". No matter your own definition of it, it is not without problems. It can make one person comfortable. It can make another person happy to have it and happy to give it away. It can make a person more greedy and foment in that person selfish - and perhaps even evil - actions to acquire more.

Choice two is the disparity of wealth. The gap between the haves and the have-nots. But there is also a gap between the haves and the have-mores. Many would see the gap between a person with a net worth of a shopping cart and plastic bag rain suit and another person with a rented apartment and some furniture less than 5 years old as glaring. But some would also see the gap between a husband and wife with a house worth an inflated $1 million and a small IRA and a person with a half billion dollars in stock options and four mansions or penthouses in the world's greatest cities as glaring. Or not.

Which do you see as the bigger cause for concern?

edited for title spelling only

Comments are sought ... but you have to make a choice as to which issue matters more.

but exists in apposition to the words poverty, and sufficiency.

Wealth considers society a zero sum game in which some must lose for others to win more.
I reject the validity of the whole construct.

disparity as the bigger issue

but i see it as a weak dichotome.

Wealth, as your first choice is more than a simple state. Wealth implies its opposite case, as well it should.
Indeed wealth creates poverty.


Disparity of wealth as a second choice negates the possibility that wealth itself is the problem.
If that is the case, it is not the disenfranchisement of the poor and working classes that is the problem,
merely the extent of that disenfrancisement by some wealthy as compared to others.

I see the problem as lack of wealth, since by your terms you seem to only mean material acquisitions of any form. This CAN be a symptom of one person having too much wealth, or of their being such an extreme disparity between levels of wealth that the lower end cannot reasonable function in that society. (The level of necessary wealth varies. In some places it is basics like food and clothing. In America, it is more complex, since without some form of transportation a person cannot easily have a job which allows them to acquire the basics. Even self-sufficiency requires land in our culture.).

I believe a society can exist in which people are able to earn great amounts of wealth while the lowest wealth-holders are comfortable and happy. There may be discomfort in the form of greed or other emotions, but that does not in itself mean trouble. Greed can motivate a person to acquire more for themselves in a productive fashion--for instance, a person can become greedy, start an industry, and create better wages and living conditions (and perhaps even a product) that genuinely improves people's lives.

Obviously, greed for wealth can and frequently does create predatory reactions. Greed was one of the medieval Seven Deadly Sins, and even became considered the worst of the Seven in the eleventh century (long lecture on how it supplanted Pride will be avoided) because of that. But a strong desire by society to curtail the negative effects of Greed can overcome many of those problems (no system will be problem free in all areas).

So my belief is that wealth by itself is never bad. It inspires bad, and must be controlled, but it in and of itself is just stuff without moral qualities.

Lack of wealth, especially basic needs, is the real problem. Government should be strong enough to distribute wealth, so that no matter how much people ae able to attain, no one falls below certain standard. This is not only good ethical sense, and social sense, but is also good economic sense, because no economy can long prosper without a diverse consumer base, and a lack of concern for the wealth of the consumer base will eventually bring the entire structure down.

Poorly worded. Sorry. I'm at work, and can't really take the time to edit.

:)

I think I pretty much uinderstand what you're saying ... and why you couldn't answer, apart from the non-existent 'other'.

Indeed, I suspect your answer really wants to be in the 'disparity' box. If we assume some finite amount of wealth, a controlled redistribution, in line with some societally beneficial strategy, woudl reduce the individual wealth at the top of the scale. The reduced wealth would either be held by government for the benefit of all or would be redistributed to those at the bottom of the scale; presumably it would wind up being some combination of the two. So in reducing the disparity, one eliminates the lack of wealth you identified.

Or did I misinterpret?

I guess that's the same result, although I don't see the problem itself as being disparity of wealth, but as being the lack of it on the low end. In other words, I don't think there is some magic number or percentage of how rich someone can be in relation to someone else. I actually believe that having extreme wealth, and the possibility of extreme wealth, can be beneficial to society, as it enables and inspires private industries to produce, say, beneficial drugs or products that can completely change the rules of the game--like computers, which have so revolutionized every aspect of our economy that even the poorest benefit (or can, if handled properly).

So I don't think the disparity in wealth is the problem, but I see your point, that since I do endorse a basic wealth-redistribution system, that this does take wealth from the highest level and give it to the lowest, thus, at least temporarily, reduce the disparity. So my point does lead to narrowing the disparity. Two caveats: One, I believe that a reasonable wealth redistribution policy also creates more wealth, even for the wealthiest, by stimulating the consumer base (as opposed to Bush's style of tax-cut stimulation which targets the wealthy too heavily). And two, wealth redistribution shouln't be done just for the sake of doing it. It must be an attempt to make society better, not just to grab money from the wealthy.

Our current government (not just Bush, but the basic style of it) takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich by building an infrastructure and economy that benefits the wealthy to an unfair degree. Just to give an anchor for where I'm coming from.

...... even though we may somehow be seen to address it differently.

I totally agree that redistributing excess wealth from the obscene top and giving it to abject bottom will, in fact, create more wealth. It is the very atithesis of the stupid 'trickle down' crap.

http://www.lcurve.org/
Go to site to see the graphic and understand the excerpt below.


The massive disparity between the "have mores" (those few entities on the goal line), just by the sheer amount of what they have, and everybody else creates relative poverty for everyone else.

Myself, I'm of the opinion that nobody is ever going to address this in any real way. Politicians will give lip service to the problem to get a vote (which it appears they don't really need anymore with rigged voting), but then, when they're in office, they do the bidding of only those on the goal line. The executive branch as well, under Bush especially, appears to me to hold the U.S. Constitution in contempt.

The "republic" is dead, and has been for at least all of my years, it has been reduced to something slightly more complicated than a simple lie. Yet the lies go on to all our kids in school, that if they work hard, and for nothing (school is labor), they too will get "ahead": A real pile of manure.

Admittedly, it talks about income, not wealth, but it also points out that wealth disparity is even more obscene than is the income disparity.

Even the lifestyle that the "average" American lives is unsustainable and will mean the death of Earth. And, yes, I am advocating that we live simply and abandon unnecessary travel and consumption of goods beyond what we need to exist. Everybody have a great weekend.

edit:typo

But it is also very unrealistic and utopian. It will never fly in Realityville. And yes, I understand that at *some* point a subsistance lifestyle *might* be the only alternative.

Weekend joy to you, too.

weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones..."!!!!

A lot of sense talked on this thread, it seems.

One man having so much that he can't possibly use that 10 other men must starve to death in order to support his gluttony... somebody needs to go on an enforced diet.

Edited to add:

It's interesting, even Warren Buffett (who I was transcribing an interview with the other day) was saying that there are only so many suits a man can wear, and so many good meals he can eat, after that the money itself is useless.

one might proffer the following analogy for illustrative purposes only ... think of traffic fatalities that result from the interplay of large cars and trucks with very small cars ... one might say large cars are the cause of the problem and if we made those big car guys drive small cars we would all be better off ... but we could just as easily say the small car guys should drive larger cars and fatalities would be reduced ... so, at least for this analogy, one would argue that it is the disparity that causes the problem ...

so, with that view, recognizing i'm in binary hell here, that was my answer ... one might even question whether choice one is even meaningful ... wealth, somewhat by definition, must really be viewed relatively ... given the reality of finite resources, if all had massive wealth, competition for resources would make that wealth somewhat irrelevant ... for example, if every person on the planet had billions of dollars, we could not possibly have a situation where every person owned and drove a car ... there wouldn't be enough gasoline at any price ... what would your wealth be then? again, one might argue that the first choice must, by definition, mean relative wealth ...

but return to the big car, small car example ... here's why the question ultimately cannot be binary ... the analogy focuses on the disparity of car sizes ... but what if other elements were introduced into the mix ... for example, let's say you cars had devices that prevented them from crashing into each other ... or, let's say our highways required you to hook your car to a conveyor belt that regulated the speed you travelled and kept a consistent distance between vehicles ... now, what sense does focusing on the binary big car/small car choice ...

the parallel to this, viewing wealth as power and power as potentially disrupting of democracy as we've discussed many times, is that we MIGHT be able to control the undersirable behaviors common to either wealth itself or the disparity of wealth ...

thus, in this context, one might argue that neither choice is inherently negative ... if i have a billion dollars, and you have half a billion, and another has all their necessities met but has very little material wealth, we still might be able to reflect society's values and preferences if we are able to develop our institutions properly ... so, this view might argue that neither wealth nor the disparities of wealth we have are inherently negative (as long as a suitable safety net and societal institutions are effective) ...

I make this vague post and establish a poll and then you come along and jump right to the underlying point.

Now, I will debate, just a tiny bit, the car analogy. Until that onboard accident preventer is invented and installed, the bigger issue is probably the size disparity. And until we figure out a way to effectively redistribute the wealth *of Americans* (bear with me on that emphasis for a bit) in a way accptable to *Americans*, wealth disparity will be the bigger issue. And that's where the debate needs to focus. Not in knee-jerk condemnation of either, but in finding ways to modify reality/law/culture to a way that works for *all* people.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry or scream when I see some who ostensibly share my politics cheer when really megarich people like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy say something worth cheering about, but then turn around and call anyone who has a net worth or an income a dime more than the national averages, as 'republicans'.

Now, back to the emphasis I placed on the reference to America and Americans. What ever we do, conceptually/philosophically, to effect a more or less equitable wealth redistribution in this country must also be done for the rest of the world.

it never ceases to amaze me, especially here on DU, the reaction i frequently get to capping wealth or wealth redistribution or similar issues ... it's a very, very sensitive subject even among DU's "progressives" ... i wonder whether, as an obvious over-generalization, Gen-x'ers and generations that followed the boomers have been indoctrinated with just a wee bit too much "entrepreneurial spirit" and maybe not quite enough of a societal focus ... not that boomers are necessarily less materialistic but i think i find greater acceptability of socialist themes among boomers than among younger folks ... no interest in getting into a generational analysis here, though ...

the point remains that it's become an incredibly tough sell when you're talking income redistribution ... "i earned it; it's mine damn it" ...

as for the Kennedy/Kerry point, and perhaps needing a separate thread (don't they all), i agree that many seem schizoid between liking the politics and then complaining about the wealth ... still, and it's a thought still in the petri dish, should we not aspire to the citizen - politician ... why can't the guy in the shoe store become a senator? why can't the teacher, or the unemployed steel worker or the woman who sprays the smelly perfumes in the mall? the big question becomes: what society and government do we build when only the wealthy, and mostly lawyers or corporate executives, direct legislation and policy?

finally, i think we slide down a dangerously slippery slope, maybe mostly because of "framing", when we talk about income redistribution ... that jargon is the darling of the right and even more so of libertarians ... that's all most of them ever talk about ...

rather than focus on "how to level the field" ("it's un-American"), we would be better served, and far more effective, focusing on problems that need to be solved ... you've seen me do this before ... for example, one might argue that it is not good for our democracy to allow big money to "buy the government" ... if we honor the spirit of democracy, we should enforce the "one man/one vote" ideology as much as possible ... allowing great wealth to "buy influence" should be discouraged ... so, rather than outright calling for "capping wealth" or other draconian, levelling measures, i challenge those who oppose such policies to find other ways to solve the problem ... bad democracy, i.e. bad governance, can never be an option ...

inevitably, there is talk of lobby reform or campaign finance ... fine, i say ... it's never worked but i'll be patient ... give it another try ... but then what, when it fails again??? the wealth redistribution i'm calling for is designed not to "flatten everyone" and, as they see it, destroy incentives to be productive ... it is there for the critically needed objective of good government ... now, the opposition starts to struggle with a solution ... it's easy to be critical of wealth redistribution; it's harder to offer real solutions to restore the spirit of democracy ... i like throwing the ball back in their court ...

also, arguing this line, we have to be careful not to let them label us "anti-wealth" ... i'm not anti-wealth at all ... i'm pro-democracy ... and i'm anti-corporate welfare ... that's what wealth has done; they've bought themselves a government - our government ... wealthy people are not any more inherently evil than anyone else ... but wealth is power and wealth enables great abuse of our institutions ... the goal is not "flattening"; the goal is a country with integrity that honors the spirit of its revolution and its Constitution ...

...... I keep coming back to another facet of this whole issue: The underlying politics of it all.

Let's look back a bit to when Il Dunce took over. He got his 'tax cuts' passed with the help of the Dems. Hidden in there were more than a few purely political poison pills. The one that's bubbled up recently is the estate tax (the **death tax* ...... woo-OOO-ooo-OOO-ooo). He set it to expire just *after* he leaves office, meaning how it gets settled will be a guaranteed issue in the 08 campaigns.

There are two natural poles in the debate: Those who would eliminate the **death** tax (R) and those who would tax every **death** (D).

And people are falling right in line. Let just **one** Dem or lefty of any note come out in favor of taxing all estates - no matter how sincere that view might be - and we lose the whole debate and maybe the elections. Yes, I really see it as that big a deal. If they can surreptitiously record just one lefty saying this in a public forum and that recording - probably clipped and taken out of context - will form the basis for the entire damned debate. And once again we'll be left to defend (badly) the indefensible while they get to sound all reasonable and 'American'.

When the issue is framed in polar values, we lose. We need to be very smart about this and we need to come up with a **reasonable** and **responsible** position .... right damned now. And we need to get on our side the 98% of the public that fall below some reasonable level of 'wealth'. I say we do, indeed, make a class war. The ordinary against the billionaires. The trick is to find a place where even people worth a few (yes, meager) millions are among the 'ordinary' on this point.

Everything you said in your post was good stuff. And it isn't all black and white. That kind of thinking leads to reasonable positions.

We need to find one on this issue.

Fast.