Are we deserving of our wealth?

[Zebo]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's called property rights, work ethic, building for our children, value of intellect, fairness in trade and wages and all the other things that separates western and now some asian cultures from the barbaric third world. God does'nt play dice and we truly get what we deserve. Settle for less get less. Strive for more, get more.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Luck has nothing to do with it. It's called property rights, work ethic, building for our children, value of intellect, fairness in trade and wages and all the other things that separates western and now some asian cultures from the barbaric third world. God does'nt play dice and we truly get what we deserve. Settle for less get less. Strive for more, get more.

I was using the term luck to show we are lucky to have been born into this region of the world. The reasons for the first world's success is due to the reasons you just gave and more.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Zebo
Luck has nothing to do with it. It's called property rights, work ethic, building for our children, value of intellect, fairness in trade and wages and all the other things that separates western and now some asian cultures from the barbaric third world. God does'nt play dice and we truly get what we deserve. Settle for less get less. Strive for more, get more.

I was using the term luck to show we are lucky to have been born into this region of the world. The reasons for the first world's success is due to the reasons you just gave and more.

Yeah really if for some reason you had been born in Bangledesh, Ethiopia, or Sudan, then all your hard work and toil would most likely have been for naught. You were LUCKY to have been born here.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Zebo
Luck has nothing to do with it. It's called property rights, work ethic, building for our children, value of intellect, fairness in trade and wages and all the other things that separates western and now some asian cultures from the barbaric third world. God does'nt play dice and we truly get what we deserve. Settle for less get less. Strive for more, get more.

I was using the term luck to show we are lucky to have been born into this region of the world. The reasons for the first world's success is due to the reasons you just gave and more.

Yeah really if for some reason you had been born in Bangledesh, Ethiopia, or Sudan, then all your hard work and toil would most likely have been for naught. You were LUCKY to have been born here.

Depends how many people you can get on board. Mexico does'nt have to be poor, The people just have to decide or not if they want 15 families controlling all the countries wealth, laws and resouces making them all Billionaires while 99.9% live in utter poverty. Think middle ages, we got past nobles and surfs, so can they. They get what they deserve either way. Thier paid what thier worth either way.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Zebo
Luck has nothing to do with it. It's called property rights, work ethic, building for our children, value of intellect, fairness in trade and wages and all the other things that separates western and now some asian cultures from the barbaric third world. God does'nt play dice and we truly get what we deserve. Settle for less get less. Strive for more, get more.

I was using the term luck to show we are lucky to have been born into this region of the world. The reasons for the first world's success is due to the reasons you just gave and more.

Yeah really if for some reason you had been born in Bangledesh, Ethiopia, or Sudan, then all your hard work and toil would most likely have been for naught. You were LUCKY to have been born here.

Depends how many people you can get on board. Mexico does'nt have to be poor, The people just have to decide or not if they want 15 families controlling all the countries wealth, laws and resouces making them all Billionaires while 99.9% live in utter poverty. Think middle ages, we got past nobles and surfs, so can they. They get what they deserve either way. Thier paid what thier worth either way.

Oh absolutely! I believe in revolution, and working your ass off to change things. But in places like Mogadishu (sp?) the do gooders are usually swept away with an AK-47. But with the right resolve, and unity they can change things. Some of them would then have to contend with the fact that NOTHING grows in sand.

What I really meant by the lucky comment is that here in the states all the bloody work has been done for you a couple hundred years ago.

 

[Zebo]

Some of them would then have to contend with the fact that NOTHING grows in sand.

Hehe you never been to saudi arabia then. They have tens of thousands of acres of flower and melon plantations, both extremly water needy,. in the desert, in the sand. Course they had westeners build them desalination plants to feed them.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Some of them would then have to contend with the fact that NOTHING grows in sand.

Hehe you never been to saudi arabia then. They have tens of thousands of acres of flower and melon plantations, both extremly water needy,. in the desert, in the sand. Course they had westeners build them desalination plants to feed them.

Not to mention the ruling class of Saudi are richer than both our wildest dreams combined. It would take more than a little hand out from us or whoever to get Ethiopia up to half that level of agriculture. But you are right that the power lies with the people, and many of them seem unwilling to make use of it.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Well, let's see. We could tax our wealth out of existence. However, if we did that who would be left to help the worlds hungry and needy. Currently the U.S. provides the vast majority of money used around the world for charitable causes.

Of course, you can look at the Democrat numbers showing that we give the least and those numbers are absolutely accurate. They fail to include the amount given by private individuals. During the Tsunami crisis they even excluded the cost of time, materials, and manpower of the U.S. military. After all the all mighty Government is the source of all wealth.

So do I feel bad? Nope. Should Democrats feel bad. Of course. The Democrat politician, on average, give 50% less of their AGI to non-political charities than their Republican counterparts, per their IRS returns.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Well, let's see. We could tax our wealth out of existence. However, if we did that who would be left to help the worlds hungry and needy. Currently the U.S. provides the vast majority of money used around the world for charitable causes.

Of course, you can look at the Democrat numbers showing that we give the least and those numbers are absolutely accurate. They fail to include the amount given by private individuals. During the Tsunami crisis they even excluded the cost of time, materials, and manpower of the U.S. military. After all the all mighty Government is the source of all wealth.

So do I feel bad? Nope. Should Democrats feel bad. Of course. The Democrat politician, on average, give 50% less of their AGI to non-political charities than their Republican counterparts, per their IRS returns.

just curious but isn't part of that n-p charities churches on the right side of the fence? hence tithing? i realize that a large amount of church money goes to feeding the less fortunate, but it also destroys cultures, and forwards a narrow political agenda, you get a twofer for that money.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: alchemize
Stunt,

Here's the question I've asked before (and researched myself and never quite found the answer for it either).

If we were to "redistribute" the world's wealth - how much would each of the planets 6 billion inhabitants get?

I agree with your point in saying that sharing our wealth would be counter-productive in that we would effectivly be sending money and aid overseas and lowering our standard of living. (way more poor people in the world than the few on welfare domestically)

My point is opening our borders to allow other companies and countries to compete on a level playing field. This would not lower our standard of living as more competition would lower prices, create more employment globally and of course we have a massive headstart with our education systems and the importing of the best scientists.

The big question is whether you think the US got rich off the backs of other countries or by generating wealth on its own. If you think it was off the backs of other countries, opening free trade to other countries would in fact move our wealth to other countries. If you think wealth was created domestically, it is not irrational to say the third world can start generating wealth while we continue to grow.

It is my view that economic development in the form of outsourcing will do far more for a poor country than any form of aid or donations. I am very much anti-aid but fully support free trade and outsourcing, it's like aid but they get jobs, raise their standard of living, we get cheaper goods, their economy becomes sustainable, etc.

Well, that wasn't my point - although I agree

My point will be - if the data supports it (which I think it will) - is that even if we fulfilled the left's fantasies of global wealth redistribution, there just isn't enough wealth in the world to give everyone a decent life (or the real issue - there are more people than wealth.)

 

[eggrole1]

Originally posted by: Legend
For most poeple in America, no they do not deserve the wealth. Far too many people are consumer whores and live beyond their means and are into their necks in debt. They just have to have a new car every few years, and have a huge house, and a home theater with a wall filled up with DVDs, several of them unwatched in their original packaging. It's really sick.

If you are living beyond your means and have such things it is on thing. If you manage your money well and can AFFORD a new car, a big house, and all the creature comforts, by all means you deserve them.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Currently the U.S. provides the vast majority of money used around the world for charitable causes.

Already been discussed... other countries have a per capita charitable donations value multiple times higher than the US.

 

[Zebo]

s that even if we fulfilled the left's fantasies of global wealth redistribution,

Silly me I thought that was the rights dream.. 300 billion in iraq.. 250 million to tsanami relief.. africa aids..israel billions... list goes on forever. They never saw foreign aid or costly warfare and rebuild bill they did'nt like. I think the left is into redistributing our wealth inside our borders more. Course they all find it real easy to spend other peoples money. But don't even pretend the right does'nt love spending as much as they can, round the globe, even ripping record debts is how insatable thier appitite for spending is.