US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1386

On April 26 2019 00:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That said I think Gates is a pretty extreme case, in that he's one guy who has arguably done more good with his wealth than what extra taxation or higher pay for microsoft employees or what lower prices for microsoft products would have done. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is truly fantastic, and I think virtually no other expenses are more worthwhile than combating extreme poverty (people living at sub $1 per day) and providing education for the same impoverished people. No (western, there might be entirely benevolent governments in really impoverished areas that I don't know of ) government spends even close to a similar % of their budged on equally worthwhile causes imo.

I mean I still agree that ideally there would be no need for philanthropy, but when most western countries either fail to give 1% or proudly pat themselves on the back for giving 1% to humanitarian aid, we're very far away from that being the case, and I think it would have been a big net negative if the bill and melinda gates foundation had instead been taxes.

That's not at all a defense of the super-rich though. Just one of bill gates, melinda gates, and warren buffett.

On April 26 2019 01:01 Velr wrote:
What I don't get is why for example Bezos rather takes shit for treating and paying his employes horrible instead of just taking 10% less for himself.

On April 26 2019 00:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Had trump sat with Mueller, he almost certainly would have lied about mcgahn. Hes still lying about it on Twitter, even though it's only calling attention to his lies. Clearly, the only reason he is still president is because his people are willing to ignore his orders and his lies. What is he hiding with all the lies?

On April 25 2019 21:12 Ryzel wrote:


While the analogy is both apt and evocative, it breaks down upon closer scrutiny. Not only do more people get clubbed, but remaining individuals get the stuff of the killed individuals distributed randomly in increasing concentrations, and it gets distributed by a third power (“the game”) so it appears to absolve the remainers of moral responsibility for their actions. In addition, those that get the most stuff become less and less likely to be chosen to die (and in fact become the choosers), so they are heavily incentivized to play.

GH is right in that historically revolutions have been sparked not by assurances of how life will be afterwards, but by how unacceptable life is now. A big part of what contributed to the “unacceptable” nature of many revolutions are that the masses felt they had no control over their situations (e.g. due to a monarchy/oligarchy). That is NOT the case in the US and most capitalist countries. Capitalism as it’s preached in the US does a great job making individuals feel responsible for their own situations and that people are actually worth the value they bring in (as opposed to believing that the value they bring in is impacted by biased powers outside of themselves), so individuals are less likely to believe that their issues have a systemic cause. Education is necessary for this to change, and specifically education about how meritocracy is a lie and that your value is more influenced by those with more wealth than you (fortunately, examples of this are becoming more and more prevalent in recent times so this will become easier to teach and harder to hide).

However, that’s only half the battle. You’d now need to convince the masses (70% of the population? 80%? I’d be curious to know your take on that GH) that their lives are unacceptable to the point where they should throw it all away and incite armed rebellion against the other 20-30%, and that will be a tough sell. Granted a lot of the bottom quartile may be willing, and a few in the 25-50%, but the 50-75% have jobs and stable income and families while having comforts that were unheard of even 30 years ago. Even if they’re educated on their powerlessness to affect society, they might not even care. I think we need like a million or so deaths directly linked to climate change over the span of like a year to get the point across that current living trends are unacceptable, and by then it’ll definitely be too late.

On April 26 2019 01:01 Velr wrote:
What I don't get is why for example Bezos rather takes shit for treating and paying his employes horrible instead of just taking 10% less for himself.

On April 26 2019 00:52 Simberto wrote:


I totally agree with this. You tax stuff that is completely unearned, people get to keep or spend the money that they themselves earned, and it combats the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small hereditary aristocracy, thus providing more social equality.

There really seems to not be any negative with a massive inheritance tax. And yet it is incredibly disliked for some reason.

On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again.

On April 26 2019 01:15 Logo wrote:


Bill Gate's net worth is still increasing. He's worth 50% more than he was when he stopped his involvement with Microsoft ($60b in 2008 -> $90b today).

On April 26 2019 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Sorry, you are going to have to explain this bit to me. Assume I don't have your cultural baggage and knowledge. Explain every part of the sentence.

On April 26 2019 01:01 Velr wrote:
What I don't get is why for example Bezos rather takes shit for treating and paying his employes horrible instead of just taking 10% less for himself.

On April 26 2019 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:


The wealthier you get the less capable you are of love. There's a theory based explanation and a more psychological based explanation. It's also reflected in a variety of media (books, movies, series, etc...).

The general concept is that the wealthier you get the less capable you are of love (as in respect for the humanity of your global kin) because in order to get the wealth you have to extract it from the people creating it. Most people don't consider themselves evil so they adopt a "I worry about me and mine" attitude. But that only carries them so far, if you want more success you have to start sacrificing the experiences of love for more time to extract wealth. Additionally you have to be able to sleep knowing that the people sleeping on the street down the road a ways are there to feed your insatiable thirst for more wealth.

That help?

On April 26 2019 02:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So you redefined "love" as "respect for the humanity of your global kin". Why not just write that instead of a made up definition?

You neglected to explain "inevitable emptiness" and " charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again". Why would they feel an inevitable emptiness when people naturally don't have respect for the rest of humanity? Why would they lose the ability to feel, or even care to regain it? Even assuming that is true why then would charity be chosen as the way to regain respect for the humanity of your global kin? You basically posited some wishy washy pseudo-spiritual-psychology as fact.

On April 26 2019 02:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a logical disconnect here. You posit that those with great wealth are psychopaths. Assuming that is true, you define this as that "they have little to no capacity for empathy". Yet they have "inevitable emptiness" despite this lack of capacity and "attempt to feel again" despite never having that capacity for empathy in the first place.

Btw, there is something distinctively cultish about your usage of language where you use single words ambiguously which you attribute complex concepts to, which you later claim is what you originally meant. Why communicate in riddles if you truly intend to communicate. Why obscurate your intended meaning? That way lies madness.