Private for Eric - income inequality
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030618.shtml
I read it. So what? So most American poor today live better than
people in developing nations or people in 1960.
I could have told you that. When I was a child, "poor" people lived
better than I did in an upper middle class family, because they
actually spent some of their money on nice clothes and cars instead
of saving it in the bank or investing it and shopping for clothes at
Woolworth's and Sears, or paying off a mortgage on a house.
It doesn't make it more acceptable to allow people to be poor then
or now, nor is it as simple as blaming people for being poor,
particularly when as the man notes, bad parenting may be
responsible.
Funny the man didn't mention lack of health care or insurance. Or
crime. Or the fact that in the nation with just him and Bill Gates,
he may become a millionaire, but he would still be doing ALL Bill
Gates' manual labor, not be a reporter living comfortably. (Why
would Bill Gates pay him millions anyway, when he could hire cheap
foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
millions to do housekeeping?)
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030618.shtml
>
> I read it. So what? So most American poor today live better than
> people in developing nations or people in 1960.
>
> I could have told you that. When I was a child, "poor" people lived
> better than I did in an upper middle class family, because they
> actually spent some of their money on nice clothes and cars instead
> of saving it in the bank or investing it and shopping for clothes at
> Woolworth's and Sears, or paying off a mortgage on a house.
Wow. Your parents were misers?
> It doesn't make it more acceptable to allow people to be poor then
> or now,
What's this "allow people to be poor" nonsense?
> nor is it as simple as blaming people for being poor,
> particularly when as the man notes, bad parenting may be
> responsible.
He noted bad parenting as being responsible for child hunger, not poverty.
> Funny the man didn't mention lack of health care or insurance.
Why is that funny? Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to spend
their money on other things.
> Or
> crime.
I am sure he would agree with you that crime is bad.
> Or the fact that in the nation with just him and Bill Gates,
> he may become a millionaire, but he would still be doing ALL Bill
> Gates' manual labor, not be a reporter living comfortably.
He notes that. See how he says "Bill Gates and the sultan would surely pay
me very well to clean their houses, cook their food and tie their shoes."
> (Why
> would Bill Gates pay him millions anyway,
He didn't say that Gates would pay him millions.
> when he could hire cheap
> foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
> millions to do housekeeping?)
Who was expecting millions?
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030618.shtml
> >
> > I read it. So what? So most American poor today live better than
> > people in developing nations or people in 1960.
> >
> > I could have told you that. When I was a child, "poor" people lived
> > better than I did in an upper middle class family, because they
> > actually spent some of their money on nice clothes and cars instead
> > of saving it in the bank or investing it and shopping for clothes at
> > Woolworth's and Sears, or paying off a mortgage on a house.
>
> Wow. Your parents were misers?
I wouldn't go that far. But the millionaire in the family still drives a 1985
Toyota Tercel wagon (bought used) with holes in it that breaks down about
once a year, and overheats on hot days. I believe I will rent myself a new
car next month for at least part of the visit.
> > It doesn't make it more acceptable to allow people to be poor then
> > or now,
>
> What's this "allow people to be poor" nonsense?
There are poor people in the US because we allow them to be poor.
> > nor is it as simple as blaming people for being poor,
> > particularly when as the man notes, bad parenting may be
> > responsible.
>
> He noted bad parenting as being responsible for child hunger, not poverty.
Children are not responsible for being poor, and the handicaps they receive
such as poor education, or having to work to support family and themselves
instead of making the most of any education they receive, can handicap them
for life.
> > Funny the man didn't mention lack of health care or insurance.
>
> Why is that funny?
Because he thinks having such as a refrigerator and color TV is so great,
while making no mention of the fact that people need other, more costly items
such as insurance and education to improve their lives.
> Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
> living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to spend
> their money on other things.
Like food or rent. PS simply being overweight does not suggest good nutrition
or quality of life as he would suggest when pointing out how fat some "poor"
kids are.
> > Or crime.
>
> I am sure he would agree with you that crime is bad.
Lower income people and minorities such as blacks, suffer more from crime,
than more average or upper class people. Even if Bill Gates had to worry
about people beating him up or killing him for not joining their gang or
wanting his shoes or car, he can afford to have others protect him.
> > Or the fact that in the nation with just him and Bill Gates,
> > he may become a millionaire, but he would still be doing ALL Bill
> > Gates' manual labor, not be a reporter living comfortably.
>
> He notes that. See how he says "Bill Gates and the sultan would surely pay
> me very well to clean their houses, cook their food and tie their shoes."
He does not explain why being a millionaire servant for everyone else in the
country of the superrich is acceptable, or how he would enjoy his money with
no one else to serve him, or the leisure time to use it. How will he "live
quite well" when he is everyone else's servant, probably the only available
servant in the whole country?
> > (Why would Bill Gates pay him millions anyway,
>
> He didn't say that Gates would pay him millions.
All right. He says the people he would be working for would "soon" make him
"a millionaire".
> > when he could hire cheap
> > foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
> > millions to do housekeeping?)
>
> Who was expecting millions?
He said "soon I could become a millionaire" serving "Bill Gates and the
sultan" because they would "surely pay [him] very well".
Perhaps you have read Goldberg's other article: "We should be doing more",
because that applies to the US as well, not just suffering foreigners.
One doesn't need to be a moral relativist, (future) revisionist, or victim of
recent terrorism, to see that the US should damned well be helping others
such as in North Korea and Africa. North Korean defectors, as he says, are
testifying before Congress about such as eating rats out of prison toilet
holes, or smuggling missile parts, but the US government hasn't been inspired
to stop or undo it yet.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>> Wow. Your parents were misers?
>
> I wouldn't go that far. But the millionaire in the family still
> drives a 1985 Toyota Tercel wagon (bought used) with holes in it that
> breaks down about once a year, and overheats on hot days. I believe I
> will rent myself a new car next month for at least part of the visit.
Wow. What good is being a millionaire if you drive a 1985 Toyota Tercel
wagon (bought used) with holes in it that breaks down about once a year, and
overheats on hot days?
>>> It doesn't make it more acceptable to allow people to be poor then
>>> or now,
>>
>> What's this "allow people to be poor" nonsense?
>
> There are poor people in the US because we allow them to be poor.
How do we "allow" them to be poor? There is a free market in this country,
so I suppose the market allows them to be poor, but no more so than it
allows them to be rich. "Allow" implies permission. Yes, you have the
permission to be as poor or as rich as you like.
>>> nor is it as simple as blaming people for being poor,
>>> particularly when as the man notes, bad parenting may be
>>> responsible.
>>
>> He noted bad parenting as being responsible for child hunger, not
>> poverty.
>
> Children are not responsible for being poor,
Absolutely true.
> and the handicaps they
> receive such as poor education,
Which is why poor, minority families are the biggest supporters of school
vouchers.
> or having to work to support family
I think that work is better for them than education might be in some cases.
At least that way, they learn that hard work is the way to success. My
father never saw the inside of a college and spend his childhood working to
help support the family, at times even living on his own. I don't know if he
would have become a millionaire if he hadn't had hat experience. That's
probably why he had me start working full-time summer jobs from the time I
was 10.
> and themselves instead of making the most of any education they
> receive, can handicap them for life.
Can, but not necessarily does.
>>> Funny the man didn't mention lack of health care or insurance.
>>
>> Why is that funny?
>
> Because he thinks having such as a refrigerator and color TV is so
> great, while making no mention of the fact that people need other,
> more costly items such as insurance and education to improve their
> lives.
They could buy those things. They choose not to.
>> Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
>> living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to
>> spend their money on other things.
>
> Like food or rent.
If they have cars, cable tv, and so on, I am pretty sure that they have food
and rent covered.
> PS simply being overweight does not suggest good
> nutrition or quality of life as he would suggest when pointing out
> how fat some "poor" kids are.
What being fat suggests is that one is not going hungry.
>>> Or crime.
>>
>> I am sure he would agree with you that crime is bad.
>
> Lower income people and minorities such as blacks, suffer more from
> crime, than more average or upper class people.
How do they suffer more than so-called "average" people?
> Even if Bill Gates
> had to worry about people beating him up or killing him for not
> joining their gang or wanting his shoes or car, he can afford to have
> others protect him.
I see. So what?
>>> Or the fact that in the nation with just him and Bill Gates,
>>> he may become a millionaire, but he would still be doing ALL Bill
>>> Gates' manual labor, not be a reporter living comfortably.
>>
>> He notes that. See how he says "Bill Gates and the sultan would
>> surely pay me very well to clean their houses, cook their food and
>> tie their shoes."
>
> He does not explain why being a millionaire servant for everyone else
> in the country of the superrich is acceptable,
What's unacceptable about it? It's honest work. It's not illegal.
> or how he would enjoy
> his money with no one else to serve him, or the leisure time to use
> it. How will he "live quite well" when he is everyone else's servant,
> probably the only available servant in the whole country?
Now you're fighting his hypothetical. His point was to illustrate that
income inequality is not de facto bad.
>>> when he could hire cheap
>>> foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
>>> millions to do housekeeping?)
>>
>> Who was expecting millions?
>
> He said "soon I could become a millionaire" serving "Bill Gates and
> the sultan" because they would "surely pay [him] very well".
My question remains.
> Perhaps you have read Goldberg's other article: "We should be doing
> more", because that applies to the US as well, not just suffering
> foreigners.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/emjx
>
> One doesn't need to be a moral relativist, (future) revisionist, or
> victim of recent terrorism, to see that the US should damned well be
> helping others such as in North Korea and Africa.
What should the US be doing to help?
> North Korean
> defectors, as he says, are testifying before Congress about such as
> eating rats out of prison toilet holes, or smuggling missile parts,
> but the US government hasn't been inspired to stop or undo it yet.
What do you want the US to do?
--
Kevin Gowen
Eric Takabayashi
> What good is being a millionaire if you drive a 1985 Toyota Tercel
> wagon (bought used) with holes in it that breaks down about once a year, and
> overheats on hot days?
She has enough money, and the confidence that comes with it, to plan to live on
it and if need be, pay for private home care quite possibly for the rest of her
life, which is more than can be said for many who worry about their futures.
Did you wonder the same about Sam Walton, who stood in line in his own chain of
stores to pay for his own purchases, got five dollar haircuts and drove an old
American truck?
> > There are poor people in the US because we allow them to be poor.
>
> How do we "allow" them to be poor?
Because the US government for example, does not look after its citizens like
the Norwegian government.
> There is a free market in this country,
No, there isn't, as millions of people at any one time who want to be employed,
including the highly skilled and educated, are not employed.
> so I suppose the market allows them to be poor, but no more so than it
> allows them to be rich.
Incorrect. People are much more likely to be poor.
> "Allow" implies permission. Yes, you have the
> permission to be as poor or as rich as you like.
No, you cannot become as rich as you like. But you may end up in debt
regardless.
> > Children are not responsible for being poor,
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> > and the handicaps they
> > receive such as poor education,
>
> Which is why poor, minority families are the biggest supporters of school
> vouchers.
>
> > or having to work to support family
>
> I think that work is better for them than education might be in some cases.
It might, in some cases. That is no reason to deny poor people the same
opportunities given to more middle class or rich people, as in varied quality
of education, or having to work instead of doing homework or attending school.
Someone who has to support their family because there is no father at home,
whose education and opportunities may suffer as a result, is quite different
from someone who chooses to work when school is out to buy themselves things to
be cool, whose performance may or may not suffer as a result.
> At least that way, they learn that hard work is the way to success.
If people want to try to be "rich", they should damn well work hard, even
harder than people who somehow ended up rich. People shouldn't have to work so
hard just to make ends meet.
> My
> father never saw the inside of a college and spend his childhood working to
> help support the family, at times even living on his own. I don't know if he
> would have become a millionaire if he hadn't had hat experience. That's
> probably why he had me start working full-time summer jobs from the time I
> was 10.
That's you and your father. That's no reason to deny other people opportunities
such as education, because they're too poor to take advantage of them, or to
promote not pursuing an education. If the rest of society were like your father
or my grandfather, we wouldn't need university or even high school.
> > and themselves instead of making the most of any education they
> > receive, can handicap them for life.
>
> Can, but not necessarily does.
Why deny them the opportunity? Why not offer more job training, scholarships,
and more free schooling such as university, like other countries do?
> >> Why is that funny?
> >
> > Because he thinks having such as a refrigerator and color TV is so
> > great, while making no mention of the fact that people need other,
> > more costly items such as insurance and education to improve their
> > lives.
>
> They could buy those things. They choose not to.
He himself notes how affordable refrigerators (to store food or buy in bulk)
have become. Owning a car does not indicate wealth when it is a POS, or is a
necessity in case of lack of public transportation. My county got public bus in
1992. People have more pressing needs may not be able to spend on insurance or
education which may well be more costly than an affordable (he did not even
stipulate new) refrigerator, TV, or POS car.
> >> Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
> >> living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to
> >> spend their money on other things.
> >
> > Like food or rent.
>
> If they have cars, cable tv, and so on, I am pretty sure that they have food
> and rent covered.
And what of the tens of millions of Americans who do not have those things?
> > PS simply being overweight does not suggest good
> > nutrition or quality of life as he would suggest when pointing out
> > how fat some "poor" kids are.
>
> What being fat suggests is that one is not going hungry.
Which still does not suggest good nutrition, health, or lack of poverty. I grew
up with poor people who were not necessarily hungry, but they damned well
needed to take advantage of the public school's free lunch and breakfast
program. Since about third grade through junior high, I worked in the school
cafeteria every morning after my mother dropped me off on her way to work,
until first period, so I knew who they were. There were kids in bad health in
other ways such as parasites or bad teeth, because they were not raised with
good hygiene and did not go to the doctor or dentist. The school had to bring
people in to do fluoride treatments or do examinations for head lice. And they
were not the ones with nice clothes or the families with nice cars.
> > Lower income people and minorities such as blacks, suffer more from
> > crime, than more average or upper class people.
>
> How do they suffer more than so-called "average" people?
Because the leading cause of death for whites and rich people is not being
killed by their own kind, as it was for young black men, for example, nor do
they live in the same environment to live in the same kind of fear, at least
prior to recent acts of terrorism.
> > Even if Bill Gates
> > had to worry about people beating him up or killing him for not
> > joining their gang or wanting his shoes or car, he can afford to have
> > others protect him.
>
> I see. So what?
So simply living in a modern country like the US does not mean one's life is so
great. Poor people who live in slums or worry about street violence or gangs,
probably do not comfort themselves thinking about life in North Korea where
prisoners may eat raw rats out of the toilets.
> > He does not explain why being a millionaire servant for everyone else
> > in the country of the superrich is acceptable,
>
> What's unacceptable about it? It's honest work. It's not illegal.
Do you want to be a millionaire by being a manservant to the rich, or would you
prefer to have the choice to be rich some other way?
> > or how he would enjoy
> > his money with no one else to serve him, or the leisure time to use
> > it. How will he "live quite well" when he is everyone else's servant,
> > probably the only available servant in the whole country?
>
> Now you're fighting his hypothetical. His point was to illustrate that
> income inequality is not de facto bad.
No, if we are only talking about people who live quite well, as he thinks he
would as exclusive millionaire manservant, or who are rich, income inequality
in itself is not bad.
And to that I said, so? I knew that already. I'm talking about poor people.
> >>> when he could hire cheap
> >>> foreign servants for a few bucks a day who wouldn't be expecting
> >>> millions to do housekeeping?)
> >>
> >> Who was expecting millions?
> >
> > He said "soon I could become a millionaire" serving "Bill Gates and
> > the sultan" because they would "surely pay [him] very well".
>
> My question remains.
And so does mine. You could make quite a bit of money as a butler. Maybe become
a millionaire yourself as caddy to a successful pro golfer. You could also
simply marry a wealthy woman.
Or would you prefer to have other choices available to you, to be rich?
> > Perhaps you have read Goldberg's other article: "We should be doing
> > more", because that applies to the US as well, not just suffering
> > foreigners.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/emjx
> >
> > One doesn't need to be a moral relativist, (future) revisionist, or
> > victim of recent terrorism, to see that the US should damned well be
> > helping others such as in North Korea and Africa.
>
> What should the US be doing to help?
In North Korea, the US could enforce prior agreements regarding inspections,
halting nuclear development, and not allowing proliferation of nuclear weapons
as a minimum. And if they want to put any meaning into their bluster against
dictatorship or WMD, they could free the North Korean people from their regime
like was done in Iraq.
> > North Korean
> > defectors, as he says, are testifying before Congress about such as
> > eating rats out of prison toilet holes, or smuggling missile parts,
> > but the US government hasn't been inspired to stop or undo it yet.
>
> What do you want the US to do?
I want the US to mind their own business politically and militarily as it would
save the US a lot of trouble.
But if the US continues to spout off against or rattle their sabers against
countries in oil producing regions, they should damn well apply the same
standard to other regions in the world which may be even more unstable, with
proven, existing stocks of WMD or development programs, or where people suffer
even more than under the Taliban or Baath party, and act accordingly by
toppling the government and freeing the people.
Kevin Gowen
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> What good is being a millionaire if you drive a 1985 Toyota Tercel
>> wagon (bought used) with holes in it that breaks down about once a
>> year, and overheats on hot days?
>
> She has enough money, and the confidence that comes with it, to plan
> to live on it and if need be, pay for private home care quite
> possibly for the rest of her life, which is more than can be said for
> many who worry about their futures.
>
> Did you wonder the same about Sam Walton, who stood in line in his
> own chain of stores to pay for his own purchases, got five dollar
> haircuts and drove an old American truck?
That would all depends on whether or not that old American truck broke down
about once a year and overheated on hot days.
>>> There are poor people in the US because we allow them to be poor.
>>
>> How do we "allow" them to be poor?
>
> Because the US government for example, does not look after its
> citizens like the Norwegian government.
People aren't allowed to be poor in Norway? What happens if a Norwegian
becomes poor? Are they fined?
>> There is a free market in this country,
>
> No, there isn't, as millions of people at any one time who want to be
> employed, including the highly skilled and educated, are not employed.
How does that make the USA not a free market? Of course, there are subsidies
and such (which I am against), but the USA is essentially a free market.
>> so I suppose the market allows them to be poor, but no more so than
>> it allows them to be rich.
>
> Incorrect. People are much more likely to be poor.
Really? Can you give that statistic in numerical terms? Here are the last
numbers I saw:
Median household income in the United States was
$42,148 in the year 2000. This value equaled the value
for 1999, the highest level ever recorded in the Current
Population Survey (CPS), in real terms. Hispanic and
Black households hit new all-time highs in median income
of $33,447 and $30,439, respectively. The median household
income of White non-Hispanic ($45,904) and Asian
and Pacific Islander ($55,521) households equaled their
highest levels ever recorded (in 1999) in the CPS.
(Source: US Census Burean, "Money Income in the United States: 2000"
September 2001)
Given these medians, how do you figure that an American is much more likely
to be poor? I think this depends on your defintion of "poor". Can you give
me a number in terms of wealth and income?
>> "Allow" implies permission. Yes, you have the
>> permission to be as poor or as rich as you like.
>
> No, you cannot become as rich as you like.
Sure you can.
> But you may end up in debt
> regardless.
What does debt have to do with being poor or rich?
>>> or having to work to support family
>>
>> I think that work is better for them than education might be in some
>> cases.
>
> It might, in some cases. That is no reason to deny poor people the
> same opportunities given to more middle class or rich people,
What opportunity are they denied? They can go to private schools; they just
have to pay for them.
> as in
> varied quality of education, or having to work instead of doing
> homework or attending school. Someone who has to support their family
> because there is no father at home, whose education and opportunities
> may suffer as a result, is quite different from someone who chooses
> to work when school is out to buy themselves things to be cool, whose
> performance may or may not suffer as a result.
What's the difference?
>> At least that way, they learn that hard work is the way to success.
>
> If people want to try to be "rich", they should damn well work hard,
> even harder than people who somehow ended up rich. People shouldn't
> have to work so hard just to make ends meet.
Why not? Should people have the money to make ends meet just given to them?
>> My
>> father never saw the inside of a college and spend his childhood
>> working to help support the family, at times even living on his own.
>> I don't know if he would have become a millionaire if he hadn't had
>> hat experience. That's probably why he had me start working
>> full-time summer jobs from the time I was 10.
>
> That's you and your father. That's no reason to deny other people
> opportunities such as education, because they're too poor to take
> advantage of them, or to promote not pursuing an education.
No one is denying anyone the opportunity to anything.
> If the
> rest of society were like your father or my grandfather, we wouldn't
> need university or even high school.
Why not? Who would formulate new drugs at pharmaceutical companies?
>>> and themselves instead of making the most of any education they
>>> receive, can handicap them for life.
>>
>> Can, but not necessarily does.
>
> Why deny them the opportunity?
No one is denying anyone the opportunity to anything.
> Why not offer more job training,
As I have told you before, there could be more job training if there were no
minimum wage.
> scholarships, and more free schooling such as university, like other
> countries do?
There is no free anything.
>>> Because he thinks having such as a refrigerator and color TV is so
>>> great, while making no mention of the fact that people need other,
>>> more costly items such as insurance and education to improve their
>>> lives.
>>
>> They could buy those things. They choose not to.
>
> He himself notes how affordable refrigerators (to store food or buy
> in bulk) have become. Owning a car does not indicate wealth when it
> is a POS,
I don't know what POS means. Does it mean "car with no value"?
> or is a necessity in case of lack of public transportation.
No, a car would still indicate wealth.
> My county got public bus in 1992. People have more pressing needs may
> not be able to spend on insurance or education which may well be more
> costly than an affordable (he did not even stipulate new)
> refrigerator, TV, or POS car.
What is POS? BTW, I did a check and medical insurance is pretty damn cheap.
Some of the top policies were less than a pack a day cigarette habit.
>> If they have cars, cable tv, and so on, I am pretty sure that they
>> have food and rent covered.
>
> And what of the tens of millions of Americans who do not have those
> things?
What of them?
>>> PS simply being overweight does not suggest good
>>> nutrition or quality of life as he would suggest when pointing out
>>> how fat some "poor" kids are.
>>
>> What being fat suggests is that one is not going hungry.
>
> Which still does not suggest good nutrition, health, or lack of
> poverty.
I never said it did.
> I grew up with poor people who were not necessarily hungry,
> but they damned well needed to take advantage of the public school's
> free lunch and breakfast program.
Why did they?
> Since about third grade through
> junior high, I worked in the school cafeteria every morning after my
> mother dropped me off on her way to work, until first period, so I
> knew who they were. There were kids in bad health in other ways such
> as parasites or bad teeth, because they were not raised with good
> hygiene and did not go to the doctor or dentist. The school had to
> bring people in to do fluoride treatments or do examinations for head
> lice. And they were not the ones with nice clothes or the families
> with nice cars.
They sure had bad parents.
>>> Lower income people and minorities such as blacks, suffer more from
>>> crime, than more average or upper class people.
>>
>> How do they suffer more than so-called "average" people?
>
> Because the leading cause of death for whites and rich people is not
> being killed by their own kind, as it was for young black men, for
> example,
If the leading cause of death for black men is other black men, whose fault
is that?
> nor do they live in the same environment to live in the same
> kind of fear, at least prior to recent acts of terrorism.
I see. So what?
> So simply living in a modern country like the US does not mean one's
> life is so great. Poor people who live in slums or worry about street
> violence or gangs, probably do not comfort themselves thinking about
> life in North Korea where prisoners may eat raw rats out of the
> toilets.
They should. At least the US has socioeconomic mobility.
>>> He does not explain why being a millionaire servant for everyone
>>> else
>>> in the country of the superrich is acceptable,
>>
>> What's unacceptable about it? It's honest work. It's not illegal.
>
> Do you want to be a millionaire by being a manservant to the rich, or
> would you prefer to have the choice to be rich some other way?
Either one would be fine by me. What's wrong with being a servant? You get
to wear a tuxedo.
>> Now you're fighting his hypothetical. His point was to illustrate
>> that income inequality is not de facto bad.
>
> No, if we are only talking about people who live quite well, as he
> thinks he would as exclusive millionaire manservant, or who are rich,
> income inequality in itself is not bad.
He is not just talking about people who live quite well.
> And to that I said, so? I knew that already. I'm talking about poor
> people.
So was he.
>>>> Who was expecting millions?
>>>
>>> He said "soon I could become a millionaire" serving "Bill Gates and
>>> the sultan" because they would "surely pay [him] very well".
>>
>> My question remains.
>
> And so does mine. You could make quite a bit of money as a butler.
> Maybe become a millionaire yourself as caddy to a successful pro
> golfer. You could also simply marry a wealthy woman.
Yup. Nothing wrong with any of those things.
> Or would you prefer to have other choices available to you, to be
> rich?
What does it matter what the choices are if they lead to affluence and they
are legal?
>>> One doesn't need to be a moral relativist, (future) revisionist, or
>>> victim of recent terrorism, to see that the US should damned well be
>>> helping others such as in North Korea and Africa.
>>
>> What should the US be doing to help?
>
> In North Korea, the US could enforce prior agreements regarding
> inspections, halting nuclear development, and not allowing
> proliferation of nuclear weapons as a minimum.
By what means shall the US accomplish these ends?
> And if they want to
> put any meaning into their bluster against dictatorship or WMD, they
> could free the North Korean people from their regime like was done in
> Iraq.
Yes, I'm sure China would have nothing to say or do about that.
>> What do you want the US to do?
>
> I want the US to mind their own business politically and militarily
> as it would save the US a lot of trouble.
I thought you wanted the US to be giving out money and food and enforcing
agreements in NK?
> But if the US continues to spout off against or rattle their sabers
> against countries in oil producing regions, they should damn well
> apply the same standard to other regions in the world which may be
> even more unstable,
Yes. Shame on us for rattling our sabres at oil-rich Kosovo and Somalia and
Haiti and....
> with proven, existing stocks of WMD or
> development programs, or where people suffer even more than under the
> Taliban or Baath party, and act accordingly by toppling the
> government and freeing the people.
Why should the rhetoric matter? If you want the US to mind its own business
(you ignore the fact that the acts of other states affect the US's
business), then why does rhetoric suddenly change that?
--
Kevin Gowen
Brett Robson
>
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030618.shtml
>
>
"Income inequality doesn't make people poor, it just strikes some people as
unfair."
In fact income inequality is bad, it destroys the economy. As Gowan has just
done extensive reading to understand the causes of the The Great Depression he
would now know that the primary cause was massive inequality and the resultant
mis-allocation of resources accompanying it.
And of course in a land full of guns, "hungry people don't stay hungry for long"
---
"he [John Ashcroft] deliberately left Jesus out of office prayers to avoid
offending non-Christians." - Ben Shapiro 27/2/2003
Brett Robson
>
>Why is that funny? Most of those who do not have health insurance are not
>living in poverty. They could purchase insurance, but they choose to spend
>their money on other things.
food, education, housing.