Excessive Wealth Disorder

[Pargat Perrer]

Thanks, Dilip, but I was hoping for more detail. I presume that, as in the capitalist world, capital would be a scarce commodity. So where does the capital come from, who would decide which entrepreneurs deserve capital for their projects and on what basis, who monitors the entrepreneurs' results, when an entrepreneur is failing who decides when it's time to "pull the plug", etc.?

LOL wake up and smell the coffee, Peter. Wow, you have deteriorated, are you healthy?

Dilie has NEVER provided any detalls of how his cultist Libertarianism would work, despite hundreds of posts to shill his pet project.

after many dozens of posts, I finally got him to define "fair competition" as meaning no use of methods that would harm others.

So as I pointed out to him, fossil fuels harm others, therefore in a Libertarian system there can be no use of fossil fuels. That met with total silence, he had no answer for that.

His cultist religious-like Libertarianism, which I have renamed Utopianism, is a patchwork quilt of generalities. You want details? Wait for them ...... wait .... wait ....

by now you've seen his reply.... he says capital loans would have "strict rules of repayment and the close oversight". There's your details! Chew on that LOL.

Then he says "hence more potential entrepreneurs would have access to the capital than in today's world" .... LOL where did this guy get his degree, Trump University?

If you make lending stricter, you don't have MORE entrepreneurs getting access to capital. duh! economics 101 except in Trump University I guess .....

You make repayment stricter, you don't have MORE business going through lean years to get to profitability. Amazon would never have been founded, just to give one example. Amazon went through MANY years of losses before buying goods online finally took hold.

Hey Peter .... didn't Reagan create a house and then insist Russia lived in it? He called Russia part of an "AXIS OF EVIL". And he was applauded for it.

and he was right .... we got a lot of head fakes from Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but Russia has now reverted back to their norm. Bombing hospitals, schools, apartment dwellings .... a policy of genocide against Ukrainians.

Even as recently as 2016 Mitt Romney famously said in a debate with Obama: "It's Russia we have to worry about." He was practically laughed off the stage.

Maybe if Romney had won that election, we wouldn't now be seeing a Russia onslaught against Ukraine. Maybe Ukraine would already be in NATO.

It's ok Peter, just go back to sleep. You wouldn't know what to do with details if you had them. You don't know "flimsy evidence" from reality, like when someone says they put the science before the scientists ... then criticizes one of the scientists of the Nazi era who wasn't even a Nazi, Heisenberg!!!! LOL

Your kind are the ones who ignored "flimsy evidence" and didn't enact measures to protect against 9/11. Or against Pearl Harbor. Or against the dot-com bubble collapse or the 2008 mortgage crisis. How many more Peter McKillops can this world survive? We have a climate crisis unfolding, but "flimsy evidence" means we should do nothing. Sid would even have us INCREASE CO2 production LOL LOL LOL.

Hey Siddo if you're reading this ... the USA had scientists working to produce atomic weapons too, and guess what, they won WWII for us and were / are revered for it. Nevermind the cost in Japanese lives in Hiroshima, huh? We all gotta die someday, right?

Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons winning WWII. Do you think there would be any Jews left on Earth today?

Nuclear technology was there waiting for someone to discover it. The key is WHO gets it. You want Iran to have nuclear weapons? You put the science before the scientists, maybe you also put it before the nations that have it. Hell, let them ALL have it.

To hell with the smell of napalm in the morning, let's all hear the music of Wagner .... ooops, I mean the music of nuclear explosions throughout the world in the morning!

ohhhhh.... flimsy f##king evidence. On a day where, after signing a NATO-like treaty with Russia, North Korea just test-launched a MIRV (look it up Peter!).

[Sid Belzberg]

While it would still be banks doing the lending, the key difference here would be that the strict rules of repayment and the close oversight would make it safer for banks to lend, and hence more potential entrepreneurs would have access to the capital than in today's world, in which crooked borrowers are legally protected, and like Trump has boasted, they take pride in going bankrupt (diverting the borrowed capital to their other personal assets and claiming a 'loss' for the business going bankrupt). When the borrower knows that he/she, along with the entire inner circle may have to go through 'hell' to make the repayment, the borrower is extra careful in ensuring that 'losses' do not occur, and the close oversight helps the borrower to avoid a huge loss also.

HOW GRAMEEN BANK IN BANGLADESH IS REDUCING POVERTY



Bangladesh is located in South Asia with an estimated 171 million people. The country is a developing nation due to its poverty reduction and economic growth over the years. It has made significant progress since 1971 when it was the second poorest country in the world. In 2019, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), 20.5% of people were living below the national poverty line of $1.90 per person per day. Among the initiatives for the nation’s development, Grameen Bank in Bangladesh contributed significantly to poverty reduction as it provided access to financial services for poor people.
A Bank for the Poor


The founder of Grameen Bank is Professor Muhammad Yunus. He started the project in 1976 at a small village in Bangladesh, Jobra. Grameen Bank began in Bangladesh in 1983 and it is actively working in remote communities in Bangladesh. Its main aim is to fully include poor people, especially women, in financial and economic activities. Grameen Bank is different from conventional banks, which are based on people’s possessions. Green Bank’s priority is to help the poorest and most vulnerable people. According to the managing director of the bank, “Grameen Bank is the pioneer microcredit organization in the world. Starting from scratch, the bank has for years added a multidimensional package of services aimed at freeing the marginalized poor from starvation, hunger, and deprivation.”
How the Microcredit Loan Works


Grameen Bank believes in the potential of the individual. It helps anyone with a business that they want to develop be eligible to get a loan. Grameen Bank also helps them reduce their poverty level. The microcredit model consists of a small loan that can help poor people to better their living conditions and to start or support their small businesses. It is a little amount, between $10 and $2,000. The first example of the microcredit approach was in Bangladesh when Grameen Bank gave two women $27 to expand their bamboo stool company.

The women were able to support their business and repay their loans. The distribution of the loan starts with the division of people into groups of five. In the beginning, the money arrives only to two people. After seeing adequate results from their investment, the other two people from the group can get the loan. If the repayments are regular, finally the last person gets the money. After the distribution of the full loan, people participate in a training program.
Achievements and a Prosperous Future


The microcredit approach that Grameen Bank has adopted is an example of how a small amount of money can make a really big difference in the lives of those who live in poverty. Grameen Bank is considered a successful model for fighting poverty as 6 million people were able to get a loan. In 2006, it received the Nobel Peace Prize. One of Grameen Bank’s main achievements is increased social respect for women.

According to Grameen Bank, many societies consider women at risk of failing to repay loans. However, Grameen Bank gave more loans to women and nowadays, 98% of borrowers are female.

Grameen Bank is currently operating in 94% of the villages in Bangladesh and is helping 45 million people. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has assisted poor people in an incredible way. It provides guidance and inclusion of disadvantaged people in the financial environment. One can consider it a fundamental step to help improve poor people’s conditions and help them escape from poverty.

https://borgenproject.org/grameen-bank-in-bangladesh/

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thanks, Dilip, but I was hoping for more detail. I presume that, as in the capitalist world, capital would be a scarce commodity. So where does the capital come from, who would decide which entrepreneurs deserve capital for their projects and on what basis, who monitors the entrepreneurs' results, when an entrepreneur is failing who decides when it's time to "pull the plug", etc.?

While it would still be banks doing the lending, the key difference here would be that the strict rules of repayment and the close oversight would make it safer for banks to lend, and hence more potential entrepreneurs would have access to the capital than in today's world, in which crooked borrowers are legally protected, and like Trump has boasted, they take pride in going bankrupt (diverting the borrowed capital to their other personal assets and claiming a 'loss' for the business going bankrupt). When the borrower knows that he/she, along with the entire inner circle may have to go through 'hell' to make the repayment, the borrower is extra careful in ensuring that 'losses' do not occur, and the close oversight helps the borrower to avoid a huge loss also.

[Peter McKillop]

Two points: Capital to be used only towards realizing 'business' goals and strict rules involving the entire 'inner circle' (remember circles within circles?) to ensure repayment. (Close oversight would be necessary).

Thanks, Dilip, but I was hoping for more detail. I presume that, as in the capitalist world, capital would be a scarce commodity. So where does the capital come from, who would decide which entrepreneurs deserve capital for their projects and on what basis, who monitors the entrepreneurs' results, when an entrepreneur is failing who decides when it's time to "pull the plug", etc.?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, I don't stay up to date on these political threads so my apologies if you've been asked, and answered, this question before. How do you see the "easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs" working in practical terms?

Two points: Capital to be used only towards realizing 'business' goals and strict rules involving the entire 'inner circle' (remember circles within circles?) to ensure repayment. (Close oversight would be necessary).

[Peter McKillop]

Capitalism and a myriad of stupid government laws stifle competition. Libertarianism with its easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs and absent government interference enables more to compete and share in the wealth, rather than wealth getting tremendously concentrated in the hands of a few...

Dilip, I don't stay up to date on these political threads so my apologies if you've been asked, and answered, this question before. How do you see the "easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs" working in practical terms?

[Fred Henderson]

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more ... only poor.

with respect to Alvin Lee

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".

Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).

Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.

Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.

Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.

Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.

WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?

AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?

:)

Love it!

Millions of poor people shop at Walmart, but criticize Sam Walton and his family for being ":excessively wealthy."

Millions of people get lot's of things done with Microsoft Windows, and criticize Bill Gates for being excessively wealthy.

It is NOT in dispute that millions of poor people benefit by shopping at Walmart.
It is NOT in dispute the millions of people get lots of things done with Microsoft Windows.

What is in question is whether it is best to let these things happen if the world's oceans fill up with plastic junk, and if ransomware enabled by slack security in Microsoft Windows allows hospitals to be totally shut down, businesses to be bankrupted, governments to be unable to process financial transactions ....

Please notice that I haven't referenced the wealth of the Walton family or the wealth of the Gates family. What I am referencing are some overall effects of the things they have created, as a consequence of their creations being designed to maximize the creator's own personal wealth (for example, the Walton's import vast quantities of cheaply manufactured plastic products from China, and Gates set it up so that his customers would be his quality control, thereby saving the huge cost of adequately testing his software products before releasing them into the world).

Perhaps it can best be summarized by asking: should the old proven adage be maintained about capitalism and free-market economics -- that the pursuit of personal wealth as a means to economic progress be encouraged -- in a world in which continued economic growth ITSELF is endangering the survival of the human species?

Here's a brief example:

Suppose we prove that N% of the world's land area need to be preserved as wetlands in order to prevent a breakdown of the world's ecology, a breakdown that would be so severe that the result would be possible extinction (let's say 80% probability via mathematical and computer models) of the human species.

Now suppose we also proved that continued economic progress GUARANTEES that we cannot preserve N% of the world's wetlands.

Do we go against the science, go against the 80% probability, and gamble on human extinction just to guarantee continued economic growth in the present moment? And who gets to make that decision? What is the decision-making process where human extinction is at stake?

I am not saying we have these numbers, but what we do have are viable and possible scenarios of human extinction, via any one of anthropogenic climate change, pandemic, systemic financial collapse leading to global depression of unprecedented proportion, nuclear war due to geopolitical pressures, ecological collapse due to overdevelopment of natural habitats, etc etc etc.

[Fred Henderson]

The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".

Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).

Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.

Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.

Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.

Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.

WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?

AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?

:)

Love it!

Millions of poor people shop at Walmart, but criticize Sam Walton and his family for being ":excessively wealthy."

Millions of people get lot's of things done with Microsoft Windows, and criticize Bill Gates for being excessively wealthy.

[Fred Henderson]

It says: The solution lies in policies that tax the excessively wealthy so that we can reinvest in critical public services like healthcare, education, and climate change mitigation.

No! Two wrongs don't make a right. The solution lies in getting rid of both Capitalism and Marxism....

LOL. I eagerly await a proper analysis of the benefits of eliminating capitalism.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.
Neil, are you able to explain what you mean by this statement?

Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered. And by this statement.

Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind. And most especially by this statement.

Ten ten ten....

I doubt Neil can explain much of anything he posts, and asking him to do so only encourages more discombobulation. To respond to him is like jumping into quicksand and then thrashing about once you are in it.

[Peter McKillop]

Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.
Neil, are you able to explain what you mean by this statement?

Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered. And by this statement.

Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind. And most especially by this statement.

Ten ten ten....

[Peter McKillop]

That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.

The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.

Thanks, Pargat. I like your brief, but incisive and insightful, thoughts on the complex world of politics!

[Peter McKillop]

Peter - do you feel that personal attacks have increased here over the years........I do.......and I have been distressed by it.

Bob

I do feel they have but I'm not an innocent party either. I commit to trying harder to behave at CT.

[Neil Frarey]

Your post has the odour of a personal attack of the worst kind. Care to explain yourself?

OK, I just stopped laughing long enuff to say ... WAT????????? Seriously, Peter????????

personal attack of the worst kind.

My words are your very definition of a ... 'personal attack of the worst kind'.

That's your definition???


LOOL!!!