Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 10:18 am, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 8:22 am, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Well, let me say a couple of things: i) I appreciate that you _care_
> > enough to make more people aware of some of these topics and problems,
> > and ii) that you have thought about them in more detail than most
> > people. I think we have overlap in many of our thoughts but
> > disagreement in others and --what the hell--you ask most people in the
> > world and you'll get their own favorite theory on how the world works
> > if they care enough to think about it. The oldest and biggest problem
> > (going back to the beginnings of history) is the rich getting richer
> > and the poor, poorer. Getting politicians (presidents, senators,
> > whatever) focused on that problem in a) some way that most people can
> > agree to, and b) avoids the "best- laid- plans- of- mice- and- men-
> > oft- go- awry" problem seems to me to be more im****tant than our
> > endless discussion, here.
>
> > Or, maybe I'm asking too much, expecting too much of human society
> > (and the powers-that-be, who usually look out for themselves and no
> > one else, anyway)?
>
> > =3D=3D no change to below, included for reference and context, but I
did=

> > read it all =3D=3D

Deleted this old material (see farther down)

>
> > ...
>
> > read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to you and
> the rest of the participants.
>
> Lets deal with just the United States and discuss a hypothetical
> situation and what the results would be.  Take all of the wealth in
> all forms from all the people of this country and divided it equally
> among all of the population so that each person starts on an equal
> position.

The factual, historical situation for this is: the hunter-gatherer
days. At most there were tribal chiefs and what wealth there would be
would be infinitesimal compared to the scale we have today.

  What would be the result of such a distribution 10 years,
> 20 years, 40 years later and why?

Yeah, this was debated at least in some of the economist media not too
long ago and the prediction was that, yes, we'd end up, automatically,
with a small number of rich/powerful people and everyone else would be
groveling peasants.

Now, I will answer this in terms of _why_ by citing the fact that from
the beginning of recorded history the prevalent phenomenon really was
the "robber-baron" mindset and the imperative was "grab, grab more,
grab anything you can" and forget ethics, morals, justice, fairness.

Now I will _ask_ YOU: Is this what you want? Is this good? Should
ANYone, if he wants to or is capable of it, just go out and "grab,
grab more, ..etc" regardless of ethics, morals, justice, and fairness?
And, while you are thinking about this, please think about the history
of law, the meaning of the Magna Carta (I've read at least three books
recently dealing with this), and whether you want an egalitarian
society.

And, nowhere in what I'm saying is there any requirement that everyone
be absolutely paid the same wages no matter what they do. However, I
think the induction of widespread poverty by advertising, too much
freedom (I really am against, for example, lotteries because they
_induce_ people to spend their money by taking away from food budgets
and this is unhealthy). I really am, on the other hand, against robber-
barons.