Thread: "I am God."

>Again, if this were so we would have the same level of wealth that the first people who walked the earth had. With our population as it is it would be spread very thin.

Not necessarily. Although the amount of resources available may be the same now as before (ignoring depletion), we have better ways of harnessing and using those resources to make things to better our lives. But without those raw materials there would be nothing to produce. And its access to those those raw materials and the things produced form them which is unfairly distributed.

>I can't tell you what a cop-out this statement is. I hear it often with no facts to back it up.

How about labor in general. Large corporations exploit the lower class by buying their labor at unfairly low prices. Corporations used to send people to poor countries and sell them the "American Dream", only to get them to America so they could be paid unlivable wages to work 12 or more hours a day. If thats not exploitation, I dont know what is. Things like this is what our current wealth (by your definition) was built upon. Although instances like this probably dont happen too much anymore because of regulations and such, we would _not_ be where we are today if not for the high levels of worker exploitation that occured in the past.

>Did you even read the article I posted?

Yep. "The numbers on world economics are good, too. World poverty fell more than 20 percent between 1990 and 1999..."

Thats fine and dandy, but how many more are still living in extreme poverty. Were heading in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go. Furthermore, I was talking about this country-which the gap between rich and poor is widening.

>Oh really? Just how should we use it? Give it away? of course we should. Let's just decrease our resources so nobody will be increasing the world's quality of life. Producers are key

I guess I didnt explain what I meant. I mean that we use our power to strong arm other countries. Thats what they despise more than our success.

>Besides, you're just out to argue with everything I say anyway

Im sorry if I came off that way. That wasnt my intent at all. Its just I read through all the posts and I wanted to respond, but didnt want to read through them all again. So I chose your posts since you seemed to be the one arguing the opposing opinion the most.

Dont get me wrong, I think capitalism is probably the best system we have come up with so far (maybe socialism, but I dont know enough about it to make a judgement). Its just that we have a long way to go and I think admitting the problems inherent in the system is the first step to improving the system.

hmmm... another nut in america. maybe i should move to antartica. the only problem is internet gets to be a problem up there.

one question... Is it wrong for the gap between rich and poor to widen (not backed up by the way) if the poor are improving their living conditions? The gap WILL widen as we improve EVERYONE because the rich are improving more. That is the nature of free market. Everyone improves, gap widens.

And if you're willing to consider socialism as an option then I think we're not going to get anywhere in our conversation.

In general, i suppose not. But I dont see why anyone needs to amass more money than they could spend in 20 lifetimes. I think it is fair to "redistribute" the wealth when ones personal fortune gets over a certain mark, to be used to help those who are at the lower ranks work their way up. There was an alarming statistic I saw on the news, CEO's salary have increased ~1000% over the past (something) years while workers' have only increased ~10% (I dont remember the exact numbers '~' meaning "of the order of")

The fact is, over a certain point, the more money you gain doesnt affect your quality of life at all (ie. Ted Turners' lifestyle wouldnt change very much if he had only, say, 500M). The rich should realize that if it wasnt for the lower classes, they would not be rich (they need someone to buy what the sell), and therefore should not be so stingy with money they cant even use. (Of course this only applies to the top 1%.)

of course the point of capitalism is missed when you talk of fairness. In socialism, there is no monetary incentive to produce. In capitalism there is. Production as I must have stressed a million times is what drives the creation of wealth. The closer you get to capitalism and the further away from socialism the more total wealth is achieved and the lower class ends up much higher than the "fair" average would be in socialism.

>The Native Americans had this country. They didn't see/use it as a resource to be exploited, but nonetheless it was theirs and we took it.
If I own 100 acres and you come in by force and/or deceit take it from me, strip mine it for gold and get rich, your wealth is derived from conquest. Doesn't matter that I didn't strip mine it. Doesn't matter if you took it, drained the wetlands and put up wall to wall condos (trying to give you a Florida reference there). Wasn't yours to create wealth out of.<

Ok I'm sorry american was created by the Europeians, namily the Briish, French, Dutch, German, and about everyone else in the world. Don't say that america did something before america was any more then just another Europen counry seperated by an ocean.

I find the arguments against america to closely resemble Troll_King's arguments against Microsoft. hmmm... Just an observation.

Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
>Ok I'm sorry american was created by the Europeians, namily the Briish, French, Dutch, German, and about everyone else in the world. Don't say that america did something before america was any more then just another Europen counry seperated by an ocean.

Yes, the Europeans did some of the same things. The U.S. government did them on a much greater scale. Before independence, "America" mostly didn't extend past the Appalachians. From there to the Pacific it's U.S. history. For a simple, well known example, look at the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.
I'm not bashing the U.S., but I'm not blind to its history or faults either.

There is no piece of land on earth that was never obtained by "conquest". This is about the dumbest basis for accusation I have ever heard.

does bill gates NEED all the money he has?...

does it matter? You obviously haven't been reading what I've been saying. The computer industry has thrived because of bill gates having that money. He's a producer. Producers create wealth. FAIRNESS is not the issue. If it were the worlds wealth would diminish in a socialist failure.

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
There is no piece of land on earth that was never obtained by "conquest". This is about the dumbest basis for accusation I have ever heard.

You're the one who denied the US was involved with conquest. Anyways, to stay with one example, the America's were originally settled without conquest. The Aborigines in Australia are another example.
You've been reading too much Ayn Rand.