Harry Pollard wrote:
> Arthur,
> The attention always seems to be directed in the wrong direction. The
> 60,000 families with more than $30 million net worth are unimportant. What
> is important is how they got their $30 million. If they got it serving the
> public, they should keep it. It's nobody's business.
Harry, could you kindly name some practical examples of persons who have
*earned* (<--in the sense of 'deserved') $30m in "serving the public", and
describe what exactly they have done to deserve that much money ?
(I don't mean rare inventors of a popular tool or something like that, but
more common examples of CEOs/managers/royals etc.)
It seems to me that the neoliberal managers of today are doing a *worse*
job of serving the public than their predecessors of some decades ago,
while 'earning' *more*.
Also, rather than those with $30 million, the problem is those with more...
some with even *billions* -- what should they ever do with all that money ?
It's simply a waste, an obscene insult to those in poverty, and there is
just NO WAY to get that much money in a honest, decent way.
> If they got it from privileges - they should give it all back. The idea
> that you take from the rich and give to the poor is nonsensical. The poor,
> along with those who should know better, might think that's a good idea but
> all it does is obscure their real need - justice.
Perhaps this is precisely the goal -- justice --, if the point is to give
them some decent chance to achieve something (by giving them a decent
education, healthcare etc.). Isn't this the main cause of poverty ? --
that these people aren't lazy, but that they have "starting conditions"
which make it practically impossible to achieve something. "Nothing comes
from nothing..."
Also note that as things are, the poor give to the rich, via interest rates
and taxes. Do you think this is less nonsensical than the rich giving to
the poor ?
> I remember Stafford Cripps, then Chancellor of the first UK Labor
> government after the war, making the point. At the annual conference, the
> rank and file were demanding higher taxes on incomes and profits. Cripps
> pointed out that if they took every penny of income over 2000 pounds, it
> wouldn't run Britain for one day.
It wouldn't run the country, but it would enable substantial improvements
for many people where that surplus money is lacking -- and that's not only
the poor: Think of the railroad disasters in UK which killed many people
and which happened because the railroads saved money at the cost of safety
measures, to give this money to rich managers (who in turn mis-managed
Railtrack into bankruptcy..). Or think of the recent fire inferno in the
Gotthard tunnel (killed 11 people) which happened because an EU truck
company saved a few dollars in truck maintenance, and because "free trade"
dictates insane driving speeds, payloads, numbers of trucks, overwork etc.
(and if the tunnel had been built according to "free trade" principles,
dozens more would have died in the fire... but thanks to good safety
measures, most people were able to escape thru a rescue tunnel).
Let's do a little back-of-an-envelope calculation on a global scale:
In 1999, the combined wealth of the world's 200 richest people was
$1 trillion, while the combined incomes of the 582 million people
living in the 43 least developed countries was $146 billion.
This means an average wealth of $5 billion/person among those 200 richest,
and an average income of $251/year/person among the 582m rather poor ones.
If you would spread the **interest rate** (say, 3%) of the 200 richest
persons' wealth to the 582m poor ones, that would yield $52/year/person,
i.e. a hefty __20%__ increase in income ("pay hike") for the poor! And
all this while the 200 super-rich could *keep* their wealth...
> Don't worry about millionaires, and over-paid CEOs. Just work on Henry
> George's question: "Why, is spite of the enormous increase in our power to
> produce, is it so hard to make a living."
(a) Because the money soaked up by fatcats is lacking those who could do
something useful with it.
(b) Because Henry George asked the wrong question: it's not "in spite of",
but _because of_ the enormous increase in our power to produce...
Chris
P.S.: We're still waiting for your precise definition of "screwmanship".
