BILLllllllllllllllll....... i am not squirming..i am thinking...
wealth... as you say ?..meaning what?... and to what degree?.. how wealthy is wealthy for any one individual or a society?. .do you mean material wealth?... america is supposedly the wealthiest country in the world but many americans have no health insurance and hence are at the mercy of ill health and early death .is that a measure of wealth?.. . folk admire billionaires... money is the symbol of perfection..money is god.. .here we are on this forum.. emptying ourselves of ego's and self righteousness yet the world as we know it prizes wealth material success... "have you one set of clothes on your back and one in the wash?"..so to speak what more do you need? or is it desire fuelled buy want and greed? merle Merle, NO, NO, NO! I'm no 'Jack Socrates' but I can sure spot someone who's avoiding answering a direct question by replying to it with a question of their own. YOU are the one who started this post by posting the quote by Norman Mailer. Let me refresh your memory. The quote was: "To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged." -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007) The implication of posting that quote with no other comments is that you agree with it. You support it. One of the keys to the quote is the suggestion if we resent the poor for taking welfare then that in order to be just we must "...judge every rich member of society by how productive he or she is." I'm just asking YOU, since you posted the quote, 'HOW should we measure productivity?'. Since Mailer insinuated that he felt productivity was important and I know productivity is also an important component of capitalism, I previously remarked that in a capitalistic society one measure of productivity could be wealth. Joe pointed out that was not necessarily the case because of wealth could have been the result of inheritance and not individual productivity. So I ask YOU, the poster of this quote, AGAIN, 'How do YOU think an individual's societal productivity be measured?' Quit squirming in your pea pod and ANSWER! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > >  we first have to make clear bill!!!!!!! our understanding of > productivity...to you is a poet productive?..merle > > >  > Merle, > > How then would you think it would be best to measure 'productivity'? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > > > > > > > >  you have hit it on the nail joe..wake up billllllllll.....merle > >  > > Bill!, Merle, > > > > I think that wealth has mostly to do with Inheritance, not production. > > > > This is the traditional passing down of wealth within families, as a > > windfall to each succeeding generation which obviates -- even discourages > > -- production. > > > > I don't think that the truly wealthy are productive in any sense, not even > > as consumers. ;-) > > > > Well, when they feel an urge toward philanthropy, and fund the building of > > libraries, research-trusts, and medical facilities, there is production, > > but only funded by them: they do not dirty their hands to do the actual > > work to build these productive places, and don't have skills. > > > > Now, from the point of view of INCOME, and not of WEALTH, I can say that, > > as an academic scientist, my salaries have always been extremely small, yet > > I consider my productivity to have been extremely high (I work in a society > > that features a Capitalist economic system). > > > > I also feel this way in my present role as a Yoga teacher, and > > beginning-meditation instructor and Dharma teacher. It's not measured by > > income, neither by me nor by society, my clientele. > > > > Bill!, the artists -- Painters -- who painted in France and lived > > impoverished lives during their times... many died paupers. Were they > > "productive"?: They had nothing to show for it in their times, if they were > > (and, how about Mozart?). Now, some of their paintings sell for a quarter > > BILLION dollars US: are they productive? In what sense, Bill!? > > > > --Joe > > > > PS Was Mother Theresa productive? She worked in Capitalist India. > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > In a society with a capitalistic economic system isn't wealth the measure > > > of how productive each member is? If that's the case then aren't wealthy > > > people by definition more productive than poor people? > > >
