good talk

if you don't put most of the resources in the hands of the best resource managers, there will be fewer resources to distibute in the first place. fairness should be a secondary priority.

We need everyone on the planet to have one vote each for every issue on the planet. People could vote on-line, "if and when" they became interested and could be required to view an unbiased 20 minute video and pass a 5 questions quiz proving they understood the video - prior to their vote being cast or counted. They could also return and change their vote however many times they wanted (for on-going issues which do not require a deadline) but it would still only count as one. People could be paid minimum wage for their time spent voting on issues up to 2 hours a day. In this way we could make life fair for everyone. If people choose laws they later regret, we could change our vote and thereby change the laws or modify them as our knowledge of science and consequences grows. Popular majority should rule, except people with opposite views would be free to move anywhere on the planet to areas where they are a majority minority to self govern according to their group's beliefs, values, and preferences. No wars would be allowed nor needed because anyone could relocate to areas where their views are shared or the closest match for them. All businesses would be owned by all the employees or else all robots and manufacturing machines would be owned equally by all humans on the planet; so that we all share in production and there are no profits unless equally shared profits which do not destroy the environment or cause species extinctions.

injustices should be realized by the wealthy.. "It is, then, clear and evident that the repartition of excessive fortunes among a small number of individuals, while the masses are in need, is an iniquity and an injustice." ~‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions

If you were able today to make wealth equal with everyone, by tomorrow morning it would be unequal and in short order we would be back to where we are now. There are spenders in this world and then there are savers and investors. Forced wealth equality has proven to be a complete failure every time it has been attempted.

@ouremberstillburninginside858

5 жыл бұрын

in terms of individuals you're right, maybe. but in terms countries, the ''inequality'' word is not even relevant to the actual inequality of the money distribution there, im talking about people who are earning 1 dollar a month

@lenering1084

3 жыл бұрын

Nobody is trying to force financial equality. Just trying to decrease the huge gap between rich and poor people

@erth2man

3 жыл бұрын

@@lenering1084 Why is a huge wealth gap a problem that is important to "fix". There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world, just because someone is vastly more wealthy than others doesn't mean they took more of the pie so there is less for others to have. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos didn't make anyone poorer. If we bought their products and payed to use their systems, we are obviously richer for having done so as we exchanged our money for something that we deemed to be more valuable. Rather than making rich people less rich, we should try to help the poor to be less poor.

@erth2man

3 жыл бұрын

@@ouremberstillburninginside858 Many times a nation is full of poor people because of failed political systems, corrupt officials, and no rule of law. No amount of wealth handed to these third world nations would be effective in helping anyone until these issues were corrected.

@Mannaggialtubo

2 жыл бұрын

That's why the real goal is to remove private property of means of production

So basically, from one I understood his point is that there's a problem? So my question to him is, why don't we go back to a Capitalist economy? The increase in Socialism in America DIRECTLY CORRELATES with the wealth gap. I'm not going to say inequality because everyone has an opportunity to be a CEO (barring any medical or mental impairment, but even Hawkings show's it can still be done). So we shouldn't pay people based on the value they bring to society (meritocracy?). You know since a CEO who employs 1MM workers and through strategic decisions increases efficiencies brings much more value to society than the single man on an assembly line (in this case 1MM x's more even though he's only getting paid 1k x's more). Not only is your argument extremely flawed, but completely immoral, unethical, and fully wrong. If you want to change the wealth gap...get back to Capitalism; lower the barriers of entry to starting a business, cut the red tape, lower taxes, quit bailing out large companies, etc.

@Deniselmenis

7 жыл бұрын

I thing that what he is trying to say is that if as individuals want to make society more equal we should purchase from companies that are more equal in pay. What do you mean by "back to a Capitalist economy? " what do you think the economy is now? lol

@ragnaroksora8129

6 жыл бұрын

lol so many things wrong in your comment.

@Rita-Ceballos

5 жыл бұрын

But the United States is a Capitalist country, you are completely misunderstood. And it is funny, because despite of being a capitalist country doesn’t like to compete with the foreign countries within its land, besides it allows tax allowance with which undermines the free competitiveness, etc, it’s very confusing...

@georgemonical5347

5 жыл бұрын

What data can you offer to support this claim? The US used to tax the wealthy at 90+ % marginal income tax rate.This led to a prosperous middle class. How do socialist policies, like medicare, lead to the wealth gap.

@oscarsigfridsson7129

5 жыл бұрын

Most companies don't necessarily bring much value to society, and while being a ceo takes some skill, it is far from the most demanding job. On the other hand, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest by 10% could eradicate poverty in the US, something that would be of much greater value for society.

If you gave the bottom 20% half the wealth of the top 1%. The top 1% would have it back in a decade, because the poor don't know how to handle money. A poverty mindset is not broken with money. It's broken with a proper mentality.

@ghettobyrd9699

4 жыл бұрын

Andrew DeLee that’s bs buddy. If we could keep the “Federal Agent” out of our affairs we wouldn’t be having this talk right now.

@ClayWeblogistics

3 жыл бұрын

Where is your data, facts? You claim that the poor would lose it again. Certainly some loss would be true they would also get their teeth fixed, eat better. Many of the wealthy lose their wealth permanently so the poor are not the only ones who lose money. The difference is when the poor lose money it is gone. The lessons learned cannot be put to use since they have no more.

If I were sitting in this red talk and he started showing that ridiculous consensus I’d lose it. Whoes actually following that?

This guy should not be ‘teaching’ anywhere because he’s very sneaky at propagandizing. What’s scary about this presentation is that most people won’t see the crazy in it because he’s presenting himself and his data as authoritative. At 11:23 he snuck in ‘taking from the rich and giving to the poor’ which is obviously *not* benevolent; it’s tyrannical. Second, the initial premise is flawed; start with you as a ‘dictator’??? You’ve already planted the seed for a tyrannical ideology into the minds of students! Second, he talks about ratios and how money should be ‘distributed’, yet another flawed premise. This again means that you have to confiscate wealth from one individual and give it to another; this is tyranny! Third, he doesn’t mention that money *is not finite*. We measure the growth of the economy every single month, meaning the ‘pie’ actually gets bigger and facilitates the ability for the poor to become rich without stealing from others. Fourth, his flawed premise implies that the amount of money is finite and if one group has more than others this is ‘unfair’ and they have to have their wealth confiscated by the government and given to others, which is again, tyrannical. Fifth, having high CEO pay does not equate to paying an unskilled person less. Obviously, running an international corporation means you are highly skilled and will be compensated by *what the market will bear* … not by what some ‘benevolent dictator’ decides. Lastly, if we are against ‘income inequality’, then let’s be entirely fair and and make pay equal across the board … wouldn’t that be more fair? Obviously not. This guy is a propagandist for socialism and Marxism and I must say he’s very slick about it … and he isn’t the only one in higher ‘education’. The truth is that the US economy produces enough economic activity that *ANYONE* can become wealthy! … that is unless people like this dude gets power or he vote for his *dictator* to take power.

wealth shouldnot exist

@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122

5 жыл бұрын

Communism should not exist.

This says absolutely nothing the views of people on wealth. It is simply about the poor math skill of most people.

@Rita-Ceballos

5 жыл бұрын

Joe Smith however it talks a lot about perceptions which is the point here...