Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the eat-the-rich dept.

Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.

The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.

But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?

  • Provide free and high quality education
  • Raise the minimum wage
  • Raise taxes on the rich
  • Fight corruption
  • Provide more social protection for the poor
  • Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
  • Provide jobs for the unemployed

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/19/project-davos-whats-the-single-best-way-to-close-the-worlds-wealth-gap

Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:10PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:10PM (#625652) Journal

    Now might be an apt time to mention that Ayn Rand died while on Medicare and Social Security.

    Because that is relevant how? This is a classic case of whataboutism or appeal to hypocrisy. Ayn Rand is a hypocrite therefore we don't have to think about her ideas. What is missed in such an insipid observation is that Ayn Rand tried to avoid being on Medicare and Social Security. From here [openculture.com], we have:

    One problem with Rand’s reasoning is this: whether “parasite” or titan of industry, none of us is anything more than human, subject to the same kinds of cruel twists of fate, the same existential uncertainty, the same illness and disease. Suffering may be unequally distributed to a great degree by human agen you, but nature and circumstance often have a way of evening the odds. Rand herself experienced such a leveling effect in her retirement. After undergoing surgery in 1974 for lung cancer caused by her heavy smoking, she found herself in straitened circumstances.

    Two years later, she was paired with social worker Evva Pryor, who gave an interview in 1998 about their relationship. “Rarely have I respected someone as much as I did Ayn Rand,” said Pryor. When asked about their philosophical disagreements, she replied, “My background was social work. That should tell you all you need to know about our differences.” Pryor was tasked with persuading Rand to accept Social Security and Medicare to help with mounting medical expenses.

    I had read enough to know that she despised government interference, and that she felt that people should and could live independently. She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like.... For me to do my job, she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory.... She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world.... She could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.

    Finally, Rand relented. “Whether she agreed or not is not the issue,” said Pryor, “She saw the necessity for both her and [her husband] Frank.” Or as Weiss puts it, “Reality had intruded upon her ideological pipedreams.” That's one way of interpreting the contradiction: that Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, “has no practical purpose except to promote the economic interests of the people bankrolling it"---the sole function of her thought is to justify wealth, explain away poverty, and normalize the sort of Hobbesian war of all against all Rand saw as a societal ideal.

    Rand taught “there is no such thing as the public interest,” that programs like Social Security and Medicare steal from “creators” and illegitimately redistribute their wealth. This was a "sublimely enticing argument for wealthy businessmen who had no interest whatever in the public interest.... Yet the taxpayers of America paid Rand's and Frank O'Connor's medical expenses." Randians have offered many convoluted explanations for what her critics see as sheer hypocrisy. We may or may not find them persuasive.

    Let us note at this point, that Rand was born in 1905. So when she was persuaded to Social Security and Medicare around 1976, she had already voluntarily relinquished a considerable portion of the money that she could have obtained from the two programs (somewhere in excess of five years of Social Security and perhaps two years of medical bills from the lung cancer). Keep in mind she only lived till 1982.

    Nor do we see how well she would have done in the absence of such programs. After all, if she didn't have to pay into Social Security, maybe she and her husband would had enough retirement money to cover her final years.

    This is typical of the mean streak directed toward libertarian philosophies. Sure, the ideology is somewhat unrealistic, but it doesn't deserve this sort of contempt. Here someone tried hard to live by their ideals and succeeded to a considerable degree. Yet all we hear about is about the deathbed confession.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:10PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:10PM (#626265)

    Yes actually it does deserve contempt, the libertarian philosophy has become mired down in naivety and claims to base itself in reality which is just beyond not true. It justifies feelings of greed for many people and erodes empathy for people in need of help.

    I don't believe that is what libertarian ideas are meant to be about, but that seems to be the end result. It has many evil anti-human aspects to it, primarily because most believers take the ideology to ridiculous extremes. The same thing happens with proponents of some welfare programs (to give you a more palatable analogy) who get so focused on fixing social problems that they don't realize their solutions are more harmful than good.

    If Rand was serious about her ideas she would not have accepted welfare, and yes that shoots a massive whole in her followers beliefs. If that doesn't show you how necessary social safety nets are, then you're beyond hope.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @10:57PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 22 2018, @10:57PM (#626309) Journal

      Yes actually it does deserve contempt, the libertarian philosophy has become mired down in naivety and claims to base itself in reality which is just beyond not true. It justifies feelings of greed for many people and erodes empathy for people in need of help.

      Utter nonsense. First, that complaint holds for most beliefs. They tend to be naive and based on personal self-interest. So nothing special for libertarianism there. Second, no it doesn't justify feelings of greed as you noted in your second paragraph.

      It has many evil anti-human aspects to it, primarily because most believers take the ideology to ridiculous extremes.

      What doesn't? You already mentioned welfare-based belief. I'll point out that science and religion both have this problem as well.

      If Rand was serious about her ideas she would not have accepted welfare, and yes that shoots a massive whole in her followers beliefs.

      And she did. She just didn't do it as long as you would have liked.

      If that doesn't show you how necessary social safety nets are, then you're beyond hope.

      If I force cannibalism via harsh restrictions on diet, does that prove how necessary cannibalism is? Just because one has to play the game in order to survive doesn't mean the game is necessary or desirable.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:13AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:13AM (#626350)

        Sweet jesus you are such a troll. Do you have scripts set up that notify you when an AC responds to you? Or you just use the "new" functionality? Either way you are either a) worst employee ever or b) unemployed.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:07AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:07AM (#626369) Journal
          Rational argument often looks like dark magic to someone who isn't prepared for it.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:12AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:12AM (#626404) Journal

            From this I can assume you're multiclassing Bard and Jester then?

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:48PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:48PM (#626663)

              At least it is amusing how blind khal is to criticism. Must be slightly autistic or something to so drastically misconstrue criticism.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:38PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:38PM (#626739) Journal

                Don't conflate mad and bad, please. There is evil in this world, there are people who have given themselves over to it (to what end I don't know), and we are sometimes confronted with it. Mr. Hallow is almost certainly not autistic; he is merely an asshole, and a particular type of asshole that would sell his momma to Satan for a bag of Doritos if he thought Grand High Inquisitor Rand would approve of it.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...