OXFAM: "100 richest people could end world poverty"

[bottles]

However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.

The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

Are you just playing devils advocate, or do you truly believe that he's innocent of any criminal activity?
I'm not trying to prove that he's guilty, but just trying to show that pretty much all of these overly wealthy people do have shady pasts on their way to the top.

 

[Miguel]

That is exactly where I derive from You guys ( or most of, in any case ): Super rich does not equal criminal.

Greed, if not conductive to, or attained by, criminal conduct, is no crime.


It is not preety; it should not be so;

but, again, it is in the Human DNA, whether you paint it in one colour or the other.

Anyway to curb it and redistribute is only achievable by imposing tough ( and most unnaceptable criteria ) measures, only achieved by a major superimposing force ( such as a government ).

But then, such government cannot impose those measures in a serious and adequate manner, because, if it ties to, capital / equity tends to slip away to more amenable shores. And it does so, in less than 24 hours...

If such governmente imposes such rules, against everybody ( meaning undemocratically ), it may look like it achieved something for the first 3 months. Then the country can shut down, for a lot of reasons ( and we have unending examples of this situation )


So, as already said, we are, and always will be, back at square one.

 

[DavidW]

from OP's quote to describe the super rich:

an international criminal network of money launderers, drug traffickers, shylocks and murderers with influential ties to the highest levels of government and industry

ahh OK. as you started that post addressing me I thought you were getting it from something I had said.
that said, the OP isn't far wrong.....wealth based upon exploitation leads to the poverty and often the demise of the exploited, and most wealth is derived from exploitation.

 

[majorhavok]

I couldn't agree more with birth control and education, but mandatory/involuntary sterilization?


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

I'm with you. Even in the most dire economic situations that's wrong. Maybe a good idea practically, but still wrong wrong wrong.

Mandatory Vaccines? probably the same although it doesn't bother me as much to see people stop transmitting diseases. What if there was no cure, but a vaccine for HIV/Aids? Would you force it on people with the disease in other countries to save them and possibly us in the future? Hmmm... that's a tough one.

 

[dogofwar]

There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country (the world) by the actions and inaction of governments.

Unfortunately it has been a redistribution from the many to the few!

The decision to support laissez faire economic policies can - and has - impacted the distribution of wealth as much (or more) than has activist government policies.

Matt

A really good passage:

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.[22] The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The goal was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

In his 1973 study of the economic principles established at the foundation of the United States, E.A.J. Johnson wrote:

The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to “choose for themselves” how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it does not follow from this that “legislators and men of influence” are freed from all responsibility for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance, discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only when they “become benefactors to the public”; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty “is one of the most important blessings which men possess,” but the idea that liberty is synonymous with complete freedom from restraint “is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension.” True liberty demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society “to unite their exertions” for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of government to repress “those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish, and corrupt the people.” [23]

That is exactly where I derive from You guys ( or most of, in any case ): Super rich does not equal criminal.

Greed, if not conductive to, or attained by, criminal conduct, is no crime.


It is not preety; it should not be so;

but, again, it is in the Human DNA, whether you paint it in one colour or the other.

Anyway to curb it and redistribute is only achievable by imposing tough ( and most unnaceptable criteria ) measures, only achieved by a major superimposing force ( such as a government ).

But then, such government cannot impose those measures in a serious and adequate manner, because, if it ties to, capital / equity tends to slip away to more amenable shores. And it does so, in less than 24 hours...

If such governmente imposes such rules, against everybody ( meaning undemocratically ), it may look like it achieved something for the first 3 months. Then the country can shut down, for a lot of reasons ( and we have unending examples of this situation )


So, as already said, we are, and always will be, back at square one.

 

[flowerpower]

I'm with you. Even in the most dire economic situations that's wrong. Maybe a good idea practically, but still wrong wrong wrong.

Mandatory Vaccines? probably the same although it doesn't bother me as much to see people stop transmitting diseases. What if there was no cure, but a vaccine for HIV/Aids? Would you force it on people with the disease in other countries to save them and possibly us in the future? Hmmm... that's a tough one.

It is. These are complex problems with far reaching consequences but I guess we'll just have to settle for whatever Bill, Melissa and The Rockefeller Foundation want to do about it.


Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[cichlid_obsessed92]

I'm with you. Even in the most dire economic situations that's wrong. Maybe a good idea practically, but still wrong wrong wrong.

Mandatory Vaccines? probably the same although it doesn't bother me as much to see people stop transmitting diseases. What if there was no cure, but a vaccine for HIV/Aids? Would you force it on people with the disease in other countries to save them and possibly us in the future? Hmmm... that's a tough one.

Except HIV and Aids are extremely easy to avoid so that would be wasted money, just practice discretion...

Sent from my Desire HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[ecoli73]

Like it or not, you are one of the few that has gathered wealth, if you include all the people in the world, Matt.

There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this country (the world) by the actions and inaction of governments.

Unfortunately it has been a redistribution from the many to the few!

 

[aclockworkorange]

Like it or not, you are one of the few that has gathered wealth, if you include all the people in the world, Matt.

That's the irony... We're on a website devoted to a hobby that relies on excess income.
Put up or shut up... sell your excess and give your expendable income to the poor.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[Miguel]

And where Matt, beyond EA Johnson's writings ( in paper everything seems logical and feasible ) have you seen that put in practice?

Any sort of "powers that be" really interested, genuinely involved, in applying those measures?