Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] SOLAR , NUCLEAR ENERGY etc.



Hi

1) It does not appear to me that you can support the conclusion (as several people on this list have) that everyone who is rich earned that money or that the people who are fabulously rich are essential to furthering capitalism. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of the most wealthy people in the world. Some DID earn their position but many inherited it. Some are got rich by creating new technology, etc. others by lending money or drilling for oil, not by being particularly innovative. It is pretty much all over the map. So I don't see how anyone can conclude that taxing the rich is like penalizing the brightest student in class or hamstringing innovative investments.

Theoretical question. Should we tax Bill Gates more than the kid from the getto who becomes a drug addict? An argument in favor is that Gates had special advantages that the kid down the street did not (Gates had access to computers at an early age which most people at that time did not). The playing field was never level to start with. Why shouldn't someone who had special advantages to start with (or in other cases inherited their money) be asked to pay back some of that?

2) Saying that it is ok for someone to get the minimum wage (or worse) because they agreed to it assumes everyone is equal. But the playing field is not equal. If you never learned to read because you grew up in the rain forest you cannot go out and get a high paying job programing computers. A low paying job is not, in most cases, a fairly negotiated social contract.

3) We want capitalism because the competition is effective in improving goods and services. But if one company beats all the others and becomes the monopoly, is that capitalism? No. So shouldn't there be some kind of limit on size and power of individual companies (and rich people) so that there IS true competition? Should United Fruit have special political privileges? Should Suez or Vivendi be allowed to charge poor people in Africa whatever price they choose for drinking water because they are the only source?

4) Many previous posts are pretty gloom and doom. But, for example, the emissions of heavy metal in the US has been declining for the past 20 years. There ARE solutions. There is a direct inverse correlation between wealth and pollution. Once people have their basic needs met they start worrying about the environment. This isn't to say that doom forecasters aren't needed; someone has to point out the problems and find the solutions. It also doesn't mean wealth is everything (standard of living includes much more). But I don't think alarms that the world is ending are called for or particularly useful.

kyle


--
------------------------------------------
"When applied to material things,
the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron."
Albert Bartlett

kyle forinash 812-941-2039
kforinas@ius.edu
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------