What always amazes me is that billionaires and the super-rich in general have managed to create not only a system that funnels more and more money to them, but a prevailing ideology whereby a significant proportion of those who have relatively no wealth in comparison feel obliged to protect them and their billions on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering. — Baden
You've gone off on a few different tangents there, but it should be clear my moral perspective on economic issues is utilitarian-based. — Baden
Well you surely see that without Mr Jobs and Mr Gates, there would be no working computers because RiscOS and Linux etc etc etc don't exist. — unenlightened
What always amazes me is that billionaires and the super-rich in general have managed to create not only a system that funnels more and more money to them, but a prevailing ideology whereby a significant proportion of those who have relatively no wealth in comparison feel obliged to protect them and their billions on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering — Baden
If it's rarely been achieved, then tell me the example.People can be in power without forming a "class" or a specific "elite" group. Which is difficult and has very rarely been achieved. I was merely commenting that the an "elite" is not logically necessary. — Echarmion
And changing the "status quo" means today attacking some group of people, who are described to be harmful.It is a nice thought that we should just all get along, but arguing that we shouldn't be "antagonizing" each other is vague. Of course we shouldn't be putting people to the guillotine. But there needs to be some amount of "antagonizing" to change the status quo. — Echarmion
In my country politicians aren't rich and typically aren't millionaires and don't retire millionaires. There are very few if any that have a wealth of over 1 billion. That politicians hoard huge fortunes just means that the legal institutions that should prevent corruption don't exist or are weak.People in power do have the tendency to be filthy rich though, and filthy rich people always have power. — Echarmion
Wow, that's pretty thick. A theocracy, those building a "New Jerusalem" or whatever especially want the best to people. First of all, they want to save their souls, create a more righteous society A theocracy is a case and point example of this.Does it? What about a theocracy? Or just a feudal society that puts people in boxes which determines their rights? The well being of citizens in general is not always the stated goal of a political ideology. — Echarmion
And during a recession it somebody else's fault or the fault of the other party that was in power, yes.I don't know about that. It seems to me that governments are very anxious to be seen as the driving force behind the economy. As long as it's trending up, anyways. — Echarmion
Well, Denmark has 10 or so billionaires to 5,8 million people. The US with 327 million people and 585 billionaires. That means if I counted correctly, there are more billionaires per capita in Denmark than in the US! Anyway, the figure is in the same ballpark here.But you're illustrating my point very well re the prevailing ideology if against all the evidence, you actually believe what you are saying. — Baden
The exact motivational value of billionaires is dubious. Few adults entertain such fictions, and you can be rich and/or famous without being a billionaire. — Echarmion
Yet, this particular person who does so is a motivator or model to emulate. — TheMadFool
1. The pervailing idea that billionaires are rich because they know more or are smarter — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.