One status quo that desperately needs to be changed in our world today is the distinct difference between the luxury of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor. Not Communism, but just tightening the ends of the economic classes together. Many people live in wealth, with mansions, pools, gold, and other items and objects that show off their wealth. Others live in complete poverty, with nothing to own, nothing to eat, no reason to live. The top 1% of people combined make more than the bottom 40%. This is happening in the United States as well as other countries, as the natural disasters in Southeastern Asia showed. The rural places where the earthquake struck are poor and have much less safety and security than the people in the cities, who are rich and have much more protection at all times, and the same is true in Burma for the victims of the cyclone. Even in cities in America, many people are still filthy and homeless, while others are filthy rich. That is not fair to the people in poverty, because most of them are not worse people than the well-off, many of which inherited their money. A huge step needs to be taken by the entire human race if the distinction between the rich and poor is to be mostly eliminated, especially in poor countries. Every nation, especially the United States, would need to buy into the idea fully that having major distinction between economic classes is wrong and if there is a disaster the lower classes would need aid first, even if they cannot pay for it. In order to bring about this equality, a few leaders from rich, major, and influential countries like America and China would have to advocate a way to spread the wealth everywhere, instead of concentrating it in cities and countries, and the rest of the world would, and must, follow them. What else can be added to this argument?

Those who work smart and find ways to make money should not have to supplement the income of those who do not.

Those who work a hard honest living should not have to supplement the income of those who were smart enough to become rich.

The solution is a minimum wage set at an acceptable standard as to be determined by the medium standard of living. As well as being good for the poor it also creates a consumer market along the lines of how fordism created the middle class.

The trick is to have an economy capable of sustaining such high wages and thereby creating a minimum wage that can sustain a consumer market place.
Also should be provided are the basics needed for life such as equal access to education and healthcare.

The problem that America is facing is the enormous rents charged by the resident corporations. For example if I hypothetically were to work in a grocery store for 15 years, learn everything about it and save every penny I own. In a free market I should be able to open my own store and reap the financial benefits.

In todays world my store would be bullied out of the market by the market power of larger competitors. I would likely ammount to nothing more than a store manager and maybe at the end of 15 years have enough for a down payment on a home.

Such is not a free market, such is a situation where government interventions are necessary.

Taking from one person and giving it to another against his will is the same as stealing.

There will always be poor people because in our society there will always be those who don't save for the future or those who spend everything they get as soon as they get it.

And I don't buy this idea that we have so many that are without food because all you have to do is keep your eyes open and you'll discover that there are more fat people in Walmart then ever before.

Many of the homeless are in that shape because of their own choices. They could choose to work or save their money or they could choose to drink or take drugs. Usually they are poor because they chose the latter.

I don't think we should continue to increase the debt by taking care of people who are less blessed then the rest of us because there are better ways to do it.

How about asking for donations. Americans have always been a generous people. How about keeping your friggen hands out of my pocket and asking for gifts rather then forcing people to give up what they need during these times of economic hardship. I still have to pay for ever increasing gas prices, property taxes, income taxes, sales tax, higher food prices, the list goes on and on.

We need to start paying back the debt instead of increasing it and we sure as hell don't need to turn more of our hard earned money over to the government who I am sure will misuse it. If anything the last few years the government has been shown to be a disorganised and corrupt entity. Why should we trust them to do it right?

Many of the states to include mine were in the red a few years ago and what was the first thing they knew they had to do to reverse it? They cut 400,000 off of Tenncare. They cut entitlements. They also started a state lottery. We were millions in debt and at least for a while were in a surplus. That is until this year and our Governor started spending too much again. He wants to spend millions on a entertainment bunker in the mansion. He's having to lay off 2000 state government employees to pay for it.

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

The best way to narrow income gaps is not to "take money from one person and give to another," directly, but to change the rules of the game so that market forces redistribute wealth downward. Not only does this provoke less resentment, but it also produces better and more lasting results.

Those who talk in such terms as the above two posters seldom recognize how much government policy contributes to the stakes of winning and losing the economic game. I am not talking about things like welfare or public assistance, but rather trade and immigration policy, tax scales, and protection of labor rights. The government can and does influence how wide or narrow our income gaps become through these things.

The biggest single determiner of income gaps is prevailing real wages. This is a function of three things: the demand for labor, the supply of labor, and the ability of labor to bargain collectively. Demand is a function of how well the economy is doing, and so labor-friendly policies, which help the economy by boosting consumer demand, are self-reinforcing.

Supply is a function of immigration and trade policy. If high rates of immigration are encouraged by the government, either overtly or by looking the other way as illegal immigrants cross the border, or if free trade agreements with countries that don't respect labor rights encourage companies to build plants in those countries to take advantage of cheap oppressed labor, then the supply of labor relative to the demand will be high, and real wages will drop. If immigration is kept low, and free trade agreements are reserved for nations that protect labor rights in a civilized fashion, then the supply of labor will be lower relative to demand and real wages will rise.

The ability of labor to bargain collectively is, in part, a function of government protection of the right to do so. This has seriously declined under Republican administrations from Reagan on, and as a result employers are able to combat efforts to form unions by firing organizers on some pretext.

Correct those three problems -- furtive encouragement of illegal immigration, free-trade agreements with countries that shouldn't have them, and government policies unfriendly to organized labor -- and there will be no need to do anything ham-handed in order to narrow income gaps. As wages rise, that will happen automatically.

Oh, and we can return to a more progressive tax structure, too. That's not as important as wages, but it's fairly important.

A word on free trade if I may -

Government interventions are not free markets.

Free trade can't exist when governments in some bureaucratic body somewhere is making 10,000 page "free trade" agreements. They actually hinder free trade as proven by NAFTA, CAFTA which have given us only the SHAFTA. "Yeah we bureaucrats know what is good for you traders").

Tarriffs are a form of tax too. If you have poor people in this country trying to make it on their own and they are not on welfare, but they can buy clothes or shoes or an automobile or anything from overseas, they are tremendously penalized by forcing them to pay higher prices by buying domestically.

There is a moral element involved in trade, because when governments come in and regulate how citizens spend their money, they are telling them what they can do or cannot do.

In a free society, individuals who earn money should be allowed to spend the money the way they want. So if they find that they prefer to buy a car from Japan rather than Detroit, they basically have the moral right to spend their money as they see fit and those kinds of choices should not be made by government.

Only Congress (and not the President) is allowed to regulate international trade. By making these agreements they abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

Free trade needs no 10,000 page agreement.

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Free trade, though, needs to take into account the practices of OTHER governments, not just our own.

The whole problem here is that we are engaging in unrestricted trade with countries whose governments oppress their working class, deny them basic rights that we had to fight for in this country for decades, and so provide our corporations with dirt-cheap virtual slave labor as an incentive to invest there. This drags real wages down in this country, and is the reason why working people are poor to start with.

Restrictions on trade with such countries might indeed raise the price of some imports, but it would also force capital back to the U.S., raise real wages, and end up as a net gain. Poor working people with cheap imports to buy are not nearly as well off as working people with a middle class income, even if they have to pay a bit more for imports.

this is a free county

the rockafeller family and the media are free to do as they please...
rockafeller can create as many thinktanks and set as many national policies as he likes,

the media has the right to not cover certain things, for example.. look at the media blackout against ron paul.

NAFTA CAFTA WTO NAU

hey..its a free country.

what does that mean for our national sovernty? who knows.

Thank you - Western governments tax their citizens to fund the World Bank, lend this money to corrupt Third World dictators who abscond with the funds, and then demand repayment which is extracted through taxation from poor Third World citizens, rather than from the government officials responsible for the embezzlement.

It is in essence a global transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Taxpayers around the world are forced to subsidize the lavish lifestyles of Third World dictators and highly-paid World Bank bureaucrats who don't even pay income tax!

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Then please do not call it "free trade".

The hard fact is that in developing countries, subsistence and survival takes primacy over anything else.

Let me give you an example; I am very familiar with textile and knitwear factories in South Asia based on personal experience, I have seen how one of the governments in South Asia implemented a policy of banning child labor under pressure from bureaucratic international "trade organizations" - severe negative and unintended consequences followed.

In India, a boycott of garments made by child labor caused tens of thousands of kids to lose jobs. They had to take smaller less paying and demeaning jobs, start begging, prostitution, etc.

The governments did not force these kids to work - their parents or rather circumstances did - it is the same in Nepal and Pakistan and most countries.

From experience as a former garment manufacturer - I've seen the children in factories in South Asia working with printing and dyeing with harmful chemicals for t-shirts for everyone from Gap to JC Penney. No matter what your store claims.

Everything has consequences. You deprive these kids of a living when there are no opportunities for them - you will only create more misery for them and their families along with more terrorists, criminals, prostitutes, pimps, etc.

Out of the frying pan into the fire.

Certainly not going to reduce poverty anywhere that way....

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Our own government is the biggest culprit in creating poverty.

TSGracchus,

Your version of "free trade" just cost American taxpayers $300 billion:


Even USDA Criticizes $300 billion for farm bill.

That is $300 billion of taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy farmers in our country at a time when food prices are the highest! I have to be robbed of my taxes so the money can be given to farmers! But I can't get a piece of the profits. No those belong to the farmer.

This bill will give handouts to millionaires. While Americans are paying higher prices in food, gas, clothing? Is this really "free trade"?

These subsidies will enable these these high cost farmers and food companies to sell their products at below the cost of production and unfairly beat off the products of farmers in developing countries that don’t have the same kind of money to subsidize.

Prices of food has risen to world records - such that even here in the USA there stores like Costco and Sams Club have had to ration rice.

Instead of doing away with the subsidies they are increasing them? With prices at record highs and farm revenues soaring, a cut in subsidies would have been even more justified.

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Though some will say (and said) that hard workers should not be denied their hard-earned money, what is little money for them would be a lot of money for poor people, and could sustain poor people for a much longer time than someone used to being rich. The possible suggested and original solutions for this and other issues with distribution of wealth are as follows: instead of the government taxing the rich, have richer people donate to poorer people through a non-profit organization run by influential speakers and other people; and/or having the minimum wage be determined by a large group of trustworthy middle-class workers. Both these solutions would begin in the United States and, once America is more equal, spread to other nations. Which of these solutions would be better, or both? Arguments?

I suggest you actually READ my posts before responding to them. In no way, shape, or form is the current U.S. policy "my" free trade. Nor have I ever said one thing to imply that it is, and I have said many things exactly to the contrary. The only way you could have written the above is if you utterly failed to comprehend anything I was saying.

Your posts clearly imply your support of government intervention and not true free trade.

Whatever you want to call it - "interventionist trade" is not free trade.

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

I see. And so, because the Bush administration and I both disagree with you, implicitly we must agree with each other. Is that what you're saying?

There's what you believe, and there's everything else. And any differences between various everything elses are meaningless, so it's perfectly legitimate to call me to task for the results of Bush policies. The fact that I vehemently disagree with those policies is of no importance and need not be considered.

Is that it?

I fail to see what I can add to this argument, however to the discussion I hope I can contrast with your general theme. There are two major arguments against the type of equality that you speak of which I believe requires a more sophisticated statement of what it means for a society to promote equality.

First the focus on income or some other measure of economic well-being leaves issues. Even considering things such as environmental quality at other such economic goods in the measure of well-being there are still things that are left out. While freedom is valued in an economic sense it is undervalued in the sense that it provides people with a sense of purpose, something would not be classified as economic. The same could be said of opportunity, autonomy, and a number of other economic goods. The struggling artist, as the stereotype depicts, intentionally leads a unconventional life. In the process she forgoes the classic economic gains in search of self fulfillment. An environment where she is able to do this appears to be worth a substantial amount of money.

Second, even if non-economic goods where somehow accounted for, the nature of economic goods makes it so inequalities may be to the benefit of all. People respond to incentives. On one hand institutions created to employ incentives can create benefits for all. On the other hand there is no reason to expect that the benefits be equal. In this sense it is possible, perhaps due to asymmetries in natural endowments and specialization in production, for people to achieve an unequal outcome that is better then any outcome that grants full equality.