Nov 21, 2006 2:18:14 AM cite

How much must the earth give up to supply the demand of hoarders? They are addicted. We must not enable them. The stock market, and especially futures trading works like a pyramid game. The money comes from new players, not a viable product with a future. The earth has given in abundance as a mother would. But her allowance of exploitation for free will has created a free for all. It is our test. will humans stop the spiral of total insanity to posess?

by skylark

Nov 18, 2006 11:39:38 PM cite

First of all Kent Keller and most of those responding do not understand this question, and are incapable of giving an answer. The problems with the question are 2 assumptions. First that the rich are hoarding wealth and thereby depriving others of it's use. Second that for some to become rich, others must become poor. When a succesful person accumulates wealth, that money does not go out of circulation. Money deposited in a bank, invested in the stock market, or used to buy good's and property, is going back into circulation, and money changing hands is good for the economy. Money in a bank is not stacks of bills with someones name on it, but is loaned out to homeowners, and businesses. Money in stocks is a loan to a company to expand or improve. Money spent on property or goods, goes to builders, suppliers, stores & manufacturers, and a lot of wages for employes. Wealthy people are therefore contributing to the health of the economy. Successfull people do not gain wealth on the work of the poor. The poor do not always have good jobs, or any job, and have little to spend on consumer goods, and contribute little to the economy. It is the working and upper class, who have good jobs and money to spend, that support the rich. The very rich are a sign of a healthy economy that can support them. Most of the answers to this question are stupid, liberal , knee jerk reactions, that of bashing the rich. They are easy targets and require little thought. The reality is that everyone gets where they are in life by choice. Either choices they make (good or bad) or by not choosing and just letting things happen. Everyone must make choices, to move to a better place, to get a better job, or just to get a job. Those who stay in one place and do nothing are the victums of their own choices. Of the 112 'Brilliant Minds?' and 5 additional postings only 13 are partially correct and worth reading. The rest are dross, and a waste of space, one (Anthony Arnove) gives a good idea but calls it incorrect. Those in poverty should be helped, but not with a handout (not as a permanent solution), but with opportunity. Those who only want a handout (a free ride) should be cut off, Those who abuse the system (having more children to get a bigger payment) should also be cut off and provisions made for the children. For those in underveloped countries, The political climate must be stabalized and help to support them selves should be provided. The wealthy in the developed countries are not the cause of poverty in the world, and many are offering help. But often that help is refused or diverted. This problem will not be solved by bashing the rich who, by hard work, have accumulated great wealth, but by rational and constructive criticism of the situation as it is. The answers worth reading are by, JustinCC, Beverly Schwartz, Brian J Weller, Jonathan Stack, Kigge Hvid, Leung Ping-Kwan, Neela Marikkar, Pico Lyer, Roland Berger, Santiago Rancagliolo, Shaobin Yang, Tavis Smiley, Valentina Melnikova.

by thedoc

Nov 12, 2006 8:38:37 AM cite

In the Edo period, Osaka Merchant Academy named Kaitokudou (literally meaning the hall that dedicate itself to the study of virtue) justified profits and savings as a legitimate mean to counter forthcoming social crisis such as famine or epidemic. But this arguement assumes those who wield wealth are ethical, they are the most capable of managing wealth and share the same fate with their community in times of crisis. Japan is no longer a closed state, and in the globalized age with Swiss bank accounts and 10 hour flights from south to north, this argument is obsolete on a individual basis. But in a community of nation states, this reasoning still hold true some time. For example, during the Asian Tsunami Crisis, suffient funds were collected from wealthier states. But imperfection comes from the lack of universal definition of a crisis, the lack of mechanism and the lack of obligation for states to give in times of crisis. Also the potential damage of the crisis, the probability of crsis, and willingness to give is difficult to quantify and justify the amount of hoardable wealth. Wealthy states dictates when to give, how much to give and often for diplomatic favor in return. If bargaining power is less assymetric in these situations, it would be more socially acceptable to hoard wealth. This is a far reach from communism I think.

by JustinCC

Sep 30, 2006 1:00:36 AM cite

There will come a time when those addicted to the malaise of acquisition will be given thew opportunity to share. Those who do, will, those who don’t, won’t

by RedSevenOne

Sep 9, 2006 4:56:54 PM cite

The rules of the game and the underlying values are determined by those in power (and wealthy) so it is socially acceptable. Wealth is measured in different ways though by different societies and social groups. For some it is only in economic terms, for other it includes good health and happiness. Especially the "USA" societal values are geared towards personal financial wealth (American dream) and the difference between rich and poor is accepted because the rich are in power and can construct the value base of society.

by hendrik@druknet.bt

Sep 9, 2006 12:53:10 PM cite

there is a really good research project going on about this check out www.joytopia.net What if every world citizen had a basic income as a birth right? cheers KA

by kathryn

Sep 9, 2006 11:21:13 AM cite

why are we so greedy and not able to control our greed?

by gabrielfalbe

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: It’s a very interesting question because traditionally wealth has always been concentrated in hands of few people. It used to be this way times ago, because of a “law”, according to which the richest can control other people. This is a weapon of control, of the economic control. For example, when powerful countries want to change some political regime, or when they want to impose their views, principles and their political ways on other countries, then they create such an embargo as they did on Cuba or in other places trying to change a political regime. I believe that in this our century governmental systems of countries would change, because we would be forced to change our ways of thinking, otherwise we will get into a catastrophe. And after the change we would arrive at a point to distribute material treasures humanly and fairly. This doesn’t mean communism and that everybody should get the same quantity of goods, but people should get the necessary equivalent of food, medical care and education.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: That is unfortunately what is happening now in the world however it is unfair and illegal. It is important to study this issue humanly, but studying it practically is more important, so we should look for way or mechanism to stop this phenomenon.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I have always said that in my country, Columbia, extreme wealth, extreme wealth is as immoral and as obscene as the extreme poverty or misery. I think our society has to fight excessive wealth the same as it have to fight excessive hunger or poorness. This I wouldn’t doubt to say that this is obscene or that this is immoral. It is not acceptable, maybe it is socially acceptable, but I think this has to change completely.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea: As was said before, the non-liberal economic model leads to the fact, that worldwide very few have power in their hands. For instance, in my country, Honduras, we fight against macro-companies, that have monopolised fuel industry, for fuel. We fight in order to achieve lower fuel prices and to get thus access to fuel, to have lower prices for public transport, something every community has the right for. These macro-companies have huge benefits, without sharing it with others. We seek to make macro-companies share their benefits with communities.

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Andries Botha: Power, sexiness, success, is all measured externally. Wealth is one of the most readily accessible vectors of measurement of success. The absence of the entrapments of material excess – poverty, is never measured as valuable in a society which is increasingly obsessed, preoccupied with materiality. Societies valorize people who conspicuously display the excess that they have. Societies fail to see the human value of those that are not visible in this manner.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Kent, I pray to the Great One that you don’t think so. But that’s how it seems to be and that’s how the reality is that people hold the wealth and then watch the rest being in absolute poverty. Why it is socially acceptable? Man has not grown up yet. One day Man will grow up and realize that the wealth belongs to everybody. Not just to me but to everybody. And that’s why we have the extreme wealth against the extreme poverty everywhere. When you look at Berlin today, or even in Milwaukee, you see the extreme wealth in one end of the city and in the other side extreme poverty in Milwaukee. Do you think it’s right? I sure hope not. Because it is not right that one should have extreme wealth against extreme poverty. There has to be created an equal balance to everywhere. So next time you ask the question I want you to answer that yourself and do something about it because it is not right that you and I should have the extreme wealth versus the next door neighbor being in extreme poverty. It does not matter where it is. The same thing goes for South Africa, Namibia, Greenland, Germany, anywhere in the world where you have that extreme wealth versus the extreme poverty imbalance. How can you ever soar to new heights if you don’t have the balance in the wealth, the distribution of the wealth you and I will have.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: Capitalism has always had an ideology that's gone along with it. It doesn't just have an economic system. It has a set of ideas. It has a set of beliefs that justify it. So, it's been very important since the very beginning of capitalism to have an emphasis on the role of the individual, and in particular, to create a myth of social mobility; to create a myth of individual advancement; to create the idea that individuals are rewarded under capitalism for their labor. So therefore, if you're wealthy, if you're rich, it's because you have worked. It's because you have labored. You have taken opportunities that are presented to you under capitalism. And the corollary of that is that if you are poor, if you're not rich, if you lack benefits, it's because you have not worked. You have not taken opportunities. You have not pursued the opportunities that capitalism presents to you; and so, therefore, it's a question of your individual responsibility. You are to blame for your poverty. You are to blame for your conditions. And so, therefore, people who are rich can feel justified. Now, the reality, of course, is quite different. Some of the people who work hardest in our society; in fact, almost universally the people who work hardest are the least rewarded; are people who have the least benefits and privileges in our societies, and that's almost nearly universal. Whereas, some of the people who have the greatest power and privileges in society are the people who do the least work, the least labor. Then, often, people who are rich by virtue of their birth, rich by virtue of having been born into wealth, power and privilege, and their reproduction of that in inequality under capitalism is at the heart of the way it operates. But the ideology of capitalism, of course, has to cover that up; has to obscure that.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: I do not think [inaudible] we are self-centered and not thinking of others.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Good question. I don’t think it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs; but we have been brainwashed where basically when you look at your television or you look at the media, it’s about selling which has changed us from being human beings into consumers buying more and it is okay. Your standards are judged by the car that you have, by the size of the television that you have, the number of rooms you have in your house. And that again is perhaps in some cultures, in some cultures still even today it is not socially acceptable for people to go without, for example, food. They are built into your customs, into cultural habits that you would share; and, I think, it’s about challenging those definitions of what is socially acceptable. Does the media, do the corporations get to define through the advertising that it is okay for people to go hungry; that if they are hungry, it’s because of their own fault; that they are not working hard enough? And we have to break those myths, to dismantle them, and to start looking at those cultures which is still promoting the idea of sharing knowledge, of sharing resources, of sharing food because that’s one of the big ways of having peace in this world.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Again, I find this question to be symptomatic of these two different forms of consciousness and culture that I have been developing, the egocentric culture and the culture based upon integral, whole systems, holistic, the logos culture, let us say. And, it is not socially acceptable in this awakened culture to exploit others and to not tend to the basic needs of others. Basic human compassion, basic moral consciousness, require us to tend to one another as ourselves. So, what is socially acceptable in the awakened culture is -- may not be acceptable or social acceptable in an egocentric culture that may accept dominance and repression and hoarding and keeping from [inaudible] which goes against our human moral grain of mutual care and compassion. So, I would say it’s not socially acceptable in an awakened social order to hoard while others go without. That is highly immoral and unjust and inhuman. So, in a truly awakened human compassionate culture, it is acceptable to tend to the needs of all, to the poverty, to those who do not have and to tend to them, which is a kind of teaching that we get from a teacher like Jesus who said, “When I was poor, you fed me; when I was hungry you fed me, when I was in prison, you visited me.” That is the kind of consciousness of the awakened culture or of the culture of Buddha’s teaching of tending to the needs of all beings and sacredness of all beings including tending to nature. So, those are the two kinds of cultural forces that I think are vital in looking at this question.

by Ashok Gangadean