The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...te_agenda.html

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and
poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over
the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the
poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

I'll guess that the empathy genes somehow got squelched.

Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham



You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:14:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham

You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:14:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...
Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham
You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys".

...Jim Thompson
Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore
for the "unfairness".

don

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and
poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over
the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly
richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are
struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham



You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

"You call this stuff food?", he posts, nervously looking over at the wife.

--
Paul Hovnanian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

Eeyore wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and
poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over
the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly
richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and the middle class are
struggling. Is that fair ?

No, not right now. But I'm planning on becoming one of those 'rich people'
of whom you speak. And then cutting you peasants in on my booty will no
longer be fair.

--
Paul Hovnanian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

Eeyore wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:


The ultimate solution to "fairness"...


Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed,
but not forced to be "equal".

don wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...
Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham
You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys".

Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore
for the "unfairness".

Ages back someone posted a link to a political standpoint test that placed you on a grid
with various factors at each corner. Ironically, Jim wasn't that far from me. Also the
American concept of Socialism is very different to that in Europe and indeed probably
elsewhere.

Graham

Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed,
but not forced to be "equal".

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal
outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted
god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL and that would be wrong. The statement above merely says "narrow
the divide". I think that's good.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !


Then you should have married him.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:


The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....


Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "


What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.


Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?


Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal
outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted
god like powers to make such a determination.

Let's just cut straight to a trivial example. If person A works but
person B chooses not to is it 'fair' they receive the same income,
especially when the only way is to take it away from person A who did
the work?

If you want to use the 'effort of labor' argument then that doesn't
hold water either. Like, if person A expends a boat load of effort and
labor making a piece of junk it is 'fair' he receive the same income
as someone who makes things that work? If you say yes then *you* go
buy the piece of junk so he has an 'income'.


Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling.


In the first place that's rhetorical B.S. The poor have not 'gotten
poorer' and the middle class is always 'struggling'. It's called
"working."

Let's take another 'fairness' example. Say a company has decided to
pass out raises to it's employees. What's the 'fair' way to do it? How
about just giving everyone a 10% raise? Is that 'fair'? Let's see.

If person A is making a wage of 1 and person B is making a wage of 5
then there's a 'wage gap' of 4. After the 'equal' 10% raise the wages
are 1.1 and 5.5 for a 'wage gap' of 4.4. Oh, no. We have an
'increasing income gap'. But they both received what is arguably a
'fair' raise.

So you tell me why it would be 'fair' for the lower income person to
get all the raise just to 'narrow the income gap'? Did the other
worker do nothing toward increased profits?


Is that fair ?


You'd have to first define the meaning of "fair." What's 'unfair'
about it?

Let's make another example. Say a repair man fixes your toaster for
what you consider a 'fair price'. He fixes your neighbor's toaster for
the same "fair price' and they're happy with it too. All is 'fair'.

Now he discovers a way to do it a million times faster, fixes a
million toasters for the same 'fair price', and becomes rich. Now, all
of a sudden, it isn't fair? Why? It's the same 'fair price' you were
happy with before.

Actually, what happens in the real world is he is able to fix them for
a third of the previous 'fair price', so you're ahead of the game, and
gets 'rich' to boot but, even being better off, you're still ****ed
he's 'rich'.



Graham
Well, your arguements are too logical and reasonable - therefore ARE
NOT FAIR.

Eeyore wrote:


don wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham

You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys".


Notice how Jim did not answer the question, but tries to blame Eeyore
for the "unfairness".


Ages back someone posted a link to a political standpoint test that placed you on a grid
with various factors at each corner. Ironically, Jim wasn't that far from me. Also the
American concept of Socialism is very different to that in Europe and indeed probably
elsewhere.

Graham

America was not supposed to be mired in the socialism pit, but we had
too much help from FDR....

Eeyore wrote:


Robert Baer wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed,
but not forced to be "equal".


No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

Graham


The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper
("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us.

I would be pleased to allow you that 1%, i could *use* 1% of your 1%!

Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed,
but not forced to be "equal".

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper
("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us.

All governments print money to get out of sticky situations and Obama certainly can't be
blamed for getting all of us into it. It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that,
traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in 'sound money'.


I would be pleased to allow you that 1%, i could *use* 1% of your 1%!

Well there you go you see, you really would like to narrow that divide.

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about equal
outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has been granted
god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL

I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it
does.

I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality.


It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming
some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is
'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational argument,
as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or 'feel'.

and that would be wrong.

You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out?

I wanted to cut to the chase.


The statement above merely says "narrow
the divide".

And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck?

Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun and no hope of
property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage' is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really
good' wage is $100,000 and at the top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly
£800,000. So 100:1 would easily cover it.

If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own labours alone
that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee.


I think that's good.

Why?

Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as education and health,
infrastructure etc.

Graham

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

Then you should have married him.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not into guys.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that Mel Gibson's getting
divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or
therabouts. I mean, what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

Then you should have married him.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not into guys.


Yet you want the benifits of being a mans wife?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:33:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with
that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the
rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and
the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to
succeed, but not forced to be "equal".

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that
Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for
half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean,
what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper
("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us.

All governments print money to get out of sticky situations

Bull.

and Obama certainly can't be
blamed for getting all of us into it.

Straw man. No one said he was to be "blamed for getting all of us into
it."

It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that,
traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in
'sound money'.

Funny that you have no clue, albeit entirely expected.

The financial 'meltdown' was caused by creating a 'give away to the
poor' loan system based on the typical liberal view that 'the banks
can afford it', 'business can afford it', 'Wall Street can afford it',
just don't ask if the buyer can afford it. In other words, just the
sort of thing you love.

Ever notice this guy never has any cites? lol

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:33:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with
that ? Over the last decade or so, both in the US and UK the
rich have got vastly richer, the poor have got a lot poorer and
the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to
succeed, but not forced to be "equal".

No-one forcing you to be equal but I just read in the papers that
Mel Gibson's getting divorced. No pre-nup so his wife is in for
half the estate valued at ~ $500 million or therabouts. I mean,
what can you do with that much money that a tenth of it wouldn't
keep you happy ? I'd be quite pleased with 1% !

The !Obama! taxation scheme, nad the wanton printing of paper
("money") are a few attempts to "equalize" us.

All governments print money to get out of sticky situations

Bull.

and Obama certainly can't be
blamed for getting all of us into it.

Straw man. No one said he was to be "blamed for getting all of us into
it."

It was the republicans under GWB. Funny that,
traditionally, political conservatives have tended to believe in
'sound money'.

Funny that you have no clue, albeit entirely expected.

The financial 'meltdown' was caused by creating a 'give away to the
poor' loan system based on the typical liberal view that 'the banks
can afford it', 'business can afford it', 'Wall Street can afford it',
just don't ask if the buyer can afford it. In other words, just the
sort of thing you love.

Ever notice this guy never has any cites? lol

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich
and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.

No one. The article is by lying drunk Charles Krauthammer.

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:07:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich
and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor is
worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution, granted
NO such power to the federal government.

No one. The article is by lying drunk Charles Krauthammer.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor
is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution,
granted NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about
equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has
been granted god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL

I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it
does.

A ridiculous lie.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something for
it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or anyone
else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent or labor
is worth? Never mind that the people, through the Constitution,
granted NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about
equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has
been granted god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL

I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it
does.

A ridiculous lie.

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:40:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something
for it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or
anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent
or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the
Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with
that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about
equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has
been granted god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL

I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it
does.

I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality.

I didn't say there was. It *is*, however, the 'argument' used despite
it never happening, because those in power always find some
'rationale' for why *they* get 'privileges'.


It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming
some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is
'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational
argument, as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or
'feel'.

and that would be wrong.

You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out?

I wanted to cut to the chase.

You mean cut out the chase.


The statement above merely says "narrow
the divide".

And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck?

Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun
and no hope of property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage'
is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really good' wage is $100,000 and at the
top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly £800,000. So 100:1
would easily cover it.

If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own
labours alone that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee.

The challenge was for you to provide some rationale for what
constitutes 'fair' but all you've done is give how much of their own
money you've arbitrarily decided to let people keep, at least for the
moment. And if we got a dozen more liberals in here they'd likely come
up with a dozen different opinions because they're all completely
devoid of any principle. It's either how much you 'want' or what you
feel you can get away with taking before ****ing off too many people
who vote your ass out.


I think that's good.

Why?

Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as
education and health, infrastructure etc.

See? It's just "I want the money" and you figure to take it.

Him personally? You're funny. lol

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:40:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

Well, if you go see a doctor maybe he/she can give you something
for it.

No, _I_ don't have it, silly.


" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between
rich and poor. "

What on earth gives ANY one the chutzpah to imagine Obama, or
anyone else, has god like powers to decide what a person's talent
or labor is worth? Never mind that the people, through the
Constitution, granted NO such power to the federal government.

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with
that ?

Yes, because the question implies there's something 'fair' about
equal outcomes, regardless of what one does, and that Obama has
been granted god like powers to make such a determination.

I never said EQUAL

I didn't say you 'said it'. I said the question implies it, and it
does.

I totally disagree. Even in Soviet Russia there wasn't true equality.

I didn't say there was. It *is*, however, the 'argument' used despite
it never happening, because those in power always find some
'rationale' for why *they* get 'privileges'.


It's either 'bad' by simply being unequal or you're claiming
some 'god like' power to decide what a person's talent and labor is
'worth'. Well, that is, if you're trying to make a rational
argument, as opposed to just blathering about what you 'like' or
'feel'.

and that would be wrong.

You mean like the examples I gave but you snipped out?

I wanted to cut to the chase.

You mean cut out the chase.


The statement above merely says "narrow
the divide".

And what's 'fair'. 100 to 1? 10 to 1? 4 to 1? a buck?

Say, in the UK a modest minimum wage that leaves little room for fun
and no hope of property ownership is around £10,000, a 'decent wage'
is £30,000 - £50,000, a 'really good' wage is $100,000 and at the
top of the tree somone like BA's MD gets nearly £800,000. So 100:1
would easily cover it.

If ( as I have said before ) individual can earn more from their own
labours alone that's not unreasonable, but not as an employee.

The challenge was for you to provide some rationale for what
constitutes 'fair' but all you've done is give how much of their own
money you've arbitrarily decided to let people keep, at least for the
moment. And if we got a dozen more liberals in here they'd likely come
up with a dozen different opinions because they're all completely
devoid of any principle. It's either how much you 'want' or what you
feel you can get away with taking before ****ing off too many people
who vote your ass out.


I think that's good.

Why?

Because money can be diverted to more worthwhile causes. Such as
education and health, infrastructure etc.

See? It's just "I want the money" and you figure to take it.

Him personally? You're funny. lol

Robert Baer wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Ain't nuttin' fair...
In America, one is supposed to be free to try, to be free to succeed,
but not forced to be "equal".

There's far from equality here.

Graham

Jim Thompson wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

The ultimate solution to "fairness"...

Oh dear, the Alzheimer's is kicking in again ....

" Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. "

Given the vast differences, do you really see a problem with that ? Over the last
decade or so, both in the US and UK the rich have got vastly richer, the poor
have got a lot poorer and the middle class are struggling. Is that fair ?

Graham

You have food, and a roof over your head. Is that fair?

Eeyore toots the socialist whistle... "those bad old rich guys".

Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another matter.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another
matter.

You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-)

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:55:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another
matter.
You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-)

While there's some merit to that point there's a bigger issue involved
and Eeyore exemplifies it with "obscenely rich."

The problem with that notion is that once started there's no end to it
and "obscenely" becomes "excessively," then "more than 'enough'," and
eventually it's virtually any differential because, despite all the
braying about 'fairness', there's no principle involved. It's just
opinion, envy, and greed deciding who it's 'ok' to extort money from.

No it isn't anything like that slippery slope. The point here is that
the ratio of 80% percentile income to 20% percentile is a very good
predictor of both teenage pregnancy rates and violent crime. A ratio of
5 or 6 seems to be a fair compromise.

Countries where the rich overpay themselves and exploit the poor
mercilessly invariably have more violent crime. The US is surprisingly
at one global extreme for teenage pregnancy see for example:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1181/F1

Put simply if the ratio between the haves and the have nots is too large
and widely seen to be unfair then the larger underclass start helping
themselves to whatever they like. The haves are doing the same thing but
in a different way by exploiting the weakness of their workers.


This was derided in classical liberalism as "organized theft," where
the majority gangs up to rob whoever they feel like robbing this week,
and is not much different than a 'poor' street gang robbing some 'rich
dude' except it's all 'legal', of course, because, hey, we 'voted' to
screw you. But then, maybe the street gang 'voted' on it too.

Classical Manchester Liberalism and the campaign for Free Trade was
founded in the anti-Corn Laws league that fought to stop price control
from keeping corn (wheat) prices artificially high.

It was a populist uprising against vested interests of the landed
gentry, lawyers and merchant bankers who were the politicians of the
day. To vote then you had to own enough land and city dwellers for the
most part did not qualify. The original Corn laws were crafted to make
the rich richer and the poor poorer - and from fighting that injustice
Liberalism was founded.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:55:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Reasonably wealthy people I have no argument with, obscenely rich is another
matter.

You need someone to keep those yacht builders employed. :-)


That's more than a joke. Watch what happens when Obama "obscenely"
taxes the "rich". All kinds of service people will be out of work.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food