Should Resources Be Hoarded?

[Callace]

We live in a world with a finite amount of materials, goods, and products, a world that has a rapidly growing population.

I'm not talking about resources accumulated from good investments, hard work, or smart innovations. I don't consider those hoarding.

I'm talking about the vast resources that have been awarded for cronyism, rent-seeking, loopholes, government lobbying, and fraud...

those who do nothing of value to anyone, but still manage to profit exponentially.



What do you think?

[Skroe]

It's a lot smaller than you think it is.

First, government lobbying is not only perfectly legal, it is perfectly necessary and perfectly ancient. Interested parties have been lobbying their ruling power for favoritism since the dawn of time. The fact is, government is run by decision making human beings who have a budget, which means not everything we want to do can be done. But its viewed through the lens of government expediature. It is often the job of a lobby to bring an issue to the attention of government. While we may decry Lobbies like the NRA and the Club for Growth, there is also positive ones such as the ACLU and AARP, the AARP perhaps being the mightiest lobby of them all.

Only a few of the richest people in the United States gain money from inheritance. Most of the richest Americans are self made.

fraud and cronyism aren't even rampant, at least according to Transparency International, which ranked US higher than most of the rest of the developed world (and I think 20th in the world) for an anti-corruption. As far as these go, we're a very clean country. Not as clean as say, Norway, but up there.

I frankly don't think you're being clear enough on what "resources" you're talking about to make a meaningful conversation.

[Callace]

It's a lot smaller than you think it is.

First, government lobbying is not only perfectly legal, it is perfectly necessary and perfectly ancient. Interested parties have been lobbying their ruling power for favoritism since the dawn of time. The fact is, government is run by decision making human beings who have a budget, which means not everything we want to do can be done. But its viewed through the lens of government expediature. It is often the job of a lobby to bring an issue to the attention of government. While we may decry Lobbies like the NRA and the Club for Growth, there is also positive ones such as the ACLU and AARP, the AARP perhaps being the mightiest lobby of them all.

Only a few of the richest people in the United States gain money from inheritance. Most of the richest Americans are self made.

fraud and cronyism aren't even rampant, at least according to Transparency International, which ranked US higher than most of the rest of the developed world (and I think 20th in the world) for an anti-corruption. As far as these go, we're a very clean country. Not as clean as say, Norway, but up there.

I frankly don't think you're being clear enough on what "resources" you're talking about to make a meaningful conversation.

I'm positive that it's a small minority, but that doesn't mean the amount of corruption isn't large. Only a tiny population controls the vast majority of resources. And much of that is relatively unearned. 20th in corruption is not a very good ranking for a nation that has the largest economy in the world, it's quite terrible.

As for lobbying, I'm fine with all of the groups you mentioned, I'm talking about the borderline bribery stuff that occurs on an individual basis: E.G. Coal owners making donations to politicians to curb state regulations.

[Gheld]

The real problem with this world is that every time the media covers an isolated incident people infer from it that it is
A. Widespread
B. Rampant

For example; a terrible tragedy occurs, and some sicko rapes and murders some kid. Once the news media is done with it, BAM, everybody thinks that everybody around them is going to rape and murder their children, so everybody starts being assholes to each other which in return creates a bigger problem than the isolated incident itself did.

So the media over turns one example of corporate cronyism and suddenly it's VIVA LA REVOLUCION BECAUSE EVERYBODY WHO IS WEALTHY AND SUCCESSFUL IS JUST A BUNCH OF CRONIES!

[Callace]

The real problem with this world is that every time the media covers an isolated incident people infer from it that it is
A. Widespread
B. Rampant

For example; a terrible tragedy occurs, and some sicko rapes and murders some kid. Once the news media is done with it, BAM, everybody thinks that everybody around them is going to rape and murder their children, so everybody starts being assholes to each other which in return creates a bigger problem than the isolated incident itself did.

So the media over turns one example of corporate cronyism and suddenly it's VIVA LA REVOLUCION BECAUSE EVERYBODY WHO IS WEALTHY AND SUCCESSFUL IS JUST A BUNCH OF CRONIES!

Only half of the Forbes 400 top ten list did actual work for what they own.

I never claimed it was everywhere. I claimed it was a problem.

[Gheld]

Only half of the Forbes 400 top ten list did actual work for what they own.

You can't make a claim like that unless you are going to back it up with evidence.

[Deleted]

I think the use of the word "hoarding" is silly. What you really mean is, should government arrange so that special interest groups recieve wealth at the expense of the rest of society. Such as business that is protected from competition through legislation or business that recieve subsidies/tax-breaks, and the things you listed.

I do not understand how inheritance is included into this. The rest of the items listed have victims, such as the taxpayers. Inheritance doesn't have any victims, it doesn't take money from anyone who is unwilling to give it away.

[Callace]

You can't make a claim like that unless you are going to back it up with evidence.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/...erited-wealth/

---------- Post added 2012-05-13 at 08:02 PM ----------

I do not understand how inheritance is included into this. The rest of the items listed have victims, such as the taxpayers. Inheritance doesn't have any victims, it doesn't take money from anyone who is unwilling to give it away.

I listed it as an example, but I agree that it isn't on the same level as the rest.

---------- Post added 2012-05-13 at 08:04 PM ----------

I think the use of the word "hoarding" is silly. What you really mean is, should government arrange so that special interest groups recieve wealth at the expense of the rest of society. Such as business that is protected from competition through legislation or business that recieve subsidies/tax-breaks, and the things you listed.

I've seen it phrased this way under someone's opinion in a previous poll. Now I'm phrasing it differently under my opinion.

As for business protectionism, this is more fundamental than that, really I'm setting my own qualifications for what constitutes a business practice. So, naturally, there is an inherent bias, just like the other poll.

[Gheld]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/...erited-wealth/

Oh, so you're demonizing the idea of inheritance. God forbid we think of our childrens and grandchildrens generations!

We should just sterilize everybody. Gather up all the resources on the planet, and then divide them amongst everybody who is still alive, and watch as a new age of wealth and prosperity takes over. Because if inheritance is bad, then that is the ideal solution is it not?

[Skroe]

Actually it's excellent considering the scale of our economy compared to say, Denmark. More money and more people mean more interests which increases succeptibility to corruption, and even then the difference between 1st and 24th (our rank) out of 183 is only a fraction of a point out of a possible ten. We're simply not going to be "less corrupt" than nation states with economies and populations the size of the State of Virginia the same way Microsoft is inherently less easily run than a small business of 50 workers.

http://www.transparency.org/country#...SurveysIndices

The United States has many issues, but corruption isn't one of them. It isn't corrupt to accumulate wealth and resource. It isn't corrupt to lobby in your interest. And it isn't corruption if your side loses and another side wins... that's just called losing the argument.

What resources are you talking about exactly? Timber? Oil? I think you're reaching for something that isn't here. The concentration of income distribution at the top is a national concern of course, but that's extremely different from what you're describing, both cause and solution. You can start by naming some resources and the first middle and last names of those who control them. Sorry to be tough on this, but its Internet Forum Conventional Wisdom that the US is hopelessly corrupt when in fact, if you actually ask the people whose job it is to monitor corruption planet-wide, the answer is a resounding "nope, it isnt". So if you're going to make an assertion, let's see what your facts are.

[Callace]

Oh, so you're demonizing the idea of inheritance. God forbid we think of our childrens and grandchildrens generations!

We should just sterilize everybody. Gather up all the resources on the planet, and then divide them amongst everybody who is still alive, and watch as a new age of wealth and prosperity takes over. Because if inheritance is bad, then that is the ideal solution is it not?

It depends on the decisions that are made with such.

[Skroe]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/...erited-wealth/[COLOR="red"]

Inherited "Some of their wealth" is a very selective use of language. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Better off than many Americans, but very far from being the Vanderbilts.

[Gheld]

It depends on the decisions that are made with such.

So you think that you should be in control of what other people do with their inheritance?

[Callace]

Inherited "Some of their wealth" is a very selective use of language. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Better off than many Americans, but very far from being the Vanderbilts.

He started out with 2 million in the 80's. And I don't even consider him an example.

[The Casualty]

Inherited "Some of their wealth" is a very selective use of language. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Better off than many Americans, but very far from being the Vanderbilts.

True, but then again, it does list him as "self-made" within the first paragraph. The Waltons, who each inherited ~20 Billion, and the Koch brothers, who inherited their business (which the article does mention made money and listed them as "some of their wealth) were more of their examples, not coming from an upper middle class family.

[Callace]

So you think that you should be in control of what other people do with their inheritance?

No, but I'm saying people will eventually seize control of it if it isn't used to benefit anyone.

[Deleted]

The United States has many issues, but corruption isn't one of them. It isn't corrupt to accumulate wealth and resource. It isn't corrupt to lobby in your interest. And it isn't corruption if your side loses and another side wins... that's just called losing the argument.

I disagree. On micro level, there's the corruption between individual citizens/business and low-level bureaucrats, for things like permits and licenses.

On macro level there's the billion dollar lobby industry that steers taxpayer money into projects that benefits special interest groups but not the general society.

And lastly there's the purely criminal corruption, that has to do with the drug war between law enforcement and drug dealers or regulatory agencies turning their back to obvious crime (SEC and Wall Street).

[Deleted]

Well, honestly, no, if you put it like that.

But.. it's kinda like asking "should people be allowed to get fat". It's a bad thing but without it there would be no liberty or democracy. If people want to hoard, no one should stop them. It's their choice.

[Callace]

Well, honestly, no, if you put it like that.

But.. it's kinda like asking "should people be allowed to get fat". It's a bad thing but without it there would be no liberty or democracy. If people want to hoard, no one should stop them. It's their choice.

The question is though, ultimately, is hoarding conducive to democracy with finite resources? I really think it's a grey area, much like the other poll that I won't name (you can figure it out), I just wanted to illustrate that there are breaking points on both ends of the spectrum.

[Gheld]

No, but I'm saying people will eventually seize control of it if it isn't used to benefit anyone.

You mean if it's not benefiting 25 year old philosophy majors that wonder why they can't do any better than 25K a year retail "management" jobs they will keep pushing for a huge inheritance tax.

If their money is in the bank, the bank is investing the money, and a lot of those investments help new entrepreneurs get their businesses going. Some of that money in the bank helps people live the dream of home ownership without them having to spend decades saving up to pay cash to buy a house. Any time you buy anything on credit, that's money nobody else is spending at the moment helping you out.