: We are not responsible for equality of looks or hieght, we are for wealth
We as individuals are responsible for wealth. Thats what ive been saying. The individual. The other fellow does not start out owing me whatever wealth he may create, win in a lottery or get from his dear great aunt.
: because wealth equals power
It equals extra choices, extra goodies. Money doesnt cause coercive acts - it creates opportunities. If a rich man pays hit men is the money to blame? No wonder many 'egalitarians' are also agianst freedom in self defence (ie guns).
: true freedom.
:Further, equality doesn't mean sameness, irt means a potential to have the same
I dont think you mean potential. You cant cap a mans potential becuase of one thing or another (except death!), I think you mean the degrees of likely difficulty in achieving such dont you? The equal start proposition.
: the Levellers aren't dead. And remember, the ones as make the wealth, are the ones as have the least, so its just re-imbursing teh wealth creators.
The geniuses who invented lightbulbs, railways, medicines (eg Edison) and those who knew how to organise the production and distribution of such things (eg Carnegie)? Or the mass of people (me included) who may never have created railroads and medicines alone, might never have 'suddenly' conceived of them, but can gain sufficient skill to work for a company that does. I recognise the warts (old boys networks, inheritors, incompetent politickers) but dont damn the creative process that leads to these things - nor who the real "set the ball rolling" wealth creators are.
: Well, capitalism, certainly in East Asia, has brought about a distinct decline of living standards, going from Msay, Mexican peasant life to the Slums of Mexico city is not exactly a move forwards.
Compare the millions in S Korea, Singapore etc who do have vastly increased life expectancy and less deaths per 1000 etc according to UN figures. Even faltering Mexico figures.
: the motor industry is in crisis, which owuld have knock-on effects to quite a few key related industries, banks would start to call in loans and look flighty, and suddenly teh whole system looks shaky.
Its always been about risk. Better to risk an increase in wealth than to stand still. The motor industry crisis is because people are not buying all the cars that get produced - the income they could be buying cars with is going elsewhere, and making growth industries elsewhere (in electronic goods, holidays etc). Squeeze the economic balloon in one spot and another expands. Serious bad news for carplant employees, but not a global cataclysm.
: Also, we move here into 'decline in the rate of profit' territory.
Competition and increasingly open communications and knowledge technology has squeezed profit margins. I thought you'd like that - less 'pocket lining' as % of invested capital.
: Except that no one can create a million dollars, no one can earn that much, if capitalists were paid wages, they would recieve much the same as the rest of us, that they do not, is simply down to their owning wealth, not creating it. Thats what the workers do...
The people I mentioned earlier as pioneers plus other workers (which includes "improve upon" researchers, innovative managers (if you can find them) etc). However I agree that a billionaires son, or worse in England some Fuedal land owners great great grandson could use wealth to buy a company and sit back. If thats a bad thing its a moral judgment/opinion of the person. The poor company janitor still gets the $10, he still doesnt loose.
: Yes, it happens, though its unlikely in much of Africa so long as the debt problem isn't sorted.
And you know my opinion of the debt creators, the politically driven world bank and IMF lending from tax payers in the west to incompetent or palin corrupt governments in poorer nations, completely ignoring those who could use the money. There is some organisation called "microloan" or something, who specifically lend to 3rd world business starters (mostly families) in tiny amounts, bypassing govt as far as I know. Sounds good, but Ive only heard of them.
: Well, conmsiering for the cake to exist Mr. poor cannot have a slice, emans we should try and find a different receipe.
Involving the 'horrors' of political freedom!