: Rather than trawl through my million past posts I'll explain. I do care about my wealth, I do care about other people who lack such.
SDF: While at the same time you have nothing to say about impoverishment. What gives the impression that you don't care is that your ideal period of history was Victorian England, a time and place of great slum formation. How is it that there are millions who live in these slums, who have not enough to trade and not enough resources to use? The "free market" is not automatically going to give these millions something to trade.
: The two are not mutually exclusive. Im interested in why people dont rush to help (read my long ago post of on why people holiday sooner than give to charity, or my post on "help at any cost").
SDF: Maybe one of the main reasons is that if people are conditioned to believe in the "free market," they're likely to believe that charity is an unnecessary expense (given the sheer amount of charity that would be necessary to solve the social problems caused by the shrinkage of markets that accompanies the creation of slums) that would entail a competitive disadvantage.
So have you been to the slums of Sao Paulo to help those less fortunate? My guess is that you would be overwhelmed by the chaos.
: the difference in opinion is either practical (not for millions of years and who knows where we'll be then)
SDF: I guess if Bill had my number, I too would dismiss the evidence that humanity is now pressing global carrying capacity, out of hand, without examination.
: or quasi-philosophical (why would anyone with the gift of life live it with the sole goal being to make as smaller dent as possible on the universe)
SDF: So who holds that as his "sole goal"? All I've ever been arguing is that humanity would be happier and live longer if it made a SMALLER dent upon its planet.