Artful Dodger:
I have heard no one from OWS state anything of the kind.
If you're paraphrasing, it's blatantly inaccurate.
If anyone thinks that the income disparity is the result of laziness on those who feel they don't have enough, that too is untrue. The idea that the rich are wealthy because of hard work is true, but it's the hard work of the employees that has made them wealthy rather than their own hard work alone.
It isn't unreasonable for workers to want or demand a fair wage for their hard work.

Dark Prince:

> The idea that the rich are wealthy because of hard work is true, but it's the hard work of the employees that has made them wealthy rather than their own hard work alone.

The rich do work hard at one thing: their golf swing!

Of course, it takes hard to work to keep one's mistresses happy. I am sure marrying playboy bunnies is hard work too.

Übergeek 바둑이: They can afford to work on their golf swing. They employ 100s of people who otherwise might not have a job were it not for that rich person who took risks and started a business.

I know people who work for such rich bosses. They make a decent living wage plus benefits. I know at least one multi millionaire who started a trucking business here, and a landscaping business, and a coffee shop. He employs over 50 people. He doesn't golf. He does take frequent trips to Honduras and uses his money to help build churches and homes and wells.

You have stereotyped people with money, lumped them all into the same pot, made a caricature of them, and then made fun of the invention in your small mind.

Artful Dodger:
I'm glad no one else is stereotyping anyone.
I'm certainly pleased the republicans avoid doing so.
Of course there are good employers that care about their employees and pay them according to the work they do. No need to stereotype employers by saying they all do that. It is they who do not that OWS is upset about and the political climate in which policies encourage unfair exploitation of workers and markets.

Artful Dodger:

> They can afford to work on their golf swing.

Of course, you realize I am being silly. I am sure the rich do more than work on their golf swing. Some work on their tennis forehand too!

> They employ 100s of people who otherwise might not have a job were it not for that
> rich person who took risks and started a business.

Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it.

> I know people who work for such rich bosses. They make a decent living wage plus
> benefits. I know at least one multi millionaire who started a trucking business here,
> and a landscaping business, and a coffee shop. He employs over 50 people. He
> doesn't golf. He does take frequent trips to Honduras and uses his money to help
> build churches and homes and wells.

I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are.

Many poor people work very hard. They take care of their families, help others, do what is right, etc. Some poor people fall through the cracks. They fall into crime, drugs, and other terrible things. There are good and bad people among the poor.

Likewise, there are good and bad people among the rich. Some create jobs, help others with their money, take care of their families and do good things for their community.

Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc.

We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks.

Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide.

> You have stereotyped people with money, lumped them all into the same pot, made a
> caricature of them, and then made fun of the invention in your small mind.

The truth is that both views are caricature. The rich penny-pincher miser who cares only about profit and has no regard for other is a caricature. So is the godly rich man who opens his purse and showers the poor with money.

Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist.

Of course, this is an extreme example. The point is, the rich do good sometimes, and they do terrible things for money too. Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world. Capitalists don't like to admit it because admitting wrongdoing implies that something has to be done to fix things. It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong.

Übergeek 바둑이: You may joke about the rich playing golf but one has to wonder why, when trying to make a serious point, you resort to a sarcastic remark. The middle class play tennis too. So what? It's a meaningless statement and doesn't advance the discussion.

"Some rich people also took risks, opened a business and got rich by exploiting hundreds of people in their companies. It is not all about idealizing capitalism. Reality is never quite as nice as ideology paints it."

Some. so what? How exactly does the "some" have any significance when discussing the whole?

"I know another businessman like that. He owns a paving company here. He employs hundreds, runs a professional soccer team, and also finds the time to help others. Not everyone is a ruthless predator. The truth is that it is a mixed bag because the rich are as prone to the failings of human nature as the poor are."

This is not the narrative that is being pushed. The narrative is that all rich people should pay more, give more, because they "owe it to society." Meanwhile, what about those that have less? Shouldn't they do more too (as opposed to contributing nothing except to act as leeches sucking off the benefits of the hard work of others)

"Then there are those who would do anything to make more money. Ponzi schemes, big organized crime, exploiting and abusing others. subverting governments, corrupting politicians and law enforcement personnel, etc."

That's not news to anyone. It's these people who need to be opposed, not the rich as a class of people.

"We hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spending billions in charitable work. Then we hear of Bernie Madoff and other crooks."

So we applaud Bill Gates and put the Madoffs in jail. It works that way with all classes, or should.

"Some rich people go so far as to resort to murder to make a profit. For example, there is now big problems with a Canadian-owned gold mine in Guatemala where the company sent armed crooks to force peasants out of their land so that he mine could extract the gold. They killed several local activists that wanted the mine to stop polluting the local river water because people in nearby villages are developing cancer and other diseases. We have cases like the Bopal disaster in India. It has been 27 years and people in India are still trying to get compensation from Union Carbide."

Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left.

"Reality is somewhere in between because we as human beings are full of contradictions. The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He became the world's first billionaire and gave millions to charity. He helped many poor people with all the money he made through his Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). At the same time, he gave millions of dollars to the Nazis and supplied the Nazis with the fuel and patents to power their war planes. Rockefeller also gave a lot of money to Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain. Rockefeller did these things because he hated communism and believed in eugenics. Rockefeller had a reputation for honesty and kindness, and also a reputation as a fascist."

Rockefeller is an exceptional case. And he is not an example to apply to the whole. It's cherry picking. You can come up with bad examples, I can come up with good. So what? How do any of these example apply to the bigger question?

"Unfortunately, capitalism has done more harm than good around the world."

Wrong. Capitalism hase brought more prosperity to the world than any other system. People who have exploited the system have done harm. But you have far more harm being done in a communist system than in capitalism.

" It is always easier to hide behind ideology than to admit that profitting though human suffering is wrong."

This can be said of any system. Again, people doing evil things. But for you as an atheist, isn't it difficult for you to justify the standard you are demanding? On what basis do you say a man can't exploit the weakness of others? Who says? Society? The world? By what authority do they say that? At the point of the gun? Then it boils down to who has the biggest gun. If there is no objective right or wrong, only a subjective one, then morals and ethics are up for grabs. Who says what Rockefeller did was wrong? YOu?? Who are you to make that claim? Why is it wrong to support a cause you beieve in? Who determines the value of any cause? Is exploiting the poor wrong just because you don't like it or is there a higher value at play? If so, what is it?

Artful Dodger:
Politics (Artful Dodger, 2011-10-31 06:01:32)
Who established the rule that humor or sarcasm is inappropriate when a serious issue is being discussed or debated?

Artful Dodger:
"Of course they do. There are evil people in the world. These people need to be exposed and dealt with. But that is NOT what's being advoated by the left."

That's precisely what is being advocated. It isn't restricted to "evil people" though. A political climate that allows and even encourages lowering wages and restricting worker rights while rewarding the largest corporations leads to these unethical behaviors with little if any accountability.
Demanding that the wealthiest pay their fair share in a progressive tax system is NOT class warfare. Suppressing the workers and removing their rights to negotiate is class warfare.
Corporations should exist and their executives paid for the betterment of society rather than just for themselves.
Otherwise, those corporations must be dismantled and their executives punished.
Make no mistake, that is not a statement to suggest that corporations are bad. Additionally, no corporation should be permitted to become so large that its failure creates the upheaval that we have witnessed recently.
They should not be allowed to employ predatory practices that eliminate competition and bury local small businesses.
Legislating effective regulations with the power to enforce them is the way to stop this rape of the greatest resource of the economy--the working class.