Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

by SecondRateMind 226 Replies latest jw friends

  • gone for good
    gone for good

    I don´t agree that 2RM has hosted " ..a train wreck" at all.

    I now live in a country that has lots of truly poor people ( tin/wood shacks, no electricity, no school for those who can´t afford uniforms etc. etc..)

    I first thought "just lazy" now I know better. The roosters crow about 4:30 AM and the poor get busy -hustling, gathering, peddling, chopping, carrying, scrounging...

    Shocking to learn that one lady who calls around with her (delicious) doughnuts is raising six lovely children. These folks work long and hard in a democracy run by fat-cat corruptos .

    2RM has proposed irrespective financial equality which is way too much, but there is surely a need for redistribution of excesses that seem so great that "immoral" may well apply, as the OP suggested.

    Maybe some of the vitriolic commentors might offer appropriate amendments rather than condemnation.

    My suggestion - educate, educate, educate

  • Vanderhoven7

    The $16,000 figure for an equitable level of annual income is derived from the wikipedia estimate of Gross World Production at approx $126 trillion for 2017.

    $16,000 whole dollars every year. Wow!!!

    Who will have enough money to invest in new business... And who would want to?

    As was said; capitalism is hoarding the wealth, forced sharing of wealth leads to poverty.

  • _Morpheus
    I know nothing about business. I’ve been told that by boards of directors and professional managers with business degrees.

    im sure you dont see the irony.

  • Splash

    Once you strip the captains of industry and philanthropist billionaires of their capital, who steps in to give their 10,000's of employees jobs, and who furthers their good causes which give hope to other 10,000's?

    Take billions of dollars from pharma companies, and who then will be able to invest in medical R&D.

    If 2RM had their way, that $16k per year would crash year on year as the Gross World Production drops off a cliff and we return to the middle ages.

    Lower gross productivity = lower tax revenues unless the tax %ge increased to compensate. If you want to live in an impoverished country then go for it, I'd rather live in one where they can afford waste disposal, police, good roads, etc.

    Dubstepped good luck with your business, it's clear that you don't live in a fantasy world!

  • LongHairGal


    I totally agree with your posts.

    While it is sad that there would probably always be poor people somewhere - what the original poster proposes (by whatever name you call it) would certainly end up being an utter failure for the world and we would, for sure, ultimately end up back in the Middle Ages or worse.

  • cofty
    for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus, and try to save them from the consequences of their avarice - SRM

    So SRM is holding up Jesus as the source of goodness - the same Jesus who, according to SRM, will torment those who remain unconvinced about his goodness in the fires of Hell for all eternity.

    Your Jesus is beneath my contempt.

  • Vidiot
    "...For those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus..."

    Yeah... not feelin' a whole lot of pity.


  • hoser


    I think you need to learn to better manage marginal employees.

  • Xanthippe

    Buttons pushed, anger and mayhem created, mission accomplished. Too easy for someone who's been observing this forum for four years.

  • SecondRateMind

    So, dubstepped, I have just returned from the local hostelry, where I spent a pleasant hour over a pint of warm english real ale, ruminating on what I might do in your predicament. Before I say anything else at all, I must commend you for your enterprise, and hope that, whatever you do, it returns you a just reward.

    The first thing I notice is that if you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys. Often these monkeys are not really monkeys at all, but just consider themselves exploited. And, working unsocial hours for minimal pay, who can really blame them?

    The next thing I notice is that one either competes on price, or one competes on quality. If one competes on price, one needs a large volume of sales to earn a decent return. If one competes on quality, one needs fewer sales, but to offer a better service.

    So, I would tend to put it my customers, current and prospective, that the reason I charge (say) three times as much as the competition, is because I pay my staff (say) twice as much. And they all own a share of the business. That way, I can say, I can be sure of recruiting and retaining the most diligent, the most loyal, the most committed people available, the consequence of which is that they get the most dependable, reliable, conscientious service.

    To be sure, you might lose some customers, with this strategy. But those you keep will be on board for the best reasons, and less likely to cancel contracts when a (slightly) cheaper offering is made by the competition. All you need, to sell quality, is a good story to tell, and a persuasive salesman to tell it.

    My business consultancy rates are $0.00 per hour. So you can ignore me, and it won't have cost you a dime. All I ask is, that if you do proceed along these kind of lines, and it works for you, you make a small donation to Oxfam, as you see fit.

    Best wishes, 2RM.

Share this