The "1%", Opinion?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2012 8:50 AM GMT
    I had an interesting thought. Suppose that the richest "1%" of people, the CEOs and top-level executives of the world's largest corporations and organizations, were indeed profiting for themselves at such an unprecedented and absurdly high level that it is to the detriment to everyone in society, those who work for those corporations and those who utilize their services or may need to utilize their services out of necessity.

    Wouldn't that amount to being a really sophisticated and convoluted form of terrorism? I use that word "terrorism" deliberately, because it is a form of manipulation and coercion to achieve both business and, perhaps, political goals through inspiring a subtle form of "terror": financial insecurity, hyperstratification of the socioeconomic classes, decreasing of economic mobility, fears of bankruptcy, foreclosure, insolvency, etc.

    Let me be clear: I believe in a meritocratic society. Those who work hard and succeed in creating/providing something, a good or service, should be rewarded accordingly. And I believe it should be proportional to how great the service or good is and at what level of difficulty it was to bring it about. I'm not saying CEOs don't deserve money for what they are fundamentally part of. But I speak in terms of a society where it could be exploited and abused enough to constitute a danger to the well-being of other people.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3271

    Aug 26, 2012 5:43 PM GMT
    Scotticus saidI had an interesting thought. Suppose that the richest "1%" of people, the CEOs and top-level executives of the world's largest corporations and organizations, were indeed profiting for themselves at such an unprecedented and absurdly high level that it is to the detriment to everyone in society, those who work for those corporations and those who utilize their services or may need to utilize their services out of necessity.

    Wouldn't that amount to being a really sophisticated and convoluted form of terrorism? I use that word "terrorism" deliberately, because it is a form of manipulation and coercion to achieve both business and, perhaps, political goals through inspiring a subtle form of "terror": financial insecurity, hyperstratification of the socioeconomic classes, decreasing of economic mobility, fears of bankruptcy, foreclosure, insolvency, etc.

    Let me be clear: I believe in a meritocratic society. Those who work hard and succeed in creating/providing something, a good or service, should be rewarded accordingly. And I believe it should be proportional to how great the service or good is and at what level of difficulty it was to bring it about. I'm not saying CEOs don't deserve money for what they are fundamentally part of. But I speak in terms of a society where it could be exploited and abused enough to constitute a danger to the well-being of other people.



    Yes, but one cannot wax philosophic on a computer/laptop/ipad about how the 1% practice "terrorism". Simply because likely without a integrated society that is based on capitalism many would not even be alive today with the same standards of living.

    Everything from modern medicine , roads highway, commodities ( foods/ goods) are based upon the need for others to pay for things they need and concentrate on one job or profession.

    In a agrarian society you do not get much past the personal farm stage and never invent the Ipad or the antibiotic that will help treat a disease. Without profit there is zero motivation to improve or innovate.

    You may have a point about certain industries / individuals that seem to act as parasites and contribute little or no value. However they do stabilize markets for the most part.

    Throwing the word "Terrorism" to color a argument in my opinion doesnt advance the conversation. Should we use the term for politicians that wont pass or even propose a budget?
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Aug 28, 2012 7:16 AM GMT
    Scotticus saidI had an interesting thought. Suppose that the richest "1%" of people, the CEOs and top-level executives of the world's largest corporations and organizations, were indeed profiting for themselves at such an unprecedented and absurdly high level that it is to the detriment to everyone in society, those who work for those corporations and those who utilize their services or may need to utilize their services out of necessity.

    Wouldn't that amount to being a really sophisticated and convoluted form of terrorism? I use that word "terrorism" deliberately, because it is a form of manipulation and coercion to achieve both business and, perhaps, political goals through inspiring a subtle form of "terror": financial insecurity, hyperstratification of the socioeconomic classes, decreasing of economic mobility, fears of bankruptcy, foreclosure, insolvency, etc.

    Let me be clear: I believe in a meritocratic society. Those who work hard and succeed in creating/providing something, a good or service, should be rewarded accordingly. And I believe it should be proportional to how great the service or good is and at what level of difficulty it was to bring it about. I'm not saying CEOs don't deserve money for what they are fundamentally part of. But I speak in terms of a society where it could be exploited and abused enough to constitute a danger to the well-being of other people.




    It's very hard to manipulate/exploit society without making use of the machine that is connected to every facet of it: government.

    Milton Friedman once said, "The government has no money, only people have money." And he couldn't be more right. Any dime that any government spends must be taken, directly or indirectly, from people outside the government (aka, the private sector). It then re allocates those moneys and presumably for the greater good of society. The flow of that money that was taken (via taxes, etc...) from the private sector is extremely hard to manipulate in a way that touches all parts of society unless you have control over it. There are plenty of crooked businessmen out there, but the only ones that get richer in the long run are also politicians.

    As for defining it as terrorism, I would say that it is certainly on the same moral plane, but f I were in the shoes of a crooked politician with massive business interests, I would say that terrorism falls very, very far out of my objectives. The goal would be to continue controlling that re-allocation process of now public money for as long a time period as possible, which would necessitate doing it as subtly and as consistently as possible. As far as I define terrorism (in the broad sense, and in the eyes of the stereotypical terrorist), the goal is literally to terrorize people. Not to kill [all of] them, but just to make sure that they are living in fear. Chances are if someone is living in fear of you, you're not living in fear of them, which allows you to be more specific in the organizational goals you choose to pursue.

    Now, since this indirect scalping of public funds is on the same moral plane, we need an equally vile description icon_razz.gif. How about leaches of opportunity?