[Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08

[Sue Hovey]

Kai,

Your hypothesis is an interesting one and I suspect most people would agree. 
I notice that in at least one response to you someone mentioned the "Great 
Depression."  But that wasn't at all a redistribution of wealth and when it 
was over the haves still had the money, and not at all because they lost it 
then made it back.  Many of them took a big hit, but after it was all done 
they still had their estates, banks, businesses.

I think there is truth in what you say--at least in specific instances, but 
most "have nots" never make it to an even playing field because the economic 
laws that and policies that govern this nation are designed to protect the 
"haves."

Sue H
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
To: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; "'lfalen'" 
<lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08


> Human nature is human nature.
> Chances are, most of the "have nots" would blow their windfall purchasing
> things they could have never afforded before.
> Without thinking of the future, many people would blow right through it.
> Once gone, they would wind up selling many of the things they purchased
> because they didn't save any of it for neccesities.
> Many of the "haves" would see opportunities and try to make the most of
> their windfall, gaining wealth.
> It has nothing to do with the "worst" or "best" in humans. It's just the 
> way
> it is.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:51 AM
> To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
> <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>
>> Yes, of course I read it -- did you read the 6/30 The Nation issue Keely
>> mentioned in starting this topic?
>>
>> I disagree with the hypothetical conclusion in your hypothetical 
>> scenario.
>> I also don't agree with the inherent assumption of the worst of humans --
>> you sound almost Hobbesian.  Sorry for not making that clear.  To expand 
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>> I think the odds are good that in a wealth redistribution that some of 
>> the
>> "have nots" would cherish the change, manage the money well, and truly
>> remember from whence they came.  In a wealth redistribution, I think the
>> odds are good some of the previous "haves" would have no eye to the 
>> future
>> and would soon be penniless . . . and need assistance.
>>
>> The difference in my hypothetical scenario & yours is that there are so
>> many
>> more "have nots" than "haves" that the eventual distribution of the
>> redistribution would be better for the greater good and a net gain in
>> quality of life for more.  I'm not willing to assume the worst in a
>> hypothetical based on the self-serving historical behavior of some of the
>> "haves" and their failure to consider a common good and their fellow
>> countrymen.
>>
>> I like to think we'd have no need to redistribute wealth if we each 
>> helped
>> our sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons to
>> improve
>> their lots in life to the best of our abilities rather than just what we
>> think they deserve.  Nor would we likely need government safety nets for
>> so
>> many of our unfortunate were it not for the greed of the "haves."
>>
>> Altruistic Pollyanna is a name I'm far more comfortable wearing than 
>> Cynic
>> Assuming Greed Trumps Good.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kai Eiselein, Editor [mailto:editor at lataheagle.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:01 AM
>> To: Saundra Lund; 'lfalen'; 'keely emerinemix'; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>>
>> Did you or did you not read my hypothetical scenario?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
>> To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
>> <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
>>
>>> Kai wrote:
>>> "I would venture to hypothesize this:  If wealth were distributed 
>>> equally
>>> to
>>> every person, it would only be a matter of time before there would be 
>>> the
>>> "haves" and "have nots" once again."
>>>
>>> Good grief -- what do you mean "once again"?!?!  That's how things are
>>> now
>>
>>> .
>>> . . hello!
>>>
>>>
>>> Saundra Lund
>>> Moscow, ID
>>>
>>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to 
>>> do
>>> nothing.
>>> ~ Edmund Burke
>>>
>>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life
>>> plus
>>> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
>>> outside
>>> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>>> author.*****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Kai Eiselein
>> Editor, Latah Eagle
>>
>>
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>