BigRedBuster
Active member
I'm sorry I rain on your parade of crying about rich people. If you do the same with other groups, I will be sure to do the same when the comment makes no sense in reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Environment
- Thread starter Mierin
- Start date
ZRod
Active member
Mierin
Donor
That's never happened.
And just a week or 2 ago I said being rich doesn't make one an expert in the economy and your first reply was to complain about rich-people-hating. If you thought that comment was a generalization, you don't understand what the word means. A generlization would be if I said "no rich people understand economics."
I'm guessing you know that, but you've misunderstood at least half a dozen of my posts alone because any time someone mentions wealth or income you cease to read and understand what they are actually saying. Often times you jump to a conclusion based on words they didn't even type.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Active member
The original post I responded to in this thread on the subject was not yours. You can stop with the persecution syndrome at any time.
Danny Bateman
Donor
Let's just take a look at the big picture:
Do you agree that an average wealthy person would have more reason to oppose environmental regulations than an average poor person?
Do you agree that an average wealthy person would have more reason to oppose environmental regulations than an average poor person?
BigRedBuster
Active member
No
Danny Bateman
Donor
The logic there seems fairly sound to me.
What do you make of it, then? Is it just a lazy generalization of rich people on the part of those who would wage class warfare on them?
What do you make of it, then? Is it just a lazy generalization of rich people on the part of those who would wage class warfare on them?
BigRedBuster
Active member
I'm not going to use the term "class warfare" because it would spark a whole other debate.
I just think it's a misplaced over generalization of a group of people that, when said, decreases the ability to have a meaningful discussion and promotes a steroid type that isn't really true.
If I said that poor black women are nothing but a bunch of welfare moms the are lazy, would you jump all over me about that statement? If not, you should.
I could point out that more black people are on welfare and there are more single black moms than white, would that make my statement more valid? No.
If a regulation affects me negatively, (real or perceived) im going to tend to think negatively about the regulation no matter if I'm a billionaire or poor.
I just think it's a misplaced over generalization of a group of people that, when said, decreases the ability to have a meaningful discussion and promotes a steroid type that isn't really true.
If I said that poor black women are nothing but a bunch of welfare moms the are lazy, would you jump all over me about that statement? If not, you should.
I could point out that more black people are on welfare and there are more single black moms than white, would that make my statement more valid? No.
If a regulation affects me negatively, (real or perceived) im going to tend to think negatively about the regulation no matter if I'm a billionaire or poor.
ZRod
Active member
Yes, it's lazy. Bill gates cares about the enviornment. The Johnson and Johnson family cares about the emviornment. Mark Cuban cares about the enviornment...
I would agree that on average wealthy people in "dirty" industries have more reason to oppose enviornmental regs. But not wealthy people on the whole.
Danny Bateman
Donor
My point was that wealthy people have the resources to invest and/or collect on gains from industries that stand to gain if environmental regulations fall.
Disclaimer about folks that work in those industries that BRB listed above aside, poorer folks have no such analogue.
Disclaimer about folks that work in those industries that BRB listed above aside, poorer folks have no such analogue.
zoogs
New member
Yeah, I still don't agree that the average rich person doesn't have more financial incentive than the average poor person to oppose policy such as this.
It's fairly simple; America's tax system is progressive and these types of policies aim to impose costs progressively. There are qualifiers and other factors at play but that shouldn't obfuscate the point overall.
It's fairly simple; America's tax system is progressive and these types of policies aim to impose costs progressively. There are qualifiers and other factors at play but that shouldn't obfuscate the point overall.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Active member
Why would the CEO of a coal mining company be more inclined to "hate the earth and all it's inhabitants" than the coal miner at the bottom of the shaft?
Danny Bateman
Donor
That's a dramatic way of putting it, but the answer isn't that hard. He's going to make boatloads more money than the miner if regulations fall and coal sees a boon.
Landlord
Banned
Kiyoat Husker
New member
I think that if we are talking about people and organizations having an "environmental ethic", it is similar to having a "social ethic" or any other kind of altruism.
Some people (and businesses) will choose to generously volunteer time and money regardless of income, and some won't. This can have serious consequences for low-income and middle-income families. The money and time they invest in others affects their ability to secure their futures, and climb the social ladder, but they give anyway. As an example, think of a small local business that does not generate huge profits, but still helps support and sponsor community programs.
For some people, (and businesses) they will take every single advantage and loophole legally allowed in order to better themselves at the expense of others. Really, that's encouraged in American Culture. We are a culture of laws and legal controls, rather than social control. In other words- if it isn't illegal, it isn't wrong. It's the principle of personal freedom. Sometimes that principle is good, sometimes not.
What it leads to, eventually, is a system where altruism must be regulated by government. And local, state, and national governments do have the responsibility and authority to protect the "common good" of the general public. This includes protecting the water, air, and environment. Otherwise, those that choose to be selfish and not care about their neighbors' and communities' welfare are free to just hoard money, power and influence. After all, they have the right.
Some people (and businesses) will choose to generously volunteer time and money regardless of income, and some won't. This can have serious consequences for low-income and middle-income families. The money and time they invest in others affects their ability to secure their futures, and climb the social ladder, but they give anyway. As an example, think of a small local business that does not generate huge profits, but still helps support and sponsor community programs.
For some people, (and businesses) they will take every single advantage and loophole legally allowed in order to better themselves at the expense of others. Really, that's encouraged in American Culture. We are a culture of laws and legal controls, rather than social control. In other words- if it isn't illegal, it isn't wrong. It's the principle of personal freedom. Sometimes that principle is good, sometimes not.
What it leads to, eventually, is a system where altruism must be regulated by government. And local, state, and national governments do have the responsibility and authority to protect the "common good" of the general public. This includes protecting the water, air, and environment. Otherwise, those that choose to be selfish and not care about their neighbors' and communities' welfare are free to just hoard money, power and influence. After all, they have the right.
Last edited by a moderator: