The theory is that people who get rich invest their money in he economy to provide jobs and development. But businesses have found it worthwhile to take the money earned in the USA and invest it in development where labor is cheaper. So the cycle is broken.

Capitalism was never about prosperity for everyone. At best it promises opportunity for everyone, and it doesn't really even deliver that. Capitalism is about competition for the pusuit of wealth. Naturally, those that win in this competition are rewarded. One of the rewards is the power to continue to get more money. This "rule" of the competition won't change because the winners set the rules.

there will always be poor and starving somewhere--humans are designed for exponential reproduction, but as we reach carrying capacity of the land, people reproduce less/starve to death more, asymptotic to the carrying capacity.

Why would this give you or some government the right to take things away from people that either earned them or their families did.

Money needs to be earned. Free stuff and socialist-type redistribution leads to the survival--and prospering-- of the un-fittest.

note to all that I do not mean to say that everyone should be equal, But that the GAP between poor and rich must be reduced.

this is not survival, it is slavery. so you think slavery is good and the poor should die?

myparadigm, I just don't see how you can 'reduce' this gap without taking stuff from people that earned it. That's just not right. In communist countries, people stopped being productive, because when you earn something and it's taken away, why bother working. If you didn't work, you still got the same. why bother working? This caused mass starvation in the 1920's.

Next, I don't understand your use of the word "must". Why? I Do think the rich make to much, but I also believe the free market can even this out--I think that's what's happening with our economy now.

As for poor people dieing, I'm not saying that they Should die--in most modern cases they can just stop having kids or work harder to be not-as-poor--which narrows your gap--but in communism and through history, they did starve.

'Slavery' is having to work without getting to keep the reward. Seems to me that's what you've proposed.

Please note, I didn't design this system. This is just how it is. I see natural selection as God's system. Whether it applies to modern humans is an open question, but I Do want the best humans to make it to the future, whoever they are.

the best humans

the best humans. there is so much to say about this i dont know where to start, it blows my mind.
besides the moral factor of deciding who is better than another, and essentially handing the "lesser human" a death sentence, how are we to decide who is a better human? will it be based on kindness? generosity? selflessness? genetics? intelligence? strength? family tree? race? sex? age? or just how much money they have?
modern or not, has no relevance. if its not modern - the rich buy their land and destroy it, put children in shoe factories etc. in modern places we just feed a system of oppression and there is no way to escape. do you really think working harder makes any difference?

natural selection as God's system. I cant argue with this point, but money is designed by humanity.

taking stuff from people that earned it. why do we take money away from bank robbers, didnt they earn it? they worked hard to steal that money didnt they? perhaps invested in tools and hired help, risked their safety and freedom? do you think bill gates "earned" 50 billion dollars? i cant imagine anything that anyone could do to have earned such power, and it will only get worse as time goes on.

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.people dont earn wealth like this, they create a system that allows them to take it.

myparadigm, we take money away from bank robbers because they got it by breaking the law. Bill Gates did not get his money by breaking the law (to the best of my knowledge).

I agree that it would be great to find a way to spread the wealth around more evenly, but I don't think the "steal from the rich and give to the poor" method is the way. How would you decide you should lose money and who should get it? There is no way to really make it fair.

As for the "best humans" topic, asking who decides who is best is missing the point. Hrench was saying that natural selection should decide, not people. In fact, natural selection will ultimately decide regardless of whether it's morally right or not.

its like wealth is a medal for how devious you have been. am i really the only one who can see this? am i the only one who thinks it shouldnt be like this?

and am i the only one who thinks bill gates probably breaks the law on a regular basis? money = power, enough power and you are above the law - look at oj. hell, look at BUSH!

My Dear hrench, It will not take a high degree of investigation to discover the flaw(s) in your response to myparadigm. Firstly there is a presupposition that in “… form people that earned it…” the power elite “earned” their money and position by subterfuge, theft and devilish cunning, anf that my friend is what is “just not right”. Perhaps you are not acquainted with the concept of Common Weal or more recently known as common wealth a visit to http://www.hermes-press.com/NCdefinitions.htm * will remedy that.

The market you see as free in reality is a stacked deck and hardly free, except for the few.

“Slavery' is having to work without getting to keep the reward.” Quite true! And when the current economic meltdown is studied it is learned that earning saved are melting away with the public shouldering the burden of the Banksters.

“This is just how it is.” Oh contraire Mon Ami! That is un-just, how it is! And don’t even get me started on the misconceptions of God’s system! If it is truly your desire to be see the “best humans to make it in the future” I strongly suggest you study and study hard the works of Sir William Blackstone http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ Blackstone Start his treatise/ monograph on Natural or Gods law Enjoy!

THE ART of persuasion is and always perhaps been my least of skills. this life is dominated by groups , i fit not in them either. despite my skill and knowledge , creativity, forward thinking, i am lost.what reason would a worthless human give up his only group - the pyramid? even that shows his stupidity, for even if he were on top, he could never win.

There are other system that although are not placebos are workable Co-ops ala' Mondragon Spain and Emilia Romagna, Italy.http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htmhttp://www.commonground.ca/iss/0306143/coop.shtml

CommonwealthThe original phrase "common wealth" or "the common weal" is a calque 1 translation of the Latin term res publica ("public matters"), from which the word republic comes, which was itself used as a synonym for the Greek politeia as well as for the republican (i.e. non-monarchical) Roman constitution (in legal theory still in force during the empire).The English noun Commonwealth dates originally from the fifteenth century and in different contexts indicates:1. a political unit founded in law by agreement of the people for the common good2. a federated union of constituent states3. a republic4. a co-operative commonwealth is the ideal of a society based on cooperative and socialist principles.Historical Commonwealths• Great Britain: The Commonwealth of England was the official name of the political unit (de facto military rule in the name of parliamentary supremacy) that replaced the kingdoms of Scotland and England under the rule of Oliver Cromwell and his successors from 1649 to 1660. It formed the first republic in the English-speaking world, though this quickly devolved into a pseudo-monarchy.• Australia: Australia uses the official style: The Commonwealth of Australia. since the six Australian ex-colonies federated to form one dominion called the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.• United States: Four states in the United States officially designate themselves "commonwealths:" Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These states use the term "commonwealth" to emphasize that they have a "government based on the common consent of the people," instead of a government legitimized through their earlier Royal Colony status that was derived from the King of England.

_______________1 In linguistics, a calque [kælk] or loan translation (itself a calque of German Lehnübersetzung) is a phrase borrowed from another language by literal word-for-word translation. The word is also used as a verb: to calque means to loan translate from another language to create a new lexeme in the target language. A lexeme is an abstract unit of morphological analysis in linguistics, that roughly corresponds to a set of words that are "the same" in basic meaning. For example, the English word forms run, runs, ran and running are forms of the same lexeme. one only need think outside of the box http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Flatland/voyage_from_flatland.htm and gain an entirely different perspective

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

Myparadigm, awesome video! Thanks for the link. Great food for thought.

glad you liked it Dwane.

Wow. I checked out your website and I've got to say, there is a lot of non-sense propaganda there. I checked some of the links, and a lot of them are grossly misleading and inaccurate. I would have left comments on specific cases, but there is no e-mail or discussion provision on your page. I don't want to discuss it here as it is really inappropriate for this venue.