Notre Dame is burning - aka capitalism/wealth distribution discussion.

[Morkonan]

And, the ones who are refusing the tax-credit? They're treating it as a cash-grab, too?

And who would those be?
I googled it and found two prominent examples. . . . both of whom are in fact simply ineligible because they have already hit their limit for tax deductions this year.
But yes, I suppose there might be some capitalists out there for whom this would be TOO comicbook villian-like even for them.

So...

They've already hit their limit in deductions? So, either they lost a bunch of money or they donated a bunch of money already.

If there is just one righteous rich person, will you spare them? Just one.

[Mightysword]

So let me ask a simple question: you would prefer these people not to donating "anything" at all?

I'm willingly to bet that if that is the case, then there are going to be some people out there yelling that "THE RICH IS SELFISH AND NOT CHARITABLE".

[Usenko]

If I may be a little blunt, I think at least part of the REAL issue behind the upset for many people is:

"These people are donating to causes that I don't approve of, and I don't like it."

[Bishop149]

So let me ask a simple question: you would prefer these people not to donating "anything" at all?

Do you honestly not understand the economic difference between me donating £20 and billionaire donating £200M?
This is not an issue that can be boiled down to a black and white answer.

Nevertheless, to attempt to answer your question with the nuance it deserves:
I would prefer that such obscene wealth did not exist and this was a question that therefore didn't require asking.
I would prefer that charitable donations could safely be assumed to be motivated by altruism rather than it's exact opposite due to the built in inequalities of capitalist economics.

[Mightysword]

Do you honestly not understand the economic difference between me donating £20 and billionaire donating £200M?
This is not an issue that can be boiled down to a black and white answer.

Nevertheless, to attempt to answer your question with the nuance it deserves:
I would prefer that such obscene wealth did not exist and this was a question that therefore didn't require asking.
I would prefer that charitable donations could safely be assumed to be motivated by altruism rather than it's exact opposite due to the built in inequalities of capitalist economics.

In another word, this is all about you and not about those in need isn't it?

I don't know what is this "difference" you are referring to between a $20 and a 200M, but let's me tell you one difference that I know: that $200M - no matter what is the intend behind it - will help a lot more of the people in need than the $20 can. As someone who can only afford to donate $20, I know that $200M will go a lot farther reaching the people in need, and in the context of charity that's the most important things matter for me.

I expect nothing less for an answer really, after all I had stood many time against this kind of thinking. Instead of typing it out again I'll just copy and paste my latest from a few months back:

... I think there are 4 types of people involved in the Charity circle:

- Type 1: the people who are in need. They desperate, they look for comfort and sign of hope. And when you provide their next meal and a piece of clothe, they'll say thank you and god bless you. Rarely would they ask what is your motive or where the stuffs you gave them came from.
- Type 2: the "charity is from the heart" people. They do charity work for the shake of charity, and they know full well there will always be more of those in need then those who give. That's why they welcome any help they can get (as long as you don't rop a bank to donate), but because they believe charity is from the heart, most don't turn it into a hard obligation. That's where the "give as much or as little as you want, even one dollar will help" slogan at most charity work comes from.
- Type 3: the people do charity with ulterior motive. Usually the big players, but they may no tnecessary giving to help. Doesn't change the fact their donation will help as much as those from type 2 though.
- Type 4: and here is what I call the Kool-Aid people. Some does a bit of charity themselves, some often does nothing. But they are the one who walk around with a loud speaker, on one hand will say "YOU EARN A LOT SO YOU CAN GIVE A LOT MORE, WHAT YOU'RE DONATING IS NOT ENOUGH!!!", and on the other hand they will say "YOU ONLY GIVE THIS MUCH TO AVOID TAX, OR TO BUY FAME, YOUR CHARITY DOES NOT COUNT SHAME ON YOU!"

And I can assure you, even though we all have different background and circumstance, most of the Type 1, 2, and 3 tend to look at Type 4 and wonder "what the **** is your problem?". See, when the type 4 make these arguments, they don't make it for the shake of the people in need, they make it for their own ego. It's the samething for the this situation though, I don't remember a lot of people were trying to make a case on behalf of those who suffered ...

Try to approach an argument and not making it about you sometime, it'll help, and it's called perspective.

[Bishop149]

In another word, this is all about you and not about those in need isn't it?
I expect nothing less for an answer really, after all I had stood many time against this kind of thinking. Instead of typing it out again I'll just copy and paste my latest from a few months back:

There would be considerable less "people in need" if it weren't for the obscene wealth inequality generated by late stage capitalism.
And no I'm not going to forgive or accept a corrupt system designed to generate wealth inequality just because it oh so very occasionally spits out a largely inconsequential redress to that inequality as unintentional side effect.
This is because to do so would do infinitely more harm than if every billionaire immediately ceased all charitable activity, which I would suggest to you would have almost no noticeable effect on society whatsoever.

I can't quite believe I have to say this because it's literally self-evident if you even have a passing familiarity with a dictionary . . . . but as it would appear to be a concept you're struggling with:
Altruism motivated by self-interest isn't altruism. That's why it "doesn't count" shouldn't be given the slightest credit and is worthy of derision.

I've stated my opinion in regard to how the rest of us plebs should treat the ultrawealthy here more than once, however I will now both encapsulate it in a pithy saying whilst simultaneously quoting Captain Jack Sparrow:

"Take what you can, give nothing back*"
*including credit for anything

[Alan Phipps]

Wasn't the original building of national heritage cathedrals and such iconic buildings sponsored by the very rich and powerful of those times as gestures towards the lasting memory of their lineages and orders? That largesse was mainly funded through tithe and tax burdens upon the less affluent population too.

[Bishop149]

Wasn't the original building of national heritage cathedrals and such iconic buildings sponsored by the very rich and powerful of those times as gestures towards the lasting memory of their lineages and orders?

Yes, that and as ways to try and bribe their way into heaven. They presumably skipped over the whole camel / eye of a needle thing.

[Mightysword]

I can't quite believe I have to say this because it's literally self-evident if you even have a passing familiarity with a dictionary . . . . but as it would appear to be a concept you're struggling with:
Altruism motivated by self-interest isn't altruism. That's why it "doesn't count" shouldn't be given the slightest credit and is worthy of derision.

I believe this come up before recently between you and others (me included): you care too much for the dictionary.

One of the thing that slightly annoys me with the charities I donated is they sent me an "appreciation" email once a year. Now it's fine if it's just words, but they also want to send me a "token", like T-shirt, or a mug ...w/e. I ignore those email because "I don't donate to get your T-shirt." But that's me, when I see someone else on the street with that T-shirt, I don't make a face like "what, are you flaunting and let people know you're charitable?" I actually am happy, because it signifies to me that more help were given those those who needs help. My feeling is not channeling at the person wearing the T-shirt, but at what the T-shirt means. I think some people just prefer to "channel" their energy into the negative side because we live in an age that are addicted to anger. There is an old wisdom of "making the best out of the worst situation". These day people like to do the exact opposite.

You have a problem because you are trying to answer the questions such as "who should get the credit" or "who deserves the credit". Someone like me don't even care about the question in the first place. We don't care about getting the credit, but neither we care about who deserve or should have the credit, the only question matter to me in charity: do we have enough help to give to all those who needs help. And like I said above in the previous quote, it's never enough help.

I won't even try argue about your "it's all the rich's fault!" argument. Not only because it's not relevant, it's also pointless. It can be an earthquake and resulting tsunami with thousand of death, and you will still find some "type 4" attacking the "rich" donators. To borrow an old meme, there are 3 constants in life: death, tax, and the rich getting attacked for doing charity.

And this is the last thing I gonna say this topic, like I said it's a sad things you can expect this argument pop up every time there is a large scale donation/charity afford pop up. You accuse the rich as opportunist taking advantage of tragedy to benefit themselves. FINE, let's go with that. But also look at yourself and see what YOU are doing. Aren't you also borrowing the platform to promote your own political agenda? Are you really better than the people you accuse for being vultures circling a corpse? Of course you are, at least that's what you tell yourself inside your mind. After all, people are always happy to do the same thing they accuse others for doing, because they always believe they alone have all the necessary justification to do it while their opponent have none.

[Morkonan]

Wasn't the original building of national heritage cathedrals and such iconic buildings sponsored by the very rich and powerful of those times as gestures towards the lasting memory of their lineages and orders? That largesse was mainly funded through tithe and tax burdens upon the less affluent population too.

Yes/No/Other/Sometimes

(PDF)Financing Cathedral Building in the Middle Ages: The Generosity of the Faithful

...Several conclusions emerge from his study. One is that construction projects were never funded by any single source, or even a handful of them. The bishops and cathedral chapters responsible for paying the bills drew on every imaginable source of funds they could identify. The list includes gifts from founding bishops and cathedral chapters responsible for paying the bills; initiation fees charged canons for becoming chapter members; fines levied [End Page 769] against them for violating chapter rules; gifts from popes, kings, and other secular rulers; tithes levied against parish churches within the jurisdiction of the bishopric in question; sales of indulgences; gifts given by pilgrims visiting the shrines of saints housed by the cathedral; profits from fairs held in connection with major feast days; loans; and other sundry sources of income. Vroom shows how the circumstance of each cathedral dictated the pattern of its financing and in turn affected the scope of the design that was affordable and the pace of work to implement it....

So, it's not so easy to attribute the majority of funding to one kind of source. It's the sort of sum-total you'd see as "income" from a multinational corporation with concerns across an entire spectrum of industries and that "owns" a unique intellectual property that is widely sought after. It's the Middle-Ages version of "Disney."

It is true, though, that there could be prominent donors who gave funds or monies donated for certain portions of the constructions. One thing about cathedrals in the Middle Ages and before: They were huge money-makers and a focal point of an entire region. Much like prominent castles, they drew in a collection of cottage industries around them. So, in a sense, they were a pretty big economic investment. The one shortfall, bane of kings and princes - Taxing "The Church" was frowned upon... For their support and financing, though they couldn't collect taxes (some times..) they'd get other benefits. Kind of nice to have "The Church" supporting your rule and talking you up to your citizenry and threatening your Dukes with excommunication if they dared rebel... One hand washes the other.

PS - These are a wonderful series of books on the "life" experienced in Medieval Times/Middle-Ages - Joseph and Frances Giels "Life in a Medieval Castle" (And other works in that theme) It's friggin' awesome stuff if you're interested in these periods. Can't say enough good things about them.

[Masterbagger]

There would be considerable less "people in need" if it weren't for the obscene wealth inequality generated by late stage capitalism.
And no I'm not going to forgive or accept a corrupt system designed to generate wealth inequality just because it oh so very occasionally spits out a largely inconsequential redress to that inequality as unintentional side effect.
This is because to do so would do infinitely more harm than if every billionaire immediately ceased all charitable activity, which I would suggest to you would have almost no noticeable effect on society whatsoever.

Here is a little something to think on.

https://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/ ... lear-lake/

I'm not going to change your mind here. I just think you should realize what an astounding abundance of luxury exists because of capitalism. Maybe you don't like it and maybe it isn't perfect. It is still the best system we have devised. It is better than standing in line for bread or toilet paper and eating cats and dogs.

[BugMeister]

wow, I'll remember that next time I'm standing in the queue at the checkout ..
- with a trolley-full of toilet-paper, bread and kit-kats, while chewing on a hot dog..

- what plastic fantastic nonsense..

[Chips]

I would prefer that charitable donations could safely be assumed to be motivated by altruism rather than it's exact opposite due to the built in inequalities of capitalist economics.

I'm sure you would. But who is questioning the intent and motive of the rich? It isn't the donators, it's the others... its you. It has been said, there's no tax benefit for them in this and yet still the question is "are they donating because it gives them a tax break?"

Lets be clear, whether it is a tax break or not... what it is, is -200M. Whether that's in tax or charity, it's 200M. It doesn't matter if it's not given to charity, they pay 200M tax. If they give it to charity, they don't pay that amount of tax.

At the end of it, they've paid 200M. To a charity or a Government.

The ONLY benefit people hark on about is "make yourself look good". Erm, okay.







But we all benefit from the same tax break you know?? It's not a tax limited to the rich.

There would be considerable less "people in need" if it weren't for the obscene wealth inequality generated by late stage capitalism

When did capitalism come into existence, and was their no wealth inequality before that time?

Did wealth inequality not exist in Communist countries?

[Bishop149]

I'm sure you would. But who is questioning the intent and motive of the rich? It isn't the donators, it's the others... its you. It has been said, there's no tax benefit for them in this and yet still the question is "are they donating because it gives them a tax break?"

Lets be clear, whether it is a tax break or not... what it is, is -200M. Whether that's in tax or charity, it's 200M. It doesn't matter if it's not given to charity, they pay 200M tax. If they give it to charity, they don't pay that amount of tax.

At the end of it, they've paid 200M. To a charity or a Government.

The ONLY benefit people hark on about is "make yourself look good". Erm, okay.

You know what, I'm going to do that rarest of rare things here and backslide a bit.
I'll admit that this problem is not actually half as bad as I thought.
I've looked into it in some detail and whilst there are certainly many ways in which the rich can leverage charitable donations in order to save themselves money it's generally just tinkering around the edges of the larger problem.
Charitable tax deductions appear to act primarily as a buffer to the far more aggressive ways in which the rich avoid tax.
To vastly simplify how it appears to function is essentially:
- "Oh crap, we've made a slight miscalculation in our tax avoidance efforts and you have slightly more money than is optimal (might push you over a threshold) . . . . quick give it way!"
This obviously a selfish motivation, but the cost / benefits to it in most cases are fairly marginal (in the grand scheme of things) and it's far from the biggest issue in the system that needs addressing, so I have perhaps over egged the argument slightly.

However I still think we should be wary of the optics and remember that headlines and PR machines that read
- "Rich guy gives £200M to charity"
would more accurately read
- "Rich guy gives £80M to charity subsidised by a further £120M from the taxpayer"

And of course and criticism of the overarching system that enables all this BS remains 100% valid.
Which leads nicely on to. . .

Did wealth inequality not exist in Communist countries?

By definition it wouldn't . . . or at least not to any kind of extreme. That is after all the whole idea behind the proletariat controlling the means of production . . . to make it extremely difficult for the production resulting from labour to become too far removed from those doing the labour.

But your use of the past tense rather than the subjunctive indicates this isn't what your referring to.
You are referring to the various countries both past and present that like to call themselves "Communist" but that operate a capitalist economy (as many of them would freely admit) . . . . . the idea behind most of these was to transition to something else more in line with Communism but of course this has never happened and the end results are instead some mere variation upon the start point, usually with an emphasis on the authoritarian. I'd have thought this would be common knowledge by now, I mean do people actually still believe that China or DPRK are communist states? Just because that's how they like to style themselves? Really?

When did capitalism come into existence, and was their no wealth inequality before that time?

Ah, now this is the interesting question! The origins of Capitalism and why it dominates the world so completely, this it is a ongoing and rather contentious debate among historians and economists.
One thing is certain, however, there has never been an industrialised economy (and arguably no economy at all, but this is one of those contentions) based on anything other than capitalism so points of comparison are non-existent. This makes it rather hard to dissect causes from effect.
The two core arguments most often presented on this topic are to be found in the following books. If you haven't already, go and read them. IMO they both should be required reading in every secondary school
1) The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith
2) Das Kapital - Marx

IMO both make valid arguments and to some degree and two sides of the same coin (the coin being humanity), but Smith a) more than a little naive and b) his core argument is rather chicken and egg . . . . although to his credit his later works provide some more nuanced insight. As should be pretty apparent I personally lean more towards Marx, critically I think he had a far better grasp of both the historical and contemporary context at the time, more emotionally I find Smith's ideas rather depressing . . . . at least with Marx we might hope that a better world might at least be somewhat possible.

[Alan Phipps]

Hmm, didn't this thread use to be about Notre Dame?

Here's some recent drone footage of the damage if anyone is interested.

[Chips]

However I still think we should be wary of the optics and remember that headlines and PR machines that read
- "Rich guy gives £200M to charity"
would more accurately read
- "Rich guy gives £80M to charity subsidised by a further £120M from the taxpayer"

Your figures are quite off...

Sue is a 40% taxpayer and donates £1,000 to charity.
The charity claims back basic rate tax of 20% from HMRC. That’s 25p for every £1 donated so the charity claims £250, making Sue’s gross donation £1,250.
Sue can claim the difference between her 40% rate of tax and the basic rate of tax of 20% claimed by the charity on her gross donation.
That’s a 20% difference. So, Sue claims 20% of £1,250 – a total of £250 – from HMRC.
If Sue was an additional rate taxpayer – paying 45% on her income – she would be able to claim the difference between her 45% rate of tax and the basic rate of tax at 20% claimed by the charity on her gross donation.
That would be a 25% difference. So Sue would claim 25% of £1,250 – a total of £312.50 – from HMRC.

There is no "subsidising" by the tax payer. Essentially the money they donated became tax free. Okay, you will view that as "money paid by treasury" rather than "no tax collected on charitable donations".
However, a little research:

https://www.ft.com/content/0797b95c-083 ... 0ad2d7c5b5

Earlier research by Prof Scharf and others found many higher-rate donors do not claim the rebate. That was mostly because they were not aware they could claim it back, but also because it took too much time and effort. However the latest research suggests that tax relief is often not a big motivator, even for people who claim relief back on their tax return.

The whole point is to encourage charitable behaviour - and that doesn't mean tax dodging, but encouraging people to think charitably, act towards those with less fortune or to enrich the lives of all. They also feel good about it, instead of begrudging it (see how the "public" views "benefits scroungers")

A rich person left a Ferrari to the RNLI. They sold it, it funded a life boat (and perhaps a bit more). You could argue the Government lost out on 2-3 million in tax. Or you could view it that the Government lost nothing, and a charity gained vital life saving hardware.

Would removing the rebate make any difference? I don't know, they caution against it - but then charities would, wouldn't they...

But as said, the most interesting is how others view charitable behaviour. It's charitable behaviour... unless you're rich. Then it's suddenly a selfish act to defraud the rest of us from tax. Crikey.

Meanwhile, the work charities do may well be instead of the Government doing it; they provide services that the Government doesn't then have to pay for. So... is it really defrauding the Government? Is it really doing us all out of a bit more money? Or is it freeing us up a bit instead and getting right to the heart of something without an additional level of Government oversight and accounting. After all, people grumble about paying tax... but getting them their money to a charity makes them feel GOOD instead, while achieving the same end goal!

And that is magic

[pjknibbs]

The way I see it is: let's say it cost X billion to rebuild Notre Dame. They've already decided that money will be spent on that purpose. If they had *no* rich people donations at all, then all of that X billion would be coming from the taxpayer, so even if the tax situation was as ridiculously beneficial as Bishop149 claimed (which it isn't), the rich person's donation is still overall reducing the amount the taxpayer is having to put into this.

[Usenko]

I have to admit that I'd not been previously aware that the church was no longer actively used for a congregation. That changes things a little for me - it's still worth repairing, but even I would put it down the priority list a bit. It's valuable PURELY for its history; even Westminster Abbey is in use for church activities to this day.

[Bishop149]

Your figures are quite off...

There is no "subsidising" by the tax payer. Essentially the money they donated became tax free. Okay, you will view that as "money paid by treasury" rather than "no tax collected on charitable donations".

Apologies, your likely correct. The truth is however that we have no clue how this actually works for the rich because we do not have access to their private fiances. However its not entirely unreasonable to assume they have absolutely maxed out their cost benefit ratio. . . they will employ whole offices of people to do just that. What you have described is how it works for you and me, it is assumed we have already paid the appropriate rate of tax on our income, so in my case £X becomes 1.25X with the additional money coming from the state (who obviously then can't use it for the things states do, like fund welfare).

For the rich giving vast amounts of money this is a little more complicated. It can not simply be assumed they have paid [insert tax rate here], instead they have to submit what is essentially a tax return for the donated money so it can all be worked out, and this is where the clever accounting a tax fiddles can take place to minimise overall liability. If it involves selling shares, then they can offset the cost of selling them (this is the most common fiddle, basically by donating the a small amount of the overall sale they get to entirely dodge the fees). You can also be certain that the headline figures reported are NOT the bottomline of said tax return but the total entering the charities coffers (after the rebate is applied) because that is the only figure the reporters will have access to, and the one publicised by the rich persons PR machine.

But such shenanigans aside, whether it is a pleb like me or a billionaire donating the point was that money that was formally in the public purse is diverted to the charity.
This is why I used the word "subsidised" . . . I believe its appropriate from my understanding of the word's meaning.

Anyway, as I said I'm happy to climb down here, its not nearly as bad a problem as I thought it was.
A mere trifle in the overall scheme of tax evasion by the rich

Meanwhile, the work charities do may well be instead of the Government doing it; they provide services that the Government doesn't then have to pay for. So... is it really defrauding the Government? Is it really doing us all out of a bit more money? Or is it freeing us up a bit instead and getting right to the heart of something without an additional level of Government oversight and accounting. After all, people grumble about paying tax... but getting them their money to a charity makes them feel GOOD instead, while achieving the same end goal!

And that is magic

And my leftie argument is that if our system of tax/governance was truly structured around the welfare of the populace then charity would be entirely unnecessary. Afterall as you say it only exists to plug the failings of the state.

[Morkonan]

...And my leftie argument is that if our system of tax/governance was truly structured around the welfare of the populace then charity would be entirely unnecessary. Afterall as you say it only exists to plug the failings of the state.

To me, it's not a "Leftie" argument at all. Honestly, it's really not. It's about "What is right for us to do?" Almost all answers to that question are fairly simple to figure out. Implementation, though, is often difficult.

In the US, we have a sharply rising increase in entitltement programs, welfare costs, medicaid (previous forms of "free healthcare for the indigent population", etc.. These are real, practical, costs that have to be born by the public. The Public Citizenry is, in effect, already paying for these programs.

But... they're not enough to fully cover the expenses of a moral and ethical answer to the question of "What is right for us to do in caring for the indigent?" Why is that?

What is an indigent person? They are the "poor" and the "needy." OK, so what is that? Well, those are relative terms for the most part. Only in the most extreme cases of the homeless that can't access food and the basic requirements for continued life would qualify as not needing a relative comparison in order to define them as a candidate. The rest? It's relative to something else - A minimally acceptable standard of living.

In the US, our "indigent" population is different than that of India. It's different than that of those in Afghanistan or many African countries where "wealth" is measured in goats and how many pieces of corrugated sheet metal one has to make a seriviceable roof from. In stark contrast, a "cell phone" is considered a necessary part of a "minimum standard of living" in the US and is subsidized and/or provided for by welfare programs. In Barundi, that might be equitable to a bowl of pumpkin soup...

This is one of the stark contrasts that some "Leftists," I mean the sort of Socialist/Communist "Leftists" just get blatantly and perversely wrong. All too often, these standards are completely ignored as are the standards of living at the time these socio-political movements were birthed. Today, in the "Modern West" our standards of living even for those on "Public Welfare" programs are outrageous luxury compared to some peasant freezing to death because the Duke refused to let them gather twigs. To often, it seems that they gather in coffee shops, sipping their late's and wearing the latest Goth fashions while complaining about Capitalism and its exploitation of the poor and their inability to become successful because of rich people who have become successful...

So, back to the point - What answer are we going to implement? Yes, it is ethical and morally right for our collectively empowered government to provide care for our indigent populations. But, what do we consider the "minimal standard of care" we must provide to fulfill this moral imperative?

Strangely enough, that "minimal standard" stated by those in favor of regime/government change applies more often to their own specific qualifications of a "minimal standard" and not one that could be generally acceptable... Further, even when government or social change isn't the end-run of such demands, but rather more elaborate public welfare is desired, the subject of "cost" is often ignored. Where it isn't ignored, it's often the stepping-off point in an argument that favors simply doing away with the "rich" in order to obtain the funds for expanded general welfare programs. "There's a goose that often lays golden eggs over there. Maybe we should kill it?"

Right now, and in my opinion, we are at a tipping point in regards to the economics of fulfilling the moral imperative of caring for indigent populations in the U.S. We have 330 Million People in the U.S. What is the "minimum standard of living" in our nearest population cohorts? Countries by population Uh... probably not very high on the mark by U.S. standards, right?

The short of it, despite the arguments I want to make, but will not burden the forum with at this time , is this - The only way to improve our care of the indigent population in the U.S. and to achieve what we, as an industrialized economic and military SuperPower pre-eminent on the World Stage, is to do something other than "throw money at it." We can't afford to do that any longer. We can't afford to simply "pay for more and bigger and better programs that simply act to fund a minimally acceptable lifestyle." Nope. Can't. Be. Done. Any. Longer.

We have to fund that and spend money in much more efficient ways and provide a means for the indigent population to actually reduce in costs and number. That's what has to happen and that won't happen under strict Socialism or Communism because those do no not provide the economies necessary to support the sorts of programs necessary to achieve this minimally acceptable standard of living.

And, if such a minimally acceptable standard of living as defined by our industrialized Western culture is not achieved? Well, Marx knew, even if he was wrong about everything else. The Romans knew. The Greeks knew. The Divine Right of Kings knew... "Revolt."

In short - We can't put widescreen televisions in every house even though the people living there believe that is part of their "minimally acceptable standard of living." We have to empower them to achieve rising from an indigent population to one that can afford to buy their own widescreen televisions.