While you're at it - show me where a government actually practiced true Keynsian economics - ever. -burn8
You are getting your lines crossed. This sounds like a governmental system of cronyism / favoritism and nothing like Capitalism. -burn8
With respect, I suspect the Buddha would laugh at this comment. So I can learn more myself, could you lead me to passages where he talks about absolute scales of suffering and needing to think a lot to become enlightened? My own view is that enlightenment is the end of suffering. Thanks.
I enjoy your posts since I suspect we share similar views. How would someone be rich if there were not lots of poor to help him feel better about him/herself. Studies show that relative wealth is more important that absolute wealth - that is, one can have lots of material things but be unhappy because of the perception that others have more, or one should have more. (A mere millionaire in the Hamptons is likely to be miserable.) Most think they would be happy with a million dollars but when they get there they are surprised. The most difficult decision in my life was when I decided what "enough" meant for me. What am I apart from the struggle I create for my own identity?
Being poor is not a problem. I like Peter Schiff's example of three men living on an island. It takes each of them one entire day each to catch a fish which they can then eat to survive. Next day, same thing. One of the men decides to invent something he later calls a net. In order to do so, he has to under consume, by forgoing one day with out eating. He also takes on a lot of risk. If the net doesn't work, he'll be starving as he desperately tries to catch a fish the second day. He may fail to even catch a fish due to his fatigue. So, in the story, the net works. This man is now rich compared to the other two. He can catch two day's worth of fish in only an hour or two. He now has plenty of time to do other things that he enjoys. Even though he is now rich, and the other two would be poor, their poverty is not caused by his richness.
No need to point to passages. His whole philosophy is based on the fact that the human condition consists of suffering. I was countering nitro's assertion that there are no absolutes, only relatives. If the latter were true, then one does not need to solve the problem of suffering because it is only relative, i.e., a judgment call. But the fact that one can attain nirvana through meditation points to the absolute not relative nature of suffering. This is a conceptual thing, not a literal one.
Oh. For the record, I agree with nitro's assertion as well your comments up to the nirvana pointing to absolute comment. Mediation has multiple meanings. The mediation meaning I use is the 'technique outcome' one, not the 'thinking about' one. I also looked up Nirvana's definition in Wikipedia: The word [Nirvana] literally means "blown out" (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. A quote I like: Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.
Does Schiff take into account that in the real world there is an excelent chance that one (or both) of the two without the new technology would be inventive enough to utilize a more powerful technology: The rock. Using the rock to split the skull of the high tech fisherman might strike one without the net as a reasonable way to level the playfield in the tech race.
The point made by Schiff is that the rich man did not get rich at the expense of the newly created poor men. The only way the rich get rich at the expense of the poor is through your example of brute force, which is usually done through the government. But in a true free market society, the rich help the poor. In this example, the rich man's net can now be rented out to the poor, who can then increase their standards of living as well. Sure the poor could just kill the rich man, but how would that help the poor?