Expensive things require a lot of money in one place. Weather it be the government a corperarion of just some super rich Guy it would be required for advancement. Most modern science technologies and space research takes millions and billions of dollars. Then again without rich people almost everyone would have dispoaible income to invest in such things.
What do you mean by "necessary"? Who cares if they're necessary? I think a better question is whether a ruling class is necessary. You know, those people who order people to murder and imprison people.
Wealth is created. Without a primer on economics it would be difficult to explain. If you removed the people who produced in an economy there wouldn't be anything to spend that disposable income on. Besides, rich people tend to keep their money in banks. Then, banks issue loans which are calculated investments so people can get educations, start businesses, invent and innovate.
That. ^^^ Capital investment is required for economic growth. "Rich" people are the primary investors and risk takers in an economy. They are the most important when it comes to overall growth.
Part of me wishes the Soviet Union was still around so we could all pitch in and send yurigadaisukida there. I'd give him a week before he'd flee the socialist paradise. I also think threads like this are symptomatic of the complete failure of our public education system to teach basic and I mean BASIC economics.
Well some would say the upper class controls the ruling class, or that theyre one in the same. But thats another discussion entirely.
I doubt that all of the upper class class is able to control the ruling class. How would these people define the upper class?
[quote name='"kstigs"'] What do you mean by "necessary"? Who cares if they're necessary? I think a better question is whether a ruling class is necessary. You know, those people who order people to murder and imprison people.[/quote] I agree. I simply.meant to start a discussion on weather or not you could have a society advance.without a super rich class
It may be possible, but there are always going to be people who are more productive than everyone else and, thus, will be wealthy. If they're able to be in the top .1% of income and/or wealth, what's wrong with that? Why would we want to eliminate "a super rich class"? What's wrong with wealth?
[quote name='"kstigs"'] It may be possible, but there are always going to be people who are more productive than everyone else and, thus, will be wealthy. If they're able to be in the top .1% of income and/or wealth, what's wrong with that? Why would we want to eliminate "a super rich class"? What's wrong with wealth?[/quote] Nothings wrong with it. In fact I think it is nessesary. The prospect of being able to be super rich off an invention is what promotes innovation
This has been proven wrong by modern sociology and psychology. Money motivates the completion of repetitive tasks but does not motivate innovation in any way. Theres a whole book on this by Daniel Pink. http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594488843 Theres no problem with wealth, but there is a huge problem with the huge income inequality being created through the system of socialism for corporations currently in place. Massive income inequality is never good for society.
Here's a free book that you are required to read since you have lack of understanding how economics works.
You say that the wealth gap is due to socialism for corporations. What do you mean exactly? I have never seen those words put together like that. Are you tallking about "socialism for the rich"?
Or we could have a free market which would end the ruling classes ability to control our economy. The more centrally planned are economy gets the easier it is for them to increase the 1% wealth.
The upper class is the ruling class.... money is power The lower classes are only needed to work, consume and fight wars