I'm of the unpopular and very un-American opinion that one person can only own so much money before it becomes unethical. Hoarding billions while others are starving does not fit within my idea of "right".

I agree it's not right.

Bread costs as much as it does because of the average income of the everyday regular person and their collective agreement on how much they are willing to pay at that time.

Spread the wealth, raise the bottom and lower the top (in terms of numbers) and guess what? Bread will still cost the same relative to the new average wealth distribution and the new agreed upon price people are willing to pay for it.

You know about concepts like supply and demand and inflation right?

Yeah, I could have just said that instead but cheers for simplifying by rambling post. Time to sleep.

But elph, that guy worked harder for those 6 pieces. Don't be a hater. Those other people deserve to starve.

That works if it's natural wealth growth or maybe in the short run - the other alternative being price hiking. But essentially all that would happen is that wealth would be transferred back to those corporations who supply the goods people want and we are back to square one.

I’d like to find some common ground

In order to simplify things I’m going to use a hypothetical

Big Air, a corporation the builds large passenger jets and was founded in Arizona in 1960 becomes became unprofitable for the first time in 2002. Big Air has guaranteed in signed written contracts to pay out pensions equal to the salary earned at 20 years with the company if they retire after 25 years and live to the age of 65. Unfortunately, in 2005, Big Air files for bankruptcy. Under the new conditions after the bankruptcy the corporation is no longer legally bound to pay out the pensions. The factory workers stop receiving their pensions and have no legal recourse. The machinery in the factories is seized and sold by the government but instead of using the assets from these sales to go toward the pensions the machinery is actually sold at sweetheart prices to another industry this time based in California and the entire program is hyped as a job saving measure and a boon to the stagnating Californian economy. However, the top five CEOs from Big Air also own controlling shares in the beneficiary industry in California now known as Cal Air. In the meantime, in the 2006 election a new governor with an aggressive jobs program is elected in Arizona. He works out a bailout deal for Big Air with large federal subsidies. The CEOs never officially lost their jobs so they are now receiving large salaries and bonuses from both Cal Air and Big Air. In 2010 the corporations are both profitable but the denied pensions still haven’t been reinstated.

I know that’s a lot to read but in your opinion what, if anything, should be done with the people who lost their pensions?

Dunno mate.

lol

I don’t know if you’re trolling me just to have a laugh at me writing all that out

But if you really don’t know I can pretty confidently say that we have no common ground to base a conversation about economics on.