Dear America: You should be mad as hell about this!

[ink the world]

Yeah right, that's been said for hundreds of years, too.

We'll storm the winter palace and take the Czar's jewels and gold and sell them to buy bread for the people. Right on!

More likely scenario:

If people have no $ to spend the products and services dont sell. Tough to run a business selling widgets when 1% of the population has $ to spend on your widgets

 

[Illegal Smile]

More likely scenario:

If people have no $ to spend the products and services dont sell. Tough to run a business selling widgets when 1% of the population has $ to spend on your widgets

Once we rich folk have all the poor's money, we won't need to make widgets anymore. Only the poor need widgets anyway.

 

[abandonconflict]

Once we rich folk have all the poor's money, we won't need to make widgets anymore. Only the poor need widgets anyway.

Oh yeah?

 

[canndo]

Once we rich folk have all the poor's money, we won't need to make widgets anymore. Only the poor need widgets anyway.

You fail to get it. You will never get all of the poor's money, they don't have any and you will employ them to do all the things you either can't or won't do. It is the middle class's money you will aquire, and once you do it will be as I have stated, a society of vassels and serfs.

 

[ink the world]

Once we rich folk have all the poor's money, we won't need to make widgets anymore. Only the poor need widgets anyway.

Hehe that made me laugh man.

 

[ink the world]

You fail to get it. You will never get all of the poor's money, they don't have any and you will employ them to do all the things you either can't or won't do. It is the middle class's money you will aquire, and once you do it will be as I have stated, a society of vassels and serfs.

He gets it.
I insulted him today, honestly most of his posts piss me off. So I read back through his posts and it finally hit me.

He's playing a role, devils advocate/Steven Colbert thing going on. Pure genius im telling you

 

[beenthere]

By the way, there are different sorts of government interference - there is nothing contradictory in my statement at all, interference by government representing the people as a whole is different than that same government favoring the rich.

In the context of government/capitalism you are wrong, you most certainly contradicted yourself. Government has no business picking winners and losers, that should be left to the free market. We are being destroyed by self interest groups and their ability to lobby in Washington. Anyone who doesn't understand that the federal government is the head of that beast is clueless.

 

[Corso312]

Once we rich folk have all the poor's money, we won't need to make widgets anymore. Only the poor need widgets anyway.

Doubt you are in that upper echelon of wealth...You may be wealthier than most but you will not get into that club.

 

[canndo]

In the context of government/capitalism you are wrong, you most certainly contradicted yourself. Government has no business picking winners and losers, that should be left to the free market. We are being destroyed by self interest groups and their ability to lobby in Washington. Anyone who doesn't understand that the federal government is the head of that beast is clueless.

and there we have it, because I do not agree with your capital assessment I must be "clueless". I have in no way insulted you nor impugned your intellect but you see fit, rather than present points of debate, reason, evidence and proof, to denigrate rather than attempt to enlighten. so it always seems to go.

so long as government employes private business in its service as contractors it most certainly does pick winners and losers. so long as government looks the other way as some abuse others, it by default picks winners and losers, so long as it offers leases of it's(our) land and public resources, it picks winners and losers. The more privatized we allow our government to be the more we allow them to pick winners and losers. We are indeed being destroyed by special interest groups but some special interest groups are more entitled to government attention than others, consumers are a special interest group that should be tended to and currently is not. We have a right to expect government to protect the interests of it's citizenry and we have a right to expect our government to promote order so long as encouraging this order remains within the confines of the most liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[Padawanbater2]

From Reddit

Let me be perfectly clear about something:The number one problem in America isn't the economy, it isn't the President, it isn't Congress, it isn't the Fat Cats or the corrupt politicians or the backroom deals.

It's the citizens.

Not only has America reached an all-time low in terms of economic and political standing, but we've reached an all-time low in political enthusiasm. We're a nation plagued by ignorance and apathy: we don't know things, and we don't care that we don't know things. Too many voters are content to go to the booths and simply check the names they recognize based on how many ads with the candidates name they've seen on television or on the streets or heard on the radio.

The only reason 1984 seems to be a goddamned prophecy is because we've allowed ourselves to become engulfed inBrave New World. The invention of the Internet gave us so much potential with the rapid sharing of information, but we've become drunk on distractions. We let ourselves be ruled by the media and we gorge ourselves in frivolities like social networking, gaming, and irrelevant "news". We've become more interested in Kim Kardashian's wedding than the policy standards of our local congresspeople. "Friday" has more attention than Congressional corruption.

Essentially, we are now living in an age where the original idea of the United States is being taken for granted. We give up our freedoms without a fight for the sake of convenience. "Fine whatever, I'll go through the body scanner. As long as I can grab lunch before I catch my flight". The voting process is a joke now because there's no semblance of competition because, again, people vote for the names they recognize as opposed to actually learning about candidates and deciding which fits their ideals best. Political parties are tearing the nation asunder. We use words like "Republican" and "Democrat" and "Liberal" and "Conservative" as barriers to avoid political discourse rather than encouraging it. We've become too stringent in our own convictions and leave no room for consideration or thought.

So when I see this shit about a greater disparity in finances and fiscal classes, I blame no one but the people who let it happen; the people who won't take the initiative to become interested in their own political well-being; the people who can't see beyond their own wants to understand the needs of the many.

But God forbid you should take one goddamned hour out of your day to research the policies of competing politicians, lest you miss the newest episode of Dance Moms or Jersey Shore or motherfucking American Idol.

 

[Illegal Smile]

We get the government we deserve.

 

[Padawanbater2]

We get the government we deserve.

Is ink right, man? Are you portraying some kind of character to play devils advocate?

If not, I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you think what the data is showing is perfectly OK? Do you see nothing wrong with the way this system is running?

 

[Padawanbater2]

We get the government we deserve.

Why do the most fiscally conservative, genuinely patriotic Americans deserve what the masses have decided is ignorantly best for us?

 

[Illegal Smile]

Is ink right, man? Are you portraying some kind of character to play devils advocate?

If not, I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you think what the data is showing is perfectly OK? Do you see nothing wrong with the way this system is running?

I don't believe that kind of thing is done on the internet.

Re: the recent BLS data showing that 40% of wealth has been lost in the last 3 years? To me, what was even more interesting there was that the greatest percent loss was in the top 10% of incomes. But to answer your question - yes I think data showing how rich the rich are is misleading. I've already said why. People don't understand the difference between wealth and money. They don't know that the entire money supply (M1) is a fraction of total wealth. Those pounding the class warfare drum act as if we are going to "get" the rich by... what? stopping them from buying that new mansion or yacht?

Look, I submit to you that if a significant segment of the nation's wealth were to be controlled by the poor or the middle class rather than the rich, that the economy would be less productive. The rich have emerged as wealth managers because they did the best job. That's what I meant by Darwinism.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you have any data to back any of those claims up? Particularly "I submit to you that if a significant segment of the nation's wealth were to be controlled by the poor or the middle class rather than the rich, that the economy would be less productive."

Do you see nothing Gordon Greko-ish going on behind the scenes inside the financial or government sectors?

 

[canndo]

I don't believe that kind of thing is done on the internet.

Re: the recent BLS data showing that 40% of wealth has been lost in the last 3 years? To me, what was even more interesting there was that the greatest percent loss was in the top 10% of incomes. But to answer your question - yes I think data showing how rich the rich are is misleading. I've already said why. People don't understand the difference between wealth and money. They don't know that the entire money supply (M1) is a fraction of total wealth. Those pounding the class warfare drum act as if we are going to "get" the rich by... what? stopping them from buying that new mansion or yacht?

Look, I submit to you that if a significant segment of the nation's wealth were to be controlled by the poor or the middle class rather than the rich, that the economy would be less productive. The rich have emerged as wealth managers because they did the best job. That's what I meant by Darwinism.

Um... how do you arrive at that sir? We go back to the initial premise. Workers create wealth, no one else does, no one else can. The more concentrated into the hands of the few that wealth is, the rockier our economy becomes, now why is this such an impossible concept for you to accept? What part of it is false and why is it so? We currently are depending upon consumer DEBT in order to sustain the economy we have and more and more debt devices are bandied about in order to keep the middle class spending as much or more than it can. If more of the nation's wealth were controled by the middle class we would not be in the situation we are now in.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Um... how do you arrive at that sir? We go back to the initial premise. Workers create wealth, no one else does, no one else can. The more concentrated into the hands of the few that wealth is, the rockier our economy becomes, now why is this such an impossible concept for you to accept? What part of it is false and why is it so? We currently are depending upon consumer DEBT in order to sustain the economy we have and more and more debt devices are bandied about in order to keep the middle class spending as much or more than it can. If more of the nation's wealth were controled by the middle class we would not be in the situation we are now in.

Since the game around here is to ask for links and proof, I'm asking.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Do you have any data to back any of those claims up? Particularly "I submit to you that if a significant segment of the nation's wealth were to be controlled by the poor or the middle class rather than the rich, that the economy would be less productive."

Do you see nothing Gordon Greko-ish going on behind the scenes inside the financial or government sectors?

Yes, I have data on a hypothetical that has never and can never happen.

ps - financial sector - it is attempted by can never succeed except very marginally

Government sector - never as much as now

These are my opinions

 

[ink the world]

It's not about "getting" anyone. It's about some measure of equity. Why on earth give tax breaks to millionaires? Are they in some dire need of that extra capital? I know the whole "job creator" argument, and I know it's a fallacy. If that were true the unemployment rate would minimal. I don't want them penalized, I just want them paying the same damn tax rate that I pay.

I think the Citizens United decision is a real threat. Now the mega rich can basically sponsor a candidate. Our Democracy is now up for auction. If huge corporations and the mega wealthy didn't truly run the show before they sure as hell will very soon

 

[abandonconflict]

Since the game around here is to ask for links and proof, I'm asking.

Everyone here knows the difference between asking for proof that labor creates wealth and asking for 1 stinking anecdotal report of the feds going after a state compliant grow. You say you have a PhD, I would think you wouldn't be such a failure.