85 richest people as wealthy as half of the world's population

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Having a massive quantity of money is not a skill. If I had a billion dollars I bet I can invest in quite a few businesses and factories. If I had a billion dollars I could bet 10 million on red as a witticism.

And those businesses they invest in provide jobs. Getting and holding that amount of assets is indeed a skill set. If you were given a billon, I don't doubt that you'd lose it all quite easily.

After a generation or two, redistributed wealth would shift again into the hands of the clever.

Again, at what level do I have to get before you take my stuff and you kick me out or kill me? How much wealth am I allowed to have?

You dont have to worry, if you had 10 lifetimes you wouldnt get close. I would lose a billion dollars quite easily...wow, I dont think you comprehend how much money that is, and that the 89 people we have been talking about all have well over that. Do you realize I could put half or more of the billion in bonds and trusts and banks and cds (excuse my financial ignorance but you get the picture, I can pay someone to explain this stuff to me right?) and still give a million dollars to everyone of my family members, and still never have to work a day in my life and live better then every king who has ever lived?

reply to post by stargatetravels


I think the biggest trick they pulled on us was to fool the fiscal conservatives in our nation (republicans) into defending the rich. If you were truly conservative in fiscal matters and wanted to end "entitlement" scenarios, you would end it first at the top and then work your way down. By the time you got to the bottom, there wouldn't be anybody on welfare to complain about.

When you have so much wealth being hoarded and not being circulated, it RUINS the economy. That is no exaggeration. All of the quantitative easing that rich fanbois complain about is done because of the money that is being kept out of the economy by the extremely wealthy. That is the biggest cause of poverty and the general devaluing of the US dollar.

Do I think the answer is to take it away from those 85 people? I don't know... if you rephrase the question as "If you took the wealth from 85 people and it would result in every human on Earth having food, water, and shelter, what would you do?" then I think many people would say there needs to be action taken. These aren't just people winning at Monopoly; these are people who took all the pieces and the board and then loans pictures of the game back to you for ridiculous amounts of labor. How long are people going to want to play Monopoly with people like that?

reply to post by stargatetravels


So? The average american lives like a king compared to people in poorer countries. The same tactic used to make hte richest look bad can make americans look bad. The same applies to any first world developed nation.

There's usually always someone worse off than you. Same for nations.

How do you make it so everybody has equal opportunity to get educated and find work? That process is happening, but it's slow, and all the while those at the top will be continuing to learn new skills, cementing their position well into hte future. Society will probably always be stratified this way in some fashion. If those at the top suddenly stopped growing and learning, maybe those at the bottom could catch up. Regardless, an overall improvement in quality of life is certain to happen.

And what about the animals? They have less and less room. It seems all of the larger lifeforms are doomed unless we imprison them in zoos or recreate them in labs. Perhaps we'll find a way to live without interfering with earth's life, but I am not confident it'll ever be completely effective unless we're off earth.

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

they haven't employed anyone.

They have enslaved a planet

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

Did they? Or do you simply make that assumption?

Now, answer the question. What is the cut off point for being murdered and having your stuff taken? 5 million? 10? I got to know so I remember to keep one dollar under.

Theres a finite amount of money isnt there, and any more money added just makes the new finite amount that much less valuable? So if the finite amount of money, the wealth, the pie gets bigger and bigger pieces split into fewer and fewer hands, yes the natural rights to life of 3 billion people are taken away by a cruelly fixed game. I already told you if they were down for the change there would be no need for harm. If the majority decided on change, and they didnt agree to partake they can be exiled from the country. Yea they wouldnt be killed, their wealth and assets will be repossessed and divided amongst the impoverished, the totality will need to build a stable square one before starting to build any house of cards on the untouchable soil, for hopefully there will be no soil in civilization, what is it 3.0. A.D.S, after death of satan or something like that. Ya know trying to rid earth of evil and corruption and poverty is like trying to create a more perfect world, it will be inevitable if mankind truly can handle existing as an intelligence, progression, or proverbial up is not down ya know. We came from down, the animal ways, we have gotten nowhere, all our progression thus far has resulted in more comfortable means in which to reproduce. Maybe you and they really arent mature enough, what do you think you need, a few more decades in the mixer? I hope you guys know what your doing and have a plan because humanities future in the hands of ignorance is the opposite of intelligent.

Your simplistic and rather frightening "final solution" is directly the opposite of intelligent.

How about we do it the other way around. What is a sufficient number of wealthy people to leave alive, while killing everyone of a certain minimum net worth? Everyone who does not have a million dollars in assets is sacrificed, instead of the slow slave like death of the current impoverished sacrificial system, just get it over in one foul swoop, and then the world will be perfect.

TKDRL
Maybe it's because I grew up poor, I don't know. I could never be comfortable hoarding away millions of dollars, while there are millions of people out there that can't even afford food and shelter. I just wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror anymore. I am not sure where I would draw the line really, but it would be way before I was buying private jets and yatchs for sure.

That's spot on my friend. I wrote a thread about this not too long ago. Basically, ten of the largest corporations in America are hoarding nearly a trillion dollars in cash, which includes Google, Exxon, GE, Apple and some others. It makes me sick to think how many people are suffering in the world, let alone, our struggling economy, when these companies hoard this kind of cash. If they only pumped 10% of that back into the economy with a big ole' cash infusion, imagine what a difference that would make in millions of lives and the jump start it would give the economy.

If they where smart, they would invest into some of the debt that the US owes.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

"The destruction of most wealthy individuals." You said it yourself, and you are surprised when people assume you want punish people and do horrible things to them when you say stuff like that? In your warped world, who is wealthy enough to deserve destruction? A million? Hundred million? Billion?

No, taking wealth and putting it in a collective fund to "rebuild" humanity will not work. Like all similar problems, the resources will be wasted, used inefficiently, line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians and managers and everyone on down the line from top to bottom will siphon off a little bit until its all gone.

The best course of action for a just, human, intelligent, and civilized world is not destruction of the Kulaks or whomever TPTB want to blame at the moment. It is not redistribution of wealth. It's freedom--for everyone.

It wont work, as in magically solve all problems, but for a very simple task, it would be quite a tremendous help and step in the right direction.

edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it wouldn't. It hasn't worked before and it would not be a step in the right direction.

Now answer my question: how wealthy does one have to be to merit destruction from you? One million? A hundred million? A billion? More? Less? What is the set point for destruction to make things "fair?"

I will say that destruction/war is the last resort. If all the wealthy were gung ho about trying to reform society to higher standards of civilization and humanity then there would obviously be no need. I was more stating that if as a major minority for the way uppers in terms of wealth and power and earth ownership, to them the ends justify the means, and so to the major majority, the ends would also justify the means in revolution. If individual human life is the most valuable thing, then its very simple ethics, just as it would be appropriate to kill 1 to save 2 if inaction would result in them all dying, the ethical decision would be sacrificing 1 so 3 million could live. Since the article was about the wealthiest 89 humans living who have 10 trillion between them, I would say it would be a noble and righteous sacrifice, if the majority wanted to pursue an evolved and appropriate state of civilization and those 89 disagreed, instead of killing perhaps the better option would be boycotting them, shunning their money extra, but that would be too difficult as is seen example in strikes, when because of the nature of the things we are discussing, someone who is starving will do the work for the wage the strikers are striking about, so yea, off with their heads. What do you think of revolutions of history of this sort, the beheading of kings and queens, the 50s of violent protests and attempted revolutions across the world in the past 5 years alone let alone 50?

So basically you are saying you want to murder people and take their stuff. Okay. Why end at this 89 people? Why not murder the 1,500 billionaires in the world and take their stuff too?

Again, I ask. Where do you draw the line? Give me a dollar amount. Having a 100 million get you a death sentence? 10?

What I'm hearing is, as long as the majority think they deserve your stuff more than you do and that you are being selfish with your stuff, they can kill you and take your stuff. Can you not see where such a thought process leads?

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Why is it ok for 89 people to take 3 billion peoples stuff including hope for a minimally decent existence, but not ok for 3 billion people to take 89 peoples stuff?

Did they? Or do you simply make that assumption?

Now, answer the question. What is the cut off point for being murdered and having your stuff taken? 5 million? 10? I got to know so I remember to keep one dollar under.

Theres a finite amount of money isnt there, and any more money added just makes the new finite amount that much less valuable? So if the finite amount of money, the wealth, the pie gets bigger and bigger pieces split into fewer and fewer hands, yes the natural rights to life of 3 billion people are taken away by a cruelly fixed game. I already told you if they were down for the change there would be no need for harm. If the majority decided on change, and they didnt agree to partake they can be exiled from the country. Yea they wouldnt be killed, their wealth and assets will be repossessed and divided amongst the impoverished, the totality will need to build a stable square one before starting to build any house of cards on the untouchable soil, for hopefully there will be no soil in civilization, what is it 3.0. A.D.S, after death of satan or something like that. Ya know trying to rid earth of evil and corruption and poverty is like trying to create a more perfect world, it will be inevitable if mankind truly can handle existing as an intelligence, progression, or proverbial up is not down ya know. We came from down, the animal ways, we have gotten nowhere, all our progression thus far has resulted in more comfortable means in which to reproduce. Maybe you and they really arent mature enough, what do you think you need, a few more decades in the mixer? I hope you guys know what your doing and have a plan because humanities future in the hands of ignorance is the opposite of intelligent.

Your simplistic and rather frightening "final solution" is directly the opposite of intelligent.

How about we do it the other way around. What is a sufficient number of wealthy people to leave alive, while killing everyone of a certain minimum net worth? Everyone who does not have a million dollars in assets is sacrificed, instead of the slow slave like death of the current impoverished sacrificial system, just get it over in one foul swoop, and then the world will be perfect.

No, that is just as stupid as your other plan. How about simple economic freedom? How about a free society where everyone can be free to succeed? Sure some people might get rich in such a system and that of course will upset your little envious Marxist heart, but it will give the most opportunity to the most people.

Another_Nut

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

they haven't employed anyone.

They have enslaved a planet

LOL. Really? are you a slave? Looks like you are quite free as you type your opinion on a network provided by eeeeeevvvvillll corporations.

NavyDoc

Another_Nut

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

they haven't employed anyone.

They have enslaved a planet

LOL. Really? Are you a slave? Not able to come and go as you please? Forced to work without pay? (Assuming you do work.) Looks like you are quite free as you type your opinion on a network provided by eeeeeevvvvillll corporations. Overly dramatic and hysterical post not withstanding.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I'm okay with that.

In another thread, not too long ago I suggested a flat tax, and an end to loopholes all around, private and corporate.

What do you think about that?

I'd guess you'd need an independent regulatory committee to continuously check each new policy going through the tax code to make sure loopholes couldn't be exploited.

This isn't going into how to "reset" the current large wealth inequalities, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

Do you think the system currently allows for absolute economic freedom? Surely you can see it's a bit too enabling for people on each side of the SES.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

TKDRL
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

They should smarten up a bit.... All that wealth being horded isn't gonna help their future bloodline any if the earth is destroyed, or if all the slaves die out. What good is their pile of money going to be then?

Except it's not really a big pile of money is it? Assets to include businesses and factories and all sorts of things that most likely employ thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Having a massive quantity of money is not a skill. If I had a billion dollars I bet I can invest in quite a few businesses and factories. If I had a billion dollars I could bet 10 million on red as a witticism.

And those businesses they invest in provide jobs. Getting and holding that amount of assets is indeed a skill set. If you were given a billon, I don't doubt that you'd lose it all quite easily.

After a generation or two, redistributed wealth would shift again into the hands of the clever.

Again, at what level do I have to get before you take my stuff and you kick me out or kill me? How much wealth am I allowed to have?

You dont have to worry, if you had 10 lifetimes you wouldnt get close. I would lose a billion dollars quite easily...wow, I dont think you comprehend how much money that is, and that the 89 people we have been talking about all have well over that. Do you realize I could put half or more of the billion in bonds and trusts and banks and cds (excuse my financial ignorance but you get the picture, I can pay someone to explain this stuff to me right?) and still give a million dollars to everyone of my family members, and still never have to work a day in my life and live better then every king who has ever lived?

What the hell do you think that these billionaires do? LOL. They invest money in factories, and businesses, and stock and bonds and use that money to make money and, in doing so, the money goes to provide jobs and opportunity and growth. I see that you have absolutely no concept of money or investing. YOu honestly think that these people sit on a huge money bed like Scrooge McDuck. They don't get where they are by being stupid.

And what I find funny is that you propose that you could invest your money and live happily ever after when you condemn those who do exactly that.

You wouldn't give all off your money to the poor and downtrodden and then become a Buddhist monk?

Now, you keep dodging the question. How much can I make before you would confiscate my assets and deport of kill me?

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I'm okay with that.

In another thread, not too long ago I suggested a flat tax, and an end to loopholes all around, private and corporate.

What do you think about that?

I #ing love it. A flat tax that covers everyone so that everyone has skin in the game. The same rate for everyone. No deductions for anything at all. This would be great. No huge costs associated with trying to keep up with tens of thousands of pages of ever changing tax rules. No huge army of IRS agents needed. No use of the tax code to enforce social engineering or "fairness." It would be a far, far, better thing than our present, bloated, progressive taxation scheme.

NO, our present system is not true economic freedom. Better than some, but not totally free. The government has become so twisted and bureaucratic and so bloated that it is so much harder to start and grow a business than it ever was. Big corporations love big government because big government stymies the competition.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I agree with this view.

Now, since you can see that big corporations like big government, who do you think is on the board of directors in these big corporations?

In recent years, these "elite" (use whatever term you like) have switched positions between corporation and government leaders, and maybe back to corporate leadership. Do you see this as a conflict of interest, and an indication of collusion?

This is what many are trying to talk out against. Some are misguided, and looking directly at mere wealth accumulation, period. I don't follow that reasoning, for the most part.

What I have issue with is cronies in high positions that influence policies which benefit their kind.

Would you agree that at both extremes of the socioeconomic side, there is more opportunities for exploitation of the system?

I see people at the bottom who are crooks, same as the very top. Only difference would be that, while the damage may be near-equal, the numbers are not. The bottom has millions, and the top, very few who are actually doing the bulk of the damage.

Agree or disagree?

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I agree with this view.

Now, since you can see that big corporations like big government, who do you think is on the board of directors in these big corporations?

In recent years, these "elite" (use whatever term you like) have switched positions between corporation and government leaders, and maybe back to corporate leadership. Do you see this as a conflict of interest, and an indication of collusion?

This is what many are trying to talk out against. Some are misguided, and looking directly at mere wealth accumulation, period. I don't follow that reasoning, for the most part.

What I have issue with is cronies in high positions that influence policies which benefit their kind.

Would you agree that at both extremes of the socioeconomic side, there is more opportunities for exploitation of the system?

I see people at the bottom who are crooks, same as the very top. Only difference would be that, while the damage may be near-equal, the numbers are not. The bottom has millions, and the top very few who are actually doing the bulk of the damage.

Agree or disagree?

edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

Of course there is some cronyism in business--at every level of business. The baker buys the flour from his cousin or a former schoolmate for example. Cronyism, in and of itself, is not evil. However, when this gets involved in government, allegedly the servant of all the people, then you have a problem which is why your idea of a flat tax is tremendous because that removes some of the power of governmental agencies and people to reward their buddies and punish their opponents. Consider how the IRS was used by the current administration to mess with political opponents or how Nixon famously used the IRS to get people on his "list."

The problem I've had with this discussion is the concept (not you necessarily--but in general) is that so many people seem to believe that everyone with wealth are dishonest, undeserving, criminal, uncaring, greedy, hoarders, etc and need to have their assets stripped simply because they have wealth.

Using George Soros as an example again, we can find wealthy people who build wealth through criminal acts and manipulation of politicians they buy off, but I would say that the answer is not to make being wealthy illegal, but to limit the ability of the government to interfere so that the influence that bad men like Soros have is very limited. People can still gain wealth, but buying politicians would be worthless if politicians were hamstrung on their ability to do things for them.

NavyDoc

Of course there is some cronyism in business--at every level of business. The baker buys the flour from his cousin or a former schoolmate for example. Cronyism, in and of itself, is not evil. However, when this gets involved in government, allegedly the servant of all the people, then you have a problem which is why your idea of a flat tax is tremendous because that removes some of the power of governmental agencies and people to reward their buddies and punish their opponents. Consider how the IRS was used by the current administration to mess with political opponents or how Nixon famously used the IRS to get people on his "list."

Cronyism is more than favoritism. It's implied there being ineptitude, and usually applied to positions of high influence.

LInk.

That being said, I get your point. Grouping is a part of being social; however, there is a line which shouldn't be crossed when these people are supposed to be public servants. Do we hold cops to the same standard as citizens? No, the bar is raised, out of the inherent higher authority and powers obtained. It's a must.

The problem I've had with this discussion is the concept (not you necessarily--but in general) is that so many people seem to believe that everyone with wealth are dishonest, undeserving, criminal, uncaring, greedy, hoarders, etc and need to have their assets stripped simply because they have wealth.

To be perfectly clear, I see the majority of the "1%ers" as the opposite of what you say. In general, they tend to be highly conscientious, intelligent, compassionate, and giving back to both their communities and society in general. As a full disclosure, my parents are just into the "1%". They started from scratch, and without college degrees. They paid their taxes all the way through their ascent. My good friend is controller of a 100+ million dollar non-profit organization, with 7 figure wealth to his name. He's the most amazing guy I've ever known, sleeps 4 hours a night, eats only before sleeping, travels the world to personally oversee operations meant to help out local communities... and on, and on!

Having said all of that, some people towards the top do indeed have "psychopathic" characters. They cause much damage and destruction. We should do our best to hold "white collar" crime accountable, and not be letting some of these bastards go free, as seems to be the case.

Using George Soros as an example again, we can find wealthy people who build wealth through criminal acts and manipulation of politicians they buy off, but I would say that the answer is not to make being wealthy illegal, but to limit the ability of the government to interfere so that the influence that bad men like Soros have is very limited. People can still gain wealth, but buying politicians would be worthless if politicians were hamstrung on their ability to do things for them.

I fully agree with this. I think this is where the hearts of many in this thread are at. Maybe they are simply not seeing things too clearly, and buying into propaganda. It's important to remember, that propaganda is most effective when it's mostly true. The lie and major twist would be to focus on wealth itself. This, while many who are truly "elite" are likely not so well seen in the public eye, else their true fortunes are, for practical means, not known.

I honestly think this slogan against the "1%" is misdirection, and propaganda, sent forth by the truly elite for an ulterior motive. Perhaps it takes away from those within a pool who may one day challenge their status, for instance. I'm not sure.

webedoomed

NavyDoc

Of course there is some cronyism in business--at every level of business. The baker buys the flour from his cousin or a former schoolmate for example. Cronyism, in and of itself, is not evil. However, when this gets involved in government, allegedly the servant of all the people, then you have a problem which is why your idea of a flat tax is tremendous because that removes some of the power of governmental agencies and people to reward their buddies and punish their opponents. Consider how the IRS was used by the current administration to mess with political opponents or how Nixon famously used the IRS to get people on his "list."

Cronyism is more than favoritism. It's implied there being ineptitude, and usually applied to positions of high influence.

LInk.

That being said, I get your point. Grouping is a part of being social; however, there is a line which shouldn't be crossed when these people are supposed to be public servants. Do we hold cops to the same standard as citizens? No, the bar is raised, out of the inherent higher authority and powers obtained. It's a must.

The problem I've had with this discussion is the concept (not you necessarily--but in general) is that so many people seem to believe that everyone with wealth are dishonest, undeserving, criminal, uncaring, greedy, hoarders, etc and need to have their assets stripped simply because they have wealth.

To be perfectly clear, I see the majority of the "1%ers" as the opposite of what you say. In general, they tend to be highly conscientious, intelligent, compassionate, and giving back to both their communities and society in general. As a full disclosure, my parents are just into the "1%". They started from scratch, and without college degrees. They paid their taxes all the way through their ascent. My good friend is controller of a 100+ million dollar non-profit organization, with 7 figure wealth to his name. He's the most amazing guy I've ever known, sleeps 4 hours a night, eats only before sleeping, travels the world to personally oversee operations meant to help out local communities... and on, and on!

Having said all of that, some people towards the top do indeed have "psychopathic" characters. They cause much damage and destruction. We should do our best to hold "white collar" crime accountable, and not be letting some of these bastards go free, as seems to be the case.

Using George Soros as an example again, we can find wealthy people who build wealth through criminal acts and manipulation of politicians they buy off, but I would say that the answer is not to make being wealthy illegal, but to limit the ability of the government to interfere so that the influence that bad men like Soros have is very limited. People can still gain wealth, but buying politicians would be worthless if politicians were hamstrung on their ability to do things for them.

I fully agree with this. I think this is where the hearts of many in this thread are at. Maybe they are simply not seeing things too clearly, and buying into propaganda. It's important to remember, that propaganda is most effective when it's mostly true. The lie and major twist would be to focus on wealth itself. This, while many who are truly "elite" are likely not so well seen in the public eye, else their true fortunes are, for practical means, not known.

I honestly think this slogan against the "1%" is misdirection, and propaganda, sent forth by the truly elite for an ulterior motive. Perhaps it takes away from those within a pool who may one day challenge their status, for instance. I'm not sure.

edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

I would say that the above was well said and a reasoned approach very logical. Thank you.

AthlonSavage

I bet your so wealthy you don't even drive a car.

Au contraire, mon ami..... That didn't work out so well for Diana. I prefer to do things for myself. So much safer (and I'm a control freak.... Yeah, I admit it)

reply to post by NavyDoc


Every great fortune begins with a crime.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Logarock

 

What ended up happening in time is that party officials and cronies became wealthy, the people starved by the millions, hardly anyone could even afford bread and they had to open up a massive prison system to deal with decenters.

People were starving in Russia when Socialism was just a twinkle in Stalin's father's eye - and they were worked like slaves

This is the part of history you're obviously unwilling to examine or incorporate into your well worn script

And anyway - your argument seems to imply that you think I think what came after the revolution was a good thing - and that I support Stalin?

This is what I mean about cartoon history - history becomes something simple, broken down into easily explained bits and pieces

Good guys - bad guys

Road Runner - Wile E Coyote

edit on 1/21/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

What like using the Soviet or French models for wealth distribution? And still after 100 years trying to cover the soviet debacle by blaming the dark and dreary days of the Romanovs. Like some fairy tale....Once upon a time in the dark past long ago lived the Romanovs.....and they were so bad that it took 100 years for the Russian people to recover even after the great wealth distribution project.

You can keep wealth distribution and I won't move anywhere near it as long as the soviet model is all that's being offered.