Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth
- Thread starter ChrisKnight06
- Start date
Well, that's absurd. She is, of course, trying to compare herself to Roosevelt. That is a huge stretch, though, for her.
Laissez-faire policies led us into the 1930's, and progressive policies led us out, into the era of the Great Compression. It really isn't that different than right now.
Nobody is turning us into Cuba or Russia, Reagan's policies simply went too far and need to take a few steps back. We don't need another New Deal, but we need to take more progressive steps to stop diverging wealth. If we don't do it now, there will be another New Deal after things get much worse for everyone.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
I think it's plainly evident based on the content in this thread that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war.
I think the real underlying problem with all these resource issues is people keep having coitus without protection.
I think the real underlying problem with all these resource issues is people keep having coitus without protection.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
World birth rates are down, too.
You should make sure you have evidence of your claims before you make them.
But, thank you.
Obama is greatest POTUS or the evil 1% this new liberalism is so ****ing stupid chemmie gotta come back to Dr.Paul classic liberal stances...
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Have everyone have a great psychedelic experience. After that you'd have no desire for extreme wealth accumulation. It's as simple as that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So who's right? Robert Reich the economist of the left or the economist economists on the right who wrote the article?
Re-framing the issue a little bit.. If we assume that wealth is allocated to individuals in proportion to the value they add to society (as it should be), do you all think that the top 80 people in the world really add as much societal value as the bottom 3.5 billion combined?
The answer is of course no, but the more wealth you have the easier it is to rig the system in your / your beneficiaries favor and that's what has been going on for the past several years... left unchecked, as the gap gets bigger and bigger, the incentive for anyone to add societal value goes away, because the wealthy will be wealthy and the poor will be poor regardless of their value contributions. And then we're living in a world of sht.
That's why the wealth gap is an issue. Current course and speed is not sustainable.
This post was edited on 1/21 2:27 PM by UCFEE
The answer is of course no, but the more wealth you have the easier it is to rig the system in your / your beneficiaries favor and that's what has been going on for the past several years... left unchecked, as the gap gets bigger and bigger, the incentive for anyone to add societal value goes away, because the wealthy will be wealthy and the poor will be poor regardless of their value contributions. And then we're living in a world of sht.
That's why the wealth gap is an issue. Current course and speed is not sustainable.
This post was edited on 1/21 2:27 PM by UCFEE
Wealth isn't allocated that way and it shouldn't be. Wealth is allocated to those who have the best ideas and implement them whether it hurts society (cigarettes, alcohol, pot) or helps it (medicine, R&D). My incentive for making money is to have nice things, live comfortably and allow my future children to get a good education and inherit my nice things and money when the time comes.
Wealth gap isn't an issue. Motivation/risk taking gap is. Welcome to a free society. I'm sure Russia and China would be more than willing to take you in so you can go earn your fair share.
This post was edited on 1/21 3:03 PM by Bob the Knight
If there's a market for a product, then society has deemed that it "helps" them. Value has been added as a result of the work that is done to bring that product to consumers and the producers of that product should be rewarded in proportion to the perceived societal value. This isn't a socialist idea and is pretty fundamental to capitalism.
Once again though, systems can be rigged in favor of a few so that market forces no longer act how they should act. People can suddenly be rewarded financially for destroying value. That's a huge problem, and flies in the face of "free market capitalism" that so many Republicans claim to hold dear, and it's also one of the big drivers of the wealth gap.
You talk about wanting nice things for your children, if we continue down the current course your children will be dealing with a very ugly and violent world.
It actually blows my mind that people don't see this as in "issue". I figured the debate would be over how to address the issue, not over whether an issue exists. People are so holding on to political ideology that they can't actually admit that perhaps the system should be addressed whether here or abroad. Incredible.
This post was edited on 1/21 5:51 PM by ChrisKnight06
This post was edited on 1/21 5:51 PM by ChrisKnight06
Upward mobility is directly correlated to the wealth gap.
I keep saying that we're turning into India, but actually our income gap is already worse than India. We have the worst income gap of the developed world. We sit nicely, right in between Turkmenistan and Morocco. Great company to be in!
We also have the worst upward mobility of any developed nation.
We're supposedly the greatest nation in the world. We are 10th in GDP per capita, and you're still stuck living in a doublewide. One day you'll figure this all out, Bob.
"Fairness" isn't my reasoning.
My reason for wanting our wealth to be better distributed is so our country doesn't turn into a giant shithole with more than 50% of the population in the lower income brackets, with shitty infrastructure, shitty schools, shitty food and environmental standards, and people working 70 hours a week in garbage conditions for a garbage wage.
Ahem, it's a triple wide. I live there by choice. It's a place I go to sleep. I choose to spend my money on things I enjoy rather than on walls and a roof that I spend 1-3 conscious hours in every day. I spend more time in my truck daily than my house.
Maybe I missed it in this thread but where has it been suggested that the government should redistribute wealth? I see people jumping to that when someone suggests that we have a problem but I haven't seen someone advocate for that. To me it's an issue of sustainability. Does anyone honestly feel that if we keep heading down this route things will be ok? That people won't revolt? You can argue that they aren't right for doing so if you want but you can't be so blind as to not see how this all ends.
It's not about wealth envy, I don't give a shit about not having as much as the next guy. It's about deciding if we want to have a functional and sustainable global community or not.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not about wealth envy, I don't give a shit about not having as much as the next guy. It's about deciding if we want to have a functional and sustainable global community or not.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
What could possibly be the harm in having a large wealth gap in an economy driven by consumption?*
It may have not been said in this thread but that is what chemmie wants. It goes to an extreme when he starts whining about how awful life is in the US and he'd rather live in third world countries. The avg income in this country is 44,000, it's 1,500 in India and the world avg is less than 10,000. Yeah we're definitely worse off than India. When can I book my first flight to New Dehli?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So we should cap income MAC? What's your solution to this terrible wealth gap? No one can make more than $45,000? Sorry Doctor, I know you went to school for 10 years and have $100,000 in student loans but you're not allowed to make more than a union garbage man in New York. Yeap, I can see the country prospering with that philosophy. Sign me up. Oh shit I forgot that the doctor should go to school for free so that everyone can be a doctor if they want. So that means all the professors and staff should just volunteer their time for the good of society and that universities will get built by the hundreds of dollars that alumni can afford to donate. Damn. It is so obvious. Can't believe I didn't see it before.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
You're pulling an 85 now. Frame both sides of the argument to give yourself a leg to stand on. Who's mentioned anything about capping incomes? Why does all college have to be completely free, as opposed to offering low cost bachelors degrees?
GOP prefers to throw out extreme examples to scare their base, and then do nothing. Offer no real solutions, just blame problems on Obama.
No income limits, no wealth redistribution. We can stop with all the hyperbole. I'd much rather be here than India.
Happy Hands or someone mentioned a documentary with suggestions for solutions. What were they? What systematic changes should be made? This isn't about ensuring equal outcomes. As long as The State exists then it's something that needs to be evaluated.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Happy Hands or someone mentioned a documentary with suggestions for solutions. What were they? What systematic changes should be made? This isn't about ensuring equal outcomes. As long as The State exists then it's something that needs to be evaluated.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So what are you arguing about then? You don't mind a gap just as long as it isn't too big? Sounds like an income cap to me.
Just a bunch of wealth envy ITT imo. I have zero problem with a gap. There should be a gap. Who is going to invest in businesses who in turn hire employees. We aren't living in 14th century Europe where you can't change your stars.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Just a bunch of wealth envy ITT imo. I have zero problem with a gap. There should be a gap. Who is going to invest in businesses who in turn hire employees. We aren't living in 14th century Europe where you can't change your stars.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The problem is not the difference, but rather the killing of the middle and making it harder to climb the ladder up. Go back to a much freer capitalist system and end crony capitalism. Quit training the masses to fear life and risk. For the first time since WWII, more businesses are closing than being started. People are not willing to take a risk, and that is the direct effect of an elitist govt telling to sit back and play it safe and we will protect you from all evil. They don't tell you they will also protect you from achieving many of the good things in life.
The less freedom we have, the less success we will have. I don't care how well the top 1% do, I care about how the middle class does. A rising tide no longer is lifting all boats, The middle class has its boat stuck in the mud. Every time the tide rises a few more sink and slip backwards. The key is not to make the 1% of boats flounder, but to get the bottom boats out of the mud.
This post was edited on 1/22 8:41 AM by goodknightfl
The less freedom we have, the less success we will have. I don't care how well the top 1% do, I care about how the middle class does. A rising tide no longer is lifting all boats, The middle class has its boat stuck in the mud. Every time the tide rises a few more sink and slip backwards. The key is not to make the 1% of boats flounder, but to get the bottom boats out of the mud.
This post was edited on 1/22 8:41 AM by goodknightfl
Fab nailed it - now get back to watching cable news, sports, sit coms, supporting our troops & mindlessly consuming U S A U S A U S A
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This doesn't fit with reality, though. There are less regulations, taxes, unions, etc. right now than any period since WW2.
Your crony capitalism comments are true, though. Anyone who tries to tell you we have a free-market system has their head lodged in their rectum. What regulations we do have are usually there to benefit established, larger, corporations that already have a monopoly/oligopoly on their markets. Too many of the regulations we do have end up hurting small businesses, when they should be keeping larger corporations at bay and allowing small businesses to grow and compete. Small businesses are the real "job creators," because the large corporations are too busy cutting jobs, cutting pay and benefits, and expecting more productivity from employees, to pay their shareholders.
I don't want the 1% to flounder. I want them to create more jobs, pay better, offer better benefits, and treat their workers like human beings and not another commodity. If this happens, the middle class roars back.
No, asshole, regulations should not be "keeping larger corporations at bay".
Any regulation should not favor the size of a corporation in ANY manner. Hint: most every large corporation today was once a small corporation. They didn't just spring up one day as a $10B company with 15,000 employees.
And you again have your own head up your rectum as larger corporations are in fact not cutting jobs or pay. They haven't been for some 3 years now.
It's not the job of the wealthy to provide shit tier jobs for our ignorant masses to do. Fact is that we have a middle class crisis becuase we have far too many dipshits who fail to obtain even a basic level of education but then expect someone to hand them a $60,000 salary to watch a widget go round on an automated machine.
Just look at this asinine McDonalds "living wage" protest going on. People are actually claiming McDonalds is a f*cking career! These are people that have absolutely nothing to do with the "1%"; their struggles are entirely due to the fact that they chose to not even get a GED and have 4 kids at home.
See this is why i dont understand why republicans complain about Obamacare so much. It gave them an "excuse" to cut benefits from lowly people they didnt want to give them to in the first place for sake of shareholders. I bet they all quietly fist pumped when it was put into place.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
Yep, definitely a cold civil war. The lines have been drawn.
Frankly, there are people in our society that simply just SUCK, aren't worth their weight, and deserve absolutely jack shit in terms of supportive services. "Everyone deserves a chance" is absolute bullshit. I can think of a long list of people that deserve NOTHING.
On Welfare:
If a person is taking welfare and are physically and mentally able to work, they should be forced to work ancillary or supportive positions for the city, county or state. I don't care if it is stuffing envelopes for town hall or sealing Jury Duty notices. They shouldn't be paid to sit on their ass.
On other forms of Welfare:
I also believe if a person takes unemployment for longer than 3 months, they should be forced to work waste-management, grounds-keeping, city, county or state funded construction, road-cleanup (like work-released inmates). I would have ZERO problem with social subsidies if that were the case.
But, instead we have a welfare system that is continually defrauded at a rate of over 50% (ask any welfare investigator what the prosecution rate is of cases they investigate), miss-managed, poorly run, OVER-funded, and doesn't do drug-tests to prevent spending on drugs and alcohol (no, instead we spend MORE money on "rehabilitating" them).
While I'm at it, drug-test our politicians also.
On the myth that taxing income is needed:
No matter who is at your metaphorical door asking for money, be it clergy, a poor indigent, or the government, EVERYONE on this forum will prevent that party from taking their personal property, or as little of is as possible. EVERYONE. Oh, but if you try to fight the government from taking it, you're an "asshole". GOOD if you think that. Fvck you too.
To hell with wealth redistribution from income. It is nothing more than an idea endorsed by a mob-mentality that gives the green-light to steal. That's all it is. I don't care WHO it benefits. Fvck the mob. I am absolutely not interested in throwing money into a vacuum and not knowing where it goes. Taxing income is stupid and our tax system is based on PUNITIVE and discriminatory measures. Tax our consumption...that's the real problem. Not what people make. Add more sales/excise taxes. Drop the income tax. The EVIL EVIL 1% will still spend money.
I don't want more free services either. To me that just means a monopoly has taken over those services and forces you to pay for them directly out of your paycheck on the back end and isn't even audited by any known organization with clout. To me? That's a ponzi-scheme.
"Come to AMERICA! The land of Opportunity! Be successful! When successful we will hate you for it too!!!"
Compassion is a choice, not a law.
This post was edited on 1/22 11:52 AM by Malthus Doctrine
Frankly, there are people in our society that simply just SUCK, aren't worth their weight, and deserve absolutely jack shit in terms of supportive services. "Everyone deserves a chance" is absolute bullshit. I can think of a long list of people that deserve NOTHING.
On Welfare:
If a person is taking welfare and are physically and mentally able to work, they should be forced to work ancillary or supportive positions for the city, county or state. I don't care if it is stuffing envelopes for town hall or sealing Jury Duty notices. They shouldn't be paid to sit on their ass.
On other forms of Welfare:
I also believe if a person takes unemployment for longer than 3 months, they should be forced to work waste-management, grounds-keeping, city, county or state funded construction, road-cleanup (like work-released inmates). I would have ZERO problem with social subsidies if that were the case.
But, instead we have a welfare system that is continually defrauded at a rate of over 50% (ask any welfare investigator what the prosecution rate is of cases they investigate), miss-managed, poorly run, OVER-funded, and doesn't do drug-tests to prevent spending on drugs and alcohol (no, instead we spend MORE money on "rehabilitating" them).
While I'm at it, drug-test our politicians also.
On the myth that taxing income is needed:
No matter who is at your metaphorical door asking for money, be it clergy, a poor indigent, or the government, EVERYONE on this forum will prevent that party from taking their personal property, or as little of is as possible. EVERYONE. Oh, but if you try to fight the government from taking it, you're an "asshole". GOOD if you think that. Fvck you too.
To hell with wealth redistribution from income. It is nothing more than an idea endorsed by a mob-mentality that gives the green-light to steal. That's all it is. I don't care WHO it benefits. Fvck the mob. I am absolutely not interested in throwing money into a vacuum and not knowing where it goes. Taxing income is stupid and our tax system is based on PUNITIVE and discriminatory measures. Tax our consumption...that's the real problem. Not what people make. Add more sales/excise taxes. Drop the income tax. The EVIL EVIL 1% will still spend money.
I don't want more free services either. To me that just means a monopoly has taken over those services and forces you to pay for them directly out of your paycheck on the back end and isn't even audited by any known organization with clout. To me? That's a ponzi-scheme.
"Come to AMERICA! The land of Opportunity! Be successful! When successful we will hate you for it too!!!"
Compassion is a choice, not a law.
This post was edited on 1/22 11:52 AM by Malthus Doctrine
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What can Gus Malzahn do to regain the confidence of the fan base?
- Latest: Gladys Knight
-
