ADVERTISEMENT

Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth

Originally posted by chemmie:

Originally posted by Malthus Doctrine:

Originally posted by chemmie:

Originally posted by Malthus Doctrine:
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.
U.S. birth rate was at an all-time low in 2013.
I'm thinking globally, just like the article in the topic, but thank you.
World birth rates are down, too.
You should make sure you have evidence of your claims before you make them.

But, thank you.
Dude, the RATE went down, has nothing to do with the fact that people still engage in coitus and population growth is still increasing. (facepalm)

What is up with this new religion of yours?
This post was edited on 1/22 11:56 AM by Malthus Doctrine
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Originally posted by chemmie:


Originally posted by goodknightfl:
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
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.
This thread was much better once your dumb ass vacated it yesterday.

"Any regulation should not favor the size of a corporation in ANY manner."
LOL.
I bet you love playing Monopoly. Study up on antitrust laws, Copernicus.

Between that statement and your last two paragraphs, it is obvious you have no idea how the real world works, and you're living in your own dreamland of anarchist wishes. It is okay, though. One day you'll grow out of it. I did.
 
Yea, you grew into an ignorant socialist who is wrong on virtually everything.

I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious.
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Yea, you grew into an ignorant socialist who is wrong on virtually everything.

I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious.
The arguments many socialists make aren't principled at all. I know, I used to be one when I posted here as Mr. Knightman. Remember those days?

I learned having deal with the patent and trademark process over the last few years that the government tried to steal intellectual property!!!! I'm not kidding!

My trip to Sweden and Norway also galvanized my further distancing from socialism (they are the beacons of "progress" that other European nations try to emulate, and so does a portion of the USA). I saw nations where there was LITTLE cultural or religious diversity (favored assimilation), no freedom of speech (speaking out against a demographic, even joking, is arrest-able offense), and everyone made relatively the same amount of money. Some may think "that's great!". It wasn't. People were robots, all believed the same secular rhetoric and any outside-the-box thinking that encourages individualism (that wasn't related to art) was shunned, bemoaned and mocked.

The core of the socialist ethos meanders to fit a particular argument. You know something has little clout when a belief system applies conditions to commonly understood ethics. Like the fundamental core of taxation is simply mob-endorsed stealing. It is theft...right to the core. But socialists think stealing is perfectly ok if it "helps people". Like Robin Hood. I think Robin Hood should have been hung. Robin Hood would have garnered more respect if he worked to create more of an industrial base in his Sherwood forest.

If a person or business for that matter becomes successful as a matter of individual right to property, that person or organization has every right to lift anchor and take off to Costa Rica without paying a dime to anyone. Other's might not like it...tough shit.

If people are stupid with their money, see an ad, and then want to buy something they can't afford? Let them. I will love to benefit from mob stupidity and can't blame people who do.
 
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.


This post was edited on 1/22 11:52 AM by Malthus Doctrine
Mmmmmmm, I agree partially on your welfare points. The system does need to be managed in a way that it cannot be abused by capable people making a choice to not contribute... BUT a majority of people on welfare don't fit this category.

I know a few people who have taken welfare over the years. One woman took support after her husband was murdered and she was stuck raising a 4 and 6 year old (as well as other kids in the neighborhood whose crappy parents were never around) on her own. She took government assistance it until her kids became teens and no longer needed her supervision and then she took a job at Frontier in their call center. A year and a half later, she is getting laid off with 1,200 other people after Frontier outsourced much of their call center operations.

So, she's back in the market looking for a job, but because our society is made up of a majority of assholes, people look at her only having 1.5 years of work in the past 10 years and discard her as a candidate. The assumption being she must have a problem, rather than she must have been facing very difficult challenges.

You'll find similar stories for a lot of people that require support. We do a great job locking people out of the labor force by immediately discarding them as candidates because they haven't had recent work experience, or because they smoked some marijuana 5 years ago, etc. So I don't agree at all with forced service for people that have had trouble finding work for 3 months.

As far as taxing consumption only and discarding income taxes, interesting concepts but I would imagine would have a huge negative economic impact. Has something like this been studied before?
 
Originally posted by UCFEE:

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.


This post was edited on 1/22 11:52 AM by Malthus Doctrine
Mmmmmmm, I agree partially on your welfare points. The system does need to be managed in a way that it cannot be abused by capable people making a choice to not contribute... BUT a majority of people on welfare don't fit this category.

I know a few people who have taken welfare over the years. One woman took support after her husband was murdered and she was stuck raising a 4 and 6 year old (as well as other kids in the neighborhood whose crappy parents were never around) on her own. She took government assistance it until her kids became teens and no longer needed her supervision and then she took a job at Frontier in their call center. A year and a half later, she is getting laid off with 1,200 other people after Frontier outsourced much of their call center operations.

So, she's back in the market looking for a job, but because our society is made up of a majority of assholes, people look at her only having 1.5 years of work in the past 10 years and discard her as a candidate. The assumption being she must have a problem, rather than she must have been facing very difficult challenges.

You'll find similar stories for a lot of people that require support. We do a great job locking people out of the labor force by immediately discarding them as candidates because they haven't had recent work experience, or because they smoked some marijuana 5 years ago, etc. So I don't agree at all with forced service for people that have had trouble finding work for 3 months.

As far as taxing consumption only and discarding income taxes, interesting concepts but I would imagine would have a huge negative economic impact. Has something like this been studied before?
Don't get me wrong, I believe in supporting victims of circumstance such as the person you mention. I'm not heartless, of course there would be exceptions, that's the whole point. But recipients should be held accountable. I think you got the idea of what I was saying.

In regards to income, you could reasonably reduce the income burden. Hypothetically when people have more money, they spend it right? So if you tack the 25% excise on goods over 100.00 that people buy anyway...there could be an increase of revenue. It was a quick-thought idea that I did read somewhere, but not sure where. It was an argument that we are taxing the WRONG things if we have concerns regarding over-consumption.

If "progress" is important, why don't we allow the tax-system to "progress" also? Why are we still stuck with the same damn thing for 50 years? hmmmm....

Go figure, the IRS is already on its heels due to scandal, and isn't audited either...
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Yea, you grew into an ignorant socialist who is wrong on virtually everything.

I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious.
Well, now I've heard it all.

True, old school, monopolies... maybe not. But there are certainly oligopolies and monopolies which control a large chunk of their market share, enough to influence their markets and stifle competition from small business.

If you want to prove to me that this isn't an issue, why don't you talk to me about airlines and airline manufacturers, computer and phone operating systems, utilities providers, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers, over-the-counter drugs and necessities, credit cards, gas/oil, music and book publishing, breakfast cereal, beer production and distribution, and even sunglasses.
Then, maybe you could get into Microsoft's antitrust case, or deBeers... or maybe discuss failed mergers of large corporations (ATT/TMobile)


Of course you can't have an educated discussion on this issue, because you're a moron.
 
Originally posted by chemmie:


Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Yea, you grew into an ignorant socialist who is wrong on virtually everything.

I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious.
Well, now I've heard it all.

True, old school, monopolies... maybe not. But there are certainly oligopolies and monopolies which control a large chunk of their market share, enough to influence their markets and stifle competition from small business.

If you want to prove to me that this isn't an issue, why don't you talk to me about airlines and airline manufacturers, computer and phone operating systems, utilities providers, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers, over-the-counter drugs and necessities, credit cards, gas/oil, music and book publishing, breakfast cereal, beer production and distribution, and even sunglasses.
Then, maybe you could get into Microsoft's antitrust case, or deBeers... or maybe discuss failed mergers of large corporations (ATT/TMobile)


Of course you can't have an educated discussion on this issue, because you're a moron.
roll.r191677.gif


There are AT LEAST 6-8 differnet airline carriers in the US and many more if you count regional and commuter airlines.

The US has Boeing yet Airbus has significant orders with most every US airline. And then you have regional aircraft makers like Bombardier, Cessna, Raytheon, etc.

Utilities are near monopilies simply because the GOVERNMENT HAS MANDATED IT VIA REGULATION. Which is exactly why Net Neutrality is such a God awful idea.

Credit cards? There are multiple major companies and they all compete directly with eachother.

Your entire list is hialriously stupid. You honestly don't understand what a monopoloy or oligopoly actually is. This is why you're wrong on most everything- you insist on talking about things that you don't even understand.
 
85 we don't have natural vertical monopolies in this country?

we also have plenty of horizontal monopolies in this country?
 
"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."




What is wrong with your brain Bob?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
It should also be noted that at the same time the wealth gap has been increasing, the world poverty rate has been decreasing.

So we're talking tremendous growth in stock wealth right? How sustainable is the current model?
 
Study: US Wealth Gap Is 'Unsustainable'


Only part of the economy is prospering, and that's going to end up hurting us all.

That's the finding of a new Harvard Business School study on U.S. competitiveness. The study, based on interviews with 1,947 Harvard Business School alumni, said that although larger U.S. companies are showing good signs of recovery since the financial crisis, things don't look nearly as sunny for many American workers.

According to the study:

A truly competitive U.S. economy would lift both firms and citizens. But our survey findings and other evidence reveal that that is not happening today in America. Instead, our "recovering" economy is doing just half its job: The typical large or midsized firm in America is rallying or even prospering, as are highly skilled individuals. But many middle- and working-class citizens and small businesses are struggling.

The Boston Globe reported that while the average income rose 4 percent in the past three years, "most of that increase has been concentrated among the highest earners. Meantime, the income of a typical family has dropped 5 percent, to $46,700, from $49,000 in that period."

That ever-widening gap between America's rich and the middle- and lower-class is "unsustainable," the study said. It explains why, while offering a prescription for change:

We see a need for business leaders to act - to move from an opportunistic patchwork of projects toward strategic, collaborative efforts that make the average American productive enough to command higher wages even in competitive global labor markets. Without such actions, the U.S. economy will continue to do only half its job, with many citizens struggling. And in the long run, American business will suffer from an inadequate workforce, a population of depleted consumers, and large blocs of anti-business voters. Businesses cannot thrive for long while their communities languish.

"Some 47 percent of respondents in the survey said that over the next three years they expected U.S. companies to be both less competitive internationally and less able to pay higher wages and benefits, versus 33 percent who thought the opposite," Reuters said.

It's really no surprise that the wealth gap is widening, especially when you consider that the respondents noted weaknesses in the education system, quality of workplace skills and effectiveness of the political system, all factors that help "drive the prospects of middle- and working-class citizens," the study said.

In contrast, survey respondents noted strengths in the quality of management, vibrancy of capital markets and firm access to innovation, influential factors in company success.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-us-wealth-gap-
 
Originally posted by Dmarino110:

85 we don't have natural vertical monopolies in this country?

we also have plenty of horizontal monopolies in this country?
The Federal Government is a Monopoly when enabled to be through nationalization...it is an incorporated entity driven by greed no different than any other organization on Wall Street, you can even buy shares of it!!! Yet we are supposed to not question it, obey, and hand over our income...

We need to get HARDER as a nation, TOP TO BOTTOM, not softer. This "I'm a victim of the system" shit is getting old after 4,000 years. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that poverty is a product of physics and exists in every form of government because there are people that JUST WON'T WORK.

If people are stealing in corporations or fixing a system? Arrest them. Insider trading? Arrest them. Defrauding welfare or unemployment? Arrest them. THAT I can get behind, not this "demographic" equal income for everyone horsecrap. What makes a middle class so special anyway? A sense of belonging to a mob or equality? Is the middle class some goal for people to simply settle for???

I believe in equal RIGHTS and equal opportunity. If there are racists? Prove it and brand them, root them out and replace them if found in corporations and government. No need to instate a form of systematized reverse-discrimination to enact a witch-hunt.

One more thing on Authority, including law enforcement. The only form of authority worthy of my, and anyone else's, respect is the type that is held accountable to the same laws and constitution we are held to. None of this "shelter from the law" and civil forfeiture bull shit either. I can't believe it has taken THIS long for that to appear on the news. It's been a problem for decades and is yet another way, a loophole, for the government to just take (steal) your money.
 
Originally posted by ChrisKnight06:
Study: US Wealth Gap Is 'Unsustainable'


Only part of the economy is prospering, and that's going to end up hurting us all.

That's the finding of a new Harvard Business School study on U.S. competitiveness. The study, based on interviews with 1,947 Harvard Business School alumni, said that although larger U.S. companies are showing good signs of recovery since the financial crisis, things don't look nearly as sunny for many American workers.

According to the study:

A truly competitive U.S. economy would lift both firms and citizens. But our survey findings and other evidence reveal that that is not happening today in America. Instead, our "recovering" economy is doing just half its job: The typical large or midsized firm in America is rallying or even prospering, as are highly skilled individuals. But many middle- and working-class citizens and small businesses are struggling.

The Boston Globe reported that while the average income rose 4 percent in the past three years, "most of that increase has been concentrated among the highest earners. Meantime, the income of a typical family has dropped 5 percent, to $46,700, from $49,000 in that period."

That ever-widening gap between America's rich and the middle- and lower-class is "unsustainable," the study said. It explains why, while offering a prescription for change:

We see a need for business leaders to act - to move from an opportunistic patchwork of projects toward strategic, collaborative efforts that make the average American productive enough to command higher wages even in competitive global labor markets. Without such actions, the U.S. economy will continue to do only half its job, with many citizens struggling. And in the long run, American business will suffer from an inadequate workforce, a population of depleted consumers, and large blocs of anti-business voters. Businesses cannot thrive for long while their communities languish.

"Some 47 percent of respondents in the survey said that over the next three years they expected U.S. companies to be both less competitive internationally and less able to pay higher wages and benefits, versus 33 percent who thought the opposite," Reuters said.

It's really no surprise that the wealth gap is widening, especially when you consider that the respondents noted weaknesses in the education system, quality of workplace skills and effectiveness of the political system, all factors that help "drive the prospects of middle- and working-class citizens," the study said.

In contrast, survey respondents noted strengths in the quality of management, vibrancy of capital markets and firm access to innovation, influential factors in company success.
The bolded portion underlines my initial point I made earlier in this thread. It's not just the corporations taking advantage of loopholes, it is also compounded by the fact that people (as people are so apt at pointing out on here) are getting dumber and dumber with their money. So few high-school age kids have any real concept of saving. My money is on less than 10% actually save. Those habits carry on and they will likely not manage money well later in life either. It's turning into a "poor me" society where people pigeon-hole themselves into believing they are capable of only one skill and one skill only. If there is no market for that skill, say..after college, they bitch, moan and throw glitter on people instead of honing other skills. F'ing Stupid.
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Originally posted by chemmie:


Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Yea, you grew into an ignorant socialist who is wrong on virtually everything.

I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious.
Well, now I've heard it all.

True, old school, monopolies... maybe not. But there are certainly oligopolies and monopolies which control a large chunk of their market share, enough to influence their markets and stifle competition from small business.

If you want to prove to me that this isn't an issue, why don't you talk to me about airlines and airline manufacturers, computer and phone operating systems, utilities providers, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers, over-the-counter drugs and necessities, credit cards, gas/oil, music and book publishing, breakfast cereal, beer production and distribution, and even sunglasses.
Then, maybe you could get into Microsoft's antitrust case, or deBeers... or maybe discuss failed mergers of large corporations (ATT/TMobile)


Of course you can't have an educated discussion on this issue, because you're a moron.
roll.r191677.gif


There are AT LEAST 6-8 differnet airline carriers in the US and many more if you count regional and commuter airlines.

The US has Boeing yet Airbus has significant orders with most every US airline. And then you have regional aircraft makers like Bombardier, Cessna, Raytheon, etc.

Utilities are near monopilies simply because the GOVERNMENT HAS MANDATED IT VIA REGULATION. Which is exactly why Net Neutrality is such a God awful idea.

Credit cards? There are multiple major companies and they all compete directly with eachother.

Your entire list is hialriously stupid. You honestly don't understand what a monopoloy or oligopoly actually is. This is why you're wrong on most everything- you insist on talking about things that you don't even understand.
No, you're the one who doesn't understand monopolies and oligopolies, again.

Boeing and Airbus own well over 90% of the aircraft market. That is a duopoly.

Credit Cards... Visa, Mastercard, Amex... Or, does Diners Club have a 30% stake in there??

You admit phone, cell phone, cable, internet, and power are oligopolies. Good job! "I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US."

Airlines... 4 airlines control over 83%. That's an oligopoly, Copernicus.

Now, keep telling me how I'm "hilariously stupid" and "wrong on most everything."
 
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No one is flying on a plane that someone built in their garage.
 
Originally posted by Bob the Knight:
Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No one is flying on a plane that someone built in their garage.
Tell that to Southwest and AirTran (years ago), and Jetblue, and Virgin, and Spirit, and Frontier, and Alaskan, and Allegiant, and...

Too bad Southwest, Delta, American, and United, control most of the air, and most of the airports.

Did you know the most number of airlines flying a single route is 6? 77% of all nonstop airline routes are only served by a single airline. So, if you're flying non-stop, 77% of the time you don't have a choice.

No, there are no monopolies (oligopolies) in the U.S.
 
Originally posted by chemmie:

Originally posted by Bob the Knight:
Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No one is flying on a plane that someone built in their garage.
Tell that to Southwest and AirTran (years ago), and Jetblue, and Virgin, and Spirit, and Frontier, and Alaskan, and Allegiant, and...

Too bad Southwest, Delta, American, and United, control most of the air, and most of the airports.

Did you know the most number of airlines flying a single route is 6? 77% of all nonstop airline routes are only served by a single airline. So, if you're flying non-stop, 77% of the time you don't have a choice.

No, there are no monopolies (oligopolies) in the U.S.
Huh? Southwest and Alaskan only fly Boeings, JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier only fly AirBus, Virgin and Allegiant only fly Boeing and AirBus. Didn't see any Jeff's Passenger Planes in there, thanks for proving my point.
 
Originally posted by UCFRogerz:

Originally posted by Bob the Knight:
Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.
Posted from http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/kitspages/acrosport2.php

ec
No one is flying on a commercial passenger plane that someone built in their garage. You know what I meant.
 
The entire problem with redistribution is wealth acts likes a magnet. It is attracted to smart people and repelled by dumb ones. Money will eventually finds its way back to the same group of people. Just look at the lottery, it's a tax on the stupid
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Planes & airlines aside bignows right smart (rich) people are about 50 steps ahead of the redistribute types - don't care to try & prove it since I know I'm right but these false noble Robin Hood types do a lot to hurt the unwealthy

Lotta people choose to be stupid, but if you're capable of 4th grade math in the USA you will crush relative to th rest of the world
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
The rest of the world is irrelevant. Compare us to the developed world, and we're a giant turd, like 85 in a debate.
 
If only we had more startup airline companies. Afterall, capital expenditures in the aircraft business are tiny!

I'm sure they'd unseat Boeing and Airbus in no time, if only we didn't support the oligophy that plagues our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
 
Originally posted by Bob the Knight:

Originally posted by chemmie:


Originally posted by Bob the Knight:

Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
No one is flying on a plane that someone built in their garage.
Tell that to Southwest and AirTran (years ago), and Jetblue, and Virgin, and Spirit, and Frontier, and Alaskan, and Allegiant, and...

Too bad Southwest, Delta, American, and United, control most of the air, and most of the airports.

Did you know the most number of airlines flying a single route is 6? 77% of all nonstop airline routes are only served by a single airline. So, if you're flying non-stop, 77% of the time you don't have a choice.

No, there are no monopolies (oligopolies) in the U.S.
Huh? Southwest and Alaskan only fly Boeings, JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier only fly AirBus, Virgin and Allegiant only fly Boeing and AirBus. Didn't see any Jeff's Passenger Planes in there, thanks for proving my point.
LOL

chemmie is so stupid that he doesn't realize that those are AIRLINES and you are talking about AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. Nearly every one of those airlines use a Boeing or an Airbus.

This is why debating him is like debating a brain dead 5 year old.
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:

LOL

chemmie is so stupid that he doesn't realize that those are AIRLINES and you are talking about AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. Nearly every one of those airlines use a Boeing or an Airbus.

This is why debating him is like debating a brain dead 5 year old.
It doesn't matter if you were debating a brain dead 5 year old or 75 year old, they're still brain dead....Malthus wins this thread anyway,
 
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
Originally posted by Bob the Knight:

Originally posted by chemmie:


Originally posted by Bob the Knight:

Originally posted by 1ofTheseKnights:
"We should let more mom and pops into the airline industry."

Big Gov't Republican Bob - should let the market decide. Again something neither major party stands for in the slightest.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
No one is flying on a plane that someone built in their garage.
Tell that to Southwest and AirTran (years ago), and Jetblue, and Virgin, and Spirit, and Frontier, and Alaskan, and Allegiant, and...

Too bad Southwest, Delta, American, and United, control most of the air, and most of the airports.

Did you know the most number of airlines flying a single route is 6? 77% of all nonstop airline routes are only served by a single airline. So, if you're flying non-stop, 77% of the time you don't have a choice.

No, there are no monopolies (oligopolies) in the U.S.
Huh? Southwest and Alaskan only fly Boeings, JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier only fly AirBus, Virgin and Allegiant only fly Boeing and AirBus. Didn't see any Jeff's Passenger Planes in there, thanks for proving my point.
LOL

chemmie is so stupid that he doesn't realize that those are AIRLINES and you are talking about AIRCRAFT BUILDERS. Nearly every one of those airlines use a Boeing or an Airbus.

This is why debating him is like debating a brain dead 5 year old.
Sometimes I just have to scratch my head, wondering how the hell you're so delusional, and manage to contradict yourself from one post to the next.

So, you're admitting now that there is a duopoly in the aircraft industry. Lockheed no longer makes commercial aircraft, McDonnell Douglas and Fokker are long gone, BAE, Embraer, Bombardier, the Russian UAC monopoly, ... Does this mean you no longer think it is hilarious to believe there are monopolies in the U.S.? (or, the entire world)

"I bet you really believe that there are monopolies throughout the US. Hilarious."

How bout the other post where I schooled you on this issue? Is it still hilarious?
 
Being in an industry that requires hundreds of billions in capital and only returns 5% is why there aren't dozens of commercial airline manufacturers. There is a difference between a monopoly and being in an industry that no one else wants to be in.
 
A lot of trash in this debate, I just want to know if I will make more this year than last year.
 
I've been looking to find a way to start my very own rocket company to compete with SpaceX. But it seems that rocket development costs hundreds of millions of dollars and it seems that there are very few banks that want to lend out that kind of money to a nobody engineer.

Phuck them right? It's my right as a US citizen to get the same chance to start a rocket company and go to the moon.
 
Buy gold bitchez. Consolidating now for the next leg up. Global Central banks addicted to money printing for the 1%er's.

The next stage will begin when enough local currencies blow up to make people realize that the problem isn’t with specific governments or national forms of money, but with the idea of fiat currency itself



Gold-in-euros-Jan-2015.jpg


This post was edited on 1/23 9:55 AM by Boston.Knight
 
If only someone had billions of dollars laying around, they could start a company to challenge Boeing!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT