I was wrong

[Cecilie1200]

The best way to get rich is to own some of the means of production. If you can't do that then choose wealthy parents. If you haven't got the sense to either own some of the means of production or be born to rich parents then stop whining and get on with it.

Damn fools.

Or people could take the effort they put into complaining, and/or coming up with excuses, and put it into bettering themselves.

Right. They need to get off their arses and better themselves. So, if everyone got off their arses and bettered themselves what would happen?

Some people would be more successful at it than others, same as now.

But the median line would be higher overall.

 

[Cecilie1200]

wealth is not a zero sum game. Just because one person makes a billion does not mean that someone else or a collective of someone elses loses a billion.

So a rich gut at the in the top 1% is NOT stealing your money from you.

If you have no money, it is no one's fault but your own. So instead of whining that "It's not fair", get off your lazy fucking ass and do something about it.

Without government, the rich get to determine how the wealth will be distributed. In this case, they keep 90% for themselves and distribute the remaining 10% to the 99% who worked for it.
Explain how executive salaries went up 48% while the workers recieved no increase?

Oh yes...they EARNED it

I got news for you, Spanky. With government, the rich are STILL determining how wealth will be distributed, more fully and calculatedly than you ever dreamed in your hateful little conspiracy theory dreams. The only difference is that, with government, the rich are doing this with your worshipful nose slavishly shoved up their asses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does one get their wealth stolen from them?

When some are taking more than their share of the common wealth, more than they even need, that is theft. Whether stolen by legal or illegal means, it is still theft.

"More than their share". And who determines what "their share" is, and how do they determine it?

By the way, there is only one time when "legal theft" exists, and that's when the government's doing it. Funny that you like the idea so much when it's phrased like that.

 

[Contumacious]

How does one get their wealth stolen from them?

When some are taking more than their share of the common wealth, more than they even need, that is theft. Whether stolen by legal or illegal means, it is still theft.

"More than their share". And who determines what "their share" is, and how do they determine it?

By the way, there is only one time when "legal theft" exists, and that's when the government's doing it. Funny that you like the idea so much when it's phrased like that.

Karl Marx's intellectual heirs.

.

 

[Liability]

When some are taking more than their share of the common wealth, more than they even need, that is theft. Whether stolen by legal or illegal means, it is still theft.

"More than their share". And who determines what "their share" is, and how do they determine it?

By the way, there is only one time when "legal theft" exists, and that's when the government's doing it. Funny that you like the idea so much when it's phrased like that.

Karl Marx's intellectual heirs.

.

You are an example of Karl Marx' anus hairs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When some are taking more than their share of the common wealth, more than they even need, that is theft. Whether stolen by legal or illegal means, it is still theft.

Who the hell are you to presume that one who has more than another that they stole it.

Unless of course you are changing the definition of theft.

So in your mind if I sell something to someone and make a profit then I stole that profit from the person I sold a product?

If you are living in luxury and that person is living in poverty you are stealing, instead of sharing. But we can't count on you to do the right thing. That is why we have governments.

So basically, you see exchanging goods for money as "stealing" if you happen to be wealthy and the person receiving the goods is poor, is that it? Once you hit a certain level of wealth, you're morally obligated to give everything away for free? And once you sink to a certain level of poverty, you're entitled to get everything for free? Exactly what are those two cutoff lines, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How are they any different than a smug bunch of fat whiny asses blathering away on message boards?

15 or 20 minutes a day of active debate and discourse is not the same as passively staring at a TV

Yeah right. Nobody here spends more that 20 minutes posting.

So what? You want a rundown on everything I've done today BESIDES posting on here? I'll bet you my list is twice as long as yours, so methinks when you say "fat whiny asses blathering", you're projecting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

wealth is not a zero sum game. Just because one person makes a billion does not mean that someone else or a collective of someone elses loses a billion.

So a rich gut at the in the top 1% is NOT stealing your money from you.

If you have no money, it is no one's fault but your own. So instead of whining that "It's not fair", get off your lazy fucking ass and do something about it.

Okay. We'll get off our asses and steal it back.

Let us know when that works out for you, Sparky. We won't hold our breath.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An economy results from the production, distribution and consumption of goods. It has no purpose but rather is the result of other activities.

I think an "economy". the word we use to describe specific, organised, deliberate (planned), collective activities, isn't determined by its activities so much as its purpose. Human beings are rational, our actions - individually and collectively - are definitely purposeful. Any non-purposeful behaviour is usually extinguished when it's useless nature is identified. The purpose of the collective activity we call "the economy" is to sustain human life (individually and collectively) and to make it as pleasant as possible.

Okay, this is a serious question, because I'm honestly curious. On what do you base this assertion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

An economy results from the production, distribution and consumption of goods. It has no purpose but rather is the result of other activities.

I think an "economy". the word we use to describe specific, organised, deliberate (planned), collective activities, isn't determined by its activities so much as its purpose. Human beings are rational, our actions - individually and collectively - are definitely purposeful. Any non-purposeful behaviour is usually extinguished when it's useless nature is identified. The purpose of the collective activity we call "the economy" is to sustain human life (individually and collectively) and to make it as pleasant as possible.

Human beings are NOT rational as a whole. And it is not the collective purpose to make life pleasant. that is an individual choice and an individual pursuit.

I have to interject. I think it's not so much that human beings as a whole aren't rational. I think it's more that each individual has an individual viewpoint and agenda which is completely rational to that person, but would not be to someone else, because he has a different viewpoint and agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

The problem is that most CEO's do not save companies. They do not increase profits, etc. All they seem to do is assign themselves and a few loyal apparatchiks immense pay.

Really? You surveyed every CEO of every major corporation operating in the United States to make that assertion, did you? Would you mind too terribly much providing us a link of some sort to your exhaustive scientific study on this so that we might review it as well?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny comic

Do you have the one where the kids go to the republican's house and he takes all the candy from their labor and then kicks them off his porch?

No, because humor's only funny when it contains a grain of truth. Try again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do the mega-rich do with their money? They couldn't possibly spend it all.

Invest it into companies, of course. Companies = Jobs

Oh really? Name a company started up that provided lots of jobs in america by a wealthy person investing.

Your statement is a myth. The jobs are being provided in third world countries

Open up the small business directory in any city and you will see jobs and business that have benefited from the rich. Or where do you think that the small businesses in this country get the money lent to them? The generosity of the banks? The generosity of the poor? The generosity of the The Obama (may his tents be plentiful)?

I used to work for the University of Arizona's College of Business Entrepreneurship Program. Every year, the program culminated in a Business Plan Competition, in which the students created a business they wished to start, put together the business plan and information necessary to present to a prospective investor, and then presented it to a panel of judges made up of successful businesspeople in the community, just as if they were really asking for an investment. Thing is, this competition was open to the public, and was extremely popular with wealthy venture capitalists in our area, because it was an excellent place to find fresh, exciting new investment opportunities. I can name four or five highly successful small businesses in my city right now that were started by investments from rich people.

Does any one of those provide "lots" of jobs? No, but they do each provide several, and as we know, the vast majority of employers in the US are small businesses, so every little bit helps.

By the way, did you know that WalMart was a small business once upon a time? Wonder where Sam Walton got the dough to start out and expand? Probably wasn't a loan from homeless folks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

Sheila.. How is your wealth being stolen from you? Please be specific. How are the wealthy taking your wealth away from you?

I can't speak for Shelia, but my wealth was speculated away by hedge fund managers. They saw a way to work the system by buying unregulated bets on the finacial amrket (derivatives). If they aren't pulling shenanigans like this, they are boxing up the factories here and literally shipping the means of production to the third world. They still keep the [profits, but we lose our jobs, our communities and our futures.

Thanks, capitalism! you keep winning in spite of the havoc you wreak!

So basically, you were careless and uninformed about the people you chose to invest your money with, and that's the fault of the economy, rather than you?

You'd go a lot farther in life if you learned to own responsibility for yourself and your happiness. Assuming you're just a helpless, oppressed victim is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

More Socialism rhetoric.

Yeah, right...expecting those not in the top 1% to be paid a fair wage is socialism.

When people start throwing around the word "fair", as though it has any objective meaning - or any place in a serious adult conversation, for that matter - I start getting the wiggins.

Why don't you define for us what you think a "fair wage" is, and tell us how you arrive at that definition?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

Who says they don't? I guess that would depend on what you think "earning" it means.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does one get their wealth stolen from them? Esp. when they pay no taxes. While the rich may be getting richer (or were) so were the poor. How many poor people own cell phones and have cable TV? Do the poor in socialistic countries enjoy these luxuries?

When I was starting out, I worked two minimum wage jobs. It never occurred to me that someone had actually taken the money I never had. Liberal math again.

Exactly when did you start out? In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. A minimum wage worker could afford his own apartment, his own car, and take night classes to improve his living conditions. Today a minimum wage worker can't even afford his own apartment. Minimum wage now has the lowest spending power in history and our economy is suffering, of course the uber wealthy don't care because they are the ones getting richer of the backs of the working poor.

I started out in 1972 at $1.85 an hour. I was able to earn enough to work my way through college without a loan.

Try that now on minimum wage

I can't imagine why I would EVER be working for minimum wage in the first place, but I DEFINITELY can't imagine why I would STILL be working for minimum wage four years or more later when I graduated college.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

Says who? You? What are you? A Poverty pimpette?
It's no one's business but the company and their shareholders.

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

Actually, I think that was the point. It was no one's business but the company, which by rights should have gone under when it couldn't keep itself going. So why the hell was the government bailing them out instead?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

People didn't ask for bailout. Government insisted.

Yeah, right the bank CEOs and their lobbyists didn't ask for anything....

So what? Government didn't have to listen to them, now did they? But they did, so why are you blaming the corporations for asking and not the government for agreeing? Seems to me you have a cockeyed sense of responsibility on this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm afraid that CEO pay and executive pay does have a bearing on our lives.

When management comes to you saying things are tough and layoffs are in your future and that you had better work extra hours for no additional pay it has a bearing on your life

When management tells you that you have to cough up more for health insurance for less coverage, it has a bearing on your life

When management tells you for the third year in a row that they can't afford to give you a bonus or pay increase it has a bearing on your life

Then management turns around and gives executives a 48% pay increase based on the sacrifices you made....yes it has a bearing on your life

So you all work for companies with some fat cat CEO making millions a year?

I highly doubt that.

And no one tells me those things you mention because i work for myself.

See, unlike you pathetic whiners, i chose to do something to secure my future. I chose to be in charge of my own life. I didn't stomp my feet and cry "It's not fair waaa waa"

You complain about a person getting a raise but you say nothing when 50% of your pay is taken by the government.

It proves to me that you whiners just have a pathological need to blame someone else for your woes.

Since when did this become about you??

The point is nationwide, executives have demanded more work for less pay while taking a 48% pay increase. They cry poverty while jacking up their own salaries.

What ever happened to leading by example?

I think Skull was TRYING to lead by example, by saying, "Stop your damned whining and follow my example, dumbass!"