CDZ redistribution of wealth

[rightwinger]

Well lets see....

40% of Americans have 2 tenths of a percent of our wealth. If we double their current existing wealth every day, it would take 200 days before they had 40% of the wealth

Mind boggling

Why stop at less than a year?

I think those of us who count higher than 20 without removing shoes and socks already know but please continue!

Just imagine

If the average American in that 40% has $20,000 in personal wealth, you could give them $20,000 a day for 200 days before they had 40% of the nations wealth



.

 

[HenryBHough]

Was the math to carry it beyond 200 days too challenging?

 

[rightwinger]

Was the math to carry it beyond 200 days too challenging?

You are welcome to engage in any math you wish

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, I understand. A liberal education will do that to you so it's not your fault.

 

[danielpalos]

Were all wealth were to be redistributed daily to achieve equality how many days would it take until there was no wealth to redistribute?

It doesn't matter since some on the left know we merely and simply need to Use capitalism for all of its worth.

A better question is, how can the right lay Any claim to faith in Capitalism if they can't seem to make more money, even with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is unfortunate that all discussion here has to devolve to such a binary state. Always and without fail there is the boring descent into 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' divisions and vocabulary. There is always the same name-calling and catch-phrase excuse for exchange of ideas and debate.

At my risk, therefore, allow me to ask what opinions people have of the results of continued grotesque concentration of power through money that we witness today. Are there no alternatives to the thieves in both parties and their behind-scenes puppeteers?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course there are alternatives, i believe the People merely need a better "oil pump" to better circulate capital in our economy.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is unfortunate that all discussion here has to devolve to such a binary state. Always and without fail there is the boring descent into 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' divisions and vocabulary. There is always the same name-calling and catch-phrase excuse for exchange of ideas and debate.

At my risk, therefore, allow me to ask what opinions people have of the results of continued grotesque concentration of power through money that we witness today. Are there no alternatives to the thieves in both parties and their behind-scenes puppeteers?

Your questions are really just straw-men, but I'll assume, for now, that you are not just trolling.

You ask "what opinions people have of the results of continued grotesque concentration of power through money that we witness today." This question can't be answered without some clarification.

What is a grotesque concentration of power through money?

What characteristics make said accumulations grotesque?

What would a handsome concentration of power through money look like?

Then you ask, "are there no alternatives to the thieves in both parties?" Who are these thieves you are talking about? And what have they stolen?

Then you ask, "are there no alternatives to the behind-scenes puppeteers of the thieves in both parties?" Who are the behind-scenes puppeteers of these thieves? How do they force the actions of these thieves?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe even the wealthiest are only obligated to help solve (official) poverty in our republic.

 

[dblack]

I believe even the wealthiest are only obligated to help solve (official) poverty in our republic.

Oh god. Not "official" poverty again.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe even the wealthiest are only obligated to help solve (official) poverty in our republic.

Oh god. Not "official" poverty again.

It is a non-stationary, "goal post" in the public sector.

 

[dblack]

I believe even the wealthiest are only obligated to help solve (official) poverty in our republic.

Oh god. Not "official" poverty again.

It is a non-stationary, "goal post" in the public sector.

Daniel, you are a walking poster child for the war on drugs.

 

[HenryBHough]

If America had full and "fair" redistribution Kennedy could never have become president.

Ponder that a tad before replying.

 

[Andylusion]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe even the wealthiest are only obligated to help solve (official) poverty in our republic.

Oh god. Not "official" poverty again.

It is a non-stationary, "goal post" in the public sector.

Daniel, you are a walking poster child for the war on drugs.

Yes, it is my "exogenous cognitive dissonance" medication as a palliative. It helps me walk in the shadow of the valley of hypocrisy, and fear no fallacies.

 

[regent]

For some Americans, money is all, it is life and why we are here. For others life is more than money and other things are as important. And for maybe a majority, life is good if one has a job, pays his taxes and able to bounce his kid on his knee. And for a few money is meaningless, We have all those in America with innumerable in-betweens. I wonder if American is pretty much like most nations in their concept of money, or do we care more or less than most nations for money? And the biggie, do Americans care more about people or money?

 

[danielpalos]

For some Americans, money is all, it is life and why we are here. For others life is more than money and other things are as important. And for maybe a majority, life is good if one has a job, pays his taxes and able to bounce his kid on his knee. And for a few money is meaningless, We have all those in America with innumerable in-betweens. I wonder if American is pretty much like most nations in their concept of money, or do we care more or less than most nations for money? And the biggie, do Americans care more about people or money?

sorry about that; it may be due to the fact that we won the Cold War on a platform of "getting what we pay for" through Capitalism instead of the "best things in life" being "free" through Socialism.

 

[regent]

For some Americans, money is all, it is life and why we are here. For others life is more than money and other things are as important. And for maybe a majority, life is good if one has a job, pays his taxes and able to bounce his kid on his knee. And for a few money is meaningless, We have all those in America with innumerable in-betweens. I wonder if American is pretty much like most nations in their concept of money, or do we care more or less than most nations for money? And the biggie, do Americans care more about people or money?

sorry about that; it may be due to the fact that we won the Cold War on a platform of "getting what we pay for" through Capitalism instead of the "best things in life" being "free" through Socialism.

I think this goes back further than the cold war, but the biggie is still do we care more about people or more about money?

 

[there4eyeM]

-Since at least the 18th century (in French and German as well as English), grotesque has come to be used as a general adjective for the strange, fantastic, ugly, incongruous, unpleasant, or disgusting...
-Grotesque; very strange or ugly in a way that is not normal or natural
Some definitions of the word. It applies accurately to the situation in the US. When the richest country the world has ever seen tolerates the misery present in so many places, grotesque is close to the gentlest description possible.

A moral upper class would take it upon itself to correct this without coercion from anyone, including the government.

The thieves are those in supposed service to the public ('elected' officials) who in reality are clearly in the service of those who have bought their services. The direct correlation between dollars contributed and 'elections' 'won' indicts these people.

What they have stolen and destroyed is the US Constitution, the faith and trust of the people, and the moral values of America.

 

[Andylusion]

-Since at least the 18th century (in French and German as well as English), grotesque has come to be used as a general adjective for the strange, fantastic, ugly, incongruous, unpleasant, or disgusting...
-Grotesque; very strange or ugly in a way that is not normal or natural
Some definitions of the word. It applies accurately to the situation in the US. When the richest country the world has ever seen tolerates the misery present in so many places, grotesque is close to the gentlest description possible.

A moral upper class would take it upon itself to correct this without coercion from anyone, including the government.

The thieves are those in supposed service to the public ('elected' officials) who in reality are clearly in the service of those who have bought their services. The direct correlation between dollars contributed and 'elections' 'won' indicts these people.

What they have stolen and destroyed is the US Constitution, the faith and trust of the people, and the moral values of America.

While I agree with the claims about those in office.... I could possibly disagree more with the rest of the sentiment in relation to the country as a whole.

Misery, is the result of people making bad choices.

There are two basic types of government. Socialism, and Capitalism. Control, and Freedom.

Under a socialistic system, most people are miserable because a decision from government will benefit a few, at the expense of everyone else.

Under a Capitalist system, most people are happy, because each person controls their own destiny, and generally they choose the best course of action for their own lives.

But, freedom means that you can choose poorly, and choose to ruin your life.

That's not the fault of society, or a fault of the government. It doesn't matter that we are the most wealthy country in the world, or otherwise. As long as we have freedom, we have the ability to choose to make ourselves miserable.

I know a guy right now who has lived for the last 10 years in a completely toxic environment. Arguably, his life was miserable. But he was making the choice to stay there.

It's societies fault that he's miserable.

Now I get it... taxes in the name of his retirement, makes it more difficult to move out. But that still doesn't change it from being an matter of his personal choice.

Equally, I had a roommate some years ago, who ate and ate and ate. Now they have diabetes. That's not societies fault. That was their choice.

I was talking with a co-worker years back about smoking, and they said plainly, they enjoy smoking, they like smoking, and they will never quit smoking. Period. If he get's lung cancer and dies, is that societies fault? Is the 'most wealthy country allowing misery'? No, he made a choice. It's his choice.

I find it very difficult to make the claim that somehow our country is doing something wrong, when the poorest people in our country have a higher standard of living then most of the middle class of the rest of the entire planet.

Is there misery? Sure. But the vast majority of the time, it's the fault of the people who are miserable. It's amazing to watch people who have no concept of a connection between bad choices, and bad results, blaming everyone else for their misery. That doesn't fly with me.