Untold Wealth: The Rise of the Super Rich

[elvis]

because they use a generic term like "super rich" without actually looking for WHO they are

Using the generic term makes them look less human, which makes it easier for people to demonize them. The reason I won't demonize the "super rich" is because I have met some of them. Hell, I lived in a shelter which was started and paid for by one for many years. Another one (Bill Gates) funded for a ton of housing for the poor, which is all subsidized. By not actually getting to know the people they are attacking they can ignore the fact that they are attacking people.

Bill Gates is one of the most generous billionaires on the planet, yet he is despised by so many

i'll never understand it
i used to work for a MS subcontractor
and some of the stories we heard were amazing, and some really funny
like when he first had his house built, he was single and didnt even have a kitchen in it
when he got married he had to have it added on

Imagine if Clinton had spent as much time and money trying to catch bin Laden as he did trying to prosecute Bill Gates.

 

[KittenKoder]

more hot air in here from pubicus ...

hey, dont knock hot air
we sure could use it here
we're getting more snow

lol ...

 

[KittenKoder]

Using the generic term makes them look less human, which makes it easier for people to demonize them. The reason I won't demonize the "super rich" is because I have met some of them. Hell, I lived in a shelter which was started and paid for by one for many years. Another one (Bill Gates) funded for a ton of housing for the poor, which is all subsidized. By not actually getting to know the people they are attacking they can ignore the fact that they are attacking people.

Bill Gates is one of the most generous billionaires on the planet, yet he is despised by so many

i'll never understand it
i used to work for a MS subcontractor
and some of the stories we heard were amazing, and some really funny
like when he first had his house built, he was single and didnt even have a kitchen in it
when he got married he had to have it added on

Imagine if Clinton had spent as much time and money trying to catch bin Laden as he did trying to prosecute Bill Gates.

No ... imagine if Clinton had not wasted any time and money on either ...

 

[KittenKoder]

If not for the two biggest tech billionaires (though Steve is still an asshole in person) Seattle would not be standing at all.

 

[DiveCon]

Using the generic term makes them look less human, which makes it easier for people to demonize them. The reason I won't demonize the "super rich" is because I have met some of them. Hell, I lived in a shelter which was started and paid for by one for many years. Another one (Bill Gates) funded for a ton of housing for the poor, which is all subsidized. By not actually getting to know the people they are attacking they can ignore the fact that they are attacking people.

Bill Gates is one of the most generous billionaires on the planet, yet he is despised by so many

i'll never understand it
i used to work for a MS subcontractor
and some of the stories we heard were amazing, and some really funny
like when he first had his house built, he was single and didnt even have a kitchen in it
when he got married he had to have it added on

Imagine if Clinton had spent as much time and money trying to catch bin Laden as he did trying to prosecute Bill Gates.

and the GOP congress was just as much at fault on that
they also wasted money on stupid shit while letting our military and Intel agencies wither

 

[elvis]

Bill Gates is one of the most generous billionaires on the planet, yet he is despised by so many

i'll never understand it
i used to work for a MS subcontractor
and some of the stories we heard were amazing, and some really funny
like when he first had his house built, he was single and didnt even have a kitchen in it
when he got married he had to have it added on

Imagine if Clinton had spent as much time and money trying to catch bin Laden as he did trying to prosecute Bill Gates.

and the GOP congress was just as much at fault on that
they also wasted money on stupid shit while letting our military and Intel agencies wither

not surprised.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

ROFL...

Cute... "If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich, then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped."

Notice how this position is framed: "if you stop people believing..." Setting aside the syntactical trainwreck... notice that she didn't even TRY to speak to the simple fact that ANYONE CAN GET RICH... if 'getting RICH' is there goal... It's not particularly difficult... what IS difficult is the dedication and concentration required to gather the means necessary to establish being "RICH."

The position INSTEAD speaks to 'stopping the BELIEF'... and while it's unlikely that this was the intent... it's a delicious Fruedian slip and one which provides some insight into how these idiots 'feel'... which is as close to "thinking' as they get.

The simple fact is that if the individual didn't BELIEVE that they could EAT, they'd soon perish of starvation... as they would not pursue that which would produce the MEANS TO EAT.

Thus this position sets to lie the leftist means to their loathsome end...

The intention is; and has always been, to undermine the BELIEF that freedom, wealth and great personal acheivement is possible...

This is a function of their weakness, their own failure; the latter of which caused by the former... and their desperate attempt to avoid dismantling the delusion which they've carefully constructed to keep from facing the reasons for their failure; their failure to acheive; their failure to embrace that which is necessary to realize significant personal gain; THE BELIEF THAT SIGNIFICANT GAIN IS POSSIBLE.

The fact is they don't beleive it and they don't believe that it's fair that others do and that they use this "illusion' to gain that which they erroneously feel is that to which THEY are rightfully entitled: 'something for nothin' and the chicks for free...'

More hot air in here from Pubicus ...

What a wonderfully simple expression through which you've chosen to concede... Kitty.

Congrats!

While it's often said that 'brevity is the soul of wit...' it should be noted that brevity is more often than not, simply an indication of the absence of an intellectual means capable of anything beyond brevity...

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL ... well at least your hot air is so funny. If you think I concede then that actually means you concede. Hint: Go back and actually read what I have posted.

 

[Avatar4321]

So did FDR. Its rather hard to tell people not to run ponzi sceams when people are irresponsible with their money and the government is doing the same exact thing.

Bullshit.

Translation: "I have no intelligent counter to anything you just said"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

ROFL...

Cute... "If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich, then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped."

Notice how this position is framed: "if you stop people believing..." Setting aside the syntactical trainwreck... notice that she didn't even TRY to speak to the simple fact that ANYONE CAN GET RICH... if 'getting RICH' is there goal... It's not particularly difficult... what IS difficult is the dedication and concentration required to gather the means necessary to establish being "RICH."

The position INSTEAD speaks to 'stopping the BELIEF'... and while it's unlikely that this was the intent... it's a delicious Fruedian slip and one which provides some insight into how these idiots 'feel'... which is as close to "thinking' as they get.

The simple fact is that if the individual didn't BELIEVE that they could EAT, they'd soon perish of starvation... as they would not pursue that which would produce the MEANS TO EAT.

Thus this position sets to lie the leftist means to their loathsome end...

The intention is; and has always been, to undermine the BELIEF that freedom, wealth and great personal acheivement is possible...

This is a function of their weakness, their own failure; the latter of which caused by the former... and their desperate attempt to avoid dismantling the delusion which they've carefully constructed to keep from facing the reasons for their failure; their failure to acheive; their failure to embrace that which is necessary to realize significant personal gain; THE BELIEF THAT SIGNIFICANT GAIN IS POSSIBLE.

The fact is they don't beleive it and they don't believe that it's fair that others do and that they use this "illusion' to gain that which they erroneously feel is that to which THEY are rightfully entitled: 'something for nothin' and the chicks for free...'

More hot air in here from Pubicus ...

What a wonderfully simple expression through which you've chosen to concede... Kitty.

Congrats!

While it's often said that 'brevity is the soul of wit...' it should be noted that brevity is more often than not, simply an indication of the absence of an intellectual means capable of anything beyond brevity...

LOL ... well at least your hot air is so funny. If you think I concede then that actually means you concede. Hint: Go back and actually read what I have posted.

The concession sis, is you're inability to ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT... Go back and read where you sought to change the subject and in so doing FAILED TO ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT; thus... conceded to being unable to enage... it's not comlicated sis. It's a text board; it's all in writing; nothing complex about it. Ya sought to avoid the argument because the argument speaks to principle and as a 'Centrist' you're not 'comfortable with bed-rock principle, due to bed-rock principle's tendency to highlight the distinction between Right and Left...

 

[KittenKoder]

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

ROFL...

Cute... "If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich, then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped."

Notice how this position is framed: "if you stop people believing..." Setting aside the syntactical trainwreck... notice that she didn't even TRY to speak to the simple fact that ANYONE CAN GET RICH... if 'getting RICH' is there goal... It's not particularly difficult... what IS difficult is the dedication and concentration required to gather the means necessary to establish being "RICH."

The position INSTEAD speaks to 'stopping the BELIEF'... and while it's unlikely that this was the intent... it's a delicious Fruedian slip and one which provides some insight into how these idiots 'feel'... which is as close to "thinking' as they get.

The simple fact is that if the individual didn't BELIEVE that they could EAT, they'd soon perish of starvation... as they would not pursue that which would produce the MEANS TO EAT.

Thus this position sets to lie the leftist means to their loathsome end...

The intention is; and has always been, to undermine the BELIEF that freedom, wealth and great personal acheivement is possible...

This is a function of their weakness, their own failure; the latter of which caused by the former... and their desperate attempt to avoid dismantling the delusion which they've carefully constructed to keep from facing the reasons for their failure; their failure to acheive; their failure to embrace that which is necessary to realize significant personal gain; THE BELIEF THAT SIGNIFICANT GAIN IS POSSIBLE.

The fact is they don't beleive it and they don't believe that it's fair that others do and that they use this "illusion' to gain that which they erroneously feel is that to which THEY are rightfully entitled: 'something for nothin' and the chicks for free...'

The concession sis, is you're inability to ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT... Go back and read where you sought to change the subject and in so doing FAILED TO ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT; thus... conceded to being unable to enage... it's not comlicated sis. It's a text board; it's all in writing; nothing complex about it. Ya sought to avoid the argument because the argument speaks to principle and as a 'Centrist' you're not 'comfortable with bed-rock principle, due to their tendency to highlight the distinction between Right and Left...

Go back further.

 

[Avatar4321]

THANK YOU!

I've been mentioning this about the Madoff event for sometime now, but you seem to be the first person who also recognizes what that actually means.

The fact is that we do not have EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT when it comes to monitoring the criminal behavior of WALL STREET.

We never have, and until we start DEMANDING IT, we never will.

And part of effective government in this case?

Is actually punishing the criminals with the same vengence we impose on criminals of other CLASSES.

Madoff, if his punishment fit the nature of the damage his crimes caused, would be hung by any SANE society.

That man did more damage to more people than any single American I can think of.

He did more to damage capitalism that all the communists in America combined.

And where is he, now?

In his apartment under house arrest?

He's basically been given a TIME OUT for his crime.

Why is it the governments job to monitor the investments of individuals? Im not saying they cant help but shouldnt the foremost person monitoring investments be the people making the investments? Why on earth would you invest in something you know nothing about?

You want a more effective way to monitor this stuff? Have the investors demand it from the funds. If they dont comply with their standards, Invest somewhere else.

Why are we depending on someone else to take care of our money?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

ROFL...

Cute... "If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich, then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped."

Notice how this position is framed: "if you stop people believing..." Setting aside the syntactical trainwreck... notice that she didn't even TRY to speak to the simple fact that ANYONE CAN GET RICH... if 'getting RICH' is there goal... It's not particularly difficult... what IS difficult is the dedication and concentration required to gather the means necessary to establish being "RICH."

The position INSTEAD speaks to 'stopping the BELIEF'... and while it's unlikely that this was the intent... it's a delicious Fruedian slip and one which provides some insight into how these idiots 'feel'... which is as close to "thinking' as they get.

The simple fact is that if the individual didn't BELIEVE that they could EAT, they'd soon perish of starvation... as they would not pursue that which would produce the MEANS TO EAT.

Thus this position sets to lie the leftist means to their loathsome end...

The intention is; and has always been, to undermine the BELIEF that freedom, wealth and great personal acheivement is possible...

This is a function of their weakness, their own failure; the latter of which caused by the former... and their desperate attempt to avoid dismantling the delusion which they've carefully constructed to keep from facing the reasons for their failure; their failure to acheive; their failure to embrace that which is necessary to realize significant personal gain; THE BELIEF THAT SIGNIFICANT GAIN IS POSSIBLE.

The fact is they don't beleive it and they don't believe that it's fair that others do and that they use this "illusion' to gain that which they erroneously feel is that to which THEY are rightfully entitled: 'something for nothin' and the chicks for free...'

More hot air in here from Pubicus ...

What a wonderfully simple expression through which you've chosen to concede... Kitty.

Congrats!

While it's often said that 'brevity is the soul of wit...' it should be noted that brevity is more often than not, simply an indication of the absence of an intellectual means capable of anything beyond brevity...

LOL ... well at least your hot air is so funny. If you think I concede then that actually means you concede. Hint: Go back and actually read what I have posted.

The concession sis, is you're inability to ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT... Go back and read where you sought to change the subject and in so doing FAILED TO ENGAGE THE ARGUMENT; thus... conceded to being unable to enage... it's not comlicated sis. It's a text board; it's all in writing; nothing complex about it. Ya sought to avoid the argument because the argument speaks to principle and as a 'Centrist' you're not 'comfortable with bed-rock principle, due to bed-rock principle's tendency to highlight the distinction between Right and Left...

Go back further.

Look sis... just state a coherent argument... we can work through your new rhetorical secret handshake some other time...

 

[DiveCon]

"What they lack in critical thinking skills, they try to make up for with bombast."

Isn't that our mission statement here at the USMB?

you do that all the time

 

[editec]

Look at even a company like Amway. Somthing like only 10 percent of people involved in it make money. Most of the product sits in people's garages because the people can't sell it. They get into churches and pollute them with this Amway religion.

i dont remember how many times i've had someone try to get me into that
if not Amway, then another one that was just like it
but those are pyramid schemes and not Ponzis
Social Security is a Ponzi
but that one is legal

Pyrimid schemes are are form of the PONZI grift..

Social security might become a Ponzi if it isn't funded.

One of the problems of SS is that it has to deal with demographics that fluxuate and rising prices of health care that nobody really would have believed possible in 1936.

If for example, there had been no baby boom, social security wouldn't seem so shaky.

And if the price of HC hasn't been rising so much faster than inflation, SS'd be in much better shape, too.

Of course, if the government didn't piss away money on stupid things, SS would be funded enough anyway. The boomers put enormous cash into that system to more than fund their retirements.

Not to worry, too much.

If the government goes bankrupt, social security will be the least of our problems.

 

[DiveCon]

Look at even a company like Amway. Somthing like only 10 percent of people involved in it make money. Most of the product sits in people's garages because the people can't sell it. They get into churches and pollute them with this Amway religion.

i dont remember how many times i've had someone try to get me into that
if not Amway, then another one that was just like it
but those are pyramid schemes and not Ponzis
Social Security is a Ponzi
but that one is legal

Pyrimid schemes are are form of the PONZI grift..

Social security might become a Ponzi if it isn't funded.

One of the problems of SS is that it has to deal with demographics that fluxuate and rising prices of health care that nobody really would have believed possible in 1936.

If for example, there had been no baby boom, social security wouldn't seem so shaky.

And if the price of HC hasn't been rising so much faster than inflation, SS'd be in much better shape, too.

Of course, if the government didn't piss away money on stupid things, SS would be funded enough anyway. The boomers put enormous cash into that system to more than fund their retirements.

Not to worry, too much.

If the government goes bankrupt, social security will be the least of our problems.

if there had been no baby boom, it would never have been sucessful in the first place
it would have died years ago
which is why it is in its last throes again
of course, someone will "fix" it, but it wont be a perm fix

 

[Chris]

Obesity will save social security.

Cookies and ice cream will save America.

 

[midcan5]

I didn't read the piece as it is unnecessary, I know some of these people, I have met a few and know others through friends and relatives. They earned it mostly through inheritance and connections, but hey, even so I don't give a shit, just tax the hell out of them because the only reason they can engage in exuberant greed is because of opportunities placed before them because of birth and again connections. Smarts, luck, and good looks help too.

But a hard question, is a society measured by the wealth of the top 1% or is it measured and valued by the wealth of all, including the bottom 10%? I think the latter but that is just me.

The rich get rich because of their merit.
UBI and the Flat Tax
The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Chris]

So did FDR. Its rather hard to tell people not to run ponzi sceams when people are irresponsible with their money and the government is doing the same exact thing.

Bullshit.

Translation: "I have no intelligent counter to anything you just said"

Right....

No, SS is not a Ponzi scheme.

It is a retirement fund that is funded by the government.

 

[Meister]

Bullshit.

that's the kind of nuanced response we've come to expect from you chrissy.
couldn't find a picture?

A poster like yourself who only posts insults is kind of pathetic, don't you think?

Saying, "Bullshit'" to Avatar isn't insulting???