War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[DriftingSand]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.

Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.

Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?

I agree with you. Let's start making people accountable. Let's do away with all forms of welfare, Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and allow companies to indiscriminately fire employees who aren't worth that wage.

Business would be fine, and losers would be starving daily. Accountability right?

Oh no, no, no, no, no. Libs want what the rich have but only want to work part time; continue getting their welfare checks; and put forth a half-ass effort to get it. They're perpetual "wanters" ... not "earners."

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

No it is NOT. Wealth is created. Of course there is no use pointing out the hundreds of reasons why your idea is incorrect because you do not hold your premise in logic. Nor can you produce a single fact that it is correct. You can produce a theory or two. Yours has close ties to the Keynesian theory of the zero sum game. That theory has been debunked in do many ways, that it is largely ignored as a socialist fantasy.
Plainly spoken, you are a believer in the possibility of a socialist utopia. A place where there is equality of outcome. That every person is entitled to share an equal portion of the efforts of others. So be it.

I can produce the simple fact that if a business with an owner and 10 employees produced a million dollars of profit in a year and the owner kept 800,000 and paid his employees 20,000 each, or if the owner kept 500,000 and paid his employees 50,000 each
his employees would know the difference.

There is a fine line between being a responsible business owner and being a greedy business owner, I grant you that. But likewise there is a fine line between being an employee who wants to be treated right and being a greedy fucker who thinks he deserves what the owner makes to. BOTH are problems.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

The POTENTIAL GDP of any country is absolutely infinity.

You're arguing the wrong argument. If I'm your boss and I have a million dollars , that doesn't mean that you can't also have a million dollars. It probably does mean that I could do more to help you get a million dollars but you could also go elsewhere and get that money.

That is nonsensical.

You people make the worst arguments trying to defend the indefensible.

How is it nonsensical sir? Tell me, what is the limit on our GDP?

It is by definition limitless sir. There is no constraint in place that won't allow us to sell more than $X.

YOU are being nonsensical. I in fact agree with the argument that no CEO should be making 3000X what his lowest paid employee makes whilst that employee is on welfare. That is just silly to argue that that is okay, BUT the CEO making $40M a year in NO WAY limits the POTENTIAL salary of anyone in that company. I mean you realize that right? The government could tell Wal Mart, for example "okay you can pay your CEO whatever you want, but your least paid employee must make at least 1% of whatever the CEO made" and you can guarantee that the CEO isn't going to take a pay decrease, the employees would get an increase. Meaning of course that Wal Marts wage costs would go up , likely resulting in price increases which would OF COURSE raise the GDP.

There is no limit on the GDP. You don't seem to understand that the value of a dollar is completely imaginary and thus there is no hard cap amount of gold or something that we simply can't earn more than however much gold we have in a vault somewhere.

What is the limit? Go read the numbers and tell me how many times we've ever had a year of infinite GDP.

 

[DriftingSand]

How many of those greedy capitalists collaborated with the Japanese occupation of China? What would you have done in Mao's case, offered to buy some equity?

How many poor people committed crimes in the 1930s? Let's punish them all for that now.

BTW, crony capitalism is a form of socialism, it has nothing to do with capitalism.

Depending on our definition of "socialism" I would argue the socialist wants to build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state while the capitalist, crony or otherwise, doesn't exist without controlling the state.

Capitalist doesn't exist without controlling the State? What the hell are you talking about? How does my competing in the market place mean I need to control the State? And why does the word "Marxist" bother you so much, Karl?

Can you think of any government ever conceived that didn't serve its richest citizens first and foremost? Capitalism creates private wealth more effectively than any other economic system yet devised primarily by socializing cost and privatizing profits. Without a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, the gulf between the very rich and the majority can only get wider since your market is "value neutral" and apportions products solely on the basis of how much money one can afford to pay. In other words, capitalists are gangsters in control of the monopoly of violence.

"Socializing costs?" In what way? Every business owner I've ever known is fully responsible for paying his own overhead. They've always played a balancing act between profit, overhead, and re-investment while putting some of the money earned in his own pocket to pay his personal bills; keep food on the table; and improve his personal quality of life. That's the goal isn't it? Achieving the American Dream and enjoying what life has to offer? Why should a business owner be punished for working hard and earning a better life?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Human speed is "finite" but there are always going to be the fastest runners.
Human intelligence is "finite" but not everyone will reach genius status.
Football games are regulated by time and rules but there can only be one Super Bowl trophy awarded.

Life simply isn't "fair" nor has it ever been. Time to get over it and do the best with what you got. Want more money? Invent something; earn a degree and get a better job; work longer hours; stop spending as much and invest more wisely; etc.

Lots of people did all that and still lost, the "life isn't fair" dodge is frequently used to cover for reckless policy and predatory business practices, will it ever be time to make the economically powerful accountable for their actions?

I agree with you. Let's start making people accountable. Let's do away with all forms of welfare, Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and allow companies to indiscriminately fire employees who aren't worth that wage.

Business would be fine, and losers would be starving daily. Accountability right?

Oh no, no, no, no, no. Libs want what the rich have but only want to work part time; continue getting their welfare checks; and put forth a half-ass effort to get it. They're perpetual "wanters" ... not "earners."

I actually read an interesting treatise on this subject awhile back, can't recall where.

Anyway the writer suggested, and backed this up with actual figures, that it would be cheaper for all concerned if the USG simply shut down all welfare programs, Just completely shuttered them, and then just sent every adult American a check for $30K once a year, and those who wanted to have more could get a job, while those who did not want to work could make do with $30K.

His solution also required getting rid of the income tax and going with a 10% national sales tax at the retail level.

He opined that it would result in better , and better paid, employees in every industry and would do a far better job of eliminating poverty than the welfare programs we have now.

I think I agree with him.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

The POTENTIAL GDP of any country is absolutely infinity.

You're arguing the wrong argument. If I'm your boss and I have a million dollars , that doesn't mean that you can't also have a million dollars. It probably does mean that I could do more to help you get a million dollars but you could also go elsewhere and get that money.

That is nonsensical.

You people make the worst arguments trying to defend the indefensible.

How is it nonsensical sir? Tell me, what is the limit on our GDP?

It is by definition limitless sir. There is no constraint in place that won't allow us to sell more than $X.

YOU are being nonsensical. I in fact agree with the argument that no CEO should be making 3000X what his lowest paid employee makes whilst that employee is on welfare. That is just silly to argue that that is okay, BUT the CEO making $40M a year in NO WAY limits the POTENTIAL salary of anyone in that company. I mean you realize that right? The government could tell Wal Mart, for example "okay you can pay your CEO whatever you want, but your least paid employee must make at least 1% of whatever the CEO made" and you can guarantee that the CEO isn't going to take a pay decrease, the employees would get an increase. Meaning of course that Wal Marts wage costs would go up , likely resulting in price increases which would OF COURSE raise the GDP.

There is no limit on the GDP. You don't seem to understand that the value of a dollar is completely imaginary and thus there is no hard cap amount of gold or something that we simply can't earn more than however much gold we have in a vault somewhere.

What is the limit? Go read the numbers and tell me how many times we've ever had a year of infinite GDP.

You are being dumb.

Every year our GDP is POTENTIALLY unlimited. That is not the same thing as being infinity.

You find a single piece of evidence that says that GDP can't be more than $X

 

[kaz]

When wealth has become concentrated and not allowed to circulate it is the same as a loss to the economy. One guy or one company is better for it (I guess) but the money supply becomes smaller. The economy is measured not by how much money there is but how much is moving around.

Wow, in this country and all it's wealth, you can't make anything of yourself? Damn there's a lot of money out there to be made by anyone willing to put forth any effort at all. You are a Loser with a capital L.

I am not talking about me, I am talking about everyone, individual success or failure is not the issue here, it's the structural defects in our economy that are making all this trickle down shit a tired old lie by now. Personally I am doing OK because I managed to acquire a marketable skill set but the same opportunities I had are just not there anymore.

You are talking about you because if you are not a failure in your job you would know how easy it is to succeed in this country.

How many illegals do you have to compete with to get a job or to run a construction business.. ?? Many and it's sad to see business leaders and so called great men hiring the illegals.. You sit here and suck the rich's sacs, when they are the ones destroying the working mans base...with cheap infused labor.. And don't tell me it's Oblama's fault, this has been going on through GOP and Dem presidencies for over 40 years. The govt. allows them to stay, wealthy business owners hire them.....debasing the economics of the working American and you think we need to bow down and kiss the rich ones ass!?...You are such a giant tool...

Marxist rhetoric is so persuasive. You don't understand capitalism at all. In a capitalist system, companies, consumers, employees make their own decisions.

What you oppose is crony capitalism, which is a variation of socialism. The idea of government not controlling companies is inconceivable to you, even when you give that power to government and companies turn around and control government.

None of that is capitalism. It's the inevitable end to your socialist dream. Money perverts power. I'm a giant tool, lol, you're the bitch of politicians. And you don't believe companies control government, if you did, the last thing you would want is more government and that's what you beg for.

And yes, you are a loser in your career. What you are spouting is rhetoric you would know is wrong if you actually didn't suck as an employee. Maybe your problem is your bosses know you hate them. You should start by giving a crap about your job.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Nonsense. There is no "pie". There is no "share".
Here's a perfect example.
A person works for someone else. He grows tired of doing this. So he takes his savings and buys some landscaping equipment. He solicits his business to others. Within a year he has seen his income quadruple from that of his former employment. That is wealth creation. Soon, he finds he can no longer service all of his customers himself. He hires an employee. Wealth created once again. He finds he needs to find a shop to service his equipment. So he opens an account with a machine shop. That creates wealth for the repair shop.
Whether you like it or not, this is free enterprise. Capitalism. Our system is not perfect. There is no perfect. However, our economic and social system does the best for the most.
It rewards anyone who is willing to take even the smallest risk. It rewards those with ideas. It even rewards those who are simply willing to work and produce.
How anyone can find fault with that is a mystery.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

So you want to listen to the Rich, I posted a quote from Andrew Carnegie.

You're not going to be permitted to get away with that narrative.
You are incorrect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The OP wonders why people don't often respond to his threads.

Would he like an honest answer to that question?

No, I'd rather you obey the forum rules and keep your harassing and trolling comments to yourself if you're not going to participate in the thread.

Of course not. You'd prefer that everyone just let you drop your piles of BS here and avoid engaging you in discussion. That is why you post in the manner that you do. It isn't discussion you want. All you seek is nods of agreement from lightweights who like your thread titles.

If you want a thread with honest participation, I can advise you on how to achieve it.

Point 1. Develop a premise that has some basis in fact and is free of hyperbole.

You can thank me later.

Hey...Either contribute to the discussion or shut the fuck up....
When is the last time you started the thread?
All you do is come on here with drive by posts stupid one liners and insults.
You are in constant violation of forum rules.
You are a perfect example of what liberals are. You people stand for nothing and question everything.

 

[CitizenSeven]

The math of progressive taxation requires that the income inequality grows over time. Consider two workers, one with a top marginal rate of 15%, another with 35%. They have different jobs, almost certainly, but let's say they performed each of their jobs at the same level. Also, not being idiots, they both realize that the number important to them is take-home pay, not gross. If they each get the same percent raise applied to the gross, the 35%er will have a smaller take-home percent increase since his additional income has a larger share sliced off by the USFG. So, if an employer wants to increase takehome equally for both workers, he has to give the higher earner a larger gross-applied raise than the lower. Multiply this out over a few by a few years and the ratio of their grosses (high/low) can only increase. And therefore, growing wealth disparity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well thank you to Mr. H. for responding. I am not sure why the anti-capitalists avoid my threads like an Ebola patient, but they do. I spend all this time and energy typing up a truly educational resource for pinheads and they ignore it.

In fact, I think maybe I DO get it... I understand the strategy... Ignore Boss! When he posts a thread about capitalism, just ignore it and avoid it!

Well, that's okay, us capitalists can have a conversation without you.

This is trolling, by the way. You have signaled your desire to be ridiculed with the above post.

Someone as vacant of ideas as you has not the right to ridicule anyone. You are insignificant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The OP wonders why people don't often respond to his threads.

Would he like an honest answer to that question?

No, I'd rather you obey the forum rules and keep your harassing and trolling comments to yourself if you're not going to participate in the thread.

Of course not. You'd prefer that everyone just let you drop your piles of BS here and avoid engaging you in discussion. That is why you post in the manner that you do. It isn't discussion you want. All you seek is nods of agreement from lightweights who like your thread titles.

If you want a thread with honest participation, I can advise you on how to achieve it.

Point 1. Develop a premise that has some basis in fact and is free of hyperbole.

You can thank me later.

Well see, what you have to do, libtard, is pose some sort of coherent counter to the points the OP makes, or you just quite frankly haven't done that. There is nothing hyperbolic in the OP, it's pretty cut and dry. You run from the OP screaming "hyperbole" with your panties waving in the air.

Why do I post in the manner I do? What manner? Smart, intelligent, well-reasoned? Better than any fucking counter-argument you can think of?

Let's begin here.

Is capitalism a form of government?

That's not a point. Nor is it a discussion. It is a statement in the form of a question designed to illicit a predetermined response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no such thing as wealth inequality. The entire idea presupposes the theory that all persons should have equal amounts of wealth or assets.

 

[kaz]

AIG didn't make the claim, you did. So I'm asking you Stop deflecting. You made a claim, man up to backing it up.

I did, you just didn't pay attention. All those worthless derivatives and CDOs that nearly made paupers of us all were investments in paper that was worthless except that ratings agencies and AIG made them worth something, until the house of cards fell apart and billions of dollars evaporated into nothingness. Entire sectors of the real economy do not become worthless overnight, just flim-flam investments that are nothing but bubble builders.

You don't know what a derivative is or how it's used, do you?

CDOs were driven under by government policy starting with Clinton and continued by Bush.

I know what they are for but I also know how they were recklessly used to build wealth with no underlying economic activity. They have to be based on something real and solid or they are nothing but a scam.

What derivative is not based on an underlying economic activity? You're babbling your anti-capitalist crap and you don't know what you are talking about.

The mortgage industry was brought down by bad government policy. The derivatives based on those mortgages had little to do with causing it. If anything they expedited the inevitable, but that was good because the longer it took, the more damage that would have been done. But either way, they are clearly based on an underlying economic activity. That's what derivative means and you haven't given any counter example.

When a group of bad under-performing mortgages is highly rated and leveraged at upwards of 100 times their face value the foreclosures cause far more damage than what they were actually worth. This activity that caused such heavy losses were not based on reality and were not regulated by the government.

You're just regurgitating the liberal media carrying the Democratic party flag

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nothing wrong with being rich as long as you contribute to the society that supports you

Care to explain that> Appears to me as thought you have an expectation. That being the belief that the individual possessing wealth somehow "owe's" you something. You make demands. You petition government to mandate redistribution of wealth under the threat of government sanctions.

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

The truth is, wealth is generated, so wealth is limitless. Now the people who are wealthy in a nation, especially a free market economy nation like our own, generally got wealthy because they were smart with their money, were successful at free market capitalism, and had the drive, motivation and ambition to succeed. Many came from abject poverty to become wealthy. Seems to me, the really "smart" person might want to listen to them, learn from them, try to emulate them and find out about how they were successful.

Just total opposite of what you want to do.

How can wealth be infinite. Is the annual GDP number 'infinity'?

A nation can only generate so much wealth per year; the more of it the Rich keep, the less for the rest of us.

The POTENTIAL GDP of any country is absolutely infinity.

You're arguing the wrong argument. If I'm your boss and I have a million dollars , that doesn't mean that you can't also have a million dollars. It probably does mean that I could do more to help you get a million dollars but you could also go elsewhere and get that money.

That is nonsensical.

You people make the worst arguments trying to defend the indefensible.

Explain in what way this idea is nonsensical.
You do not get to say "that is nonsensical" without supporting your opinion with facts.

 

[DriftingSand]

You don't know what a derivative is or how it's used, do you?

CDOs were driven under by government policy starting with Clinton and continued by Bush.

I know what they are for but I also know how they were recklessly used to build wealth with no underlying economic activity. They have to be based on something real and solid or they are nothing but a scam.

What derivative is not based on an underlying economic activity? You're babbling your anti-capitalist crap and you don't know what you are talking about.

The mortgage industry was brought down by bad government policy. The derivatives based on those mortgages had little to do with causing it. If anything they expedited the inevitable, but that was good because the longer it took, the more damage that would have been done. But either way, they are clearly based on an underlying economic activity. That's what derivative means and you haven't given any counter example.

When a group of bad under-performing mortgages is highly rated and leveraged at upwards of 100 times their face value the foreclosures cause far more damage than what they were actually worth. This activity that caused such heavy losses were not based on reality and were not regulated by the government.

You can thank Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and several other darlings of the Dem Party for the housing bubble.

No you can do that, I prefer to look at everyone who had a hand in it rather than just a few scapegoat politicians.

Those "scapegoat" politicians SPEARHEADED the entire thing and pushed its legislation. The responsibility lands squarely on their shoulders. The others who "had their hand in it" were other liberal lackeys and cronies.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no such thing as wealth inequality. The entire idea presupposes the theory that all persons should have equal amounts of wealth or assets.

Just as ridiculous though is the CEO making 30000X times what his employees are making while they are on welfare. I mean you acknowledge that , right?

 

[DriftingSand]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no such thing as wealth inequality. The entire idea presupposes the theory that all persons should have equal amounts of wealth or assets.

Just as ridiculous though is the CEO making 30000X times what his employees are making while they are on welfare. I mean you acknowledge that , right?

When the CEO was a kid he wasn't making that much. When he was a teen he wasn't making that much. As a young college student he wasn't making that much. So why is he making that much now? Because he earned a degree and was literally hired by the corporation. They made a financial offer and he accepted it. What's wrong with that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

There is no such thing as wealth inequality. The entire idea presupposes the theory that all persons should have equal amounts of wealth or assets.

Just as ridiculous though is the CEO making 30000X times what his employees are making while they are on welfare. I mean you acknowledge that , right?

When the CEO was a kid he wasn't making that much. When he was a teen he wasn't making that much. As a young college student he wasn't making that much. So why is he making that much now? Because he earned a degree and was literally hired by the corporation. They made a financial offer and he accepted it. What's wrong with that?

Irrelevant. If a company can afford to pay their CEO that wage, they can afford to keep their employees off welfare rolls.

See, left and right have stupid opinions on this subject.