The Pitchforks Are (Still) Coming

[occupied]

If you think that the inheritors and holders of great wealth have any appreciation for upward economic mobility then you have not been paying any attention to them at all. They do feel, if not divine, a right to all their wealth, no matter how obtained, and the power it can buy.

How did you get to know that ... You wait their tables at the country club or something?

Why would they be concerned with upward economic mobility?
How exactly do They not have a right to Their money ... You certainly don't have a right to it?
How can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it?

.

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[BlackSand]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you think that the inheritors and holders of great wealth have any appreciation for upward economic mobility then you have not been paying any attention to them at all. They do feel, if not divine, a right to all their wealth, no matter how obtained, and the power it can buy.

How did you get to know that ... You wait their tables at the country club or something?

Why would they be concerned with upward economic mobility?
How exactly do They not have a right to Their money ... You certainly don't have a right to it?
How can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it?

.

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

What crap!!!

Check Forbes 400 and see how many started with no capital

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh OK. You're thinking of some other country besides the USA

Conservatives never change their allegiances to power, from the time of Kings to the time of Kochs.

When you get a real job, when you find work you love, you'll change your tune. Your world view reeks of inexperience

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one expects that workers get the same pay as CEO's or that actors get the same pay as technicians, but if the CEO is making 200 times what he made 20 years ago, it's not unreasonable to think that the workers' pay should have at least doubled. This is especially true given increases in hours worked, productivity increases and increased profits.

A high tide lifts all ships, it doesn't lift the yachts and swamp the row boats.

Are you saying Obamanomics is only helping the 1%?

 

[occupied]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

You apparently think we do not live in a plutocracy, wake the fuck up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

You apparently think we do not live in a plutocracy, wake the fuck up.

The plutocrats forced you to buy an iPad, amiright

 

[occupied]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

You apparently think we do not live in a plutocracy, wake the fuck up.

The plutocrats forced you to buy an iPad, amiright

Nope, I do not have or want a smartphone, what does that have to do with anything? I do not care if they sell stuff I care that they want to buy our government, you would care too if you didn't worship wealth so much.

 

[BlackSand]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

You apparently think we do not live in a plutocracy, wake the fuck up.

Again ... That is a statement that doesn't address any of the questions.
I mean, do you even understand what you are attempting to post about ... Or are you just copy/pasting responses from a loony bin somewhere?

Try to answer the questions or accept you have nothing to offer.

.

 

[occupied]

I know both because of personal familiarity with the wealthy and especially by their actions.

They should be concerned with mobility but too many live in bubble and think they won the race, but it's only because they were born on the finish line.

They have little sense of responsibility to the society that made them fabulously wealthy and want to not pay taxes at all or be bound by the same rules that apply to ordinary mortals.

The rich are adept at playing city hall, it's how many of them stayed rich rather than becoming convicts.

I hope this answers your questions.

We know you think they should be concerned with upward economic mobility ... But that doesn't answer the question.
The question I posed was ... "Why ... would they be concerned about upward economic mobility?"

You still didn't answer ... How you think you have a right to what is theirs and not yours?

And you didn't answer ... "How ... can rich people buy power if the crooks you elect aren't selling it


No ... You didn't answer any of those questions ... And only vaguely responded to the opening question.
All you have is empty rhetoric and don't even understand the questions posed.

.

You apparently think we do not live in a plutocracy, wake the fuck up.

Again ... That is a statement that doesn't address any of the questions.
I mean, do you even understand what you are attempting to post about ... Or are you just copy/pasting responses from a loony bin somewhere?

Try to answer the questions or accept you have nothing to offer.

.

Do you have anything to say or are you just wanting to attack my statements? I am pretty clear on where I stand on the plutocracy and the negative effects of their money on politics but so far you are just trying to fuck with me.

 

[BlackSand]

Do you have anything to say or are you just wanting to attack my statements? I am pretty clear on where I stand on the plutocracy and the negative effects of their money on politics but so far you are just trying to fuck with me.

I asked you questions ... That is not an attack ... Unless you cannot answer them.

Where you stand is only identified by your empty rhetoric unless you can answer how it applies to the conditions I asked about.
Your repeating unrelated nonsense is not a desire I may have ... Just answer one or any of the standing questions.

I am certain you know (as well as any of us) what your position is ... Now explain how it refers to the conditions I asked about.
At least search the internet ... Maybe there you can find the answers ... It seems like you cannot come up with them on your own.

.

 

[Mac1958]

This is a very good article, thanks for posting it. I glad at least someone in the 1% can foresee the future.

Occupied, for some reason the OP doesn't want to discuss this with me, so maybe you will.

In your opinion, what would the pitchforks look like? What would be some examples?

The obvious one to me is the ballot box - but the problem here is that many Democrats (we can't expect the Republicans to do this) are afraid to discuss what's happening because by and large they, too, are a part of the plutocracy.

What would all of this look like?

.

 

[occupied]

This is a very good article, thanks for posting it. I glad at least someone in the 1% can foresee the future.

Occupied, for some reason the OP doesn't want to discuss this with me, so maybe you will.

In your opinion, what would the pitchforks look like? What would be some examples?

The obvious one to me is the ballot box - but the problem here is that many Democrats (we can't expect the Republicans to do this) are afraid to discuss what's happening because by and large they, too, are a part of the plutocracy.

What would all of this look like?

.

I do not have a crystal ball but it could run the spectrum from the sudden rise of a genuinely populist party to violent terrorism depending on how bad it is when the spark is lit. The article correctly states that the aristocracy never sees it coming because the bubbles they live in are designed to protect them from the awful truths of poverty and these things can happen very quickly. I do not think it will come to widespread violence in America but the stigma is wearing off the terms "socialism" and "class warfare" because the angriest most ardent supporters of the rich are the first to shout it whenever someone correctly states that the working class of America has been abandoned by the government. Things cannot continue like this forever and the longer it goes on the worse will be the outcome for the super-rich and their toadies.

 

[Moonglow]

It sure can be tough to get straight, complete answers here.

Are you alluding to being ghey?

 

[Mac1958]

It sure can be tough to get straight, complete answers here.

Are you alluding to being ghey?

I am not, but I can be a pretty snappy dresser when the mood strikes.

.

 

[Moonglow]

It sure can be tough to get straight, complete answers here.

Are you alluding to being ghey?

I am not, but I can be a pretty snappy dresser when the mood strikes.

.

I bet you look good in satin and lace..

 

[Mac1958]

This is a very good article, thanks for posting it. I glad at least someone in the 1% can foresee the future.

Occupied, for some reason the OP doesn't want to discuss this with me, so maybe you will.

In your opinion, what would the pitchforks look like? What would be some examples?

The obvious one to me is the ballot box - but the problem here is that many Democrats (we can't expect the Republicans to do this) are afraid to discuss what's happening because by and large they, too, are a part of the plutocracy.

What would all of this look like?

.

I do not have a crystal ball but it could run the spectrum from the sudden rise of a genuinely populist party to violent terrorism depending on how bad it is when the spark is lit. The article correctly states that the aristocracy never sees it coming because the bubbles they live in are designed to protect them from the awful truths of poverty and these things can happen very quickly. I do not think it will come to widespread violence in America but the stigma is wearing off the terms "socialism" and "class warfare" because the angriest most ardent supporters of the rich are the first to shout it whenever someone correctly states that the working class of America has been abandoned by the government. Things cannot continue like this forever and the longer it goes on the worse will be the outcome for the super-rich and their toadies.

I agree that anything can happen, but outside of a few violent acts here and there, I suspect there's a better chance it would happen through the ballot box.

It won't happen with Hillary as the nominee, though, I don't see her going down that road. Sanders and Warren are leading the populist charge, but neither will be President.

What we don't know is how much of the populace really does understand what a plutocracy is, how it functions, how it manifests. Too many good teevee shows to watch.

.

 

[Mac1958]

It sure can be tough to get straight, complete answers here.

Are you alluding to being ghey?

I am not, but I can be a pretty snappy dresser when the mood strikes.

.

I bet you look good in satin and lace..

Yes. I have a very hot black cocktail dress for certain occasions.

To really make an impression.

 

[occupied]

This is a very good article, thanks for posting it. I glad at least someone in the 1% can foresee the future.

Occupied, for some reason the OP doesn't want to discuss this with me, so maybe you will.

In your opinion, what would the pitchforks look like? What would be some examples?

The obvious one to me is the ballot box - but the problem here is that many Democrats (we can't expect the Republicans to do this) are afraid to discuss what's happening because by and large they, too, are a part of the plutocracy.

What would all of this look like?

.

I do not have a crystal ball but it could run the spectrum from the sudden rise of a genuinely populist party to violent terrorism depending on how bad it is when the spark is lit. The article correctly states that the aristocracy never sees it coming because the bubbles they live in are designed to protect them from the awful truths of poverty and these things can happen very quickly. I do not think it will come to widespread violence in America but the stigma is wearing off the terms "socialism" and "class warfare" because the angriest most ardent supporters of the rich are the first to shout it whenever someone correctly states that the working class of America has been abandoned by the government. Things cannot continue like this forever and the longer it goes on the worse will be the outcome for the super-rich and their toadies.

I agree that anything can happen, but outside of a few violent acts here and there, I suspect there's a better chance it would happen through the ballot box.

It won't happen with Hillary as the nominee, though, I don't see her going down that road. Sanders and Warren are leading the populist charge, but neither will be President.

What we don't know is how much of the populace really does understand what a plutocracy is, how it functions, how it manifests. Too many good teevee shows to watch.

.

The populace is very aware that the super-rich run everything for their own ends but no one has yet managed to decouple them from the title of "Job Creators". In other words far too many people are convinced that they hold the economy hostage and they must be appeased. I do not hold this sentiment. Since the bulk of their wealth is just sitting there doing nothing but feeding their gigantic egos it could disappear tomorrow and no one on the street would miss it. Bankers and people who directly cater to them would be sad but who gives a fuck about them when there is a nation to save from serfdom.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism has entered its terminal stage in the US where the investor class gambles with assorted financial derivatives for short-term profits instead of investing in long term infrastructure like plants and machinery; they have China, India, and Brazil for those options. Soon their greed and corruption will crash the economy again as it did in 2007. Should it happen during next spring's Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders might find himself with an army of pitchforks behind him and Hillary on her way to oblivion.

"Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions offinancial capitalism which developed over recent decades[when?], in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.

"Financialization is a term that describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible, intangible, future or present promises, etc.) into a financial instrument. The original intent of financialization is to be able to reduce any work-product or service to an exchangeable financial instrument, like currency, and thus make it easier for people to trade these financial instruments.

"Workers, through a financial instrument such as a mortgage, could trade their promise of future work/wages for a home. Financialization of risk-sharing makes all insurance possible. The financialization of a government's promises (e.g. U.S. Government bonds) makes all deficit spending possible. Financialization also makes economic rents possible..."

Financialization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia