This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[RKMBrown]

You've aligned yourself with a bunch of retards if you think so.

Even retards are capable of determining shades of gray. My dog can do that. You are making up shit to excuse your behavior.

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

 

[koshergrl]

Reality vs. propaganda, mebbe?

 

[Vox]

Nor is there any evidence to support the theory that socialism improves the economy.

quite to the contrary - there is plenty of evidence that socialism RUINS the economy.

And people. Tens of millions of them. And it still does not work.

Why are you people even talking about socialism? No one on this thread has said anything about socialism being a good idea.

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)

 

[Asclepias]

Licensing costs and restrictions. Barriers to entry put up by the rich plutocrats to keep the middle class in it's place.

Why do you think that should stop someone if everyone is subject to the same rules? I can operate under an LLC and build wealth at minimal cost.

Let's say a poor person wants to start a restaurant in a city in which he is currently residing. Let's say the competition serves alcohol. Let's say the cost for a license to serve alcohol is 250k. In order for someone to start a restaurant that serves booze, thus would need to start big enough to afford the cost of license, or they would have to compete without serving. Thus giving the larger "richer" competition a big advantage. Hell the rich restaurant could even under charge for food and over charge for booze to try to drive the poor guy out of business.

Same rules... but now the poor guy with no assets to put up has to look for rich investors who will own a part of his business or has to find small niches.

In many cities you can't even get licenses to do certain things, you have to already have one that was given out in the past.

Part of a person starting a business should be an evaluation of the opportunity. In business some markets are saturated. That would be a bad decision to try and open a business in that scenario unless you have a vastly superior product. You are leaving out the fact that the first business saw the opportunity first and took advantage of it. The guy with less assests and that did not see the opportunity first should either get more capital to start or move to a new market. That may be a hinderance but the only thing that would cause that person to fail is if they quit.

 

[JoeNormal]

Even retards are capable of determining shades of gray. My dog can do that. You are making up shit to excuse your behavior.

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

 

[koshergrl]

Leftist tools always maintain that truth is bad, and that those who speak it are *stupid*.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Billy000]

Even retards are capable of determining shades of gray. My dog can do that. You are making up shit to excuse your behavior.

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No that really isn't what he means. He means thinking critically. Finding middle ground in logic. Realizing that just because I do not like the state of the country's wealth inequality, it doesn't mean I am against the concept itself of wealth inequality. It's realizing that no one here is against capitalism.

 

[RKMBrown]

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

 

[koshergrl]

"
socialism

noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice."


Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Billy000]

quite to the contrary - there is plenty of evidence that socialism RUINS the economy.

And people. Tens of millions of them. And it still does not work.

Why are you people even talking about socialism? No one on this thread has said anything about socialism being a good idea.

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

 

[Vox]

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

yes, it is very simple.
it is a DIRECT conclusion of your premise "wealth inequality is bad".

First - it is NOT bad. That is your first fundamental mistake.

Second - if inequality is BAD, then EQUALITY should be good. As wealth equality is not possible becasue of the human nature ( not everyone equals the other in their talents) than it could be equality in misery only - and that IS socialism.
That is your second fundamental mistake - inability of logical conclusions.
============
Talk about libtard's inability of critical thinking

 

[Vox]

Why are you people even talking about socialism? No one on this thread has said anything about socialism being a good idea.

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I know. That is your major porblem. You can not think logically

 

[Billy000]

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

So you're saying that 1% of the US population controlling 40% of the nation's wealth is a stupid statistic?

 

[RKMBrown]

Then tell me why every conservative argument comes down to one of two polar opposites.

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No that really isn't what he means. He means thinking critically. Finding middle ground in logic. Realizing that just because I do not like the state of the country's wealth inequality, it doesn't mean I am against the concept itself of wealth inequality. It's realizing that no one here is against capitalism.

So your issue is you don't want to talk about solutions, you want to talk about patting everyone on the back for a job well done, no matter what they have done. What you want is platitudes, empty titles, joy, happiness, world peace, an end to world hunger, can't we all just get along,... all that good stuff right?

 

[JoeNormal]

You mean working solutions vs. non-working solutions?

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

Your argument neglects the fact that in a finite world, everyone being a millionaire is not a possibility.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

So you're saying that 1% of the US population controls 40% of the nation's wealth is a stupid statistic?

I'm saying it's just a statistic. It means nothing without context. What happened, did we all decide to give this 1% 40% of the nations wealth? Attacking the rich, because they are rich, is stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, that's not what I mean at all. Look at the last couple of pages. A suggestion is made that wealth inequality is bad for society. The response is 'socialism is bad'. Ugh, it doesn't get too much more simpleminded than that.

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

Your argument neglects the fact that in a finite world, everyone being a millionaire is not a possibility.

Where is this "finite" world of which you speak?

 

[Vox]

"
socialism

noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice."


Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

actually it is not a correct definition.

Socialism is a society where private property of means of production does not exist and means of production ( of wealth))) are a property of the common use via government ( the vast majority) or cooperatives ( the minority).

Since such a society does not happen naturally, expropriation of the means of production from the private ownership is necessary FIRST.

The meriam webster's definition is about social-democratism, not socialism.

( I hate those messing up the lines of definitions)

 

[JoeNormal]

As I explained. Wealth inequality is a stupid concept. If everyone in this country was a millionaire and 1% were billionaires we would still have wealth inequality by three orders of magnitude. It is a stupid phrase for stupid people who get emotional over stupid statistics.

Your argument neglects the fact that in a finite world, everyone being a millionaire is not a possibility.

Where is this "finite" world of which you speak?

C'mon, now you're just trying to be obtuse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you people even talking about socialism? No one on this thread has said anything about socialism being a good idea.

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?