Where Do Billionaires Come From?

[BrokeLoser]

How do wealthier people stop you from achieving success?

By keeping us in debt Gator

By lobbying special interest legislation(s) that only big $$$ can comply with

By monopolizing through political channels only big $$ has access to

~S~

Lets assume your conspiracy theories are more than theory...explain how your ability to achieve has been hindered by those who may be lobbying legislators and monopolizing through political channels.

explain this>>>


~S~

haha...you poor twisted fuckers...you should know that wealth is not "DISTRIBUTED"
Wealth is created / generated....start there.
In the meantime, shove you LefTarded beggar videos up your ass.

 

[sparky]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You didn't build that.

You didn't build that

"'You didn't build that' is a phrase from a 2012 election campaign speech delivered by United States President Barack Obama on July 13, 2012, in Roanoke, Virginia.

"The sentence 'If you've got a business—you didn't build that' was publicized by his political opponents during the 2012 presidential campaign, as an attack by Obama on business and entrepreneurs.[1][2][3]

"The Obama campaign responded that the criticisms were taking the phrase out of context, and the word 'that' in the phrase was referring to the construction of "roads and bridges" in the previous sentence"

You didn't build that - Wikipedia

I built my farm from a hole in the ground

I also built my biz from nothing

I owe no banks, have no loans, raise my own food, etc etc

I'll wager i'm one of the most self made men on this BB

But i still don't the phenomenal ego to believe in the myth of self made men

We are a collectivist society, our interconnectability is undeniably a HUGE factor

This is why some entity w/ $$$ that legislates his OWN rules applicable to HIS OWN biz pisses me off

We are NOT a meritocracy because these faction(s) exists

~S~

 

[BrokeLoser]

Three people now own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of us in this country, link below. If this seems to be ok with us, then what's wrong with them eventually having sixty percent and on and on. What really great, wonderful things have these folks done to make them so deserving of this wealth. How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire? Other link below

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

How Much Money Did Jonas Salk Potentially Forfeit By Not Patenting The Polio Vaccine?

How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire? Other link below

According to Forbes, Salk sacrificed about $7 billion by not patenting his vaccine.

Why Jonas Salk Didn’t Patent His Polio Vaccine

"On April 12, 1955, Edward R. Murrow asked Jonas Salk who owned the patent to the polio vaccine. 'Well, the people, I would say,' Salk responded. 'There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?'

"By the time of his chat with Murrow, which aired on the day the polio vaccine was announced as safe and 90 percent effective, Salk was already more messiah than virologist to the average American.

"Polio paralyzed between 13,000 and 20,000 children annually in the last pre-vaccine years, and Salk was the face of the inoculation initiative.

"Appearing on television to present the vaccine as a gift to the American people was a public relations masterstroke."

How do wealthier people stop you from achieving success?

By keeping us in debt Gator

By lobbying special interest legislation(s) that only big $$$ can comply with

By monopolizing through political channels only big $$ has access to

~S~

Lets assume your conspiracy theories are more than theory...explain how your ability to achieve has been hindered by those who may be lobbying legislators and monopolizing through political channels.

explain this>>>


~S~

One of many things I find extremely odd...most of you beggars are also huge proponents of illegal immigration. How can you expect to steal more of my shit for yourselves and for Mexicos finest? How does that make sense to you? Shouldn't you work on stealing my shit for yourselves first?

 

[sparky]

How do wealthier people stop you from achieving success?

By keeping us in debt Gator

By lobbying special interest legislation(s) that only big $$$ can comply with

By monopolizing through political channels only big $$ has access to

~S~

Lets assume your conspiracy theories are more than theory...explain how your ability to achieve has been hindered by those who may be lobbying legislators and monopolizing through political channels.

explain this>>>


~S~

haha...you poor twisted fuckers...you should know that wealth is not "DISTRIBUTED"
Wealth is created / generated....start there.
In the meantime, shove you LefTarded beggar videos up your ass.

yes, the usual reply from the forums knuckledraggers who can't seem to digest 3 f*cking sentences

tools, the lot of you

~S~

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

That's an idiotic conclusion since there wouldn't be any new prescription drugs without patent protection. The revenue from new drugs without a patent is zero.

That's an idiotic conclusion since there wouldn't be any new prescription drugs without patent protection. The revenue from new drugs without a patent is zero

Do you have any evidence in support of that (ignorant) conclusion?

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer | Op-Eds & Columns | CEPR

"My book, Rigged, highlights five areas where US policies were deliberately structured to redistribute income upwards.

1. "IP laws were strengthened, making patent & copyright monopolies longer and stronger

"This hugely increased the share of GDP that goes to sectors like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, computers, and software. And it made stakeholders in these sectors hugely wealthy."

"But it was unnecessary.

"Alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work – such as direct public funding for pharmaceutical research, with new drugs selling as generics – would not have led to the same sort of upward redistribution."

 

[BrokeLoser]

How do wealthier people stop you from achieving success?

By keeping us in debt Gator

By lobbying special interest legislation(s) that only big $$$ can comply with

By monopolizing through political channels only big $$ has access to

~S~

Lets assume your conspiracy theories are more than theory...explain how your ability to achieve has been hindered by those who may be lobbying legislators and monopolizing through political channels.

explain this>>>


~S~

haha...you poor twisted fuckers...you should know that wealth is not "DISTRIBUTED"
Wealth is created / generated....start there.
In the meantime, shove you LefTarded beggar videos up your ass.

yes, the usual reply from the forums knuckledraggers who can't seem to digest 3 f*cking sentences

tools, the lot of you

~S~

Translated:
"Beg for others shit with me or I shall call you knuckledragger."

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

I suspect there are alternatives to patents that would lower the costs to consumer while increasing GDP:

Alternative to Drug Patents: Pay for Research Upfront | Beat the Press | CEPR

"An obvious point of entry would be to finance clinical trials, which account for more than 60 percent of research costs.

"The trial results would be fully public with detailed data (consistent with anonymity) on individual outcomes.

"Also, the drugs themselves would be available as generics from the day they are approved.

"The trials would be paid for on a contract basis, similar to the way the Department of Defense pays contractors to develop new technologies, with the difference that everything is placed in the public domain."

Currently, patents work to enrich shareholders who contribute nothing to the productive process.

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

For those of us who see government as a fourth factor of production committed to reducing the cost of living and doing business instead of a deep-state Leviathan, cheaper drug prices trump shareholder value.

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (P. 78)

"The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs.

"The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars.

"No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family.

"Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies."

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Yeah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

eah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

Imagining the Internet

"As with many innovations, the idea for the telephone came along far sooner than it was brought to reality.

"While Italian innovator Antonio Meucci (pictured at left) is credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1849, and Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a phone in 1854, Alexander Graham Bell won the first U.S. patent for the device in 1876.

"Bell began his research in 1874 and had financial backers who gave him the best business plan for bringing it to market."

Government created the market and guaranteed Bell's patent.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

For those of us who see government as a fourth factor of production committed to reducing the cost of living and doing business instead of a deep-state Leviathan, cheaper drug prices trump shareholder value.

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (P. 78)

"The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs.

"The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars.

"No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family.

"Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies."

That sounds warm and fuzzy....In that case, shouldn't Father Government 'control' all commodities?

 

[georgephillip]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"When talking about the financial industry, Michael Bloomberg deserves special mention.

"In addition to ranking among the top ten billionaires, with more than $50 billion in assets, he now seems poised to enter the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Bloomberg’s great genius was to develop an important service for large traders.

"It provided them with terminals that give them information relevant to the economy and particular stocks and commodities faster than anyone else.

"This allows them to profit at the expense of less well-informed investors.

"If society is better-off from this innovation, it is hard to see how."

It also helps less well-informed investors profit.

I work as a statistician for an Ag company, I work mostly with grain farmers, corn/soy/wheat. I provide them with data and analysis that helps them to profit more than the less well-informed farmers.

Is that unfair to the other farmers?

I work as a statistician for an Ag company, I work mostly with grain farmers, corn/soy/wheat. I provide them with data and analysis that helps them to profit more than the less well-informed farmers.

Is that unfair to the other farmers?

I suppose that depends on how much you charge compared to the cost of Bloomberg's terminals?

"All Bloomberg Terminals are leased in two-year cycles (in the late 1990s and early 2000s, three-year contracts were an option), with leases originally based on how many displays were connected to each terminal (this predated the move to Windows-based application).

"Most Bloomberg setups have between two and six displays.

"It is available for an annual fee of $20,000 per user ($25,080 per year for the small number of firms that use only one terminal).[3] As of October 2016, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide.[4]"

Bloomberg Terminal - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Business Insider › more-rich-people-in-china-than-america...
Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Do you "see" how Chinese capitalists are "earning" their billions?

1 million dead and US$38 billion lost: the price of China’s air pollution

Capitalism generates wealth like no economic system ever; however, it allows a few parasites to hoard vast quantities of wealth by externalizing clean-up costs onto society as a whole.

Is that fair or just, or don't you care?

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

"A 2007 World Bank report conducted with China's national environmental agency found that "[...] outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year.

"Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhoea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.'

"World Bank officials said 'China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of the report, citing the possible impact on 'social stability'".

 

[georgephillip]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

 

[JoeMoma]

I have a decent place to live, plenty of good food to eat, clothes to wear, no debt, a couple of trucks to drive, some toys like my old scrappy bass boat. So what if some other dude has 50 billion dollars, that is not hurting me a bit. I am richer than 99% of people through out human history simply by living in this age in the good ol' USA, the land of opportunity.

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Yeah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

eah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

Imagining the Internet

"As with many innovations, the idea for the telephone came along far sooner than it was brought to reality.

"While Italian innovator Antonio Meucci (pictured at left) is credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1849, and Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a phone in 1854, Alexander Graham Bell won the first U.S. patent for the device in 1876.

"Bell began his research in 1874 and had financial backers who gave him the best business plan for bringing it to market."

Government created the market and guaranteed Bell's patent.

ROFL! How did government "create the market" for the telephone?

 

[Andylusion]

It's a bad choice for parents to tell their kids they could be a millionaire or billionaire some day. The odds are .000000001 percent unless the parents have alot of money. But with a college education kids can do fairly well. Eat right, practice your faith, live a spotless life. Happiness is not found in the pursuit of money. Happiness to me is the 20 inches of snow forecasted here. A mere dusting. Wish it would go down south once. 20 inches would send the south into a panic worth watching.

Actually I disagree with even that. Anyone can be a millionaire. Anyone. Absolutely anyone.

If you make minimum wage, and save just $100 a month into good return mutual funds, you'll end up a Millionaire at retirement, or close to it.

My parents are millionaires, and they were just public school teachers.

It's all about living frugally, and saving for retirement. If you do that, you'll end up a millionaire.

You can become a millionaire working minimum wage, and that is only 500K of the working people in this country. You most certainly can become a millionaire if are part of the hundreds of millions that earn more.

 

[bripat9643]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

"Raising more revenue" will men pissing it down a sewer. Higher taxes mean slower economic growth. That doesn't help anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Business Insider › more-rich-people-in-china-than-america...
Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Do you "see" how Chinese capitalists are "earning" their billions?

1 million dead and US$38 billion lost: the price of China’s air pollution

Capitalism generates wealth like no economic system ever; however, it allows a few parasites to hoard vast quantities of wealth by externalizing clean-up costs onto society as a whole.

Is that fair or just, or don't you care?

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

"A 2007 World Bank report conducted with China's national environmental agency found that "[...] outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year.

"Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhoea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.'

"World Bank officials said 'China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of the report, citing the possible impact on 'social stability'".

"It concluded?" You mean it reported a theory that if large quantities of a toxin will kill people, then a small quantity of a toxin will kill a proportional smaller number of people. This theory has never been proven. In fact, all the evidence indicates that it's false.

 

[Andylusion]

Three people now own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of us in this country, link below. If this seems to be ok with us, then what's wrong with them eventually having sixty percent and on and on. What really great, wonderful things have these folks done to make them so deserving of this wealth. How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire? Other link below

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

How Much Money Did Jonas Salk Potentially Forfeit By Not Patenting The Polio Vaccine?

Well I disagree with patents. Patents are effectively an affront to the free-market capitalist system. Free-market... means free-market. How is it a free-market, when I can prevent you from making a product, by using government to stop you? That's what a patent is.

By the way... people seem to point to "it was not patented" as if that means it was a product of socialism. The eradication of polio, was absolutely a triumph of Capitalism. Doctors *SOLD* for a *PROFIT* the vaccine to customers. The companies, and there were several, produced and sold the vaccine for a profit to doctors.

The companies competed against each other, which resulted in them finding ways to cut costs, and reduce the price on the market, which allowed more and more, and the poorest of people, to afford to buy the vaccine.

Everything about the success of Polio eradication, is a monument to the power of the free-market Capitalist system. We need more of that in the current health system, not less.

ANYWAY>>>

The problem with complaining about how the rich own the wealth, is that the solution is for you to go own some wealth.

Dude... go buy some stocks man. Tell your friends and buddies to go buy stocks.

Did you know that Warren Buffet was buying stock at age 11? 11 years old, and he purchased six shares in an oil company.

Warren Buffet didn't have some magic brilliance, or some amazing knowledge. He simply was investing, and building wealth, from the time he was a child.

If you did that.... You'd be Warren Buffet.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, running a paper route, he used his money to buy a pinball machine, and put it in a local business, to generate more income.

You know what kids in my high school were doing? Having beer pong parties at someone's house whose parents were out of town over the weekend.

That's why they are not rich like Warren Buffet, and Warren Buffet is.

If you did what Warren Buffet did, you'd be Warren Buffet.

And by the way, that goes for me too. I worked every year in high school, and blew all the money. I calculated it out. If I had invested all that money that I earned in high school, I'd have almost, just under a Million dollars in investments, right now.

This is what you guys keep missing.....

When you complain about the wealthy having more wealth than the bottom 50%.... that's a choice. That is the result of choices made.

The solution..... make better choices. There is nothing you can do, to somehow 'even out' the wealthy to the poor. Because this is effectively suggesting that you can make a system where the rich start making bad choices, and thus end up with less wealth.

The only thing you can do, is make it so that investing itself is not profitable. Two problems with that solution. The reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they invest wisely. If you make it so that investing here in the US is not wise, they'll simply invest elsewhere.

Again, Apple Computer poured Billions into Ireland, because it was a wiser investment, than in the US at the time.

And now that the EU laid out tax bills on Apple....
Apple drops plans for a $1 billion data center in Ireland

See? Do you understand? If you change the system so that it's no longer a wise investment, then the wealthy will simply invest elsewhere. Now I don't know if they'll move that money here in the US, since the corporate tax rate is lower, but it might be.

Regardless, the wealthy will still invest, and still make a profit, just somewhere else that is more profitable.

The second problem is, while doing that won't hurt the rich, it will hurt the poor. The best chance the poor have of becoming wealthy, is to invest. The rich have enough money they can invest anywhere in the world. The poor don't. And if you take away their ability to invest, with a laughable attempt to harm the rich, you'll take away the only chance the poor have of becoming wealthy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Stop posting. You're an embarrassment