/dev/null Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Damn that Gates Foundation and their lack of productivity. I know. That's money the government could be putting to better use. Like paying government workers (preferably unionized), overpaying for federal contracts, travel, advertising, per diem, gas mileage, rent on office space, utility bills for federal offices, overhead, and whatever is left over for the pet projects of some Senator/Congresscritter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Now can cut the Bull and take a look at the real class war- broken down in graphs so no heavy reading for the easily bored. link That's a really great chart. I really love the way they make it look like there are so many people in the top .01% by giving it a really, really, really big dollar sign. The only thing that chart is missing is a sidebar article from Paul Krugman explaining how computers are taking over the world and the only way to fight back is to give everyone free health care and a union card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Yeah, it's money you earn that can be taken from you at someone else's discretion. Some would call that servitude. Or maybe even a degree of slavery. But its for the greater good. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The argument that the government will screw it up with whatever money they get is a valid one. Took you long enough to get there. So if it's a valid point what is yours? So because 8% of the super wealthy just might be evil we should tax all the super wealthy more and give it all to one entity which you agree will screw it up. Did I get that right? Oh and sorry it took me so long to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 So if it's a valid point what is yours? So because 8% of the super wealthy just might be evil we should tax all the super wealthy more and give it all to one entity which you agree will screw it up. Did I get that right? Oh and sorry it took me so long to get there. Because the super-wealthy are selfishly monopolizing a national resource. Don't forget that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Because the super-wealthy are selfishly monopolizing a national resource. Don't forget that part. You mean a national "resourse". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You mean a national "racehorse." Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Because the super-wealthy are selfishly monopolizing a national resource. Don't forget that part. And here's the funny part. A large portion of assets of super-wealthy are not liquid. What does Moore want them to do? Sell off a part of their assets. Let's say, oh I don't know, a football team and give it to the government? So which part of the team should Ralph sell? Personally I'm thinking the d-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Personally I'm thinking the d-line. Not a national resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Not a national resource. Barely even a resource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Barely even a resource. I don't know. They could probably move furniture. Except for Maybin, who'd be pushed back five yards by an armchair...then celebrate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I know. That's money the government could be putting to better use. Like paying government workers (preferably unionized), overpaying for federal contracts, travel, advertising, per diem, gas mileage, rent on office space, utility bills for federal offices, overhead, and whatever is left over for the pet projects of some Senator/Congresscritter Forget that. What about just taking that Gates money and using it to make a tiny dent in the national debt...giving it back to the EVIL BANKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I know. That's money the government could be putting to better use. Like paying government workers (preferably unionized), overpaying for federal contracts, travel, advertising, per diem, gas mileage, rent on office space, utility bills for federal offices, overhead, and whatever is left over for the pet projects of some Senator/Congresscritter Or organizations "over paying" for computers the Gates Foundation "gives" away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 That's a really great chart. I really love the way they make it look like there are so many people in the top .01% by giving it a really, really, really big dollar sign. The only thing that chart is missing is a sidebar article from Paul Krugman explaining how computers are taking over the world and the only way to fight back is to give everyone free health care and a union card. Lybob, Mother Jones and "real" classwarfare.... ok, thats all I needed to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 The rich also have an easier time screwing hotter chicks so they should be taxed on that as well... It's called income-based alimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It's called income-based alimony. Alimony is socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 That's a really great chart. I really love the way they make it look like there are so many people in the top .01% by giving it a really, really, really big dollar sign. The only thing that chart is missing is a sidebar article from Paul Krugman explaining how computers are taking over the world and the only way to fight back is to give everyone free health care and a union card. so many people? the graph shows average family incomes of different percentiles - you do know how to read a graph don't you because those were pretty simple graphs- if you want to contest the information fine but back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) I am sorry.. I didn't mean it to sound like that. True, you know my beliefs... Again, I didn't mean it to be taken negative. It is what it is I suppose. Most money is made through inheritence and in sales... It feeds itself. If one wants to really get ahead... Hawk something. Hawking "something" could be anything. Telling somebody else that: "All it takes is hard work." Is a bit misleading. "Work smart not hard" does have its place. People in all professions still earn their wages. I think you are confusing obtained with created, and focusing unduly on the source of individual wealth. It is certainly true that a great deal of wealth is inherited - the percentage of those whose assets qualify them as 'rich' are disporportionately inherited. But if you actually track it, you see that most inherited fortunes dissipate over time. On the other hand, consider the wealth of the nation. It increases over time. Not because another founding father kicked the bucket and left the nation an extra trillion dollars, but because of the creation of a net trillion dollars worth of goods, new companies, IP, etc. Nor is that new wealth generally created through sales - sales gets you a paycheck, but usually at the expense of a competitor. After you account for the zero-sum stuff, new wealth is created by intrepeneurs and inventors, and innovation within existing businesses. So if you really mean to ask 'how do I obtain wealth,' the best answer is to be born rich. (I'm a little skeptical about ones overall chances in sales.) But if you mean 'how do I create new wealth,' you should invent something or start a business. And in my personal experience, the richest people (factoring in differences in initial wealth) have been those who have spent time doing the latter, whether as entrepenuers or simply working for startups. Edited March 8, 2011 by finknottle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I think you are confusing obtained with created, and focusing unduly on the source of individual wealth. It is certainly true that a great deal of wealth is inherited - the percentage of those whose assets qualify them as 'rich' are disporportionately inherited. But if you actually track it, you see that most inherited fortunes dissipate over time. On the other hand, consider the wealth of the nation. It increases over time. Not because another founding father kicked the bucket and left the nation an extra trillion dollars, but because of the creation of a net trillion dollars worth of goods, new companies, IP, etc. Nor is that new wealth generally created through sales - sales gets you a paycheck, but usually at the expense of a competitor. After you account for the zero-sum stuff, new wealth is created by intrepeneurs and inventors, and innovation within existing businesses. So if you really mean to ask 'how do I obtain wealth,' the best answer is to be born rich. (I'm a little skeptical about ones overall chances in sales.) But if you mean 'how do I create new wealth,' you should invent something or start a business. And in my personal experience, the richest people (factoring in differences in initial wealth) have been those who have spent time doing the latter, whether as entrepenuers or simply working for startups. If you really want to make money the place is in the FIRE economy link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 That pinky finger has to go. That s is to close to the c. Then again, I cant speal worth a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts