Wealth distribution in USA
George Plimpton
leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US.
youoiregheiouz made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the
wealth in the US, and he offered these sites,
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
and http://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm, as "support" for
the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
generously assume six people per family - average family size is
actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
families, not 400.
The numbers from that site were for the late 1990s. Here's a site,
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-wealth-distribution-2011.html,
something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the population
appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like 10
million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make
shit up.
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
Well, let's take a look at what you're trying to defend: This comes from
a Ron Paul fansite, a libertarian take on wealth distribution in the US:
US wealth distribution: 10% of US citizens own 70.9% of all US assets
Submitted by wd4freedom on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:45
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
0 votes
Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%
And it gets much uglier as you proceed downward. Bottom 40% of population
has 0.2% of all wealth.
The founders equated freedom to liberty which in their language meant you
"owned" property (you were not in debt). The amount of property you owned
had a proportional relationship to the amount of liberty you experienced.
Our system of freedom is skewed and is becoming very dangerous (approx.
100 million US citizens experience ZERO freedom). You can only cage
humans for so long and then something has to give. When liberty is skewed
into the hands of a very small number of the population, then our ability
to "self-govern" becomes a complete and utter illusion.
I believe in free markets, but this distribution of wealth is not a
normal distribution in any way (meaning it is not subject to natural
forces- i.e. statistics 101). It can only exist within an un-natural (non-
free) system, where the relative nature of freedom is constrained.
http://www.dailypaul.com/111232/us-wealth-distribution-10-of-us-citizens-
own-709-of-all-us-assets
Hardly someone who is going to exaggerate the wealth disparity, is it?
Here's another one, this from a business-friendly source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-
america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-
this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
And finally, here's a series of charts that show just how bad the income
disparity is. It's worse than it was in the Roaring 20s, worse than
England has been since the 15th century, and not far from the inequality
that triggered the French revolution.
George Plimpton
So how did your fellow lying fuckwitted leftist manage to come up with
400 families owning 90% of all wealth, hmmmm?
> [evasive and frantic handwaving snipped]
>
> I believe in free markets,
No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they
have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to
unequal wealth distribution.
The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is that
you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're resentful
over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize that the
reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is because they
worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more deserving, than you.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:f7idnQEx7uvg557T...@giganews.com...
We have a winner!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8iOmVd1W_g
-Eddie Haskell
wy
> On 6/23/2011 10:32 AM, 6095 Times Wrong since 1/20/09 dissembled:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:07:48 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
> >> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
> >> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US. youoiregheiouz
> >> made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the wealth in the US,
> >> and he offered these sites,
> >>http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
Those people who got the wealth had to rely on hundreds or even
thousands of other people to get them that wealth, which they went on
to hoard for themselves without sharing any of it with those who
helped them acquire it. It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages labor
to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
practice (that is, involving society as opposed to involving only his
individual self), in which case, even if solely out of respect for the
mass labor that got him stinking rich, his wealth should be
redistributed, if not directly among those who helped him achieve it,
then through taxation. If it's good enough to keep for himself or
give his exec buddies million dollar bonuses, then it's good enough to
spread it to those who also worked for the same result.
>
> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is that
> you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're resentful
> over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize that the
> reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is because they
> worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more deserving, than you.
Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts to
the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you know it,
the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more to
begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt. It's
been done before, it'll be done again, you just need to get the
Repugnants out of the way if you don't want the country to implode.
George Plimpton
The people who may have "helped" them acquire it were paid for their
effort. The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
more did not steal it. Their wealth is largely earned, except where
some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
the government. The point is, wealth earned in free markets is earned,
and those who earn it are morally entitled to it.
It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
> himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages labor
> to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
> practice
Bullshit. Hiring people to do work is not socialistic.
>
>>
>> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is that
>> you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're resentful
>> over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize that the
>> reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is because they
>> worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more deserving, than you.
>
> Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts to
> the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you know it,
> the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more to
> begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt.
If there is to be a tax on earnings, it should be a flat rate.
wy
So were the company execs who still ended up with million dollar
bonuses that all the small people, who did the real actual work,
didn't get. Your real point is?
> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
> more did not steal it.
They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
small people.
> Their wealth is largely earned, except where
> some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
> the government.
You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
> The point is, wealth earned in free markets is earned,
> and those who earn it are morally entitled to it.
That includes everyone from the initiator to the labor used, not just
the initiator alone or with his wealthy exec buddies.
>
> It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
>
> > himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages labor
> > to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
> > practice
>
> Bullshit. Hiring people to do work is not socialistic.
You're relying on society to do the work for you. Otherwise, you'd do
it yourself, wouldn't you?
> >> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is that
> >> you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're resentful
> >> over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize that the
> >> reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is because they
> >> worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more deserving, than you.
>
> > Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts to
> > the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you know it,
> > the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more to
> > begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt.
>
> If there is to be a tax on earnings, it should be a flat rate.
Yeah, crippling those who can least afford it further and letting the
wealthy get away with it further. You fail to understand flat rate
math, but that's typical of an American to fail at math. Just look at
the economy you got. If your math was any good, you wouldn't keep
crashing or having recessions every 6-7 years like clockwork.
Eddie Haskell
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:4d80f6ef-db7e-44d9...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
People who take the greatest risk and make the greatest investments make the
most money. Without the reward for risk there are no entrepreneurs or jobs.
If you had your way you'd be groveling in the dirt like a swollen-bellied
Somalian. If you don't like it here then move to Venezuela where you'd be
right at home.
"An entrepreneur is a person who has possession of a new enterprise, venture
or idea and is accountable for the inherent risks and the outcome of a
product"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur
> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is that
> you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're resentful
> over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize that the
> reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is because they
> worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more deserving, than you.
> Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts to
> the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you know it,
> the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more to
> begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt. It's
> been done before, it'll be done again, you just need to get the
> Repugnants out of the way if you don't want the country to implode.
Yeah, destroy investment, raise taxes on business and destroy job creation.
Brilliant. As a Hussein supporter of flushing money down the shitter with
both hands why don't YOU pay for your stupidity and greed instead of looking
to others who have a little more than shit for brains?
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
How does taxing income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
With what are the wealthy "getting away"? I know what you want to say
it is, but you're too gutless.
Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Few people possess the talents needed to run a multimillion or billion
dollar company and are worth millions. Supply and demand. Don't like it? Get
your boyfriend to pack your shit and get the hell out.
And take your third-world envy driven mentality with you.
-Eddie Haskell
David Hartung
The 80/20 rule has been around for many years, and seems to apply even
in national wealth distribution.
George Plimpton
What do you mean, the "real actual work"? You think the management and
analysis aren't real work? They are. *You* can't do it.
Remember: we're talking about a paradigm of free markets, by
stipulation. In free markets, if management were not "real actual
work", no firm would employ managers - firms that did so would just be
throwing away money and would not be as profitable as those that didn't,
and those firms would perish or fire their managers.
Fact: the management of a business enterprise is many times harder -
orders of magnitude harder - than anything done by the proles at the
bottom. Because it's so hard, and because the talent required to do it
is so scarce, the price of that function is bid up very high. On
average, the company executives earn their high salaries.
>
>> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
>> more did not steal it.
>
> They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
> small people.
Irrelevant. The small people were paid what they were worth.
>> Their wealth is largely earned, except where
>> some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
>> the government.
>
> You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
> nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
Almost no one in an enterprise has anything to do with "physically"
creating the products. That can be seen easily and obviously by looking
at industries in which the product is intangible.
It is simply a fact that most of those who have huge fortunes earned
them entirely legally and ethically. They applied themselves in ways
that chronically complaining, unproductive people like you cannot or
will not, or perhaps both. If you're unhappy with your wealth and
income, it's entirely your own fault.
George Plimpton
Yep.
Colanth
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
[piggybacking]
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:07:48 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
>> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
>> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US. youoiregheiouz
>> made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the wealth in the US,
>> and he offered these sites,
>> http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
>> and http://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm, as "support" for
>> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
>> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
>> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
>> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
>> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
>> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
>> families, not 400.
Let's just take one of those families - the Walton family (you know,
Wal-Mart?) Twenty seven family members in just the immediate family,
starting with Sam and Bud Walton and their wives. You're off by a
factor of 4 for just one family - maybe more for others.
--
"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion
is doing what you're told, not matter what is right." - Jerry
Sturdivant
Colanth
wrote:
Says Walmart-greeter Eddie.
--
If god doesn't like the way I live, let him, not you, tell me.
wy
Don't matter. They still need the skills of the small people to do
the hard labor, something these supposed talented people of yours
possess none of or could care less to want to do that hard work
themselves. In other words, it takes two to tango.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
You'll have to overlook "wy." Like his mentor, Hussein, he doesn't
understand that wealth is created, and that people who create wealth benefit
everyone. Bill Gates and the people who invented and manufactured the
computer he is using got rich doing so and yet he is ungrateful. Had he had
his way none of it would have been possible and he would be living under a
sign propped up next to a tree and be cooking field mice over an open flame.
He thinks that economics is a zero-sum game where somehow the government has
a big pile of money and distribute it unfairly. Some people got a lot more
than him and the rich cause the poor, which is just the opposite of reality
of course.
"wy" has a picture of Hugo Chavez hanging over his bed and likes to
masturbate to it every chance he gets. That's his hero.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Colanth" <col...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:d32707p5bh9ditk7u...@4ax.com...
I never greet Wal-Mart greeters. I smack them aside and tell them to get the
hell out of my way. That's how you got that busted lip.
-Eddie Haskell
DogDiesel
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
rely on themselves. And if a project fails the working people don't take
the hits. But you cant do all the work by yourself . Your argument is plain
stupid. As if everything in the world must be done by one man alone or
according to you . its not allowed.
Big and successful is right. And you are delusional if you think the
limiting factor in building something is what you can do by yourself.
You are clearly an idiot.
A useless idiot at that.
Eddie Haskell
Where's the rest of my message? Oh, that's right. You couldn't refute it so
you reached for the delete key in your desperation.
But not to worry.
"Few people possess the talents needed to run a multimillion or billion
dollar company and are worth millions. Supply and demand. Don't like it? Get
your boyfriend to pack your shit and get the hell out."
And beyond simple supply and demand, if you don't think running a
multimillion or billion dollar company is hard work you are dumber than an
eggplant. And running a small company is a bitch from hell. Especially when
trying to employ envy driven losers such as yourself.
Now, get a job and shut up about it. Oh, and when the boss says sweep the
floor and you tell him that that's not your job, and that you tend the
popcorn machine, just remember that that's why you'll be making minimum wage
the rest of your life.
-Eddie Haskell
wy
Anybody can run a business, lots of mom and pop shops have proven that
forever.
>
> Remember: we're talking about a paradigm of free markets, by
> stipulation. In free markets, if management were not "real actual
> work", no firm would employ managers - firms that did so would just be
> throwing away money and would not be as profitable as those that didn't,
> and those firms would perish or fire their managers.
Assuming management is real actual work, then the labor half of it is
just as real and actual, and if both are doing real actual work
together to achieve a single end, then both should equally share in
the benefits that result from it. A manager's job is no more
important than the guy who has to fit in a crucial piece to make a
product work properly. Without either one, the product would never
materialize.
>
> Fact: the management of a business enterprise is many times harder -
> orders of magnitude harder - than anything done by the proles at the
> bottom. Because it's so hard, and because the talent required to do it
> is so scarce, the price of that function is bid up very high. On
> average, the company executives earn their high salaries.
No one can accurately measure "harder". I can argue that a daycare
worker looking after 10 screaming kids under the age of 3 who each
need to have their diapers changed a few times each and every day is a
hell of a lot tougher than some manager who takes extended executive
lunches and dinners to ease the "pain" and "misery" of all that
insufferable paper work. The guy ripping up streets with a jack
hammer in a sweltering 95 degree heat wave has it much tougher than
the manager who takes Friday afternoons off for a game of squash. The
cab driver on a 12-hour, 6-day work week to just break even at the end
of the week has it tougher than the manager who gets chauffeur driven
in an air-conditioned limousine to a night out at the strip club for a
client meeting. Yeah. Managers sure have it tough. Boo-hoo.
> >> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
> >> more did not steal it.
>
> > They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
> > small people.
>
> Irrelevant. The small people were paid what they were worth.
So too were the manager's exec buddies. But they got hefty bonuses
that the small people didn't. Why? What's the difference?
Everyone's in on it together to get the same product out, but only
those at the top deserve the hefty bonuses separate and removed from
the small people? That's pretty greedy and arrogant of them.
>
> >> Their wealth is largely earned, except where
> >> some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
> >> the government.
>
> > You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
> > nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
>
> Almost no one in an enterprise has anything to do with "physically"
> creating the products. That can be seen easily and obviously by looking
> at industries in which the product is intangible.
Depends what product you're talking about. You need to physically
create cars or computers, but selling real estate or running a
consulting firm isn't exactly physically creating any kind of product,
it's more of a service.
>
> It is simply a fact that most of those who have huge fortunes earned
> them entirely legally and ethically. They applied themselves in ways
> that chronically complaining, unproductive people like you cannot or
> will not, or perhaps both. If you're unhappy with your wealth and
> income, it's entirely your own fault.
Yeah, legally and ethically. More like they earned it by always
saying, "This much for me, this little for you."
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6wwAhvirY
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
The small people are paid what they're worth. So are the executives.
DogDiesel
Don't matter.
It does fucking matter. Ther workers wouldnt exist if the people runing big
companies didnt organize the project and set up the financing to pay the
workers.
They still need the skills of the small people to do
the hard labor,
And the small people need the skills of the owners and executives of
companies to do the financing and organizing labor. To make sure the labor
gets paid.
And its infinately more important then the hard labor workers.
something these supposed talented people of yours
possess none of
Lies
or could care less to want to do that hard work
themselves.
Its impossible you dim witted monkey.
You clearly have the intelligence of a monkey.
In other words, it takes two to tango.
Bullshit
It takes money .
And no worker can get it on their own.
Your argument is worthless. lets get a bunch of labor to make something
big and successful.
You know what happens.
They cant.
George Plimpton
No, there are not 27 family members in an immediate family.
Eddie Haskell
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:iu039e$hpp$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
Okay, but tell 'em what you really think.
Bah hahahah!!!
-Eddie Haskell
Z
> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US.
> youoiregheiouz made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the
> andhttp://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm, as "support" for
> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
> families, not 400.
>
> something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
> ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
> distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the population
> appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like 10
> million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
>
> This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make
> shit up.
Smart and talented people seem to end up with with wealth.
Deadbeats and freeloaders end up complaining about it.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
Concise, to the point, pithy.
I'm giving it a 9.6.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Why don't you just post "I'm a damned moron and have no idea what I'm
talking about" and get it over with?
Imagine, thinks he could run a business..
Bah hahahahaha!!!
-Eddie Haskell
wy
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 06/23/2011 11:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
> >> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
> >> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US. youoiregheiouz
> >> made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the wealth in the US,
> >> and he offered these sites,
> >>http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
> >> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
> >> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
> >> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
> >> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
> >> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
> >> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
> >> families, not 400.
>
> >> The numbers from that site were for the late 1990s. Here's a site,
> >>http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-wealth-distribution-2011.html,
> >> something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
> >> ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
> >> distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the population
> >> appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like 10
> >> million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
>
> >> This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make shit
> >> up.
>
> > The 80/20 rule has been around for many years, and seems to apply even
> > in national wealth distribution.
>
> Yep.
The 400 "families" obviously refers to the Forbes 400 which last year
collectively held $1.37 trillion, more than the bottom 60% of wage
earners. That's pretty sick and is grounds for an outright
revolution, like what happened with the French and Russian
revolutions.
George Plimpton
Exactly right.
Obviously, some people have amassed wealth through illicit or unethical
means, but the whining left-wing deadbeats and freeloaders assume as a
matter of course that *all* large fortunes are somehow illicit.
wy
Who decides that? And why? And where is it written that it should
always be so?
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
That's because they project their own mindset of graft, greed and theft on
others.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
Bullshit. Your boy just fabricated the number, plain and simple. Stop
defending liars, you fucking liar.
> which last year
> collectively held $1.37 trillion, more than the bottom 60% of wage
> earners.
That is nowhere *near* the 90% of all wealth figure that your crackhead
leftist ally threw out there.
There's another 500 lb gorilla in the room: you and the other crackhead
broke-ass leftists can't say *why* wealth inequality is in any way
"wrong". Nothing could be more obvious: you're just bitter because you
broke-ass crack-smoking cocaine-with-baking-soda bitch-ass motherfuckers
don't have two fucking dimes to rub together.
wy
You beat me to it, so the honor is all yours.
Moron.
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
>> get. Your real point is?
>>
>>
>>> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still more did
>>> not steal it.
>>
>> They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
>> small people.
>>
>>> Their wealth is largely earned, except where some have participated in
>>> unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by the government.
>>
>> You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
>> nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
>>
>>> The point is, wealth earned in free markets is earned, and those who
>>> earn it are morally entitled to it.
>>
>> That includes everyone from the initiator to the labor used, not just
>> the initiator alone or with his wealthy exec buddies.
>>
>>
>>> It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
>>>
>>>> himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages labor
>>>> to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
>>>> practice
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Hiring people to do work is not socialistic.
>>
>> You're relying on society to do the work for you. Otherwise, you'd do
>> it yourself, wouldn't you?
>>
>>
>>>>> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is
>>>>> that you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're
>>>>> resentful over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't realize
>>>>> that the reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is
>>>>> because they worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more
>>>>> deserving, than you.
>>>
>>>> Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts
>>>> to the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you know
>>>> it, the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more
>>>> to begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt.
>>>
>>> If there is to be a tax on earnings, it should be a flat rate.
>>
>> Yeah, crippling those who can least afford it further and letting the
>> wealthy get away with it further.
>
> How does taxing income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
Why don't billionaires solve their crushing tax burdens by giving away
all their wealth and taking nice, tax-free jobs at the local hamburger
joint?
George Plimpton
The market - that is, impersonal market forces; Supply and demand.
I know you want to think there are living-and-breathing villains to
blame, but there aren't - just your own lack of backbone.
> And why? And where is it written that it should
> always be so?
It isn't - it just *is* so. It's neither good nor bad; it just is.
George Plimpton
You didn't answer the question, crackhead. Try again: How does taxing
income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
Correct prediction: you won't even try.
>>
>> With what are the wealthy "getting away"? I know what you want to say
>> it is, but you're too gutless.
You lived down to our expectations.
Eddie Haskell
The free market. Capitalism. The things that built the wealthiest country in
history.
Well, until you broke the bank.
-Eddie Haskell
wy
I got some math news for you. Even if 120 million wage earners had a
backbone to earn massive amounts of wealth, it couldn't happen. You'd
have to subtract it from those who already have it because wealth is
finite, not infinite. If there's only $3 trillion that can be owned
in the US, then that's it, and most of that is already owned by just
400 people. It's in the nature of a capitalist society that not
everybody can attain wealth because capitalism demands that most of
the population remain poor or middle class in order for the greedy to
dominate. Otherwise, from where would they get the labor to get them
rich if everybody ends up being rich? So you're dreaming in 3D IMAX
technicolor with this "backbone" nonsense. In a capitalist state,
backbones are only reserved for the select few.
>
> > And why? And where is it written that it should
> > always be so?
>
> It isn't - it just *is* so. It's neither good nor bad; it just is.
Hm. Can't answer it yourself, huh? Nice dodge. No cigar, though.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
I had to click on your post to see if you could figure out what he was
babbling about.
Me either.
-Eddie Haskell
wy
The free market - only made possible by slave labor.
>
> Well, until you broke the bank.
Like that's supposed to be profound or something?
Eddie Haskell
> Moron.
Well, at least you admit it. That's the first step.
Now, step two:
Get a job.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
You're an idiot. Capitalism is simply the free state of economics. All
others require government coercion. Now, get your boyfriend to pack your
shit and move to that land of the workers paradise, Cuba.
> Well, until you broke the bank.
> Like that's supposed to be profound or something?
Like that's supposed to be factual or something.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
That's simply false. Wealth in the US is measured in the tens of
trillions of dollars, and something like 60,000,000 people together own
"only" 81% to 83%.
I have some hard news to you: you're a lazy, unproductive, bullshitting
deadbeat whose lack of wealth is a morally correct outcome. You deserve
your lack of wealth, because you are both unwilling *and* unable to earn
any.
Eddie Haskell
"You'll have to overlook "wy." Like his mentor, Hussein, he doesn't
understand that wealth is created, and that people who create wealth benefit
everyone. Bill Gates and the people who invented and manufactured the
computer he is using got rich doing so and yet he is ungrateful. Had he had
his way none of it would have been possible and he would be living under a
sign propped up next to a tree and be cooking field mice over an open
flame."
"He thinks that economics is a zero-sum game where somehow the government
has
a big pile of money and distribute it unfairly. Some people got a lot more
than him and the rich cause the poor, which is just the opposite of reality
of course."
""wy" has a picture of Hugo Chavez hanging over his bed and likes to
masturbate to it every chance he gets. That's his hero."
-Eddie Haskell, being right again, Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:08 PM
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
Love it!
Hahahahahaha!!!
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
False.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:07:48 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
>> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
>> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US.
>> youoiregheiouz made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the
>> wealth in the US, and he offered these sites,
>
> US
No, you didn't. You bullshitted about 400 families owning 90% of all
wealth in the US, and your own source showed you to be a pathetic liar.
60,000,000 people in the US together own about 81% to 83% of the
wealth. That's far more than any 400 families - more on the order of 15
million families.
You're just a fucking garden-variety left-wing liar.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:8bSdncJqQ-CKBp7T...@giganews.com...
Plimpton takes wy to task:
http://www.glogster.com/media/2/4/56/99/4569937.jpg
-Eddie Haskell
wy
> "wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>
> On Jun 23, 2:31 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <nvn...@sspol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9564d5db-58dc-4086...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 6/23/2011 10:58 AM, wy wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >> On 6/23/2011 10:32 AM, 6095 Times Wrong since 1/20/09 dissembled:
>
> companies didnt organize the project and set up the financing to pay the
> workers.
The companies wouldn't exist or function without the workers. Unions
prove that. It's a two-way street.
>
> They still need the skills of the small people to do
> the hard labor,
>
> And the small people need the skills of the owners and executives of
> companies to do the financing and organizing labor. To make sure the labor
> gets paid.
It's a two-way street, therefore everyone should be paid more or less
equally.
>
> And its infinately more important then the hard labor workers.
Let's see them do it then without them. Don't hold your breath, they
won't and you know it. Then again, you exhibit too severe a brain
damage to know much.
>
> something these supposed talented people of yours
> possess none of
>
> Lies
>
> or could care less to want to do that hard work
> themselves.
>
> Its impossible you dim witted monkey.
> You clearly have the intelligence of a monkey.
>
> In other words, it takes two to tango.
>
> Bullshit
>
> It takes money .
>
> And no worker can get it on their own.
Again, two-way street. One can't do it without the other. You're
just proving my point while thinking you're a genius in disputing
anything. Gee, you're dumb.
>
> Your argument is worthless. lets get a bunch of labor to make something
> big and successful.
>
> You know what happens.
>
> They cant.
Neither can management without labor. Two-way street again. I win.
Eddie Haskell
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
They all lie, but when it comes to numbers and figures the lies are
particularly egregious.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Yes, unions prove that companies won't exist.
> They still need the skills of the small people to do
> the hard labor,
>
> And the small people need the skills of the owners and executives of
> companies to do the financing and organizing labor. To make sure the labor
> gets paid.
> It's a two-way street, therefore everyone should be paid more or less
> equally.
I've already explained to you that starting and running a company entails
more risk and talent than required of the workers, and if not reward for
that risk and talent jobs would not exist.
Now, get a job and shut up about it like I told you.
-Eddie Haskell
Sid9
"David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
news:drqdnXDbFNZFGp7T...@giganews.com...
> On 06/23/2011 11:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
>> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
>> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US. youoiregheiouz
>> made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the wealth in the US,
>> and he offered these sites,
>> http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
>> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
>> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
>> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
>> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
>> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
>> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
>> families, not 400.
>>
>> The numbers from that site were for the late 1990s. Here's a site,
>> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-wealth-distribution-2011.html,
>> something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
>> ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
>> distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the population
>> appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like 10
>> million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
>>
>> This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make shit
>> up.
>>
>
> national wealth distribution.
God meant it so.
Zacharias Mulletstein
> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it through
> the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they have it.
> You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to unequal wealth
> distribution.
No, the vast majority got it through inheritance.
--
I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
Jesus Christ.
Zacharias Mulletstein
> You didn't answer the question, crackhead. Try again: How does taxing
> income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
A gallon of milk costs the same whether you make $10,000 a year or
$1,000,000 a year. A rich person can get by on 200 a month in groceries if
they so wish. A poor person can too. The difference is that the poor
person pays a much higher percentage of their wages just to live. So why
shouldn't the rich pay a higher percentage in taxes? They can afford it.
The poor cannot.
Zacharias Mulletstein
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:8bSdncJqQ-CKBp7T...@giganews.com...
Why do you defend the rich with such passion? They don't give A FUCK about
you. They would just as well you die slowly and painfully as to live.
Eddie Haskell
"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachmul...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in message
news:iu0a7m$4el$1...@dont-email.me...
It's about defending the truth, free markets and what works economically.
Things you know nothing about.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
No evidence there is any "god". The 80/20 distribution just seems to
occur naturally.
Eddie Haskell
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:f7idnQEx7uvg557T...@giganews.com...
>> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
>> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they
>> have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to
>> unequal wealth distribution.
>
> No, the vast majority got it through inheritance.
Lie of course, but so fucking what?
When I pass on my money is going to my kids, not you. So you can fucking
forget it.
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:8bSdnf9qQ-B7Bp7T...@giganews.com...
>> You didn't answer the question, crackhead. Try again: How does taxing
>> income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
>
> A gallon of milk costs the same whether you make $10,000 a year or
> $1,000,000 a year. A rich person can get by on 200 a month in groceries
> if they so wish. A poor person can too. The difference is that the poor
> person pays a much higher percentage of their wages just to live. So why
> shouldn't the rich pay a higher percentage in taxes? They can afford it.
That's not a reason why they should have to pay a higher marginal rate.
> The poor cannot.
>
Eddie Haskell
"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachmul...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in message
news:iu09hn$v0k$1...@dont-email.me...
> news:f7idnQEx7uvg557T...@giganews.com...
>> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
>> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they
>> have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to
>> unequal wealth distribution.
>
> No, the vast majority got it through inheritance.
Zacharias Mulletstein, the snot-nosed red headed kid gets lectured by Milton
Friedman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4
-Eddie Haskell
George Plimpton
I'm not defending the rich. I'm defending a system that allows
hard-working people to become rich.
Why do you give in to your disgusting envy of people more successful
than you?
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:59:04 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> The 80/20 rule has been around for many years, and seems to apply even
>>>>> in national wealth distribution.
>
>> defending liars, you fucking liar.
>>
>
You did. You said 400 families own - not control, *own* - 90% of the
wealth. That's a lie; you made it up.
> The wealth distribution has always been recognized as "top heavy", and
> the claim still is true.
Your numbers are a fabrication - they are off by orders of magnitude.
You're just another whiny crack-smoking bitch-ass whiny goddamned
left-wing liar.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:36:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> No, you didn't. You bullshitted about 400 families owning 90% of all
>> wealth in the US, and your own source showed you to be a pathetic liar.
>
You lied. You said 400 families own 90% of the wealth in the US.
That's bullshit - you lied. Yes, now you're stamping your little
impotent foot to try to deflect attention from your lying.
You're a chronic liar.
George Plimpton
> On Jun 23, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 2:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2011 10:58 AM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 10:32 AM, 6095 Times Wrong since 1/20/09 dissembled:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity young
>>>>>>>> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
>>>>>>>> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US. youoiregheiouz
>>>>>>>> and he offered these sites,
>>>>>>>> http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
>>>>>>>> andhttp://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm, as "support" for
>>>>>>>> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
>>>>>>>> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
>>>>>>>> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
>>>>>>>> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
>>>>>>>> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
>>>>>>>> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
>>>>>>>> families, not 400.
>>
>>>>>>>> The numbers from that site were for the late 1990s. Here's a site,
>>>>>>>> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-wealth-distribution-2011.html,
>>>>>>>> something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
>>>>>>>> ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
>>>>>>>> distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the population
>>>>>>>> appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like 10
>>>>>>>> million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
>>
>>>>>>>> This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make
>>>>>>>> shit up.
>>
>>>>>>> a Ron Paul fansite, a libertarian take on wealth distribution in the US:
>>
>>>>>>> US wealth distribution: 10% of US citizens own 70.9% of all US assets
>>
>>>>>> So how did your fellow lying fuckwitted leftist manage to come up with
>>>>>> 400 families owning 90% of all wealth, hmmmm?
>>
>>>>>>> [evasive and frantic handwaving snipped]
>>
>>>>>>> I believe in free markets,
>>
>>>>>> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they
>>>>>> have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to
>>>>>> unequal wealth distribution.
>>
>>>>> thousands of other people to get them that wealth, which they went on
>>>>> to hoard for themselves without sharing any of it with those who
>>>>> helped them acquire it.
>>
>>>> The people who may have "helped" them acquire it were paid for their
>>>> effort.
>>
>>> So were the company execs who still ended up with million dollar
>>> bonuses that all the small people, who did the real actual work,
>>> didn't get.
>>
>> analysis aren't real work? They are. *You* can't do it.
>
> Anybody can run a business, lots of mom and pop shops have proven that
> forever.
No, *not* everyone can run a business - most mom and pop shops fail.
>> Remember: we're talking about a paradigm of free markets, by
>> stipulation. In free markets, if management were not "real actual
>> work", no firm would employ managers - firms that did so would just be
>> throwing away money and would not be as profitable as those that didn't,
>> and those firms would perish or fire their managers.
>
> Assuming management is real actual work,
It is - not in rational dispute.
> then the labor half of it is
> just as real and actual, and if both are doing real actual work
> together to achieve a single end, then both should equally share in
> the benefits that result from it. A manager's job is no more
> important than the guy who has to fit in a crucial piece to make a
> product work properly. Without either one, the product would never
> materialize.
The management job is harder to do successfully, and far fewer people
are able to do it. A competent manager is much harder to replace than a
production worker; a competent executive is still harder to find and, if
necessary, replace.
>
>>
>> Fact: the management of a business enterprise is many times harder -
>> orders of magnitude harder - than anything done by the proles at the
>> bottom. Because it's so hard, and because the talent required to do it
>> is so scarce, the price of that function is bid up very high. On
>> average, the company executives earn their high salaries.
>
> No one can accurately measure "harder".
You can observe in the market that it's much harder to find a competent
executive than a competent prole.
>
>>>> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
>>>> more did not steal it.
>>
>>> They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
>>> small people.
>>
>> Irrelevant. The small people were paid what they were worth.
>
> So too were the manager's exec buddies. But they got hefty bonuses
> that the small people didn't. Why?
Because that's part of their compensation.
>>>> Their wealth is largely earned, except where
>>>> some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
>>>> the government.
>>
>>> You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
>>> nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
>>
>> Almost no one in an enterprise has anything to do with "physically"
>> creating the products. That can be seen easily and obviously by looking
>> at industries in which the product is intangible.
>
> Depends what product you're talking about. You need to physically
> create cars or computers, but selling real estate or running a
> consulting firm isn't exactly physically creating any kind of product,
> it's more of a service.
Even in industries in which something tangible is produced, most of the
people employed by the enterprise have little to do with the physical
production.
>
>>
>> It is simply a fact that most of those who have huge fortunes earned
>> them entirely legally and ethically. They applied themselves in ways
>> that chronically complaining, unproductive people like you cannot or
>> will not, or perhaps both. If you're unhappy with your wealth and
>> income, it's entirely your own fault.
>
> Yeah, legally and ethically.
Yes.
> More like they earned it by always
> saying, "This much for me, this little for you."
No.
DogDiesel
Nope , your a fucking idiot.
Its not a equal two way street. And neither will the pay be. Workers have
no vested interest in the sucess or failure of the company. The owner or
exec does. The worker have no investment at all. They get paid to work
in exchange for labor. they get paid no matter what. end of story.
No two people do the same job. And more money goes to the higher ups or
owners.
>
> And its infinately more important then the hard labor workers.
Let's see them do it then without them.
Lets see a worker be employed without execs. Who get the cash from banks to
pay them. Or would you rather let the worker not get paid at all until the
project is done. And it turns a profit. You have no real argument
They wont do it.
Don't hold your breath, they
won't and you know it. Then again, you exhibit too severe a brain
damage to know much.
>
> something these supposed talented people of yours
> possess none of
>
> Lies
>
> or could care less to want to do that hard work
> themselves.
>
> Its impossible you dim witted monkey.
> You clearly have the intelligence of a monkey.
>
> In other words, it takes two to tango.
>
> Bullshit
>
> It takes money .
>
> And no worker can get it on their own.
Again, two-way street. One can't do it without the other. You're
just proving my point while thinking you're a genius in disputing
anything. Gee, you're dumb.
No, an unequal two way street . with unequal pay. You , simple man. Have
to accept that equality is a lie. There will never be equality . because
everything must be earned. executive pay is earned. And worker pay is
earned.
If you want equality with exec man. you pay for it.
>
> Your argument is worthless. lets get a bunch of labor to make something
> big and successful.
>
> You know what happens.
>
> They cant.
Neither can management without labor. Two-way street again. I win.
You lost . unequal two wat street.
noone will ever be equal.
And that is right.
And you are wrong.
DogDiesel
On Jun 23, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> analysis aren't real work? They are. *You* can't do it.
Anybody can run a business, lots of mom and pop shops have proven that
forever.
>
> Remember: we're talking about a paradigm of free markets, by
> stipulation. In free markets, if management were not "real actual
> work", no firm would employ managers - firms that did so would just be
> throwing away money and would not be as profitable as those that didn't,
> and those firms would perish or fire their managers.
Assuming management is real actual work, then the labor half of it is
just as real and actual, and if both are doing real actual work
together to achieve a single end, then both should equally share in
the benefits that result from it. A manager's job is no more
important than the guy who has to fit in a crucial piece to make a
product work properly. Without either one, the product would never
materialize.
>
> Fact: the management of a business enterprise is many times harder -
> orders of magnitude harder - than anything done by the proles at the
> bottom. Because it's so hard, and because the talent required to do it
> is so scarce, the price of that function is bid up very high. On
> average, the company executives earn their high salaries.
No one can accurately measure "harder". I can argue that a daycare
worker looking after 10 screaming kids under the age of 3 who each
need to have their diapers changed a few times each and every day is a
hell of a lot tougher than some manager who takes extended executive
lunches and dinners to ease the "pain" and "misery" of all that
insufferable paper work. The guy ripping up streets with a jack
hammer in a sweltering 95 degree heat wave has it much tougher than
the manager who takes Friday afternoons off for a game of squash. The
cab driver on a 12-hour, 6-day work week to just break even at the end
of the week has it tougher than the manager who gets chauffeur driven
in an air-conditioned limousine to a night out at the strip club for a
client meeting. Yeah. Managers sure have it tough. Boo-hoo.
> >> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still
> >> more did not steal it.
>
> > They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
> > small people.
>
> Irrelevant. The small people were paid what they were worth.
So too were the manager's exec buddies. But they got hefty bonuses
that the small people didn't. Why? What's the difference?
The difference is the buddy sysyem . and nobody is ever equal. And they
have the right to give their buddies bonuses and thats the way it is . and
too bad for you. period
Everyone's in on it together to get the same product out,
Not equally together.
but only
those at the top deserve the hefty bonuses separate and removed from
the small people?
Yes. that is correct.
That's pretty greedy and arrogant of them.
No its not . its perk of that job. If youi go to harvard business school
for 10 years you too can do that.
>
> >> Their wealth is largely earned, except where
> >> some have participated in unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by
> >> the government.
>
> > You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
> > nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
>
> Almost no one in an enterprise has anything to do with "physically"
> creating the products. That can be seen easily and obviously by looking
> at industries in which the product is intangible.
Depends what product you're talking about. You need to physically
create cars or computers, but selling real estate or running a
consulting firm isn't exactly physically creating any kind of product,
it's more of a service.
>
> It is simply a fact that most of those who have huge fortunes earned
> them entirely legally and ethically. They applied themselves in ways
> that chronically complaining, unproductive people like you cannot or
> will not, or perhaps both. If you're unhappy with your wealth and
> income, it's entirely your own fault.
Yeah, legally and ethically. More like they earned it by always
saying, "This much for me, this little for you."
You are correct. Again no one is equal. And never will be . You just cant
grasp that who you know is more important then what you know.
Or what you do.
DogDiesel
On Jun 23, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > in national wealth distribution.
>
The 400 "families" obviously refers to the Forbes 400 which last year
collectively held $1.37 trillion, more than the bottom 60% of wage
earners. That's pretty sick and is grounds for an outright
revolution, like what happened with the French and Russian
revolutions.
it sounds fair to me.
DogDiesel
We don't., we defend the Constitutional right to earn and keep your
cash and possessions. And to not have the reallocated to someone else. And
we understand , because we actually live in America. that big and
successful is good. And working a minimum wage job isn't bad. because you
will learn something , sharpen your brain and move on. IF you are ready too.
And we understand that those who get their Harvard educations, and those
that run things . get more cash.
And so do their buddies. And so do those they do business with.
And so does anyone who owns anything.
labor is a small piece of expenses.
if you cant grasp a business model
You have no argument. If you want to be a brick layer , or electrician or
broom pusher, or operator.
and you believe you should get a million dollar bonus.
Its ludicrous.
DogDiesel
"Eddie Haskell" <nvn...@sspol.com> wrote in message
news:f8NMp.229488$Q84.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
>> On 6/23/2011 1:00 PM, 6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:28:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 11:20 AM, wy wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 23, 2:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 10:58 AM, wy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 10:32 AM, 6095 Times Wrong since 1/20/09 dissembled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> comes from a Ron Paul fansite, a libertarian take on wealth
>>>>>>>>> distribution in the US:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> US wealth distribution: 10% of US citizens own 70.9% of all US
>>>>>>>>> assets
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how did your fellow lying fuckwitted leftist manage to come up
>>>>>>>> with 400 families owning 90% of all wealth, hmmmm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [evasive and frantic handwaving snipped]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe in free markets,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
>>>>>>>> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that
>>>>>>>> they have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets
>>>>>>>> lead to unequal wealth distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those people who got the wealth had to rely on hundreds or even
>>>>>>> thousands of other people to get them that wealth, which they went
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> to hoard for themselves without sharing any of it with those who
>>>>>>> helped them acquire it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who may have "helped" them acquire it were paid for their
>>>>>> effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> So were the company execs who still ended up with million dollar
>>>>> bonuses that all the small people, who did the real actual work,
>>>>> didn't
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who saved it up and reinvested it and made still more did
>>>>>> not steal it.
>>>>>
>>>>> They wouldn't have any of it to begin with without the labor of the
>>>>> small people.
>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> unfree markets, i.e. those that are rigged by the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> You make it sound as if "their wealth" only applies to those who did
>>>>> nothing to physically create the products they were selling.
>>>>>
>>>>>> earn it are morally entitled to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That includes everyone from the initiator to the labor used, not just
>>>>> the initiator alone or with his wealthy exec buddies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages
>>>>>>> labor
>>>>>>> to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. Hiring people to do work is not socialistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're relying on society to do the work for you. Otherwise, you'd do
>>>>> it yourself, wouldn't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The obvious thing in all this - the 500 lb gorilla in the room - is
>>>>>>>> that you and yeoareiugrhiuouiooz are bone-fucking poor, and you're
>>>>>>>> resentful over it. You see wealth inequality, and you don't
>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>> that the reason some people have vast wealth and you have none is
>>>>>>>> because they worked harder, and therefore are *morally* more
>>>>>>>> deserving, than you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't worry, if it'll make everyone feel happier, the Bush tax cuts
>>>>>>> to the wealthy will come to an end, as they must, and before you
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> it, the rich will be forking over a top marginal rate of 40% or more
>>>>>>> to begin help paying off the fast approaching $16 trillion debt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is to be a tax on earnings, it should be a flat rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, crippling those who can least afford it further and letting the
>>>>> wealthy get away with it further.
>>>>
>>>> How does taxing income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
>>>
>>> all their wealth and taking nice, tax-free jobs at the local hamburger
>>> joint?
Why dont you take a job at the hamburger joint.
Or bitch about the government stealing all the wealth from the middle
class
by trashing the dolars value for votes
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, crackhead. Try again: How does taxing
>> income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
>>
>> Correct prediction: you won't even try.
He should of said . Because its a tax increase. Because they pay no
taxes already.
But that opens up the can of worms that the bottom 50% of the country pay
4% taxes.
And he loses the argument
DogDiesel
On Jun 23, 3:21 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 11:44 AM, wy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 2:31 pm, "Eddie Haskell"<nvn...@sspol.com> wrote:
> >> dollar company and are worth millions.
>
> > the hard labor, something these supposed talented people of yours
> > possess none of or could care less to want to do that hard work
> > themselves. In other words, it takes two to tango.
>
> The small people are paid what they're worth. So are the executives.
Who decides that?
The US government decides. And the owners decide. And the job market
decides.
The people decide to work for an amount of wages , for the skill set they
have. And that is what the job pay .
If the pay is too low nobody will do it.
And why?
Because a job has to pay high enough to attract the people who HAVE PROVEN
to have those skills.
And where is it written that it should
always be so?
In every college business book in the world.
And The Constitution of the United states of America.
wy
> "wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>
> > > always be so?
>
> > The free market. Capitalism. The things that built the wealthiest country
> > in
> > history.
> > The free market - only made possible by slave labor.
>
Trade and industry controlled by private owners for profit require
slave labor. You're not going to find any slave labor if everybody's
rich. No slave labor = no capitalism. Try starting up a serious
business without slave labor sometime. Your business will end on day
one.
>
> > Well, until you broke the bank.
> > Like that's supposed to be profound or something?
>
> Like that's supposed to be factual or something.
I get it. It wasn't profound or something or anything at all. Just
like your last retort. At least you're consistent.
DogDiesel
>
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
>> On 6/23/2011 12:24 PM, Z wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 9:07 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> Recently, two typically snarky, full-of-themselves, zero-integrity
>>>> young
>>>> leftists, jamieson ("6095 times wrong since 1/20/09") and yeowrghuooz,
>>>> have been blabbering about wealth distribution in the US.
>>>> youoiregheiouz made the absurd claim that 400 families own 90% of the
>>>> wealth in the US, and he offered these
>>>> andhttp://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm, as "support" for
>>>> the claim. The latter is the only one that even remotely offers any
>>>> statistics, and they do not come close to supporting the claim.
>>>> According to that site, 20% of the entire population of the US own 81%
>>>> of the wealth. 20% of 300 million is 60 million people, and if we
>>>> generously assume six people per family - average family size is
>>>> actually much smaller - that would still be at least 10 million
>>>> families, not 400.
>>>>
>>>> The numbers from that site were for the late 1990s. Here's a
>>>> something called "Lenin's Tomb" - take a guess as to their political
>>>> ideology - that presents figures supposedly for current wealth
>>>> distribution. They don't differ by much - the top 20% of the
>>>> population
>>>> appear to own a little over 80% of the wealth. That's something like
>>>> 10
>>>> million to 15 million families, *not* 400.
>>>>
>>>> This is a standard feature of snarky young leftists: they just make
>>>> shit up.
>>>
>>> Deadbeats and freeloaders end up complaining about it.
>>
>> Exactly right.
>>
>> Obviously, some people have amassed wealth through illicit or unethical
>> means, but the whining left-wing deadbeats and freeloaders assume as a
>> matter of course that *all* large fortunes are somehow illicit.
>
> That's because they project their own mindset of graft, greed and theft on
> others.
>
> -Eddie Haskell
>
Like my brother does to me.
David Hartung
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:8bSdnf9qQ-B7Bp7T...@giganews.com...
>> You didn't answer the question, crackhead. Try again: How does taxing
>> income at a flat rate "cripple" people at the bottom?
>
> A gallon of milk costs the same whether you make $10,000 a year or
> $1,000,000 a year. A rich person can get by on 200 a month in groceries
> if they so wish. A poor person can too. The difference is that the poor
> person pays a much higher percentage of their wages just to live. So why
> shouldn't the rich pay a higher percentage in taxes? They can afford it.
> The poor cannot.
You are aware that the rich do pay a higher percentage of their income
in taxes?
George Plimpton
That's false. The workers are free to change jobs, and they are paid
for their work. Slaves are not free to change jobs and are not paid for
their work.
Out of an irrational anger at your own shitty lot in life, you lied.
wy
Meaningless retort without anything to support it.
George Plimpton
Your claim that the market economy depends on slave labor is what is
lacking any support. It's a lie.
David Hartung
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
>> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
>> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that
>> they have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead
>> to unequal wealth distribution.
>
Prove it.
Sid9
That's straight out LIE!
David Hartung
From you post, it seems that you have no concept of history. There was
much more to the French revolution than upward accumulation of wealth.
Don Kresch
in blood:
>Those people who got the wealth had to rely on hundreds or even
>thousands of other people to get them that wealth, which they went on
>to hoard for themselves without sharing any of it with those who
>helped them acquire it.
Nonsense.
> It'd be one thing if Mr. Rich Guy did it all
>himself and kept the wealth all to himself, but once he engages labor
>to do all the dirty work for him, then he's engaged in a socialistic
>practice (that is, involving society as opposed to involving only his
>individual self),
That's not socialistic.
> in which case, even if solely out of respect for the
>mass labor that got him stinking rich, his wealth should be
>redistributed, if not directly among those who helped him achieve it,
>then through taxation.
You're nothing but a thug who's too cowardly to be the thief
he so desperately wants to be.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
in blood:
>So were the company execs who still ended up with million dollar
>bonuses that all the small people, who did the real actual work,
>didn't get.
Define "actual work".
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
You should know that ZM is a known troll. Best that you not
feed it.
George Plimpton
No, it isn't.
"While taxpayers in every bracket do what they can to minimize their
taxes, in 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid 23 percent of their
adjusted gross income in income taxes. Those earning between $62,000
and $104,000--certainly part of the middle class that Hillary
Clinton says is bearing a bigger burden because of tax cuts for the
wealthy--paid an average tax rate of 9 percent. The tax rate of
those with incomes between $31,000 and $62,000 was under 7 percent,
or less than one third of the tax rate of the rich."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html
Sid9
Naïve fool!
George Plimpton
You didn't prove it. You can't - it's bullshit. The vast majority of
super-rich people earned it.
Sid9
The French people were starving.
"Let them eat cake", Marie Antoinette.
What kind of crap schools did you go to?
Home schooled?
Church schools?
No schools?
wy
And just think of how all that inheritance will keep getting passed
down for generations as practically free money for their descendants,
and you can thank Reagan for it too and Tax Reform Act of 1986:
"The rich already have a new way to avoid inheritance taxes forever --
for generations and generations -- thanks to bankers. After Congress
passed a reform in 1986 making it impossible for a "trust" to skip a
generation before paying inheritance taxes, bankers convinced
legislatures in many states to eliminate their "rules against
perpetuities," which means that trust funds set up in those states can
exist in perpetuity, thereby allowing the trust funds to own new
businesses, houses, and much else for descendants of rich people, and
even to allow the beneficiaries to avoid payments to creditors when in
personal debt or sued for causing accidents and injuries. About $100
billion in trust funds has flowed into those states so far. You can
read the details on these "dynasty trusts" (which could be the basis
for an even more solidified "American aristocracy") in a New York
Times opinion piece published in July 2010 by Boston College law
professor Roy Madoff, who also has a book on this and other new
tricks: Immortality and the Law: The Rising Power of the American Dead
(Yale University Press, 2010)."
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
You think you and your descendants will ever be that lucky with the
mere pittance you earn?
As for how many got it through inheritance, about a third of the 50
richest did.
A third of the 50 richest is a lot of money in very few hands, like
about half-a-trillion.
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
It's the lie Dave and his fellow Heritage Foundation acolytes have been
instructed to repeat over and over, no matter how many times it gets
refuted.
Don Kresch
in blood:
>On Jun 23, 8:00�pm, David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 04:00 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>> > "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
>> >news:f7idnQEx7uvg557T...@giganews.com...
>> >> No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it
>> >> through the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that
>> >> they have it. You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead
>> >> to unequal wealth distribution.
>>
>> > No, the vast majority got it through inheritance.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>And just think of how all that inheritance will keep getting passed
>down for generations as practically free money for their descendants,
>and you can thank Reagan for it too and Tax Reform Act of 1986:
Is there something wrong with that? After all: inheritance is
nothing more than a gift. Just like a....BIRTHDAY GIFT. And you're not
against birthday gifts, ARE YOU?
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:20:23 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com> scrawled
> in blood:
>
>>So were the company execs who still ended up with million dollar bonuses
>>that all the small people, who did the real actual work, didn't get.
>
> Define "actual work".
Actually MAKING things, or performing a service. Instead of picking up
multi-million dollar bonuses for running the company into the ground.
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
I think when you're talking about a "birthday gift" of over four million
dollars, tax on the exchange is warranted.
Jefferson wanted an effective 100% tax on estates, saying that real
property should revert to the people for redistribution.
6095 Dead, 1238 since 1/20/09
> "David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
> news:sLKdnbb2vphYSJ7T...@giganews.com...
>> On 06/23/2011 06:09 PM, DogDiesel wrote:
>>> "wy"<w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>>> news:39dcb714-64f8-4266-
a6be-6c1...@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Hunger is becoming fairly widespread in America: one in six people are on
food stamps, and not only have food prices gone up a lot, but the
Republicans want to cut funding for what there is.
Let them eat cake, indeed.
Virgil
"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachmul...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:f7idnQEx7uvg557T...@giganews.com...
> > No, you don't. Those people who own vast wealth nearly all got it through
> > the functioning of free markets, and you hate the fact that they have it.
> > You hate free markets, because truly free markets lead to unequal wealth
> > distribution.
>
> No, the vast majority got it through inheritance.
And much of the wealthy's income is through capital gains which is taxed
at a rate lower than most middle Americans pay.
A cap on capital gains, or a graduated tax on it like the income tax,
might well tend to equalize things so the wealthy pay at least at the
same rate as the rest of us.
--
David Hartung
The problem with your statement Zepp, is that the only "refutation" you
ever seem to come up with is your own opinion.