Top 1% OWNS MORE THAN bottom 90%
schoenf...@gmail.com
Bob Kolker
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
So what else is new? This has always been the case. Most people are
dunces and ballast. Very few have the ability to create wealth and fewer
still the ambition to make it happen. Life is like a bottle of milk. The
cream rises to the top.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
What a surprise! You mean life is not fair? I am shocked! Shocked!
Bob Kolker
Joseph Hertzlinger
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
> top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
Why should we care?
schoenf...@gmail.com
Harold Burton
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-
> 90_19.html
That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
beats the bottom 90%.
Harold Burton
Bob Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-botto
> > m-90_19.html
> >
> So what else is new? This has always been the case. Most people are
> dunces and ballast. Very few have the ability to create wealth and fewer
> still the ambition to make it happen. Life is like a bottle of milk. The
> cream rises to the top.
That, plus those who want to get closer to that top 1% might consider
spending less time posting to these newsgroups and more time actually
earning money. Of course that requires work and you won't catch them
doing that, they'd rather waste their time in these newsgroups whining
about the "unfair" outcome of their laziness.
The World Wide Wade
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-botto
> > m-90_19.html
> >
> So what else is new? This has always been the case.
No it hasn't.
> Most people are
> dunces and ballast. Very few have the ability to create wealth and fewer
> still the ambition to make it happen. Life is like a bottle of milk. The
> cream rises to the top.
So how's the bottom of the bottle treatin' ya?
ro...@telus.net
<jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
>> top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
>Why should we care?
Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
-- Roy L
lora...@cs.com
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
> > top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
> Why should we care?
Omnia mutatur.
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
Why does this have anything to do with justice?
schoenf...@gmail.com
A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
zzbunker
That's why the bottom 90% lets the top 1% own everything.
Since they're all Elvis wannabee morons
from New Pork. Except for Marlon Brando,
who's an Elvis wannabee from New Dork.
PerfectlyAble
You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
Any society where the power (money) is concentrated in
the hands of a few is limited to the imagination of those few.
I assure you that the problems faced by the world, they haven't
gone away just because so few own so much! They aren't
all that more intelligent you know and collectively the world
is far more impressive. The problems are solved by the 99%
because the 1% spend their entire time keeping themselves
in the 1%. Duh! We are lucky for now that capitalism allows
the smart ideas to filter through to the investment managers
of the 1%. But just wait, inevitably, the 1% will close ranks,
go soft, think they should always be the 1% for all time, no
more Gates, no more Buffetts, just lots of little Bushshits,
turn the world into one giant religious-communtarian oasis.
Don't say it can't happen, happens all the time through
history (different ideology, different God, same power structure).
Its not capitalism I have a problem with, its capitalists who
draw the bridge up behind them. You know who they are,
they imply things like they're the main source of all technological
innovation, or that my way or the highway when criticised,
these are the words of the servents of the 1% ingraciating
themselves to their 1% employers.
zzbunker
PerfectlyAble wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-
> > > 90_19.html
> >
> >
> > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > beats the bottom 90%.
>
> You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
Since the only thing the top 1% know about
math is Oprah, that's redundent, since the
only thing the morons know about the bottom 90%
is Bill Cosby.
Harold Burton
"PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bot
> > > tom-
> > > 90_19.html
> >
> >
> > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > beats the bottom 90%.
>
> You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
>
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-b
ottom-90_19.html
Your point?
-- regards , Peter B. P. - liberterran.org, markedspartiet.dk,
macplanet.dk "The politicians don't just want your money. They want your
soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and
helpless." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
Bob Kolker
>
> Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
> being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
And just what is justice? YOUR notion of how things should be?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
> being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
What is justice? YOUR notion of how things should be? And just who the
fuck are you? What makes YOUR notion of justice and right, just and
right? You are a legen in you own mind.
Let each one of us see to his own behaviour. The condition of others is
their problem, not ours.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
It is based on the assumption that anyone who has more (or much more)
than his fellows must have done something evil to get what they have.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
>
>
> A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
> citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
> federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
> manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
> erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
> this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment. Then Congress will find
other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
corporations. Now, what legal and feasible means do you propose to do
away with this? Be specific.
Bob Kolker
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Just-Ice!
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_fednUq1w5SXsIzY...@comcast.com...
zzbunker
Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bot
> > > > tom-
> > > > 90_19.html
> > >
> > >
> > > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > > beats the bottom 90%.
> >
> > You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
>
>
> Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
You couldn't have worked you way into it,
Since the only thing the top 1% does is moron Bush stuff
and New Hampshire. They don't even do US Steel
anymore, since Cuba and Rupert Murdoch moroned that down too much.
Harold Burton
"zzbunker" <zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> You couldn't have worked you way into it,
> Since the only thing the top 1% does is moron Bush stuff
> and New Hampshire. They don't even do US Steel
> anymore, since Cuba and Rupert Murdoch moroned that down too much.
Yet another drug addled response from a leftard.
schoenf...@gmail.com
Robert Kolker wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
> > citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
> > federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
> > manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
> > erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
> > this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
>
> All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment.
We do not need to repeal any amendments. The current monetary system
(including the IRS) is completely unconstitutional.
> Then Congress will find
> other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
> progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
> taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
> corporations. Now, what legal and feasible means do you propose to do
> away with this? Be specific.
Two things:
1. Vote libertarian (or anything BUT democan/replicrat). As soon as
this fraudulent monetary system is eliminated, most of the other
criminal institutions will simultaneously fail. Libertarians are the
only ones willing to do this.
2. Get the word out (this is the only real weapon in an information
war).
> Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
I have voted libertarian since 1972. To no avail. It is a throwaway
vote. The libertarians can't even get a dog catcher elected.
I once voted Republican. In 1964 I voted for Barry Goldwater. I was
warned that if I voted for Goldwater the U.S. would be mired in an
endless landwar in Asia. Well I voted for Goldwater and guess what
happened.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
<jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:11:04 GMT, ro...@telus.net <ro...@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:57:29 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger
>><jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
>>><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
>>>> top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>>>
>>>Why should we care?
>>
>> Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
>> being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
>
>Why does this have anything to do with justice?
Justice requires rewards commensurate with contributions, and
penalties commensurate with deprivations imposed on others. It is
self-evident that the top 1% in wealth have not made a greater
contribution than the bottom 90%. OTC, most of them have contributed
little or nothing. They haven't had to, so why would they bother?
-- Roy L
Sgt.Sausage
Which (unstated above) is a completely bogus and invalid
assumption.
John
Electing Libertarians will throw the world's economy into a depression
that will end society as we know it. Maybe not immediately but it will
happen. As oversight is stripped from corporations, monopolies will
rise until there are no competitors. Think the Polesotechnic League.
Socially the Libs are decent. Economically the Libs are positing a
failed system. They advocate corporate government and if what's best
for the corporation is best for the people then I want someone to stop
the world and let me off.
Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
John
John
Electing Libertarians will throw the world's economy into a depression
that will end society as we know it. Maybe not immediately but it will
happen. As oversight is stripped from corporations, monopolies will
rise until there are no competitors. Think the Polesotechnic League.
Socially the Libs are decent. Economically the Libs are positing a
failed system. They advocate corporate government and if what's best
for the corporation is best for the people then I want someone to stop
the world and let me off.
Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
John
>
ro...@telus.net
No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.
I know exactly four truly rich people personally, well enough to know
what they are like and how they got their money.
One inherited. He is a nice guy, quite smart, but has never held a
job, run a business, or made much in the way of a contribution. Why
bother? Nothing he does is going to make any difference to his
lifestyle.
One is a slick and cunning crook who made his fortune by getting
people to invest in his bogus companies, none of which ever pay a
dividend or even make a profit. He has full-time lawyers who
supervise his "business" operations, primarily so they can warn him
when he is about to stray into illegality. He refers to the investors
he has bilked of their life savings as "Dick and Dora Dumbf*ck."
One is a one-hit wonder who swiped someone else's idea, reworked it,
and made an immense fortune through his IP monopoly privilege. He now
devotes his few working hours to finding good ideas, acquiring them
from their originators (usually for a pittance) and trying to repeat
his early success. He has invariably failed in these efforts (his
reworked versions always being inferior to the original ideas), and
has sunk more than one well-known company in his industry as a result.
He constantly reminds people how much richer (and by implication,
better) he is than they are, has no friends, and is despised by his
employees, social acquaintances, and even his family.
The last one is a small businessman of humble origins, very shrewd and
hardworking, who made $1M, put it into real estate, and retired --
then watched in amazement as his $1M turned into $10M without him
lifting a finger. You see, he had always assumed that the way people
get money is by hard work, honesty and thrift. Then he got money, and
learned the truth.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
See my response to Kolker. There is a difference between "working
your way" into the top 1% and making a commensurate contribution to
society. Three of my four examples would no doubt also claim to have
worked their way into the top 1%. But not one of them actually made a
contribution commensurate with their wealth.
-- Roy L
dk
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
> > top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
> Why should we care?
>
> http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
You should care because this type of distribution is unhealthy for the
country and the people in it. America has been at its best when it has
had a healthy and growing middle class. Currently our middle class is
shrinking and it 'ain't' upper mobility that is bringing this about.
This distribution of wealth is what you find in 3rd world countries and
that is what we are on the way to becoming.
firel...@hotmail.com
> You should care because this type of distribution is unhealthy for the
> country and the people in it. America has been at its best when it has
> had a healthy and growing middle class. Currently our middle class is
> shrinking and it 'ain't' upper mobility that is bringing this about.
> This distribution of wealth is what you find in 3rd world countries and
> that is what we are on the way to becoming.
Maybe the massive unchecked inflow of 3rd world
inhabitants has something to do with that.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
dk
> > Bob Kolker
The problem with your advice is that it is one doomed for failure. Our
country is a 2 party system. Both the Republican and the Democratic
Party are coalitions of groups each fighting within their parties for
dominance.
Democratic current coalition
Environmentalist
Unions
Civil Rights advocates
Business (family farms, small and home businesses)
Republican current coalition
Business (dominated by oil, pharmacies, military industry, mining,
logging).
Religious Right
Military (switching rapidly to the Democratic party)
Western Libertarians
To create a successful Party, you would have to take from these
coalitions. Remember it isn't the individuals in congress currently
that have power, it is the party leaders. You would have to have a
majority and to do what you want you would have to have a majority in
the Senate, the House and the Presidency.
.
zzbu...@netscape.net
There is nothing true about that, since it happens
100 times a day in the moron ACLU and pharamaceutical industry.
But since it only happens in Hawwaii, it's like one
of those things:
Ask a Hawaiian to build you a house, and all you get
is a moron Bush Battleship.
>
> -- Roy L
Robert Kolker
>
> No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
> actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
> or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.
Deserves? According to whose standards? Yours? Who the fuck are you? Do
you think you are God and can judge who deserves and who does not? What
makes your standards valid? Are you a legend in your own mind?
Bob Kolker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
>> citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
>> federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
>> manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
>> erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
>> this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
>
>All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment. Then Congress will find
>other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
>progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
>taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
>corporations.
Any government, in any political system, regardless of any specific
ideology it may or may not follow, needs a support base which needs to
be rewarded for its loyalty to be maintained. Thus, the government
needs to collect sufficent means for this purpose. So, what else is
new?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Topaz
<jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
>> top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
>Why should we care?
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
laments for the "shrinking middle class" for the past 25 years, at
least, and somehow, when you look at the numbers, it remains about the
same. A truly amazing shrinking act:-)
Robert Kolker
>
> Any government, in any political system, regardless of any specific
> ideology it may or may not follow, needs a support base which needs to
> be rewarded for its loyalty to be maintained. Thus, the government
> needs to collect sufficent means for this purpose. So, what else is
> new?
Little or nothing. As it says in Ecclesiastes, There ain't nothin' new
under the sun. Ain Khadashot Takhat ha'Shemesh.
Bob Kolker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> Any government, in any political system, regardless of any specific
>> ideology it may or may not follow, needs a support base which needs to
>> be rewarded for its loyalty to be maintained. Thus, the government
>> needs to collect sufficent means for this purpose. So, what else is
>> new?
>
>under the sun. Ain Khadashot Takhat ha'Shemesh.
>
Robert Kolker
>
> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Define reasonable? What makes YOUR notion of reasonable right. If I say
X is reasonable and you say Y is reasonable what objective principle
decides which of us is right or that neither of us is right? Do you
have any more than your sentimentality and mawkish softheartedness to go on?
>
> In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
> all
> the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
> automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
> capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
> jobs.
So they would get handouts, crumbs, charity given in a contemptuous and
off handed way. It beats starvation. Swallow a little pride, seasoned
with salt.
>
> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
> there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
> welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
> civilization.
What is fair? Is fair what YOU say is fair? Is there an objective
definition of fair? If you say X is fair and I say Y is fair, what
objective principle decides if either of us is right?
Have you become God? Have you now the Divine Power to determine what is
reasonable and what is fair? Or are you deluded? What has given you such
wisdom?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> Not even this, since there hardly is any specific "that". I hear the
> laments for the "shrinking middle class" for the past 25 years, at
> least, and somehow, when you look at the numbers, it remains about the
> same. A truly amazing shrinking act:-)
One third of the population has been going to bed hungry and in want
since the days of FDR. The Poor like body odor, will always be with us.
I have been told since I was a child that only a small percent of the
society own or control over eighty percent of what is. This is over
sixty five years. Has America collapsed? Where is the Righteous
Revolution of the exploited Proles. Have the precentages improved? I
doubt it. What most people want is a pint to guzzle and something to
fuck. Give them that and they are happy Proles.
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
Arise, ye wretched of the world!
(queue in music for -The Internationale- here)
I have been hearing that commie bullshit since I was kicking the bars
out from my crib. And that commie bullshit was going on a hundred years
before I was born, at least. Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism.
Why hasn't it collapsed already?
Bob Kolker
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, he's probably somebody know something about economics,
rather than moron Clinton Wal-Mart crapola,
which is the only thing dork-a-thon sci,physics
knows anything about.
>
> Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> Well, he's probably somebody know something about economics,
That is like saying he knows something about voo doo.
Bob Kolker
zzbu...@netscape.net
It doesn't matter what you call it, since voo doo gets you
to Jamaica and the only thing Wal-Mart gets you
is a first class ticket to the front of the moron Cuba line.
>
> Bob Kolker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
RG
>> being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
>
> fuck are you? What makes YOUR notion of justice and right, just and
> right? You are a legen in you own mind.
>
> Let each one of us see to his own behaviour. The condition of others is
> their problem, not ours.
Should we have let Hitler kill ALL the Jews on the planet
instead of just half of them? That wasn't our problem after all.
Robert Kolker
>
> Should we have let Hitler kill ALL the Jews on the planet instead of
> just half of them? That wasn't our problem after all.
It was not indeed. Hitler was fought and beaten for other reasons.
Hitler's war against the Jews had little or nothing to do with the U.S,
Britain and the Soviet Union being at war with Hitler. The Allies did
little or nothing to impede the transportation of Jews to the death
camps, so preventing the slaughter of the Jews (by the Nazis) was not a
priority item.
Bob Kolker
keith
corporations eat the small ones killing competition which concentrates
wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
keith
get on newsgroups and brag.
Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bot
> > > > tom-
> > > > 90_19.html
Robert Kolker
> Capitalism will always end up like this. The large eat the small. Big
> corporations eat the small ones killing competition which concentrates
> wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
So why are there so many small businesses in the U.S.? Small businesses
employ more people in the U.S. than do large corporations.
Large corporations will have to promote small business formation just so
they will have successful little firms to buy up.
Bob Kolker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Not attempting to say what we shoudl or shouldn't have done, just
sticking to the facts, you got the impression that the US went to war
with Hitler because he was killing Jews, from where exactly?
wrabenator
Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bot
> > > > tom-
> > > > 90_19.html
> > >
> > >
> > > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > > beats the bottom 90%.
> >
> > You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
>
>
> Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
Yes. Inheriting wealth or accumulating it by fraud or robbery is hard,
hard, work.
Robert Kolker
>
> Not attempting to say what we shoudl or shouldn't have done, just
> sticking to the facts, you got the impression that the US went to war
> with Hitler because he was killing Jews, from where exactly?
One of the persistent antisemitic fantasies as that the Jews goaded the
U.S. into war with Nazi Germany. I suspect that Britain and Winston
Churchill did more goading any any set of Jews. FDR was a bit of an
Anglophile and the beastly behaviour of the Nazis in general (their
genocidal activities did not become widely known until 1943) had more to
do with hostility against them than any evil they were doing to Jews
(and others) in Europe.
You will recall that animus and dislike for the Germans had its roots in
The Great War. Pictures of the Hun bayonetting little Belgian infants
etc. etc.. The Germans have been unlovely and unlovable for the longest
time.
Bob Kolker
keith
Why is bankruptcy cases of small business skyrocketing. Why does 1 in 6
small businesses fail in the first year. Why is Wal Mart destroying all
the mom and pop stores? You fail to see the reality of wealth
concentration and how thats bad for America.
Bob Kolker
> Yes. Inheriting wealth or accumulating it by fraud or robbery is hard,
> hard, work.
Actually it is hard work. So hard that one wonders why honest labor is
not preferred? The Crook always must worry about being caught. If
profitable crime were that easy everyone would be doing it.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> Why have so many small businesses been devoured by large corporations?
Corporations help to grow some small businesses so they can buy them up.
That is not exactly devouring. The people who start successful small
business that are bought up by large firms make a bundle.
> Why is bankruptcy cases of small business skyrocketing. Why does 1 in 6
> small businesses fail in the first year. Why is Wal Mart destroying all
> the mom and pop stores? You fail to see the reality of wealth
I have been hearing this dirge since I was a child. Why hasn't the U.S.
collapsed?
> concentration and how thats bad for America.
Nevertheless, small firms hire and employ more people in the U.S. than
do large corporations.
Bob Kolker
keith
odds of some average Joe becoming one of the top 2% are astronomical.
Why? Because the laws are against small busineses. The giants have all
the power and politicians who protect them. Look at the airline
industry. We bail them out every five years. Same with the savings and
loan scandal. The little guys dont have those perks.
wrabenator
Aren't we?
Grendel
It's not terrible, and it is exactly what is happening. They get their
share of the profit...it's called WAGES (you DO realize that a worker's
wage is paid out of the money EARNED, right?). It has been determined
that if you can peel a potato, then you are worth X amount of the money
earned. If you can not only peel a potato but can run the machine that
fries it, you might be considered worth X+Y amount of the profit.
Of course, you could be talking about them getting a percentage of the
profit. Say each worker gets 0.0001% of the profit. They should also
be responsible for 0.0001$ of the cost of production and
infrastructure. This would mean, initially, some people would have to
PAY to work at a place during start up and during lean years. (after
all, if they want to share equally in the profits, they must share
equally in the costs and responsiblity).
Are you willing to do this? Didn't think so. You'd probably say how,
"they should have a share of all profit, but in lean years be guranteed
a certain wage, even if it means a loss for the company."
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"We're amused by you libs and dims. It's kinda like watching the
chimps at the zoo. You know there's a limited amount of intelligence
there, they're cute and they're fun to watch, but you know they'll
never quite make evolutionary leap."
hanson
news:2cednXO-Ru_WL4zY...@comcast.com...
> RG wrote:
>> Should we have let Hitler kill ALL the Jews on the planet instead of just
>> half of them? That wasn't our problem after all.
>
> It was not indeed. Hitler was fought and beaten for other reasons. [2]
> Hitler's war against the Jews had little or nothing to do with the U.S,
> Britain and the Soviet Union being at war with Hitler. The Allies did
> little or nothing to impede the transportation of Jews to the death camps,
> priority item. [1]
> Bob Kolker
>
[hanson]
Well Bob. [1] in the larger scheme of things you are right.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/3ff4d7c926c53b81
because the 6 million Jews are a mere 3% of the victims that were
murdered in genocides during the 20th century. Some
**200 million** of'em en toto. But you Jews do make 97% of the
noise about it and to boot your Zionist ilk with their Holocaust
industry is still busily profiteering 60 years later over corpses and
from the misery of your murdered kin folk. ....
(Queer sideline of this perversion: Today the US kicked an 84
year old woman out of the country and deported her back to
Germany not because she was a Nazi, but because she was a
watch-dog handler in a KZ in WW2... Then there are of course
the US K9-guards of Abu Grhaib who did the same or worse...
But the standard of justice was somewhat different. She had
Jewish prosecutors. The US K9ers had Jewish defense attys)
>
[2] Meron posted once his belief that WWI (ONE) never ended.
There is a case to be made for this . It is widely known that in
1918 the Jewish biz-establishment in Germany had a rational,
valid and benevolent notion to stop that that 4 years of trench
slaughter costing million and millions of lives (including Jews
in the trenches). SO the stopped supplying the front with food
and essentials... and the Germans lost the war. The rest is history.
Hitler who was in those trenches came back at the Jews 20 years
later.
It's interesting to see, esp. over the long stretch of history, that
it is mostly Jews that come up with those seemingly great ideas
to improve the state of humankind's existence. -- 6 KY ago
Abe, with his Monotheism -- 2 KY ago Jesus with his Xianity --
(and 0.75K later a queer offshoot of the same in Arabia --
100 Y ago with Communism -- 60 years ago Israel -- all ideas
that had good intentions but fucked up like Hogan's goats --
as can be seen in today's mess. It is not quite clear whether the
blame for the fuck-up can be shoveled solely into the shoes of
the Jews, or whether it's the enablers and disciples of those
grand illusions are more responsible for the shit... which poses
an insurmountable problem: **Everybody blames each other!***
ahahaha... ahahahanson
W. Dale Hall
Grendel wrote:
>
> It's not terrible, and it is exactly what is happening. They get their
> share of the profit...it's called WAGES (you DO realize that a worker's
> wage is paid out of the money EARNED, right?). It has been determined
> that if you can peel a potato, then you are worth X amount of the money
> earned. If you can not only peel a potato but can run the machine that
> fries it, you might be considered worth X+Y amount of the profit.
>
Um, at least get your terms straight.
Wages do not come out of profit.
Profit is what is left from (business) earnings after
all expenses have been paid. Wages are part of the expense.
Dale
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> Not attempting to say what we shoudl or shouldn't have done, just
>> sticking to the facts, you got the impression that the US went to war
>> with Hitler because he was killing Jews, from where exactly?
>
>One of the persistent antisemitic fantasies as that the Jews goaded the
>U.S. into war with Nazi Germany. I suspect that Britain and Winston
>Churchill did more goading any any set of Jews. FDR was a bit of an
>Anglophile and the beastly behaviour of the Nazis in general (their
>genocidal activities did not become widely known until 1943) had more to
>do with hostility against them than any evil they were doing to Jews
>(and others) in Europe.
Sure. And their declared ambitions to world rule, as well as their
proven willingness and ability to act on those ambitions, didn't do
much to endear them to anybody, either.
>
>You will recall that animus and dislike for the Germans had its roots in
>The Great War. Pictures of the Hun bayonetting little Belgian infants
>etc. etc.. The Germans have been unlovely and unlovable for the longest
>time.
>
Well, to paraphrase an old TV series ("The paper chase", I think), "the
Germans became unpopular the old fashioned way. They earned it".
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
people working for small firms and large corporations changed much,
over the past few decades. What keeps growing, steadily, is the
fraction of people employed all levels of government (federal, state,
local), which is not necessarily a good thing.
Les Cargill
> Harold Burton wrote:
>
>>In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-
>>>90_19.html
>>
>>
>>That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
>>beats the bottom 90%.
>
>
> That's why the bottom 90% lets the top 1% own everything.
> Since they're all Elvis wannabee morons
> from New Pork. Except for Marlon Brando,
> who's an Elvis wannabee from New Dork.
>
Brando is dead. So he's completed the Elvis emulation perfectly.
--
Les Cargill
tonyp
"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote
> Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism.
> Why hasn't it collapsed already?
To hear right-wingers tell it, FDR's "Great Society" killed it.
So, make up your mind: _is_ capitalism dead?
Or has it flourished mightily since the Great Depression?
-- TP
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:57:29 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger
> <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
>><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
>>>top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>>
>>Why should we care?
>
>
> Caring about justice is one of the things that makes you a human
> being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
>
> -- Roy L
Justice is equity in the law, not equity in material
well being. The concept breaks when stretched
that far.
--
Les Cargill
PerfectlyAble
zzbunker wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bot
> > > > > tom-
> > > > > 90_19.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > > > beats the bottom 90%.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
>
> Since the only thing the top 1% does is moron Bush stuff
> and New Hampshire. They don't even do US Steel
> anymore, since Cuba and Rupert Murdoch moroned that down too much.
You were born American, White, Male.
Or in Ruperts case he inherited his fathers
newspaper and Jewish business partnerships. The 1% inherit
private schools, they inherit social networks (I bet Bill Gates had
a network to get him into Harvard? so his drop out was way
easier!).
Look you just have to see the President of the US of A, the guy is a
complete moron, he couldn't have an indepth discussion on diddly squat.
The fact is there will always be 1% on top in any system, I have no
problem with that, its stats. I have no real problem with them owning
more than the bottom 90% as long as they do it while people just
down the road don't starve, can't afford health care, etc. But what
gets
my biscuit is when the 1% takes the bible and says not only were
they rich without screwing everyone on the planet (global warming)
but that are moral and ethically better than us, that they not only
have money but are essential for technology, science, the market, etc.
What utter tosh! The majority do all the thinking, the 1% are just
there
as a tool of the majority to shift funds where its required, not think
overly much about how ethical or moral they are being, in fact that
wouldn't do since we the majority need a 1% class of shifty types whose
IQ/wealth is abysmal and have to hire in the best help to stay on top.
You just watch if the 1% weren't shifting capital to the parts that
need it, you'd be damn sure we'd find some other morons to do it.
Rich doesn't make you gifted in bed, smarter, just stupid for gifting
your life keeping the great world capitalist globe spinning for the
90%.
We thank you for providing the washing machines, putting the
resources into the hands of the manufactures, handing out capital,
setting the ships a sailing for our ports and if you ever get high
minded
about remember this there's an army of others likewise conencted,
ready to stump up for the job of unethical immoral rich person.
Remember without us you'd be nothing, but without you we'll have
your replacement in seconds. Gates your fired, Jobs have the job, etc.
And while you dodge the papparatzi and worry someone stalking you,
or that your ex will empty you of all the dosh, just remember the 90%
who aren't photogenic, who don't give a rats arse about how much their
ex will get, and can find any number of ways to do naughting things and
have them pasted wall to wall across the world without a murmur.
i.e. the 1% really are clueless since their jobs depend on them
remaining
clueless.
robw
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-AC30...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
tonyp
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote
> Well, to paraphrase an old TV series ("The paper chase", I think),
> "the Germans became unpopular the old fashioned way.
> They earned it".
Actually, you're paraphrasing an old TV commercial for the late Smith-Barney
investment firm. The actor in it was John Housman (sp?) who played
Professor Kingsfield in the movie.
On the substance of your comment, it behooves _any_ nation to ask itself
what it is "earning the old-fashioned way" at any particular moment in its
history.
-- TP
Peter Webb
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
Why stop at wealth within a country? Why not wealth between countries?
The imbalance in wealth between OECD countries vs the developing world is
much greater. Shouldn't we engage in a massive program of the developed
world transferring (say) 50% of its wealth to poorer nations?
Indeed, do you personally do so? You have an internet connection, so you are
richer than 90% of Indians and 99% of Nepalese. I assume that if you believe
wealth redistribution is morally desirable, you would have started by making
massive donations to people poorer than you (ie almost everybody in
developing countries) rather than complaining that you personally want more.
Otherwise rather than looking at moral arguments, it looks suspiciously that
you personally (already very rich by world standards) simply want more for
yourself.
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:fhjQg.208$xh.152@trnddc02...
schoenf...@gmail.com
John wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Robert Kolker wrote:
> > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
> > > > citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
> > > > federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
> > > > manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
> > > > erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
> > > > this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
> > >
> > > All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment.
> >
> > We do not need to repeal any amendments. The current monetary system
> > (including the IRS) is completely unconstitutional.
> >
> > > Then Congress will find
> > > other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
> > > progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
> > > taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
> > > corporations. Now, what legal and feasible means do you propose to do
> > > away with this? Be specific.
> >
> > Two things:
> > 1. Vote libertarian (or anything BUT democan/replicrat). As soon as
> > this fraudulent monetary system is eliminated, most of the other
> > criminal institutions will simultaneously fail. Libertarians are the
> > only ones willing to do this.
>
> Electing Libertarians will throw the world's economy into a depression
> that will end society as we know it. Maybe not immediately but it will
> happen. As oversight is stripped from corporations, monopolies will
> rise until there are no competitors. Think the Polesotechnic League.
> Socially the Libs are decent. Economically the Libs are positing a
> failed system. They advocate corporate government and if what's best
> for the corporation is best for the people then I want someone to stop
> the world and let me off.
It is 'oversight' which secures their positions, not prevents it!
Example:
Fractional Reserve Banking allows the banks to loan out peoples
deposits, at an interest, to other individuals. Banks are only required
to keep cash reserves to meet the demand of cash withdrawals, not the
total sum of deposits (i.e. banks only need to keep 10% of their
clients money with them in cash, they can loan out the rest at
interest).
Suppose bank A and bank B both practiced this fraudulent system.
Suppose that A loans out a million dollars of this 'non-cash
denominated money' to person 1. Suppose person 1 now deposits this
money in bank B. At this point bank B will realize that bank A is
loaning out more money than it has, and thus bank B immediately demands
bank A hand over a million in cash to backup person 1's deposit. It can
easily be seen that in a free banking system, fractional reserve
banking cannot be practiced (even if it was legal) for the simple
reason that competing banks would 'bank run' each other. It is the
(Nash) equilibrium in that game.
Now, a glance at the empirical (ie modern banking) reveals the outcomes
of a 'regulated' financial industry.
1. Almost impossible for independent groups to penetrate this
industry.
2. Industry consolidates itself into a banking cartel which practices
fractional banking and doesn't bankrun itself (as they are all owned by
the same mafia)
> Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
> John
>
>
> >
> > 2. Get the word out (this is the only real weapon in an information
> > war).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
>
> And, moreover, I don't think that the ratio between the numbers of
> people working for small firms and large corporations changed much,
> over the past few decades. What keeps growing, steadily, is the
> fraction of people employed all levels of government (federal, state,
> local), which is not necessarily a good thing.
It is a Bad Thing. The lowliest flipper of hamburgers is worth more to
society than any congress critter.
Bob Kolker
schoenf...@gmail.com
dk wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Robert Kolker wrote:
> > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A hardcore crime syndicate of international bankers tricked the US
> > > > citizenry and bribed congressmen into passing the _unconstitutional_
> > > > federal reserve act of 1913. That same syndicate runs the IRS through
> > > > manifestly _unconstitutional_ means. Rather than pontificating
> > > > erroneously, bother to read the article first. Although, one posits
> > > > this won't make your subsequent pontifications any more valid.
> > >
> > > All we have to do is repeal the 16-th amendment.
> >
> > We do not need to repeal any amendments. The current monetary system
> > (including the IRS) is completely unconstitutional.
> >
> > > Then Congress will find
> > > other ways to pick our pockets. Liberals thing the income tax (in its
> > > progressive form) is a dandy way to soak the rich. Conservatives thing
> > > taxation is great, all the better to get money to give as subsidies to
> > > corporations. Now, what legal and feasible means do you propose to do
> > > away with this? Be specific.
> >
> > Two things:
> > 1. Vote libertarian (or anything BUT democan/replicrat). As soon as
> > this fraudulent monetary system is eliminated, most of the other
> > criminal institutions will simultaneously fail. Libertarians are the
> > only ones willing to do this.
> >
> > war).
>
> > > Bob Kolker
>
> country is a 2 party system. Both the Republican and the Democratic
> Party are coalitions of groups each fighting within their parties for
> dominance.
>
> Democratic current coalition
>
> Environmentalist
> Unions
> Civil Rights advocates
> Business (family farms, small and home businesses)
>
> Republican current coalition
>
> Business (dominated by oil, pharmacies, military industry, mining,
> logging).
> Religious Right
> Military (switching rapidly to the Democratic party)
> Western Libertarians
>
> To create a successful Party, you would have to take from these
> coalitions. Remember it isn't the individuals in congress currently
> that have power, it is the party leaders. You would have to have a
> majority and to do what you want you would have to have a majority in
> the Senate, the House and the Presidency.
That is a _false_ paradigm. It is exactly through those idealogical
boxes that the elite are able to divide and conquer their sheeple and
herd them towards self-destruction. A choice between
democans/replicrats is a choice between stalin/hitler. Both give you a
central government and a command economy. The differences between them
( 'left/right') are superficial and merely the tool used to play off
the slaves against each other.
Using history as a guide, there are only 2 true paradigms in politics -
FREEDOM OR SLAVERY. You chose.
>
>
>
>
> .
zzbu...@netscape.net
Robert Kolker wrote:
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > Not even this, since there hardly is any specific "that". I hear the
> > laments for the "shrinking middle class" for the past 25 years, at
> > least, and somehow, when you look at the numbers, it remains about the
> > same. A truly amazing shrinking act:-)
>
> One third of the population has been going to bed hungry and in want
> since the days of FDR. The Poor like body odor, will always be with us.
>
> I have been told since I was a child that only a small percent of the
> society own or control over eighty percent of what is. This is over
> sixty five years. Has America collapsed? Where is the Righteous
> Revolution of the exploited Proles. Have the precentages improved? I
> doubt it. What most people want is a pint to guzzle and something to
> fuck. Give them that and they are happy Proles.
>
> Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!
> Arise, ye wretched of the world!
>
> (queue in music for -The Internationale- here)
>
> I have been hearing that commie bullshit since I was kicking the bars
> out from my crib. And that commie bullshit was going on a hundred years
> before I was born, at least. Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism.
> Why hasn't it collapsed already?
It impossible for it to collapse sinnce the only things it builds
are missiles, and Disney Theme parks.
>
> Bob Kolker
tonyp
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> You have an internet connection, so you are
> richer than 90% of Indians and 99% of Nepalese.
> I assume that if you believe wealth redistribution
> is morally desirable, you would have started by making
> massive donations to people poorer than you
Bill Gates owns rather more than "an internet connection". He is devoting
his time as well as his money to "wealth redistribution" these days. As a
poster boy for, if not a real hero of, winner-take-all capitalism, Mr. Gates
demostrably believes in "making massive donations to people poorer than"
himself.
So we have at least one example of a bleeding heart in the first rank of
capitalists. What does that example teach us? Does it teach, for instance,
that a "free market" is the best way to help the world's poor?
-- TP
aus...@primus.com.au
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
> <schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
> > top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
>
> Why should we care?
>
> http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
Good question, You should care only if you believe it is important that
the vast majority of society benefits from the wealth society creates
instead of a small minority. Otherwise you have a 3rd world country.
I do note most of the poster don't care about this issue, but consider
that America's golden age was the 50's and 60's was a time when there
was less disparity between rich and poor, CEO and factory worker pay,
and a blue collar worker could afford to support a family, I believe
overall there was a higher standard of living, quality of life, and far
fewer social problems than you see today.
So I strongly believe America has gone to an extreme in terms of wealth
distribition and would be far better off if the wealth were spread
amongst more people, not just a few rich people.
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> So what do you do for a living?
Live off my investments.
Harold Burton
"PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> zzbunker wrote:
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > > > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-th
> > > > > > an-bot
> > > > > > tom-
> > > > > > 90_19.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > > > > beats the bottom 90%.
> > > >
> > > > You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
> >
> > You couldn't have worked you way into it,
> > Since the only thing the top 1% does is moron Bush stuff
> > and New Hampshire. They don't even do US Steel
> > anymore, since Cuba and Rupert Murdoch moroned that down too much.
>
> You were born American, White, Male.
Yep, life is good.
Harold Burton
"wrabenator" <wrabe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > > In article <1158709919....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-1-owns-more-than
> > > > > -bot
> > > > > tom-
> > > > > 90_19.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> > > > beats the bottom 90%.
> > >
> > > You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
>
> Yes. Inheriting wealth or accumulating it by fraud or robbery is hard,
> hard, work.
I wouldn't know.
Harold Burton
Bob Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> wrabenator wrote:
>
>
> > Yes. Inheriting wealth or accumulating it by fraud or robbery is hard,
> > hard, work.
>
> Actually it is hard work.
Ask Senator Kennedy.
Harold Burton
"keith" <kse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Liar. You probably work cleaning toilets in WlMart.
If you say so.
> Rich people dont get on newsgroups and brag.
I you think answering a question is bragging that's your problem. Keep
trying.
Harold Burton
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:32:49 -0400, Harold Burton
> <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1158748531.8...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "PerfectlyAble" <jr...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> Harold Burton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That's why I chose to be in the top 1% and let me tell you, it sure
> >> > beats the bottom 90%.
> >>
> >> You don't choose to be in the top 1%, you are born into it.
> >
> >Wrong, I worked my way into it. Try again.
>
> See my response to Kolker.
Sorry, I'm not willing to chase vague references. Post a message ID if
you want me to read it.
> There is a difference between "working
> your way" into the top 1% and making a commensurate contribution to
> society.
Whatever, my employer obviously thought that I was making a contribution
to society, I worked for a "not for profit" R & D company.
aus...@primus.com.au
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:58:47 -0500, Robert Kolker
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:11:04 GMT, ro...@telus.net <ro...@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:57:29 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger
> >>>
> >>>>On 19 Sep 2006 16:51:59 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com
> >>>><schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/
> >>>>>top-1-owns-more-than-bottom-90_19.html
> >>>>
> >>>>Why should we care?
> >>>
> >>>being, and not a soulless, amoral, sociopathic greed robot.
> >>
> >
> >It is based on the assumption that anyone who has more (or much more)
> >than his fellows must have done something evil to get what they have.
>
> No, it is not. It is based on the __**FACT**__ that those who
> actually have much more than their fellows have typically done little
> or nothing to deserve their positions of privilege.
>
> I know exactly four truly rich people personally, well enough to know
> what they are like and how they got their money.
>
> One inherited. He is a nice guy, quite smart, but has never held a
> job, run a business, or made much in the way of a contribution. Why
> bother? Nothing he does is going to make any difference to his
> lifestyle.
>
> One is a slick and cunning crook who made his fortune by getting
> people to invest in his bogus companies, none of which ever pay a
> dividend or even make a profit. He has full-time lawyers who
> supervise his "business" operations, primarily so they can warn him
> when he is about to stray into illegality. He refers to the investors
> he has bilked of their life savings as "Dick and Dora Dumbf*ck."
>
> One is a one-hit wonder who swiped someone else's idea, reworked it,
> and made an immense fortune through his IP monopoly privilege. He now
> devotes his few working hours to finding good ideas, acquiring them
> from their originators (usually for a pittance) and trying to repeat
> his early success. He has invariably failed in these efforts (his
> reworked versions always being inferior to the original ideas), and
> has sunk more than one well-known company in his industry as a result.
> He constantly reminds people how much richer (and by implication,
> better) he is than they are, has no friends, and is despised by his
> employees, social acquaintances, and even his family.
>
> The last one is a small businessman of humble origins, very shrewd and
> hardworking, who made $1M, put it into real estate, and retired --
> then watched in amazement as his $1M turned into $10M without him
> lifting a finger. You see, he had always assumed that the way people
> get money is by hard work, honesty and thrift. Then he got money, and
> learned the truth.
>
> -- Roy L
You provide a very interesting summary of how people obtain their
wealth and it is clear to me that their is a large flaw in the system
where those who have wealth often don't create wealth and those who
work hard for a living often are not rewarded for the wealth they
actually create.
My parents bought 6 rental properties in an area where housing prices
skyrocketed and always bragged about their wealth. Of course they paid
less tax than I did as a wage earner as depreciation writeoffs helped
offset rental income even though the value of their properties
skyrocked. Like many they had a thing against paying taxes, gave
little to charity, and did not spend much of their wealth and died
without ever enjoying what they earned. My sister will inherit their
houses tax free for which she did nothing to earn the wealth she will
receive.
I am definately not a socialist and believe America went to far with
social welfare programs that paid able bodied people to not work, but
Clinton changed most of that. I now believe America has been moving to
the extreme right where wealth is concentrated amongst a small percent
of the population who often don't create wealth to the detriment of
hard working wage earners and society as a whole is worse off for this.
America is beginning to resemble a 3rd world country in many ways with
extreme differences in wealth.
robw
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-9480...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
robw
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-65D1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Worked" or "works"?
"Worked", I retired early by my own choice several years ago and have
been living comfortably off my investments ever since. Thank you
President Bush for reducing my taxes on capital gains and dividends to
only 15% and I don't have to pay "social security" taxes on it either.
Life is good.
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> How old are you?
Not old enough for social security.
robw
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-8537...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
robw
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-3500...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> So how old are you?
So how much do you earn a year?
Harold Burton
"robw" <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The number, Cuz.
How much do you earn a year?
RG
> "Worked", I retired early by my own choice several years ago and have
> been living comfortably off my investments ever since. Thank you
> President Bush for reducing my taxes on capital gains and dividends to
> only 15% and I don't have to pay "social security" taxes on it either.
> Life is good.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of
> salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have
> no more value than the potatoes or the salt.
Are you saying capitalists own the workers they way they own
commodities?
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> the fewest pennies.
The people who will work for less probably need the jobs more. It's a
way of sharing the wealth.
> If the people die of starvation that is fine too. You can always get
> more people.
Where?
> If there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think
> people need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right
> according to the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of
> capitalism.
He was fictional ... or maybe we can call him "reality-challenged."
> In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
> all the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and
> all automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
> capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
> jobs.
Why can't the workers start their own economy? What's stopping them?
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
> http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
To any leftists who may be reading this: Aren't you embarrassed?
Joseph Hertzlinger
<firel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dk wrote:
>> You should care because this type of distribution is unhealthy for the
>> country and the people in it. America has been at its best when it has
>> had a healthy and growing middle class. Currently our middle class is
>> shrinking and it 'ain't' upper mobility that is bringing this about.
>> This distribution of wealth is what you find in 3rd world countries and
>> that is what we are on the way to becoming.
>
> Maybe the massive unchecked inflow of 3rd world
> inhabitants has something to do with that.
Doesn't that decrease world inequality?
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
> Justice requires rewards commensurate with contributions, and
> penalties commensurate with deprivations imposed on others. It is
> self-evident that the top 1% in wealth have not made a greater
> contribution than the bottom 90%.
No it isn't.
Harold Burton
I am, and there will be more than enough to pass on to my kids and
grandkids.