The rich own the wealth.

Why do democrats have such a time understanding the subject? Wealth is the property of the rich, and the poor live at the whims of the rich. It is not the responsibility of the rich to provide jobs, food, shelter, etc, to the people. And there is nothing wrong with that. The only thing that is wrong is people using the government as a tool to take money from others and redistribute it among themselves.



You have to see the economy for what it is, a bunch of ants developing an ant hill. Only the ants aren't (or maybe they are) subject to hivemind thinking.

Use your labor to gather resources, then trade off those resources to refine them. Take risks, invest your money and invest in yourself, and compete in the battle field that is called the free market. Remember, some people have nefarious goals and will use nefarious ways to accomplish them. Be more scheming than the rich and perhaps one day your children will inherit the literal planet earth.

 

Many of their leadership understand wealthy perfectly. Problem is they won't be truthfully to the ants that follow them about how to join the ranks of wealth.

 

You know maybe it's actually the wealth that owns the rich.

Think about it.

 

wealth is created and rightfully owned by the one that created it
until you except that fact you will continue to go through life as a spoiled envious bitter loser thinking you are owed when you haven't earned squat

 

You have not been following my posts to criticize me like that.

But really, think about it.

Ask yourself this, why are many rich people never satisfied with what they have, and why will they never give up what they don't really need?

One basic point that I do tend to agree with some socialists on, is why they never stop wanting money, why they need billions upon billions of dollars, and why can't they give more to charity and people who need it more than they do?

You know, i'd be satisfied with only two or three million. That's all i want out of life, at least financially.That's where i would stop.

While that is a lot of money, all i want is a comfortable life with a few food friends and a good woman who loves me and a big house with a good library and computer and a big kitchen and about ten acres of land to play on.

I don't understand the need for solid fold toilets.

 

Money isn't a corporation.

 

It doesn't matter why, no one ever said the kid on the playground had to share the toy.

 

who are you or anyone else to say what is to much? who gets to make that decision other then the one that worked to obtain what they have
it is none of your dam concern how much some one has. want to know why? because them having more doesn't create you having less
GET THIS THROUGH YOU THICK SKULL. WEALTH IS CREATED IT ISNT FINITE THERE ISNT ONE PIE THAT NEEDS TO BE DIVIDED EVENLY. ONE HAVING MORE DOESNT CAUSE ANOTHER TO HAVE LESS

 

What? That is nonsense. Even the vastness of the Earth itself has 'limits'. What can be created beyond all the planet is worth? And what are the truly 'valuable' things upon this globe.

Oh yeah, there ARE limits to "wealth". (Think deeply about that.)

Still, if we defer to reasonable ethics and morality... we can understand that the needs of the many are weightier than those of the few.

I think you have been misled. What you say above is hardly aligned with reality overall.

 

You are mistaken. I am not a socialist seeking to punish people just because they have more stuff than I do.

But I am not blind to certain things happening;.

For example, the general rule is those who have the gold make the rules.

And it is through greed that wealth becomes used to hurt people.

When wealthy people start using the wealth to enact things like unfair laws that affect me or the government that I am supposed to have a voice in, that's when it becomes my business, and that is what I will fight.

And wealth has a huge influence in politics and other things that affect this country. For one example, how far would RIAA and the MPAA have in creating their anti downloading laws if they didn't have ginormous amounts of money to buy off the politicians to act in their favor?

How can a guy who makes thirty thousand dollars a year running for President of America compete with someone who is spending one hundred and thirty million dollars, in contribution I might add, compete with that?

And how can government do things like too big to fail not do things like that without the huge influence of money buying off the politicians?

What about the rising costs of medicine? Most people can't afford them and that affects their lives. Why should they be left out?

The rising costs of gasoline.

In my locality the land owners have hiked up0 the value of properties five times the actual value of their worth.

The high costs of education.

Health care.

All of these things are being done by greedy powerful people in order to make themselves rich.

And some of these things does personally affect me.

So why isn't it my personal business when someone is trying to harm me in some way? Why can't I know who is trying to affect me or harm me in some way? Don't I have a right to a defense? Don't i have a right to my stuff too? Why do they get to take things from me any way they can?

Note, don't mean this to say that I am condemning all rich people. All i'm trying to say is that money is power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Thus, as the wealthy own more stuff, they become more owned by it.

- - - Updated - - -

There can't be a corporation without money.

 

Money isn't power, the ability to manipulate people is.

 

most wealth is created not by finite resources but by infinite ones ingenuity, inventiveness, skill, creativity, intelligence and talent are all infinite resources which the only limit to any of those is the human mind and we have yet to even begin to reach its limits
the richest man in the world Bill Gates created all his wealth on the infinite resource of the human mind

an artist can take 50 dollars of tangible resources of paint and canvas and through is infinite recourses of creativity and talent and create a painting worth thousands

It is you that is so misinformed to only think resources are a tangible item with limits

 

Sorry, but money is power. The golden rule is those who have the gold make the rules.

But manipulation is a very powerful tool as well.

 

The EARTH is 'finite'; there are 'limits' to wealth.

It doesn't take a genius to to put some rather large pieces together.

 

so are you saying ingenuity, inventiveness, skill, creativity, intelligence and talent are not recourses? if that is what you are saying you don't have a freaken clue what a resource is

I can come up with an idea and turn around and sell that idea for x amount of money
Now I just created x amount of wealth without using not one once of a limited resource

 

I'm saying that much of what is determined in this present reality to generate wealth, is indeed limited.

I know that what we see as wealth may differ, it likely does... but what I'm saying is that there is no such thing as "infinite" wealth in this reality.

 

Where to even begin. The human mind is quite finite, with a finite amount of neurons and a finite energy budget of about 20 watts. So, while it is not impossible that the computing power per watt of the human brain can still be increased, it certainly is not infinite, and learning new tricks often means that old tricks have to be unlearned.

Second, Bill Gates surely needed all these computers running his OS, all actually using up REAL energy, which is quite finite too. But in your opinion, apparently those 2 billion computers using 200 billion watts if they all operate simultaneously is just virtual and limits have not be worried about at all.

This is actually one of my biggest gripes I have with the field of economics: The assumption that infinite growth can take place in a finite world. Newsflash: It can't and it won't, but that still doesn't prevent humans to base national economies on the premise of infinite exponential growth.

 

Why do conservatives have such a difficult time understanding how the rich became the rich. Did these people create all of that wealth, using only their minds, and their labor? Or did they use the rest of mankind, their labor, to create that wealth? Of course they did! Now, can one create vast wealth for oneself, if they actually pay a fair wage to those who are doing the work for them? Well, the trouble has always been that the man at the top, because of greed just would not pay what the other people doing the work, were actually worth. And so they would pay as little as possible, and even work children in their building up of their great fortunes.

And then mankind who were getting exploited, so that a person could become very wealthy, organized and formed a collective, in order to get a fairer share of the income pie, and when this began, we saw the expansion of the middle class, to become the largest, most prosperous, in history. And then slowly as time passed, the rich elites were able, through the politicians that they put into office, and other ways, to get back that fair share from the people who were laboring to create that income pie.

So conservatives have this very odd idea that the rich, got rich just by themselves. Yet that has never happened. The conservatives see the relationship between the owner and the labor that creates the wealth, as something similar to a king's relationship to his subjects, or a slave owners relationship to his slaves.

And until we realize just how wealth is created, we will continue to see the disparity in income increase, as we cycle back to what the rich had before the rise of labor unions, and collective bargaining. Back when a man could earn a living wage, by his labor, we still had the rich, but they were not as rich as today, generally speaking. So the degree of wealth has increased, as the actual creators of his wealth, labor, has decreased to the point that a living wage is not that common among working people today.

So the conservative mindset is a very strange one, for somehow they have been propagandized so that they think like a rich elite, the king, subject paradigm, while being the subject. Perhaps they dream of one day being the king and they want the have the mindset of the elite, before they get their lottery wins? So conservatives are the most dangerous thing to working people, for they have been conditioned to be against the self interests of the class of people that they are a part of. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

I watched the birth of this when Reagan ran, and did something the republicans, the representative of the business and banking elite, ran a campaign of populism, appealing to the working people, to get gov't out of the way, for gov't was causing the harder times of the 70s for working people, with stagflation, high unemployment. But what they wanted to get out of the way, was gov't policy protecting the working class from the greed of the elites. And they did, and you can see the end result of that today, with this low wage, high unemployment service sector economic model, that sends 99 percent of any GDP growth to the top .5 percent.

Of course what was causing the malaise of the 70s had nothing to do with gov't and everything to do with the tripling of energy costs after the embargo. It would take the economy a few years to adjust to this, for we were manufacturing based. And it adjusted to it in the 80s, making people think that getting gov't out of the way, with the start of bank deregs had worked. When it would have self corrected anyways once industry adjusted to much higher energy costs. It was the greatest con job ever committed upon the middle class.

And we still see today, these average working americans still believing in the con job. I am old enough to have watched this transpire. I am of that generation that liberalism and liberal institutions protected our middle class. From FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK. All men that protected the middle from Neo Liberalism. And I watched this monumental change take place, knowing where it would lead. So don't try this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conservative based nonsense on me. Too *******ned old to tolerate the stupidity.

 

The elites who are the super wealthy also use govt to grow, maintain and hopefully monopolize their position. Big centralized govt is important for these elites - planned monopolies are the very enemy of capitalism.

 

The free market isn't about fair wages it's about agreed on wages.

 

Inflation adjusted the rich today would have been poor, back then.....


The 25 Richest People Who Ever Lived - Inflation Adjusted

Start Gallery
The 25 Richest People of All Time:
?#1 Mansa Musa I – Net Worth $400 Billion
?#2 The Rothschild Family – $350 Billion
?#3 John D. Rockefeller – Net Worth $340 Billion
?#4 Andrew Carnegie – Net Worth $310 Billion
?#5 Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov – Net Worth $300 Billion
?#6 Mir Osman Ali Khan – Net Worth $230 billion
?#7 William The Conqueror – Net Worth $229.5 Billion
?#8 Muammar Gaddafi – Net Worth $200 Billion
?#9 Henry Ford – Net Worth $199 Billion
?#10 Cornelius Vanderbilt – Net Worth $185 Billion
?#11 Alan Rufus – $178.65 billion
?#12 Bill Gates – Net Worth $136 Billion
?#13 William de Warenne – Net Worth $147.13 Billion
?#14 John Jacob Astor – Net Worth $121 Billion
?#15 Richard Fitzalan 10th Earl of Arundel – Net Worth $118.6 Billion
?#16 John of Gaunt – Net Worth $110 Billion
?#17 Stephen Girard – Net Worth $105 Billion
?#18 A.T. Stewart – Net Wort $90 Billion
?#19 Henry Duke of Lancaster – Net Worth $85.1 Billion
?#20 Friedrich Weyerhauser – Net Worth $80 Billion
?#21 Jay Gould – Net Worth $71 Billion
?#22 Carlos Slim Helu – Net Worth $68 Billion
?#22 Stephen Van Rensselaer – Net Worth $68 Billion
?#23 Marshall Field – Net Worth $66 Billion
?#24 Sam Walton – Net Worth $65 Billion
?#25 Warren Buffett – Net Worth $64 Billion

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...s/25-richest-people-lived-inflation-adjusted/

 

History has shown that eventually when wealth becomes too concentrated it is redistributed through violent revolution.

 

ok Einstein if you think you know so much I will ask you some simple economic questions
who determines the price of a product on the market? the consumer or the manufacture?
Does labor follow the same economic rules in a free market as a product?

 

You own a computer, to truly poor people who sit on dirt floors hoping to get an education your computer could provide a classroom full of children possibilities they never dreamed of. Will you be donating it, or do you prefer to keep your respective "gold toilet" ?

 

I'm living on 800$ a week. This computer was a gift to me from a good friend.