Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

Yes. And if that's their choice, then that's fine. I'm not blaming them for their choice. It seems you are.

 

Well, your answer that it is their choice defies logic as well as facts. And whether you call your assertion of it being a "choice" to be a case of blaming them, it is, indeed, blaming them. You're saying that they are the ones who put themselves where they are. I say the policies that benefit the rich result in increasing poverty. And in both cases we are blaming conditions on the choices of people whether it is valid to do so or not. So yes, you did, in fact, "blame" the poor for their own poverty. And that is inappropriate to say the least because it is absurd beyond description to say anyone but Buddhist monks chose poverty.

 

As I've read article 1 section 10 it seems only the States
are mandated to produce currency in gold or silver, not the Federals.

 

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that they put themselves where they are. If they want to increase their wealth, they can. If they don't wish to, that's their choice too. I don't judge.

No, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Please stop saying that I'm blaming anyone. I'll make it perfectly clear: I'm not blaming anyone for the amount of wealth they have. Clear enough? Good.

 

I would agree. The constitution says that the states may only do business in gold or silver.

 

No, not good enough. "Blame" means assigning responsibility. Judging is not a necessary component of blame. You are assigning responsibility for poverty to those who are poor even if you don't judge. By definition that is "blame". And it denies the important role of those in power and the economic structures they create, which too often does, in fact, stop people from increasing their wealth.

 

Please stop trying to shove words into my mouth. I'm not blaming anyone for their level of wealth.

Also, "the wealthy" are not able to prevent anyone from increasing their level of wealth. That's just a fact. If you want to make more money, you can, and there's pretty much nothing anyone can do to stop you.

 

The best way is YOU sell YOUR labor to the highest bidder. If you think you are being underpaid go get another job. The last time I changed I had three offers of negotiated deals and I took the one I liked the best. In my side job playing music if the venue isn't paying what I want, I don't play it.

 

Companies are always going to find ways to make themselves more efficient and profitable. Thats the name of the game. See RCA, ATA, Western Atlas... the list is so long, of companies that failed, I can't even begin to name them all.

Most people don't realize that companies are working against multiple odds to stay relevent. They are trying to keep share holders happy for available capital which means they have to be profitable, they are trying to be more efficient and cheaper than their competition, and all of this is balanced by various government regulations and requirements.

When our government makes the first two difficult, the company must take the action necessary to stay relevant.

Many of the people that advocate for government taxes, regulations, requirements, don't realize that those factors have a direct repercussion in the private sector. Its idealistic at best to believe that the company believes they have a responsibility to society and the collectivist mentality, and that a raise in taxes to support starving children should be no issue, but.... they fail to see how and why corporations operate in the first place.

Even if a company did allocate a larger percentage of their profits to philanthropy, that means that they have reduced capital for growth, advertising, marketing, and ultimately profits which drive their value higher and thus inject money into public companies through stock sales.

When you force them.... all you do is provide them the justification to seek the profitability elsewhere.

 

You deny you assigned responsibility?

The middle class has little influence on government. Government controls education and traditionally the educational system shapes education to cater to the needs of business. And business has also hogged most of the new income for themselves, leaving the real median wage flat and without any inflational increase in the minimum wage. Consequently many families face generational difficulty or impossibility regarding any needed improvement in education to assist with wage increases. Costs of child care and basic cost-of-living income is not available while they study as they are in other countries. And no, I can't point to one wealthy person who is personally stopping any specific individual from obtaining additional education. But that is irrelevant.

 

Still won't address the issues of some people being left by the wayside. Mandatory minimum income for all people allows a capitalist system to function in a humane fashion.

 

Yes, I deny that I assigned responsibility. I'm not blaming anyone for their level of wealth. Get it?

Yes, government sucks. We agree on that point. It should not be involved in education.

And there is nothing any "wealthy"person can do to prevent you or anyone else from becoming wealthier than they currently are.

 

Yes, the "find ways to make themselves more efficient and profitable" at workers' expense as I described elsewhere. ... automation, moving overseas, keeping pay where it is without fairly sharing the gains, petitioning government to protect them from lawsuits, writing favorable legislation via A.L.E.C., etc, etc.

-and this translates into the sort of harm to workers that I just listed, -and which indicates a failing capitalism, -and which indicates a need for a new system.

Since the majority of stock shares are retained by the corporate elite so that they maintain control of their corporations, AND so they personally gain from increases in stock values, this is the primary interest of the elite. And if I understand what you are saying by "keeping share holders happy for available capital", -by which I believe you mean that stock purchases by the public puts money into the corporation and makes that capital available, -if that is what you mean, it is not true. Only stock sold out of corporate treasury shares raises capital. Most stock is bought and sold between private individuals.

Yup. There it is again: a basic flaw in your understanding of stock sales and who it benefits and how. The main time stock sales benefit corporate interests, other than via sales of treasury stock, is when the corporate elite sell their personal shares for gains. And with the current conditions of the economy, more and more what's happening is that corporations use corporate profits to buy back stock for the treasury, and those purchases boost the value of the stock on the market, and the corporate elite then sell their shares and exercise their option into the rising stock prices, leaving the public holding the bag.

 

No. I don't. You said that was their choice. Was someone else responsible for their poverty? Try answering that.

Another subject change, and a conclusion that isn't valid. I didn't claim that "government sucks". I detailed how the government is influenced by the rich to the point of dominance, and that it results in harm to the middle class but you keep ignoring the arguments I make and altering the subject slightly to take it in your preferred direction. And it shows up when you quote PART of my statements and omit the parts you don't want to discuss.

I've addressed that too, in details that you avoided.

 

There is no way that "the wealthy" can prevent me or anyone else from increasing our wealth.

 

I don't know where the Line is ... I just want to be in it.

 

You're still not addressing my arguments. And you're wasting my time. Redeem yourself. Answer my latest question: Was someone else responsible for their poverty?

 

No

 

So who is responsible for it? You do know what the word "responsible" means, don't you?

 

I have already answered your question. But since I'm so wonderful, I will answer again. You are asking if a person is responsible for his state. I will say yes. Each of us is where we are because of the choices we have made in our lives.

There is no way that "the rich" can stop you, me, or anyone from increasing our wealth.

I know that idea drives your socialist mind crazy, and I realize that's why you won't let this go. But, sorry, each of us can generate whatever wealth we want.

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the labor market. I don't know who ever told you that accepting a wage for labor some how made you an owner or share holder.

Of I agree on a price for a new piece of equipment, and in turn, that equipment results in increased profits, do I owe more to the person I bought the equipment from?

If you want to reap the benefits (and risk) of ownership, put your money where your mouth is and anty up.

Companies working to be profitable indicates a failure of capitalism because workers aren't seeing the gains and profits?

You can blame capitalism all day long, but the really issue is excess labor of the blue collar type in certain fields. You know the building trades are understaffed in the halls all over the country? These are low education jobs with good salaries, and they can't find people who can pass a drug test and show up to work.

Is automation and off shoring responsible? Yes to some degree, and most of that is the result of trade deals and government regulation that makes it less profitable to operate in the US.

You kind of forgot to mention the part that those corporate "elites" also carry the most risk of the stock slides.

Like always, you want the benefit, but not the risk.

Sure it is. Companies raise capital from equity stock sales all the time. If the stock is rising, you can dilute it to sell more. Of course, this requires that the stock is strong and rising.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-the-market_offering

Yes, from the IPO. That isn't the only opportunity a publicly traded company raises capital in the trading market.

Sorry. You're wrong. Market capitalization by a company allows for raising additional capital with equity shares.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ty-financing-affect-existing-shareholders.asp

 

Then by definition you "blame" the poor for being poor. I don't. End of discussion.

 

And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to correctly and accurately read what I posted. I never said such a thing.

Wow. You really don't know WTF you're talking about I see.

You're referring to a business selling treasury stock. I covered that. Maybe you don't know what treasury stock is. I went to the San Francisco Exchange years ago and spent some time there considering a purchase of a seat on the exchange to trade options for my own account. And you think you're going to lecture me on stock? LOL!!!


Yes, from the IPO. That isn't the only opportunity a publicly traded company raises capital in the trading market.

LOL!!! Learn about the different classes of shares and what they are, including authorized, issued, outstanding, treasury, etc. then come back and talk to me.

 

This just in: poster owns more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the patrons at his local homeless shelter. Those 50 percent own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of slaves currently being sold out of Liberia.

 

However you wish to look at it. There is nothing that "the wealthy" can do to keep you from increasing your level of wealth.

Oh, end of discussion.