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

I'm not surrendering to anyone? Too many excuse from you...

 

it's rather amusing that the three mousekateers are Bill Gates, Jeff Bezoz, and Warren Buffet. if they were true socialists they would give 99.9% of their money to poor people

 

Ok, if you say so. So you are then if you prefer.

 

It is an individual issue because each individual acts in order to receive income. And there is nothing anyone can do to prevent any individual from increasing his income.

 

Well, let's start with Gates. He provided a product that almost everyone wants. And almost all of us freely handed our money to him in exchange for what we wanted. We got what we wanted, he got our cash. It is hardly fair to denigrate Gates for having participated in voluntary transactions. I am willing to bet that the OP himself helped Gates build that wealth.

Seriously, don't put the blame on Gates. Put the blame on us consumers who voluntarily gave that wealth to him.

If you don't like rich people, then stop buying the crap they are selling.

 

The economic framework of capitalism which has done more to provide opportunity and achievement and independence and freedom and liberty that any other system. If you want to share in profits then share in the investment and risk. If you want to be paid a share of the profits every month the sign an agree that also says if there are not profits that month you don't get paid but you cannot quit and go elsewhere. As an employee you are an expense and are owed nothing more than the value of your labor.

 

So relegate all statistical studies and actuarial calculations to the trash, eh? Keep us all ignorant.

 

And I'll bet you quote the bible to defend the bible.

 

Nope. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

And I bet you just made yourself look entirely foolish.

 

You lose.

 

Nope and you are the one looking foolish, I'm an atheist.

 

I am too. But at least I understood the meaning of what I said when I expected you were a "believer" by mistake. Apparently, atheist or not, you didn't understand me.

 

A few people love to twist the alarm that this disparity deserves into jealousy and greed. It's a straw-man type of argument.

They love to present amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth as a universal law and that any questioning of this "right" is proof of jealousy. Most people I talk to about it don't see it as unfair. They see it more as proof that something has gone awry.

Those people who defend the stupidly wealthy also like to badmouth unions and the like. Humans are social creatures. It's what made us such a successful species. It's natural for most of us to band together to gain strength in numbers against what we see as a threat. It's much more natural than the few recluse freaks that say to each his own.

 

Then please explain in what possible way does a Bill Gates or other wealthy people negatively effect another person?

 

By amassing wealth as we see in the huge wealth disparity in which the top 0.1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 90%, it takes out of circulation such huge amounts that demand and consumption remain depressed and the economy can't flourish and thrive.

 

To cure jealousy is to see it for what it is, a dissatisfaction with self - Joan Didion

 

It's not about jealousy. When so few own so much they have too much power, which we both know is attached to wealth.

 

Please explain in detail exactly what power they have over you personally?

Envy is a littleness of soul, which cannot see beyond a certain point, and if it does not occupy the whole space, feels itself excluded - William Hazlitt

 

The right always wants to make it an issue of individuals because that way they can hide from the statistical facts and trends.

 

It has nothing to do with claiming "jealousy and greed." It has everything to do with FREEDOM.

Not necessarily. I am a union member and defend the freedom of workers to band together, yet I also defend the freedom for Bill Gates to amass wealth through voluntary transactions in which both parties agree to the terms.

I defend workers' freedom to join together and bargain as they see fit.
I defend the employers' freedom to bargain as they see fit.
I defend voluntary transactions between entities.
I defend the consumers' freedom to purchase the available products they desire.
I defend Gates' freedom to participate in voluntary transactions with consumers.

Seeing something as being a "threat" doesn't mean that it is actually a threat. I suppose if the masses deem Gates to be a threat, they could just gang up on him and forcibly take all he has either by government action or by mob rule. That would be highly distasteful to me on an ideological level because I believe in individual freedom.

Alternatively, if a person thinks Gates has too much wealth, then that person should stop buying his product.

The consumer is what made Gates wealthy. Seems a bit disingenuous for the consumer to complain about that now when they participated voluntarily in creating Gates' wealth.

 

The left always fails to demonstrate how I or anyone else cannot increase our wealth if we want to.

 

Are you serious? Or just delerious?

 

That's certainly debatable. Many of the wealthiest individuals became wealthy in large part due to their exploitation of governmental policies like intellectual property laws, subsidies, and various forms of favoritism. Just as one obvious example, Bill Gates was able to use intellectual property laws to crush potential competitors with Microsoft. But the simple fact is that nothing Microsoft produced was in any way truly original. And even if it was original, that does not justify using the coercive power of the state to grant them a monopoly on that product. Or we can look at the massive bailouts that many banks received in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, the banking industry is easily the most coddled, protected, and favored industry in the history of the world. Pretty much everywhere you look, the super-wealthy are manipulating the political system to their advantage. Unfortunately, so-called "progressives" and "liberals" want to solve this very real problem in exactly the wrong way, by giving the government even more power. This despite the fact government power is precisely what lets these wealthy individuals insulate themselves from free competition, which is absolutely the best way to keep greed in check.

 

Isn't it interesting that the article sites as a solution to this problem that we ought to raise taxes on the rich, a 'solution' oft proposed by those very same 'top 1%'?

They have the means to exempt themselves from taxes, by creating loopholes for themselves that the rest of us cannot utilize.

Taxes are not the solution.

But then, neither is this armed 'class war' you promote, given that the vast majority of private arms in this country would be implemented on the side of 'capitalists.' The People are not going to support armed robbery of the rich any more than they're going to allow themselves to be taxed into oblivion by them.

The answer lies in freeing up the market from restrictive regulation (lobbied for by the same 1%) and letting competition correct the problem naturally.