No it isn't. If I develop a widget, and the market demands it, and people buy it... you're claim is that I got richer because somebody else bought the widget and gave their money to me? Or... that the employees who build the widget didn't get a cut of the profits? At what point does wealth building cause somebody else to lose money? That is a zero sum economic theory, and it simply isn't how it works. The US GDP grows year over year. That is proof that wealth is created. We as a nation whole are far more wealthy now then at its founding. The people who are richer are the ones who capitalized on that growth. That didn't make anybody poorer. What you are talking about is a game of monopoly. With a set amount of currency and everybody vying for a piece of the pie. That simply isn't how our economy works. So wealth earned was all done so by corrupt corporatism?
Corporatism is highly susceptible to corruption, although by itself is not something I seek to eliminate. Apathy is what makes corporatism more threatening because less accountability always leads to more corruption among politicians.
Why would they do that? I would a business owner want to create a populace at which their consumers are LESS capable of buying their products or services? - - - Updated - - - So... if people have more purchasing power, do they not have a better opportunity for consumption? - - - Updated - - - Corporatism is highly susceptible to corruption? I disagree. Human nature is highly susceptible to corruption.
Did I say wealth is entirely earned by corrupt corporatism? You're playing the class warfare game as much as liberals play it. Why does it have to be one or the other? I'm not attacking wealth nor wealthy people. Don't allow the conversation to sink to the typical partisan, two-party platitudes, please.
I don't believe that I am. Please don't dismiss my perspective as partisan to avoid the topic. Public unions serve the exact same purpose on a lobbying perspective to increase wealth and incentives their members as corporations do. What is the point of even bringing this up? Bringing up the corruption that exists in all facets is what I am trying to dismiss as unsound reasoning pertaining to the topic at hand.
Semantics. Our system that allows the free flow of money and favors between politicians and special interest (which is what corporatism really is) needs to have transparency.
I bring up corporatism and put it in the same sentence with corruption because that is the reality of the state of our union, whether it's the unions illegally benefitting from it or large businesses or individuals.
Ok, I took your statement to mean exclusivity. I really don't think corruption is as rampant as you think in the whole scheme of things.
Wouldn't it be very difficult to detect given the fact that politicians are ultimately responsible for holding politicians accountable? They've created quite the cocoon for themselves.
Agreed. That is why I advocate for a smaller less powerful government. Preserving regulation while thwarting corruption.
Ted talk? Check. Leftist hack? Check. TLDR? Check. Guys that look like that guy, no matter how much money they have, will say anything to get some sappy, emotionalized leftist leg. He's just playing the odds. 65-70% of young women vote Democrat.
Oh, here comes the Left, always bellyaching about "wealth disparities" and other symptoms in search of a cause. It's not mysterious, hyperlibs -- you want wealth? Work hard and long, SAVE money, and make wise investments. That's what people do to be successful. If you don't do those things, you won't have wealth (unless you hit the lottery). If you want to have something concrete to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about, then complain about the U. S. Tax Code, which is chock-full of loopholes, tax shelters, exemptions, and exceptions which the über-wealthy use routinely, right under the noses of both Republicans AND Democrats, to pay little or nothing in taxes. Ooooh! Now, how much more wealth would you have if you and your rich neighbors across town were FAIRLY taxed for a change...? Ya think Comrade Obama is going to champion the cause of FAIR taxation? He never has, and he never will, and all the hyperliberal morons go right on worshipping this deceitful, lying "messiah" anyway... it's pathetic!
bribing congressmen to pass draconian legislation, isn't democracy or freedom that's right, they often just pocket the money to be in complete control, like antebellum plantion owners or feudal lords try to make a real argument rather than parrot mindless bunk that's rather comical considering how many billions of dollars taxpayers sacrifice to subsidize corporate giants explain to me how nick hanauer could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a leftist
This is like saying people below the poverty line who don't like big government can't be Republicans. You ever heard the term "limousine liberal?" He's one. Silver spoon .1% millionaire upbringing, got in on Amazon, very lucky on startups, now hip and cool charity foundation dude. Seattle and SF are overrun with these guys who got lucky in the net boom. The TED talk you linked was too partisan for progressive TED, that should tell you something. Yes, he is undoubtedly, most certainly a big flaming, honking leftist. I'll even wager that more silver spoons are leftist than not despite ignorant LW propaganda to he contrary. They never knew any hard work in their whole lives. They got theirs at birth, so they can go around spouting leftist nonsense, hanging out with celebs, getting little naive lefty feminist coeds to polish their knobs. Nice work if you can get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer "TED Talk controversy[edit] In May 2012, several online news outlets reported that Hanauer's March 1, 2012 TED talk[12] was not posted by TED Talks. In the short presentation he spoke about rising income inequality in the US, and the problems it may cause to future business ventures, as he feels that middle class consumers are far greater job creators than wealthy entrepreneurs like himself.[13][14][15] Thus he proposed the necessity for higher median incomes for workers rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, stating that if lower income tax rates for the wealthy really worked "we would be drowning in jobs", instead of unemployment being at current numbers.[15] As justification for not posting the talk, Chris Anderson, curator of TED, a private organization, stated that he felt Hanauer's talk was "explicitly partisan" and included "a number of arguments that were unconvincing".[15][16] Huffington Post writer Jillian Berman expressed bewilderment since TED had previously issued talks by politicians such as former US Vice-President Al Gore or British Prime Minister David Cameron without hesitation.[15] TED reserves the right to post only the talks it considers to be most effective. Hanauer partially defended Anderson's decision in an interview with Sam Seder, saying he could understand that the position he himself offered in his talk might be controversial to the business community and that Anderson might have received unproportional critique for his decision to hold back the talk.[17] The original presentation is available on YouTube.[18] Anderson later decided to add Nick's most recent, and longer, talk on a similar theme from TEDSalon NY2014. It was posted on August 12, 2014.[19] Anderson also posted an explanation for his decision and showed himself and Hanauer "burying the hatchet".[20]"
it was partisan in that it exposed the lies that the gop spreads, it was also accurate on the economic points of course you can't refute the economics in hanauer's talk, evidently you couldn't even read or watch it
Because they have children. Most rich people either themselves or someone else in their family were smart, worked hard, and made money. Leftists hate success. Jealousy and envy are an illness.
Heather Long is the author of the piece referenced in the OP: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/14/news/economy/america-inequality-10-worst-cities/?npt=NP1 ... remember? It's interesting how you on the hyperliberal Left always (always!) ignore the connection between work and success! It's also interesting (very much so) how you Socialists completely ignore the vast unfairness of the U. S. Tax Code -- and the unwillingness of your own socialistic apparatchiks (Obama comes to mind) to actually DO anything about it. You hyperlibs pride yourselves on the perspicacity of your thinking, and your innate abilities to sniff out injustices and inequalities far, far better than any of us on the Right... right? Then why hasn't your fair-minded President Messiah already fixed the U. S. Tax Code?! He could have done that easily during his first two years on the throne, when all he had to do was tell a few lies, snap his imperial fingers, and tell Congress what to do (it worked smoothly with Obamacare).... When it's all said and done, you on the Left are an even bigger bunch of hypocrites than we on the Right are. At least we on the Right admit that we want to work for individual success, enjoy individual rewards, and selfishly keep what we have earned! You on the Left always tell everyone else how we should live our lives, plot endlessly to steal from people who have worked and saved to give it to the ranks of parasites and leeches who make up a huge proportion of your group. But then when something as OBVIOUSLY unfair and unjust as the U. S. Tax Code is right there in front of your noses, you ignore it completely and harp on about how it's racism that causes income inequality, and all the other unsupportable nonsense that is part of the unending socialist gush....
of course you can't explain how a hanauer is a leftists, he isn't, he's a venture capitalist and where do you come up with all that fluffy balderdash?
LOL @ the obvious squirming. It was so leftist partisan that leftist/progressive TED wouldn't even publish it. Squirm all you like, that's a fact. Every reader here can see you were caught in a ridiculous, dumb claim, para "how on earth could hanauer be leftist?" Got called on it, now squirming around in your typical way. Why don't YOU make an actual claim, and evidence it with something other than a silly-ass cut paste youtube video of a talk that was too liberal for even liberal TED talks?
Oh, that isn't a DOG, it's a black lab, is the equivalent of the inanity of the above. I've PROVEN that he is a leftist, there are TONS of venture capitalists who are leftists, they tend to be the type who "did well with Daddy's money" just like hanauer. Face facts, you made a bad claim. Just move on.
of course you can't make a real argument for hanauer being a leftist in reality, he's a billionaire, venture capitalist all you did was show that you have no clue what constitutes proof
LOL! You wealth gap snivelers kill me! So if a guy has $10,000,000 more than me 30 years ago it wasn't a problem. But if he has $30,000,000 more than me now, it's a problem?? Stupid crap. - - - Updated - - - You got it! Libs with $$$ are usually trust fund babies who screwed the pooch or married into it. Kerry comes to mind.
