The rich own the wealth.

The artist did, however created the painting, just like the money launderer created the using art to launder money scheme. The government creates money, the poor refine goods, and both those things are considered "wealth"

 

And indeed, the artist put paint and paper together, he did not create £300. One can then ask, who created the paint and the paper? Are not those the real wealth?

Lets consider who created your Ford motor car? Was it the current majority shareholders of Ford? Or all the thousands of workers?

Come on conservatives, Id be fascinated to see your response.

 

For the most part the rich gain control of resources, ie wealth, they then offer to transfer parts of it for the use of others, and money is transferred to them - there is little creating going on.

Its a closed system, called Earth.

 

Children will dribble on the computer. What a pathetic joke of a post. You just told everyone reading youve never travelled anywhere where there are children in need. If you did you would have known how dumb that line was. Your computer is not a luxury item to you to others it is. In much the same way a billionaire doesnt think his yacht is a luxury item when he uses it for his business dealings. I bet you disagree with that because you dont hate rich people you just hate people richer than you. Obviously.

 

The producers ( be it robots or people ) of the economy create wealth and improve on raw materials. The wealthy or poor entrepreneurs pay the producers the wage.


The idea of a good economy is when money is flowing, and resources are improved, hence which is why a rocket is more valuable than raw metal and unrefined chemicals.

 

you must think money is wealth it is not it is a representation of wealth and that painting doesn't need to be sold for it to have wealth. wealth is anything of value the artist painting it and not selling it doesn't mean it doesn't have value that it isn't wealth
nothing needs to be transferred to that artist for that painting to have value/wealth

I find a nugget of gold. does that nugget of gold have wealth? or do I need to sell that nugget before it becomes wealth?

 

Hmm interesting, Ive got an image in my head, a memory, I consider it dear to me, can we thus say it is valuable? Can we say it is wealth?

 

if some one is willing to assign a value and I willing trade something of value for it. then yes

 

LOL, I can pretty much guarantee ive travelled far more than you and to some of the worst places to try and survive. Anyway, computers are not a luxury to me or anyone else on this forum. It may be a luxury item to some poor child somewhere but since your argument is based on me giving them the computer I have rather than they giving me the computer then of course and obviously their valuation or consideration of the computer is irrelevant. Again I find myself explaining your own logic to you.

However, the billionaire may indeed consider his yacht a vital business asset and thus not a luxury - but about his second and third? His second and third car, house?

 

I'm not exactly sure, but people have tortured others over the information in someone's head, so ideas can indeed be wealth.

 

I don't want to see wanton violence... but I WOULD love for MILLIONS of people to take to the polls with a similar attitude.

Really, it is time to pass laws that favor regular working folk and repeal many which hand the wealthiest far too many economic advantages.

It is simply TIME FOR THAT.

Vote in more BLUE, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS for at least a generation and switch things up. The sooner the better!!

 

What if no one can even know what it is and can never see it except me? Are you saying it is not wealth?

But surely you have just stated that an item, such as a painting does not need to be sold to be valued and thus be called wealth?

 

memories written into books and movies have net many much wealth

 

As does a banksafe full of gold.

But the poor are most concerned with survival and well being, to them, that is wealth, if they feel it's not enough they will riot.

But the thread asks the question, why not circulate the money from income amongst the poor?

 

Sorry but your lickspittal con jobs here will never come with you, in fact theyll every trick in the book to make sure everyone stays hungry. Its better for business they think.

 

Indeed, but thats only when they already what the information is and this can value it, maybe sell it or use it and thus consider it wealth - but our friends contention was that a painting is created wealth even without being sold. Thus he seeks to argue that rich people have created their wealth and thus are entitled to all of it.

 

because if you are not allowed to reap the benefit of your own wealth creation then why create it

if you have 10 people and a cart 5 are pulling the cart and 5 are riding in it. 1 of the 5 pulling the cart decides he is tired of pulling the 5 around and decides I want to not pull but be pulled so he gets in the cart
now you have 4 pulling the cart and 6 riding in it another of the ones pulling it decides the cart is getting to heavy im going to quite pulling it and ride in it which he does
now you have 7 riding in the cart and 3 pulling the cart
another decides the cart is getting much to heavy so he also decides to stop pulling and wants to ride
then the last two does the same
what you end up with is a cart full of all 10 people and no a dam one pulling it

 

People are entitled to their personal effects for the most part. While the rich may not have been the producers, they do however own their wealth. Let's try to take it back from them through a fair trade, not taking it communism-style.

 

Why would you pull a cart for free?

Also there is a way to have people being pulled by the cart with robots pulling it.

 

I am at the point that I believe in ANY MEANS NECESSARY, I'd be happy t see WANTON VIOLENCE if that's what it takes. What the money people have done to America is all violence! What you see in places like ghetto Baltimore or in any white trash midwestern meth smoking town is violence wrought on the people by the wealthy who decided to hoard the cash and created a BS place with little or no opportunity for many people.

 

yes the ones pulling the cart gets paid but so does the ones riding in it, and if the pay for pulling doesn't out weigh the pay for riding in it why pull it?

 

Because you need food water and shelter. This isn't like the time of the pioneers where you can claim land and work it to provide for your needs.

 

if you make enough for food and shelter riding in the cart just as the ones pulling it why pull it?

 

Well, maybe it's too many years of loyal military service that keeps me from advocating widespread violence and becoming an enemy of the state. I couldn't have kept my security clearance by pushing for such, and I don't intend to be picked-up by the FBI (or other 3-letter agency) for even coming close to doing the same.

I was smack-dab in the middle of the Civil Right struggle (that continues today); I know that violence or advocating the same would see you 'defeated'. Peaceful and legal means is the way to go. And used properly, the existing political system is still viable... even if going that route is a struggle all its own.

And while you say that, they accomplished it with the power of the pen; America's citizens properly united within the political arena can accomplish much. We don't all perfectly agree... but the abuses you point to and many others we can all see and sense... CAN motivate regular working Americans to get to the polls and PUSH things in the proper direction (the WILL of the 'people' clearly expressed). And honestly, 'bullets' cannot accomplish what that ultimately will.

Well, as much as a clenched fist approach to resolving those things is the visceral reaction to such injustice... I'm certain the key is taking legitimate power via the political system and compelling change in that arena.

Let me be the first to say that we shouldn't be voting-in many more corporatists, social or fiscal conservatives at this point. Not that some measure of conservative thinking and application isn't useful... but at the present time in this society's existence, it seems the bulk of corporatists and Right-leaning politicians have decided to hang out together. Yeah, voting in another Right wing, paid-for politician will get us more of what we see in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Wisconsin (or anywhere else Koch-type 'investors' or 'interests' have focused their financial acumen).

VOTING (especially for BLUE) and reforming the election process (promoting far more voter participation)... is the key to getting things properly balanced out in this society. People aren't going to be able to sit on their asses and expect the proper fixes; they are going to have to PAY ATTENTION and vote primarily for men and women who actively (push for related policies) and openly (in their rhetoric) promote the well being of the working class and the reduction of poverty overall.

Rest assured, the wealthy aren't going to come down (voluntarily) and rescue regular Americans. Sure, we can FIGHT... but let's use the political system. We already know that civil war is not so good for this nation.

 

You don't. But if there is no one to pull it, you use robots. Working people who depend on the opportunity to pull be damned.