After all Michael Moore says they have all the money. That works for this year:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/20 ... -rich.html
After we do this and have in the process killed the economy and the rule of law, what then?
Let's Eat The Rich
What a disgusting display of ignorance. Wether this smug tool even realizes that he is one, I would have expected better here. How ignorant or shameless must one be to propagate this nonsense? Given that this is an energy board, I will assume that it is the latter, in which case, please take it elsewhere.
"Eat the rich" is an appropriate message, though it should be taken more literally. Wether they can afford the massive debt that they have incurred on behalf of our nation is irrelevant--they are directly responsible for the current situation. To put it politely, they need to be relocated in the food chain. (Perhaps below insects or fish which sharp teeth...)
Dollars are only indirectly relevant, and it is gravely disingenuous to frame the problem in such simplistic terms. The fundamental problem is that lobbying dollars have replaced votes, and the government has been entirely subverted to serve private interests. There are basically two things that need to happen. One, the country needs to serve its citizens, not the corn lobby, or the coal lobby, or the MIC, &c. Two, we must invest in the future; that includes education, research, infrastructure, local production of goods, and above all--energy. Unfortunately, the slick marketing of those very interests has served to make our own people our worst enemy.
The economy is not a zero-sum game, and yet the sociopaths at the helm continue to focus on concentrating existing wealth, rather than enriching our nation. America is just one giant cash grab, wether it be lawyers, self-serving politicians, or corporations purchasing anti-competitive legislation and monopoly rights directly from the government. This has severely damaged the free market in many sectors, and will ultimately destroy our economy, and leave our resources (both natural and human) to the highest bidder.
Knowledge, energy, and resources comprise the foundation of wealth. Knowledge can be freed by the stroke of a pen: kill all forms of Intellectual Property and associated litigation. Any such artificial restrictions on creativity and knowledge are counterproductive and retard progress. Resources are already plentiful, and the energy problem is perfectly tractable, if we introduce a sane (nuclear) energy policy.
If we could repurpose even a fraction of our existing wealth toward productive development, and cease serving entrenched interests, we could make immense improvements in short order.
"Eat the rich" is an appropriate message, though it should be taken more literally. Wether they can afford the massive debt that they have incurred on behalf of our nation is irrelevant--they are directly responsible for the current situation. To put it politely, they need to be relocated in the food chain. (Perhaps below insects or fish which sharp teeth...)
Dollars are only indirectly relevant, and it is gravely disingenuous to frame the problem in such simplistic terms. The fundamental problem is that lobbying dollars have replaced votes, and the government has been entirely subverted to serve private interests. There are basically two things that need to happen. One, the country needs to serve its citizens, not the corn lobby, or the coal lobby, or the MIC, &c. Two, we must invest in the future; that includes education, research, infrastructure, local production of goods, and above all--energy. Unfortunately, the slick marketing of those very interests has served to make our own people our worst enemy.
The economy is not a zero-sum game, and yet the sociopaths at the helm continue to focus on concentrating existing wealth, rather than enriching our nation. America is just one giant cash grab, wether it be lawyers, self-serving politicians, or corporations purchasing anti-competitive legislation and monopoly rights directly from the government. This has severely damaged the free market in many sectors, and will ultimately destroy our economy, and leave our resources (both natural and human) to the highest bidder.
Knowledge, energy, and resources comprise the foundation of wealth. Knowledge can be freed by the stroke of a pen: kill all forms of Intellectual Property and associated litigation. Any such artificial restrictions on creativity and knowledge are counterproductive and retard progress. Resources are already plentiful, and the energy problem is perfectly tractable, if we introduce a sane (nuclear) energy policy.
If we could repurpose even a fraction of our existing wealth toward productive development, and cease serving entrenched interests, we could make immense improvements in short order.
I have just one question, who is "we" and who is "they?" And where do "I" stand in all this?cc wrote:What a disgusting display of ignorance. Wether this smug tool even realizes that he is one, I would have expected better here. How ignorant or shameless must one be to propagate this nonsense? Given that this is an energy board, I will assume that it is the latter, in which case, please take it elsewhere.
"Eat the rich" is an appropriate message, though it should be taken more literally. Wether they can afford the massive debt that they have incurred on behalf of our nation is irrelevant--they are directly responsible for the current situation. To put it politely, they need to be relocated in the food chain. (Perhaps below insects or fish which sharp teeth...)
Dollars are only indirectly relevant, and it is gravely disingenuous to frame the problem in such simplistic terms. The fundamental problem is that lobbying dollars have replaced votes, and the government has been entirely subverted to serve private interests. There are basically two things that need to happen. One, the country needs to serve its citizens, not the corn lobby, or the coal lobby, or the MIC, &c. Two, we must invest in the future; that includes education, research, infrastructure, local production of goods, and above all--energy. Unfortunately, the slick marketing of those very interests has served to make our own people our worst enemy.
The economy is not a zero-sum game, and yet the sociopaths at the helm continue to focus on concentrating existing wealth, rather than enriching our nation. America is just one giant cash grab, wether it be lawyers, self-serving politicians, or corporations purchasing anti-competitive legislation and monopoly rights directly from the government. This has severely damaged the free market in many sectors, and will ultimately destroy our economy, and leave our resources (both natural and human) to the highest bidder.
Knowledge, energy, and resources comprise the foundation of wealth. Knowledge can be freed by the stroke of a pen: kill all forms of Intellectual Property and associated litigation. Any such artificial restrictions on creativity and knowledge are counterproductive and retard progress. Resources are already plentiful, and the energy problem is perfectly tractable, if we introduce a sane (nuclear) energy policy.
If we could repurpose even a fraction of our existing wealth toward productive development, and cease serving entrenched interests, we could make immense improvements in short order.
Well, it sounds like my words were wasted, and indeed there were a few too many. I'm curious what value you think that video has though. Do you think that the rich need defending, and deserve a free pass for the financial and other disasters wrought upon this country?Jccarlton wrote:I have just one question, who is "we" and who is "they?" And where do "I" stand in all this?
That comment in the topic was clearly not targeted at people making $250k a year. That was likely the intention of the video though; to lump together potentially honest wealthy people with the truly powerful who are doing the real damage. I imagine you know which side of the fence you are on, though there are a disturbing number who can't place themselves properly.
Also, thank you ladajo. Do you insult all well meaning people?
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
You just said that we should literally eat the rich. That's well meaning?cc wrote:Also, thank you ladajo. Do you insult all well meaning people?
Anyway, the video was about the fact that our dept and budget is out of control and the idea that you can simply tax the rich to pay for it all.
The video wasn't about lobbying or corporate greed or rich people destroying our country or any of the things you respond with cc. But, if we really want to focus in on the topic of the video, you will be happy to know that it is wrong. Moore is right. There is plenty of wealth held by the rich to do a number on our dept and redistribute to the average working man.
The video is flawed because it tries to make the case that you can't "eat" the rich to pay for our dept. But you can! There is almost 50 trillion dollars of wealth tied up in the top 25% of Americans net worth. We can confiscate that wealth, pay off our national dept and redistribute what remains.
The other point the video tries to make is that if we did this, then corporations etc. would not exist any more, so what would we do next year. Well, the corporations would still be there, we would simply be transferring ownership, so again the video is flawed.
The real money is in wealth, not income. Confiscation is the way to go if you really want to get back at those rich SOB's. The video is wrong. There is plenty to go around.
Oh, and, if we decided to, we could literally eat the rich too, just as well meaning cc suggests.
Not that I think any of this is a good idea. I'm just sayin'....
You act as if all that $50 trillion held by the top 25% is just a lot of bricks of gold or specie, cash that can easily be spread around so everyone can go on a, eat/drink/be merry binge. It isn't. The value of those assets plummets if you try to liquidate it all at once, because of course, when you take away everybodys wealth, you have nobody with any money to sell those assets to..... and there you go, having destroyed the largest and greatest economic engine in the history of mankind for making as many people as possible lead productive lives with high standards of living.
But then, seedload, you seem to be one of those types that thinks everybody should be living in mud huts anwways.
But then, seedload, you seem to be one of those types that thinks everybody should be living in mud huts anwways.
I don't act like anything... the video acted like that... responding to Moore acting like that. So, following the premise of the video (and Moore originally), that you can directly transfer wealth to pay for stuff, then I am just pointing out that video greatly underestimates the wealth of the "rich" people by not taking all of that 50 trillion and re-distributing it to Moore's buddies. The video underestimates the wealth - intentionally. I actually find it a poor response to Moore because it continues to follow his premise - that this money can just be exchanged. And, then it does so by telling a lie, that their ain't enough money if the money could simply be exchanged.IntLibber wrote:You act as if all that $50 trillion held by the top 25% is just a lot of bricks of gold or specie, cash that can easily be spread around so everyone can go on a, eat/drink/be merry binge. It isn't. The value of those assets plummets if you try to liquidate it all at once, because of course, when you take away everybodys wealth, you have nobody with any money to sell those assets to..... and there you go, having destroyed the largest and greatest economic engine in the history of mankind for making as many people as possible lead productive lives with high standards of living.
But then, seedload, you seem to be one of those types that thinks everybody should be living in mud huts anwways.
I do think some or maybe even most can simply be taken and given without losing value. Not a car collection but a couple hundred thousand shares in GE, probably.
And I repeat, not that any of this is a good idea. I'm just sayin'...
What???
So you see no problem with simply seizing $50 trillion or so worth of shares, selling them off and using the cash to pay off the national debt?seedload wrote:I don't act like anything... the video acted like that... responding to Moore acting like that. So, following the premise of the video (and Moore originally), that you can directly transfer wealth to pay for stuff, then I am just pointing out that video greatly underestimates the wealth of the "rich" people by not taking all of that 50 trillion and re-distributing it to Moore's buddies. The video underestimates the wealth - intentionally. I actually find it a poor response to Moore because it continues to follow his premise - that this money can just be exchanged. And, then it does so by telling a lie, that their ain't enough money if the money could simply be exchanged.IntLibber wrote:You act as if all that $50 trillion held by the top 25% is just a lot of bricks of gold or specie, cash that can easily be spread around so everyone can go on a, eat/drink/be merry binge. It isn't. The value of those assets plummets if you try to liquidate it all at once, because of course, when you take away everybodys wealth, you have nobody with any money to sell those assets to..... and there you go, having destroyed the largest and greatest economic engine in the history of mankind for making as many people as possible lead productive lives with high standards of living.
But then, seedload, you seem to be one of those types that thinks everybody should be living in mud huts anwways.
I do think some or maybe even most can simply be taken and given without losing value. Not a car collection but a couple hundred thousand shares in GE, probably.
And I repeat, not that any of this is a good idea. I'm just sayin'...
I do. Your first problem is just exactly who has the cash to buy those $50 trillion worth of shares? The second problem is what kind of impact a $50 trillion sell off of shares would have on the companies whose shares ares sold?
The answer to the first question is NOBODY. After all, you've just bankrupted most of the people that could afford them. Just as importantly, who's going to want to own $50 trillion in stocks that you might decide to simply seize again when the whim takes you?
The answer to the second question is an economic collapse that would utterly dwarf the current one.
Read some history. How many times has it worked out well for the people and nation when a leader made good on promises to seize the assets of the rich and distribute them amongst the common man? Historically it's been seizing the property of the landowners and the result has consistently been collapse of the industries run on that land. Most often those industries that collapsed were agriculture, and mass starvation and hardship follows.
Let us not fool ourselves. This discussion is nothing but an attack on the concept of private ownership. People forget that we are talking about MONEY WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO US. To take it is to STEAL.
The Democrats are mostly responsible for the massive pile of debt that has been racked up so far. I think that if anyone's money should be taken from them, it should be those people that created the debt in the first place, and who keep trying to pass it off as "collective" debt. No, it's not MY Debt. It's the debt of those people who kept borrowing and spending (despite my constant opposition) on things the government should not have been doing at all.
They have followed a policy that would make us into slaves. I think it is they who should instead be made into slaves. I think people should have rendered unto them as they would render unto others. Democrats should be held solely responsible for the debt they created. And now, they come again like a thief, to suggest stealing more of other people's money.
We should put this shoe on their foot.
The Democrats are mostly responsible for the massive pile of debt that has been racked up so far. I think that if anyone's money should be taken from them, it should be those people that created the debt in the first place, and who keep trying to pass it off as "collective" debt. No, it's not MY Debt. It's the debt of those people who kept borrowing and spending (despite my constant opposition) on things the government should not have been doing at all.
They have followed a policy that would make us into slaves. I think it is they who should instead be made into slaves. I think people should have rendered unto them as they would render unto others. Democrats should be held solely responsible for the debt they created. And now, they come again like a thief, to suggest stealing more of other people's money.
We should put this shoe on their foot.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: What???
Not that I think this is a good idea!!!bcglorf wrote:So you see no problem with simply seizing $50 trillion or so worth of shares, selling them off and using the cash to pay off the national debt?seedload wrote:And I repeat, not that any of this is a good idea. I'm just sayin'...IntLibber wrote: But then, seedload, you seem to be one of those types that thinks everybody should be living in mud huts anwways.
Anyway, the video is disingenuous. It is trying to make the point that the rich don't have enough assets to cover even a year of our national budget. They do! The video is simply doing an accounting and ignoring 50 trillion of eatable rich people assets. None of Moore, the Video, or Me consider the logistics of actually doing the liquidation. Only Moore thinks its a good idea.