He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/
Anti-capitalism in a big NUT shell.
I am in full agreement. What rock did he pop out from under, or who let him come out in the first place?
Thank you for this great forum post AnnCee.
I guess the same one Joe the (not a) plumber did, but then I bet your all for him popping up.
The crazy thing is if Joe would actually become a real plumber he could have Union support and actually make a descent enough wage to become a small business owner. Huh like thats what he ever wanted to do, and why would he I'm sure the Koch brothers pay much better.
For about 15 minutes anyway, just ask Palin!!
All Michael Moore does is tell the truth and reveal the true scum in our country.
Sorry, you need to look at this chart and the two circles to see what is radically wrong in America. The issue is the top 1 percent have gone berserk in ill gotten gains from the ponzi housing and dot com bubbles.
http://www.businessinsider.com/too-big- … hey-2011-3
Be sure to look at the big circle money flow and the small circle. It looks like the sun and the earth. The big circle is a massive and dangerous ponzi and is basically immoral and illegal.
You are aware by merely talking about him or anything he says, then you're giving him exactly what he wants. Like you, I don't really care much for Michael Moore as a person, as I tend to think he's a hypocrite condemning capitalism while openly profiting off of the same system he condemns. Not only that, but he tends to brainwash people with half truths and misconstrued facts, as he often tries to blur the lines of commercialism with capitalism a lot.
However, as much as I hate the guy as a person, I do think he's one of the best documentary film makers there is. Sure, his tactics of talking about controversial content while pissing people off is foul play, but it works. Your talking about him aren't you? Did you know that the average Howard Stern and Michael Moore hater listens and watches them more often than even their own fans? On virtue of they want to hear what they'll say next. Therefore, you may not realize this, but your actually HELPING him by even bringing up this topic into forums. I'm just saying.
You were named after Stevie Nix weren't you? I wrote a hub about her. Unless you are too old and it was a coincidence you were likely named after her.
You know, I get that a lot around here. However, believe it or not, my screen name is actually derived off something else entirely. However, I'll definitely be sure to check out your hub the first chance i'll get. thanks.
Do you actually think that there is something about Capitalism that isn't cancerous to the Earth, and the human race?
Well, communism failed and crony capitalism could fail. That would leave nothing.
@bgamill. And you honestly believe that communism, socialism, and capitalism are the only three governing systems to choose from?
There's been many through the millenia - tribal elders, feudalism, monarchies, facism, you name it.
The challenge is now, not to replace capitalism with something that doesn't work, but to create a new one that works in the long term to sustain humanity.
Socialism and capitalism, are economic systems; they are not forms of government.
True. However, they overlap to some degree. The point is that the choices isn't only between two or three systems. There is room to create an infinite number of systems that will work. It simply means people must get out of the box... and start applying some creative solutions.
It works somewhat in our Canadian friendly dictatorship
There are good things about all of these systems, the problem is not the system it's who's cheating the system. Promoting big corporations would be a good idea if they actually needed it. But in this time period they don't pay their fair taxes as is, nevermind the fact that they also don't just make their profits by what their production is. They buy their own stocks they sell their own stocks, hmmm now that seems like a conflict of interest.
And thus why would they care about meager employees or want to pay them fairly. Thats not how they make their $$$$ today, I think it should be just as punishible for CEO's to buy or sell stocks for their own company, as it is for a trader to act on insider information! Isn't that the same thing???? Go Unions!!!
We have a form of fascims. Tribes are quite inefficient. We hopefully will lump along but sometimes I wonder.
rich people don't take money, we voluntarily give it to them
(unless we're talking about bailouts or subsidies, or tariffs)
Yes, I went out to buy food and had to spend some time deciding if I wanted food or not!
How much time did you have to spend deciding if you would pay the taxes on it?
Not one second.
I accept that if I am to live in a society that looks after your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I have to pay my way!
Not one second because you had no choice, right?
There is a difference.
I pay taxes and the money stays largely in this country and benefits many, possibly even myself at sometime.
I buy food and often the money doesn't stay in the country, benefits only a few and will never benefit me.
This is moving away from the point I was making anyway, which was Evan's claim to spend all bar taxes voluntarily and my disputing the voluntary element.
Did you have a choice to pay the tax or not?
Generally no, but neither do I have the choice to buy food or not, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Short, I'm not even sure what his argument is.
Apparently if the government does something that he doesn't like it's ok, but if the private sector does something, it's evil because of PROFITS.
Aside from that, I honestly don't understand his argument.
Evan you stated that everything you paid you did so voluntarily apart from taxes.
I purely pointed out that not everything you paid for was voluntary.
No argument, no big deal, just a correction.
You said: "Yes, I went out to buy food and had to spend some time deciding if I wanted food or not!"
... how is that not voluntary? I chose life instead of death...
Ditto taxes, they don't tax you if you choose death.
Very weak argument Evan.
You really like to leave steps out, don't you.
Me: Someone makes an ear of corn. I want to buy it. He willingly sells it to me, and I willingly buy it from him.
You: Taxes are the same way.
Me: No, actually not. If I did the same thing, but instead of us willingly paying each other, some third person comes in and says "oh, by the way, you owe me 10% of the money or else I send you both to jail - I have an AK-47 pointed at you both, btw"... then...
Holden: Well, you COULD just choose death!
Me: Yea... taxes make it harder to live, thanks for proving my point.
Unfortunately not many of us can just buy an ear of corn off a neighbour.
More likely we end up buying it from Asda (Walmart).
You can be sure that the seller makes far more off that ear of corn than the grower does and they are not, unlike your grower, likely to spend the money where it will benefit me or my neighbours nor the neighbours of the grower!
"WALMART IS EVIL!!!"
Give me a break. There is clearly a logical fallacy in this argument.
If A trades with B, then is that wrong? No.
If A trades with B, and then B trades with C, is that wrong? No.
If A trades with B, B to C, C to D, and then D to E... is that wrong?
No, of course not. Because each one of those trades is an exact duplicate of the first one - it's just The first trade times 3, or 4, or 5.
All that wal-mart is, is but a massive number of voluntary trades set up to make prices lower.
Then I go there to buy what I want at a cheaper price.
Wal-mart isn't evil. It's a good thing. I shop there regularly, as do MILLIONS of people because it's cheaper, and they can increase their standards of living by doing so.
Enough with the incorrect logic.
If X=X, then 3X must equal 3X.
Listen, if I spend my money with a local producer my money benefits the locality.
If I spend my money in a Walmart owned shop, it doesn't benefit my locality, it doesn't even benefit my country that much.
All you A+B+C is bunkem and flim flam, it's just a distraction otherwise you have to say that trade with China does you no harm whatsoever!
As you so rightly say, enough with the incorrect logic, you're better than that!
Oh, by the way at no point do I say that Walmart is evil, that's a figment of your imagination.
"my money benefits the locality" is just liberal talk for "I hate foreigners"
So, you're not amongst those who object to American jobs going to China then?
I'm afraid that you are wrong, there is no hate of foreigners about it.
If I spend £100 in a Manchester business then that £100 benefits Manchester.
If I spend £100 in a Manchester based London business then a percentage of that money benefits Manchester but a lot of it goes to London.
If you hate getting things cheaper from abroad, be my guest. Just don't ask for me to give you money to buy things less efficiently.
If you hate the idea of CHINESE people taking jobs from HONEST HARD WORKING AM'RRR'KENS, then you're a racist. Plain and simple.
It's not "us vs. them", it's "I want my stuff cheaper and in better quality".
"I want to buy local" is just masked racism. Sure, there might be more to it, but at it's core you're saying that you don't want people in a !!!!FOREIGN!!!! Country to work.
YOu can disagree all you want.
"I don't want to give money to people who live far away from me" is nothing more than isolationism.
Wake up. Just because your potato comes from another country (instead of another state) doesn't mean that evil exists.
But you are once again shifting the goal posts. it's not about racism or isolationism, it is about your claim to volunteer to give your money to anyone who tells you you should give it to them and not have them answer to you in any way.
They make it easier for me to live!
I don't worry about being ill or injured beyond the inconvenience of it.
I don't need masses of change to pay tolls when I drive somewhere.
I don't have to find school fees.
I don't have to pay for police protection or fire protection.
Now I'm an old fort, I don't have to worry about paying prescription charges or bus fares.
Need I go on?
"they don't tax you if you choose death"
Oh yes they do.
(unless we're talking about bailouts or subsidies, or tariffs)
So basically it was Bushy who stole the money and gave it to them!
I do agree with Moore that this Country isn't broke. But he has no business trying to take it out of the hands of anyone who's rightfully earned it. I saw an interview of his a while ago; can't remember who it was with...maybe Shawn Hannity.....and Moore was very secretive about how much money HE makes. Reckin he wouldn't want to have to give up any of it, but he would take it from other rich people!
All the hidden or laundered money should be taken back from the corrupt people, plus kept out of the hands of groups who want to do research on such things as the dna of lice and the sex habits of monkeys, etc. At least for a while. Long enough to get us back on-track. The lice will still be there, the monkeys will still be there, all to scrutinize and research and calculate about in due time.
After working for the World Bank all these years I can yes, he is right we are "NOT" broke, but
for entirly different reasoning it is so. We are being lied to and manipulated on all fronts now, no good.
That's funny, I don't recall this windbag giving away the millions that he's earned from his movies, especially since he's suing his studio execs and accusing them of stealing a mere couple of million dollars from him.
Yes of course all people with any money are only too willing to have their earnings stolen aren't they.
Liberals sure seem to . Oh wait, sorry, they are only too willing to have OTHER PEOPLE'S earnings stolen.
Are you in the top 10 or 20 percent? If not you are arguing against yourself.
That's a tired old liberal bromide; arrogant, presumptuous, and untrue.
They all are arguing against themselves!
I've never seen so many people standing with their pants round their ankles shouting shaft me next!
They have all swallowed the lie and will fight to the death to preserve the right to be shafted by people who, if they recognise them at all,laugh at them.
I'm sorry, were you being ironic about people earning money not liking it when it's stolen from them, like when the socialist government steals and redistributes, which you approve of?
No, taxes are written into law and if they take anybody by surprise then, well, . . .
So because the government takes it in the form of tax even though the government is taking far more than what they are getting back in terms of services from said government, that would be okay with you because they call it a tax?
And since that windbag keeps saying that the rich are keeping it, since he is of the rich, I'm surprised he doesn't take his own advice and give his money away instead of hanging onto his money. Don't you think that would make him less hypocritical?
Anti-capitalism is not the solution to stand against all sorts of hypocrisy. The Govt. is only a driven instance by both structure. So, we should acknowledge that if capitalism is our main economic resource then why should we support anti-capitalism for a loss support.
It isn't anti capitalism to say that the system is unbalanced and too few people hold too much of the money, it's just common sense!
"Too much money" is BS. The only people who can have "too much money" are the government and other thieves.
In other words "Stop taking taxes off me that might help the undeserving poor and allow me to give even more to the deserving rich"
The Saudis gave the people more money to avoid a revolution. When the people at the top are greedy and when they don't help mainstreet, it could prove Marx right. He said a world economic cartel would impoverish the masses. We had ponzi loans and even Clinton's mentor Quigley said the same thing:
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Yet Clinton conspired with Phil Gramm to repeal Glass-Steagall anyway. Shame on him.
Not to mention moron.
What do these anti-capitalists plan to do after they've taken away all the money from the rich people who made it out of sweat they stole from the poor?
Where's money going to come from after they've flushed that down the social engineering toilet?
They gonna start stealing sweat off the poor and magically transforming it into money?
Oh wait!!!!!!!! There won't be anymore poor people! Where the bleep they gonna get more money????????????????
It is not a question about being anti capitalist. it has more to do with being against crony capitalism, or corporatism, which is not capitalism. There is nothing capitalistic at the top. it is all a small club of wealthy people beyond anything seen in the history of the world.
It is actually ruining real capitalism. It is no longer battling the competition, Ann, it is the elimination of all competition.
Yes, I understand there are serious problems but Communism is not now and never was and never will be the answer. With the present system there is at least a chance that we can gain more protections and limit the power of the overlords. Communism always fails and it is an immoral ideology that makes slaves of people.
How is it that we have communism? How will we have communism? You are very brainwashed and here is why. As Roubini has said, the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. That is not communism. in communism the profits go to the party. In fascism, the profits go to the big business and most of the time through war profiteering and through murder and through ponzi, swindling lending.
And free checking is coming to an end. So get prepared to pay, bank lovers! http://www.thenation.com/blog/158965/ba … igher-fees
Ann, here is the deal regarding your views, they are talking points. There is no substance behind them. Fascism is the dictatorship of the corporation and that is what we have. If you can't see it I am sorry for you. If you are not in the top 10 percent of income you are defending people who are not in your condition.
Think of this, when you give money to the bank in the form of deposits you are lending the bank money. And yet, the banks, greedy and broke as they are, are desperate to charge the people who are lending them money a fee.
And that after they gave easy money loans that artificially drove up the prices of real estate until the crash came. And it was preplanned.
Here we go again: "banks and big business! banks and big business!"
endlessly repeated like some liberal mantra that will reveal mystic truths leading to a socialist utopia!
Throw in a loony conspiracy theory here and there for effect and it's a complete, portable agenda that requires no further thought.
It is not liberal and it is a conspiracy. You can read Ron Paul, far from being a liberal, or Mike Shedlock, far from being a liberal, and you can understand it.
If you just want to rant you won't understand it. The volume of money on Wall Street far exceeds money in the real economy. It has reached critical mass and may cause a permanent underclass in the US economy and an end to the middle class.
While I hope that does not happen it could. When you have professors of prestigious universities in the east calling for a replacement for the dollar as the world reserve currency you can see that Bernanke plans to tank the dollar and your gas prices could skyrocket. Hope you can afford it.
I'm not going to point out the mental illnesses that often manifest in a need to believe in conspiracies because you're entitled to you opinion in any case. However, it is unrealistic to expect that normal people will take such things seriously.
Normal people think that the super bowl is an important part of their lives. Normal people think that the Federal Reserve is part of the United States Government. Normal people think that wealth is endless, and that petro dollars never cease. Normal People are idiots.
Wow, since you know less than "normal people", what's that make you?
He called us Abby normal! I don't like being called Abby!
Short Story, why don't you identify yourself if you are going to get personal? I am done with you if you don't.
You know what I mean. You accuse me of mental illness and hide behind anonymity. I am done with you unless you reveal who you are.
I think he's a sock puppet myself, mind you his alter ego is another sock puppet
No, really, what do you mean by "reveal who you are"? Is bgamall your legal name? What's your street address? SS #? Blood type? Favorite color?
What the heck are you on about with this? Do you want to come visit me? Judging by that avatar, you're a little long in the tooth to be playing tough guy, so...
I'm starting to really really like you, Sir!
Crony capitalism is only possible in a socialist state.
It is not a question about being anti capitalist. it has more to do with being against crony capitalism, or corporatism, which is not capitalism. There is nothing capitalistic at the top. it is all a small club of wealthy people beyond anything seen in the history of the world.
What do you know? We agree on something.
The object isn't to take away ALL the money. Just much which is illegally obtained through deceptive practices.
This is a cynical statement and should the money be used properly, then things would be different yes, but better. And, no I am not for socialism if that's what you are thinking, so you can take that thought and throw it out the window.
No. That makes no sense.
People always spend money they have, so the rich would still make money. The "poor" as you put it, would be need to be better educated and shown the correct path forward, which is obvious that they are missing presently, due to the corporatism presently plaguing society as a whole.
Spoken like a true progressive social engineer. "The poor would have to be shown. . ."
Ignorance is blissful. You must be a very happy person.
Ann is a talking point addict. Just like Lady love. They have not delved deeply enough into the issues to realize that mainstreet has been ripped off by a massive transfer of wealth to the top 2 percent of the population. Massive.
AnnCee, poor will never be shown. Poverty is Big Business, big profit.
the welfare housing industry, the high interest for poor folks, the extra monies for poor neighborhoods, that never reaches them, the set up of welfare organizations and the salaries earned for directors etc......all the big tax free business of charity. It's to profitable for a rich philanthropic, to rich to give up.
They need poor to make billions off of. If they educate them then the poor figure it out! Look at present day Egypt.... A younger and smarter population, smarter than the dictatorial regime controling them.
You don't suppose it would be more beneficial to "Big Business" to have more consumers with the means of purchasing goods and services?
People go to such lengths with their 'ideologies'...
It's a fine balance between paying people enough and keeping wages down. Keeping wages down entails a significant level of unemployment.
Just because people are unemployed that's no reason not to make money off them.
"Keeping wages down" is not an end in itself for any reasonable business, it's just more hysterical fantasizing by extreme lefties. Wages are kept where companies believe they need to be in order to turn a profit while remaining competitive enough to attract talented workers. Higher wages would mean companies are doing well enough to pay higher wages = good. Higher wages would mean more consumers capable of purchasing more goods and services = good.
Watch what happens when we vote out obama and unemployment really goes down. Companies will start by hiring more part-time and temp workers, then gradually increase more full-time and salaried employees as profits become more secure.
Then why do so many argue for the reduction of the minimum wage?
To lower unemployment and prevent government from robbing private business of flexibility.
You do realise you've just contradicted yourself!
I didn't. Honest and true. Maybe you are just confused about something.
There is no contradiction there. Don't stop thinking when you get to a conclusion you like.
It looked pretty much like a contradiction to me, perhaps you should take a little more care with what you write rather than expect people to second guess!
"Keeping wages down" is not an end in itself for any reasonable business, it's just more hysterical fantasizing by extreme lefties.
To lower unemployment and prevent government from robbing private business of flexibility.
Looks like a contradiction to me.
There's no need to guess. I said it was beneficial when businesses could pay higer wages, not that it was beneficial to be forced to pay higher wages. I also specifically mentioned keeping government from interfering with the flexibility of private business. I also suggested that reducing or eliminating minimum wage was a way to lower unemployment. Conversely, being forced to pay higher wages is an effective way to increase unemployment.
I don't know if this is just another of your misunderstandings of economics or if you just stopped reading carefully because you thought you saw a conclusion you liked but please take more care in the future.
I do rather think that I explained that your use of language had rather confused me and accepted that what you said was not what not what you meant.
Are you talking about big business economics or normal economics?
There is a difference, big business does not always adopt the model which is best for everybody, just themelves.
You need to read with your eyes, not your ideology.
people unemployed do not take loans, but poor folks do, and the risk factors find a way into the loan structured payment plan, and monies are made off of it, it is big proffit and harder on those folks to pay it. poor folks buy goods and services also. poor or low income is not restrictive on needs, just harder to satisfy. With to many people praying on them;
example Arrons rent to own, pawn places, loan places with extreme interest rates because banks refuse those people for safer loans due to income levels. Being poor does not mean you will not pay, more of them stay on-time than do folks wo have the incomes.
The cities are ripe with alternate financing places. and they are profitable for a reason. The peole have needs.
Wages are not good, 10.00 an hour can not get you through a 30 year note on a house or a 72 month note on a reliable car. or raise kids properly.
Jobs are not plentyfull and idealy yes business would mch prefer a more solid citizen, but who today is of the philosophy like Henery Ford ....who, which CEO tells you higher wages means more money in the community and more done for society, Ford said it, but that was then, not now. think...
I am alking facts, street level facts, nohing ideal about it
A lot more money is made off of people who actually repay their loans, so the above is just jive.
No it isn't it is sound.
It doesn't even say that more money is made off people who don't pay off loans, in fact just the opposite!
On the contrary and with equal respect we've already established the limitations of your understanding of economics, law, political science, history, and reading comprehension.
Go back and re read the post you reckoned was all jive.
Oh dear, re read it did you and realised that you'd got the wrong end of the stick
No, I decided it was unkind to be so directly honest with you.
No, I just didn't want to be too unkind to you, that's all. I am not without feelings.
AnnCee, poor will never be shown. Poverty is Big Business, big profit.
They need poor to make billions off of. If they educate them then the poor figure it out! Look at present day Egypt.... A younger and smarter population, smarter than the dictatorial regime controling them.
Time to change the golden whip, starting From Egypt to the domino effect to the USA
@Ann CEE. It's very easy. The Federal Reserve, a for-profit company, simply prints some more.
What I don't get is why so many defend these rich thieves. A lot of them are doing exactly what Madoff was doing. They just haven't been caught yet. Why do you defend all these people so much?
There's nothing wrong with capitalism. There's something wrong with the number of people who are using the flaws in capitalism to milk the system.
Robert Reich spoke about it in his book called 'super capitalism'.
Internationally, it has been known for the last decade that there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the upper classes. This has NOT been the result of the rich been more clever or more talented. It's been the result of them being more callous, more thieving, more dishonest, etc.
Well, by definition pure capitalism means 1% of the population could control up to 99% of the wealth..or heck, even 100%. Is that okay by you?
Why not admit why the country is in debt while at it. All the talk about social security, Medicare and social problems does not touch where the bulk of the money goes. All that is 12%. Military and non-appropriated spending covers the rest. That is not mostly to cover our service people either. It is to give away big money contracts to a few large companies, who do not employ lots of American citizens by the way, with no bidding..such as Halliburton, a company now located in Dubai. Funny,how Bush's cronies decried the middle east and terrorism, but here is Cheney's old company taking American dollars while headquartered over there now.
Without the complicity of the state how does one CONTROL 100% of the wealth? A price regulated free market place is the mechanism whereby economic goods cannot be totally controlled. It requires massive police power to gain total control over an economic good or process. Without the state there would be no monopolies because a monopoly requires an alternative good or process be developed and used resulting in an end to the monopoly. To stay free one must refrain from controlling wealth but instead control the policing authority of the state.
What Ann needs to realize is that Marx predicted that this would happen to capitalism, that 1 percent controls most of the wealth. And the only thing that caused Marx to be wrong were union inroads, government pay, help for the disadvantaged, and medical assistance.
Take that away and Marx will be correct. The only buffer to the failure of capitalism is the transfer of some wealth back down the food chain. Whether that is by higher wages, medicaid, food stamps or whatever, if it isn't done, our country could fail.
That does not mean that the debt incured could not ultimately be dangerous. It could. That is why the government is trimming at the state and local levels. But that in itself could hurt the output of the US if done too drastically.
marx (how did I know he would come up?) was completely full of it from the very point he stopped analyzing history and started fantasizing about the future. (his interpretation of history was wrong too, but at least he wasn't just flat-out making that up).
Did you join Hubpages just to criticize everything I say or are you going to produce a hub? Why don't you produce a hub proving Marx wrong and if I am encouraged by it I will link to it. Marx predicted a financial order of the wealthy swallowing everything else up. He is getting very close to being accurate.
If you write a hub and prove this is not the case, let me know and I will read it. This guy posts at Business Insider once in awhile. Check out his charts: http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=5267
Is there a reason you are trying to deflect and discredit? I don't need to demand you write anything else in order to point out that marx was not only wrong but indirectly responsible for the deaths of upwards of a hundred million human beings.
But...but you go ahead and continue to advocate for that sort of ideology if you can live with yourself...
Flippin' 'eck, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword!
At that level of indirect, we are all responsible!
Come on! You claim that Marx by speaking out against capitalism was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths!
That's not what I said, strawman.
Have a gander at EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT TO BUILD A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON HIS IDEAS and then note the corresponding body count.
Oh yes you did, you said Marx was indirectly responsible for millions of deaths.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Did I say "because he spoke against capitalism"? Do you really think you would slip that one past?
And, note the corresponding body counts in capitalist economies, many hundreds of millions.
Directly as a result of government actions like mass executions, forced migration and failed collectivist farming schemes?
Hitler six million executed
Forced migration not so clear but Africans taken into slavery, American Indians forced to migrate from their home lands.
Failed collectivist farming, third world countries forced to grow crops for export whilst the people die of starvation.
And much much more.
All the direct actions of capitalist governments,
marx was a frigin moron. He lacked even the most fundamental powers of common sense.
Please dont' cite the master of insanity to me as an economic authority.
When did he get his degree in economics?
".....He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them......."
I'm wondering where this big pile of money is that we were all able to just come in and "take". I can only speak for myself of course, but what I have I EARNED through providing a service that people were sufficiently interested in paying me money for.
Again, will somebody please tell me exactly how much of my income they believe they are entitled to? I've got my checkbook in hand......
The Constitution places no limit on how much the government can tax. The highest rate started in the Great Depression - 93% for the richest rich.
I doubt you would have qualified for the high rate. If you paid any taxes last year,you paid more than CitiBank, JPMorganChase, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Boeing, Wells Fargo, Bank of America.
Speaking as a liberal, my goal is fair taxes.
Can I therefore assume you would be a fan of the (get ready) Fair Tax?
Billy, trust me, you aren't in the top 1 percent: http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=5267
Doesn't matter. Money earned is money earned. It is theirs, not yours. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
"Doesn't matter. Money earned is money earned. It is theirs, not yours. What part of that is so difficult to understand?"
So even though the divide keeps growing and a handful of people could end up with all the money you see no problem?
Lol!! No one is going to end up with ALL the money! Rich people are only trying to encourage you to become one of them!
Money had the least to do with happiness and I want to be rich like them.
I rather be loving what I do, in which I do anyways.
I see how bitter and twisted the hunt for the mighty dollar makes some people, I'm glad to have no part of it.
I work at what I want to work at. I work when I want, to pay my bills and I'm happy.
I don't yearn after the newest and biggest motor nor the latest fashions.
Rich people protect their money flow from other people so they can remain rich. They don't want other people to be as rich as them, they just don't want other poor people living in dire poverty, which makes them feel guilty for their life style.
Who says 'they' don't want other people to be as rich as 'them'?
Most of this jive is just plain old bitterness and envy.
Well, assuming there is not an infinite amount of money, others as rich as them would mean less for them.
It does to me!
Take it to extremes and give one per cent of the population all of the money and society would cease to work.
At what level does this imbalance cease to effect the economy,
20/80, 50/90 what?
Can't you really see that if a small proportion hold a large part of the money then you've got big problems.
I have plenty of wealthy friends. I'm not bitter at all about their wealth. I have been given a few nice opportunities as a result. I like my wealthy friends and celebs, but I'm just calling it as I see it, by the experiences I've had.
Okay, Tom, maybe you will finally be the one to answer the question......exactly how much of someone else's income do you believe you are entitled to?
And why should someone who has made wise business and financial decisions be forced through government to prop up those who did not?
Because we are civilised. I do not want to live in a third world country where beggars abound and the earth is covered in shanty towns.
I want to live a life fairly free from crime and to do that in a fairly clean environment.
I want to be able to get into my car and drive quickly and safely. I don't want to drive at a speed no better than walking.
It's not a question of how much of somebody else's income am I entitled to, it's a question of how much am I prepared to pay for security and comfort.
Remember there are very few people who escape taxes but the ones who pay least are generally the richest.
By what measure??? The top 10% of wage owners in the usa paid 70% of the taxes the bottom 50% paid just 3%! That's a pretty progressive tax code!
Off the ball again!
Bill was arguing against paying any tax, I was justifying paying tax.
Nowhere did I mention how much anybody paid.
I was responding to this statement:
"Remember there are very few people who escape taxes but the ones who pay least are generally the richest."
Ah, clarity, so you'd say that somebody on a low wage who pays 10% of their low income on an essential widget is paying less than somebody who pays 10% of their high income on exactly the same essential widget?
I completely agree with him. Have a look at how much corporations were (or rather, weren't) taxed in the past few years.
Isn't pantload Moore a very rich person himself? Bloated, filthy hypocrite.
... says the fat rich liberal that hates America! Why doesnt he move to Cuba... he loves that country sooo much!
News flash, LaLO! Michael Moore is a patriotic American, as I am, as are a host of liberals who know the US Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. We have a different view of the goals set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution. We aren't going anywhere. What I can't complete in my lifetime will be continued by my children.
Get used to it.
Michael Moors is a hypocrite and a liar a perveyor of misinformation for profit... he lauded Cuba and their health care...well if he thinks they are so great he should move there! He sure as heck isn't patriotic... I'm not even sure he's American!
Michael Moore is more patriotic than the people who are stealing you and me blind. Here is a joke that pretty much says it all:
A union worker, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table.
In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it.
The CEO reaches across the table, takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea
Partier and says:
"Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
If you don't really understand what is happening Lady Love, then your party will get a rude awakening. Now, I am no fan of the Democrats. Just the lesser of two evils.
Moore is a lying, greedy, dishonest to the core sleazeball, with loyalty to nothing but money and cheeseburgers.
Except that he has exposed a lot of ills at considerable risk to his own safety. That is noble. You won't see the banksters risking their own safety.
Exposed nothing. It's all propaganda, and no truth to it.
You are so wrong. It is not propaganda that Bush/Cheney were involved in 911 and it is not propaganda that the banksters are ripping America off. Read my hubs.
I don't agree that we can have zero drop in wages in a globalized society. But if society is globalized, then why are Americans paying too much for gas and houses? People try to prop houses up while wages decline. That is not right.
Just remember, wehold, the American revolution was fought primarily to kick the central bank of England off our shores. Crony capitalism reversed that revolution. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of the American revolution.
bgamall, You are fighting an uphill battle against people that cannot comprehend just what the federal reserve and it's fractional reserve banking system is doing to this nation.
some are just to ignorant, some just apathetic and others are in a position that makes them want to prolong this ponzi monetary system as long as possible, because they may be benefitting from it more than others.
They can't seem to get away from the gladiator misdirection games that the PTB present to them. They fall for it and continue to play partisan games they are being fed, while they are continuing to be ripped off by the system.
The truth can only be found by understanding how money is created, how it gets into circulation, and where the money to pay interest on borrowed money comes from? Get rid of this ponzi scheme and you will solve most of our nations, or for that matter, the worlds problems.
All money is debt, and we cannot pay debt with debt!!!!!
Weholdthesetruths I don't agree, accept the cheeseburger part.
Why let allow most of the third world countries triple the USA economic growth, that is proof the rich over controlling the USA and it’s not working,
Moore specks for most of the people, (little guy). Nothing wrong in making money, it just the greedy has been overdone and the people are the true leader throughout human history and I say, Good for America for finally waking up from sleeping the American dream.
Otherwise, what do I care, I am Canadian, free and secure.
"I hate capitalism.... thank god I'm making millions by using it!"
There is a difference in hating capitalism and hating what we have now. Fascistic corporatism is not real capitalism. Feel free to hate it. It is stealing money out of your pocket by the minute.
Right - the thing that Moore REALLY hates (and just about everyone else) is GOVERNMENT.
It's just that no one says that. They see trillions going to private companies via "bailouts", and then blame capitalism.
Newsflash: the government is the one doing it, not the companies.
Vote for Liberty - Vote Libertarian.
The only people stealing my money is the government.
Everyone else, I voluntarily give them money for goods and services.
I don't run my own life too much like a crazy roller coaster in which somtime I think the US Government dose. American politician are people too, born and raised in family similar to the mainstream American, it just the country is more extreme than any other country in the world. Over Capitalism is an extreme problem for the USA , even The President is puppeteered by the greedy rich in which tools also the military super power and religion. It all keeps slipping into over wealthy elitist hands.
clueless people from outside our borders, telling us what's wrong with our country. And the next thing you know, describing how the ugly American is arrogant and condescening, trying to run everyone else's lives.
What on earth makes you think you know anything about what's wrong here? If we start telling you how to run your country, you go and get all hostile...
If American didn’t own most of our big business, entertainment and we trade more with USA than all Europe combine. Canadian is too nice to say, mind your own business. For decade I did half of my business in the USA until Bush said UK is the USA new best friend and war buddies.
For the very few American that want ugly show business, I am not against anything, knock yourself out, karma will get you in the end. My personally care is about my friends and family who live in the USA
You know these people outside our borders may just have some idea of what is going on - just a little. And humor me on this one. To discredit any foreigner's opinion is to say that only we can get it "correct." If that were the case, you wouldn't be on here preaching for a return to a time that never really existed. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we, as Americans, are right 90% of the time. That's a really arrogant statement to make, but let's say it - for argument's sake. Then 10% of the time someone other than an "American" gets it right, correct?
I mean listen - your patriotism is remarkable. It's not my brand of patriotism, but it is "some" brand of patriotism nonetheless.
It doesn't hurt to consider that maybe we didn't get it "right" 100 of the time. I mean our history, good and bad, points that out time and again. The problems that we have are the same problems any nation has.
I mean we, as Americans, seem to have no problem, time and again, telling other nations how they should live, telling other nations who their friends should be, telling other nations how bad they are and how good we are, etc. If we are going to butt in literally "everywhere" around the globe, we can only expect that the rest of the globe will butt in on us from time to time. Now if you believe, as you may very well do, that we are "blessed" and "above" all other peoples on the earth, then I can see where your annoyance with the rest of the world comes from.
Michael Moore is an IDIOT! He should be deported! Let's see... the government spends almost 4 Trillion a year and takes in a bit more than 2 trillion... if that isn't broke I don't know what is!!!
"4 Trillion a year and takes in a bit more than 2 trillion..." Half of what they take in goes to a private security company for the mega corporations called the armed services. In some quarters that would be called socialism. Take that out of the equation and the country is not broke.
Yeah...keeping the planet free takes a lot of money! I think the socialists around the globe should chip in a bit more... maybe America should send them a bill... or perhaps an ultimatum!
Well maybe fair enough if you actually supported socialism but while you do everything you can to oppress socialism, a bit cheeky don't you think?
We allow socialism to exist in other countries by bearing the burden of policing the world... if those fifedoms had to pay their own way they'd all be bankrupt like portugal italy ireland and great britain
Nope, truly ignorant. You see, it would take the poster less than 60 seconds with Google to know how much the military spending is in Afghanistan and Iraq and how much total is spent on the military.
Also, his statement that every dollar that is "military" is just for the enrichment of big corporations is also just another lie.
But, since I feel charitable, I called him ignorant. If he's not ignorant, he's a liar, and ignorance can be excused and can be corrected.
Not only that but the entire us military budget doesn't exceed a trillion dollars and even if you eliminated all of it you still have nearly a trillion in deficit... simple math!
The American GDP is currently 14.2 trillion dollars.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics, says the Iraq war has cost $3 trillion so far. According to the Guardian, "three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century." Some say today, it’s a trillion a year.
Killing a million Iraqi on their soil wail no iraqi has killed an American on US soil must have some karma effect
I sure dose in Iraq Some 60–70% of Iraqi children are suffering from psychological problem about 68% of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water. As many as half of Iraqi doctors have left the country since 2003.
What is this world is more of a waste of time, money, human lives with no resolves, than this?
I thought you might like to see the actual cost of war...
Like I said that wouldn't put a dent in the deficit... that's 116 billion per year our budget is 3.7 Trillion our deficit is 1.6 Trillion per year for as far as the eye can see.
I don’t even know to trust the figures of the Nobel peace prize winners anymore. Obama won the noble prize wail raising the war budget to the highest USA level ever
Moore I find is in the ball park with his stats, he stated - After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen In the meantime,
You don't think Michael Moore has an agenda? Read this piece and see if you don't think differently about Moore. Clearly he is inciting violent revolution from our youth. I hardly think Moore is credible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo … 7694/posts
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"and mainly the greedy whites are being force to change their bad habits to better all."
I was just reading an article apropos to this subject.
"The first thing is that nobody should have any illusions that the existing orders are going to go quietly into the night. They are too deeply entrenched, too convinced of their entitlement to power, have too many resources at their disposal, and have too much to lose by easy capitulation. They will use every trick in the book to undermine the cohesion, commitment, and resilience of the protesters."
I think all rich liberals should be taxed at the 94% rate... that would make everyone happy!
Why turn politician into God, the USA is already too religious. How about a happy balance to lift the USA to be among the happiest countries in the world list
"Too religious" according to whom? By what measure?
too religious? This great country was found on religion and the constitution, why did this country become the super power? how has this country grown so that everyone wanted to come here?? did many want to go to Cuba?,Iran, Iraq etc... All you socialist jealous lazy morons just want to change what has shown to be successful. If any American wanted to be rich they have every opportunity to do so here. if your lazy and just want to live a hum drum life that is your business but do not try to take from someone who spent a lot of time and money to be successful just to help your lazy azz out. I was a democrat actually still registered as one, but the Dem party is now socialist. I do believe in helping but not when it is forced upon me.
"balance to lift the USA to be among the happiest countries in the world list" I believe according surveys the happiest countries in the world are all socialist.
Denmark is rated the happiest.
I recently saw John Stassel talking about how when taxes were raised on the rich people in NJ many of them just moved to Florida. Okay, so the tax raises did not help NJ, but he failed to mention how FL gets money since they do not have an income tax. They have higher sales taxes most likely. The really rich people can just go out of state and get their shopping done if they really want, since jet setting seems to be no problem for them. Thus due to all the different state rules and loopholes, the rich keep all their money, which they will not need in ten lifetimes, while the middle class has to take up more of the burden.
It is time to take the money back at the federal level. If they leave the US make their businesses leave to.
Who is to say "they will not need in ten lifetimes"? You? Is there some meteric inovlved in that or is it just plain, bitter jealousy?
Drive business, jobs, and consumers out of your state = bad
Drive business, jobs, and consumers out of the country = bad
You rail against the "unconstitutional" acts of Obama...but yet you are right ready to deny Michael Moore his birthright, and deport him?
For exercising his right to speak?
Thank you for again proving my point about the true idiocy, hypocrisy, and arrogance that some feigning as "conservatives" represent...
It was that type of backward thinking that lead to the deportation of American citizens (of Mexican descent) from this nation under the guise of a "helping lower unemployment" tactic during the Great Depression.....nonsense...
But, you wouldn't know anything about that.....
1) These serious issues would constitute "whining" in your book...which I deem nothing more than a projection on your part...
2) Closed minds and "lol" syndrome drain the ability needed to research the past and then correspond it to the present...
For those who's politics mingle somewhere within the realm of Lady Unlove, it would be important to differentiate yourselves from her fringe-level ideations......or delusions...
Michael Moors is also a rich man... a greedy rich man! He thinks the rich should give more to the government but he would like to be excluded from doing so.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ … einsteins/
Why doesn't Moore lead by example and give away HIS money? Do you really think Moors doesn't use every.possible trick when filing his income taxes to keep more of what he made?? This is the hypocrisy of the left! From Al Gore to John Kerry and even Obama (at some point you made enough money) himself
Many of these people I like, I just don't get the greedy vibe from them.
then your a sucker! so to say, Obama donates such little money it is a joke, during the 2008 election they went through their tax returns and McCain and palin gave 7X more percentage wise not actual dollars then Obama/Biden.
more did not hire union workers for his documentary but wants to stand and fight for them! yeah that is not a hypocrite.
So you think that because he is rich he should just sit back and let others steal off him!
Of course not... just pointing out the hypocrisy of that slob.
But the article that you posted was solely about Moore suing for unpaid profits.
No hypocrisy in that.
If you read it you can see he is only suing for the press. But like anyone rich or poor how much he has is never enough... and that's fine UNTIL you start preaching about how everyone else has too much!
What do you mean "he is only suing for the press"?
And are you suggesting that because he has made it he should be happy to be ripped off?
Everybody else has too much! What, even those with little?
Well according to Moore the rich do... and that money isn't theirs... it belongs to everybody! Now how can he espouse such an idea while keeping all his money and suing for more?
http://www.breitbart.tv/michael-moore-w … from-them/
Will, apart from agreeing that he's become a fat slob, I'm with him.
The wealthy are holding too much of our money and not lending it out to those who can use it to increase the wealth of more people.
We are in the same position, though we bailed the banks out they are not keeping their side of the deal, it's virtually impossible to get a mortgage or a small business loan though the banks still have plenty of money for gambling with and plenty of money to pay bonuses.
Sycophancy does not really suit you nor does it make any sense.
The banks are a different issue... they should never gave been bailed out! However they aren't going to take the same risks they took that caused them to fail.
Where is it again where the rich are required to "lend out" any of their hard earned money?
Where is it again where the rich are required to accumulate as much as possible and reserve it all for themselves?
By the way, you tell me that the banks don't lend money!
Just when I thought nobody could rival lovemychris in the wealth envy department....
How is it fair that two people can work equally hard but one man can make much more because he had a better start in life (richer parents, leading to an education of higher quality, and equally rich contacts to give him jobs in high places)? How is it fair that this same rich man can say "I want more money, give me tax cuts" and to make room in funding for those tax cuts, cuts are made to the services and welfare given to the poor man?
Did your parents actually tell you that life is fair? If so, they did you no favors.....
No, but they did tell me that when injust things are taking place, the right thing to do is speak up about them and try to stop them, not sit back and rest on my laurels.
So it is unjust for me to have a talent or ability, service or product that enough people want to pay for to provide me an attractive salary and a nice living? Really?
So maybe you can answer the question that John so quickly dodged....how much of my income do you believe you are entitled to?
I didn't dodge your question, you dodged my reply!
It isn't unjust to have a talent blah blah to provide you etc etc,
but that isn't the argument is it? The argument is how much of our money are the wealthy entitled to?
Taxes aren't a new thing and if you took a job without being aware that you would pay taxes that is naive beyond belief.
Do what most of us do and that is work for an amount that will give you an attractive salary and a nice living after deductions.
Believe it or not, it is our money, issued by our government.
Nobody has any more right to it than anybody else.
They might accumulate more than another but that doesn't mean that they have any more right to it.
Otherwise all your protestations of equal opportunities are meaningless.
Are you sure you understand the concept of 'money'? How about the concept of 'private ownership'? If you are really as far down the Communist road as it seems, we are very shortly going to run out of any space for reasonable discussion.
But Wormdo said nothing about any of that!
The concept of money and of private ownership are separate. Money is just a much neater and convenient form of barter with tokens issued by the government.
Money on its own has no value, don't believe me, walk into a corner shop in the UK and try to pay with dollars!
Yes--it's greed that is the Destroyer. Money is the prize. Who controls the money?
"I care not who makes the policies."
Money is power. Always has been. If you have money, you have power.
You don't even have to be rich for this to be the case....simply remaining out of debt and unbeholden to others shifts power your way.
Still waiting on LMC to tell me how much of my income she is entitled to. Odd how nobody wants to answer that question.....it really is very simple....
Well answer me how much of my income the rich are entitled to!
The inability to answer a straight question never ceases to amaze me....
It was a perfectly straight question, "how much of my money are the rich entitled to" and it is just as valid as your question.
Um, John, I asked you first, numerous times. Decorum dictates that you answer the question that was posed to you first before responding with one of your own.
Unless of course you realize that answering it pretty much shatters any validity you have tried to establish on this issue...
OK, the government is entitled to as much of their money back as they see fit!
Your turn now.
You'll have to remind me of your changed question then.
And, you've just asked for a dictatorship.
Good job on that.
I think she has to confer with John first. It seems like, to him, money doesn't belong to those who earn it, rather to anyone that stakes a claim to it.
How about Jacques Fresco's "Resource Based Economy" as an alternative. It isn't perfect but it would solve a lot of our current problems.
It's quite safe to say that Michael Moore is in considered wealthy in a time when more and more people are falling into income brackets below the poverty line. If he's so concerned, perhaps he should have been the brains behind the "Secret Millionare" series now on TV.
Put your money where your mouth is....
"Oh, by the way at no point do I say that Walmart is evil, that's a figment of your imagination." I'll say it. Walmart is evil. It is cheaper no doubt and people need cheaper because they are of out of or have less work, because the jobs have gone to China thanks in Part to companies like Walmart.
Every time I read a thread like this I am amused and intrigued by the different perspectives of Americans. The one thing I find disgusting and the ultimate in hypocrisy is the reactionary comment 'if he doesn't like it here why doesn't he just move to ___'. This truly moronic statement always drops the tone of thread down a few notches. I really don't understand how this mentality developed. America is supposedly based on freedoms and that includes freedom of speech, at least I thought that was the excuse for all the crap I see on the web. But when someone uses that freedom to criticize some aspect of American culture or politics it is often suggested they should leave.
No matter what one thinks of Michael Moore personally, that has nothing to do with the topic of this forum thread. The thread is about a conceptualization of American wealth and whether or not certain corporations and individuals have far more than their fair share and what they have honestly earned. Ad hominem attacks on Mr. Moore are pointless and only make the attacker look like a pandering fool. Any American, if I am to understand correctly, is allowed to have an opinion, especially if they think sharing that opinion will in some way better their country. But a blatant personal attack in the middle of a discussion of this nature just seems sad. Is Michael Moore some great patriot? I doubt it. Does he engage in the dissemination of biased editorial propaganda? A lot of the time, sure. Is he any worse than fox news? Highly unlikely.
But does the size of his pants matter? Should he have to leave the country because you don't like his point of view? This type of ‘no one can criticize’ mentality also was in evidence en masse when America went into Iraq and anyone who questioned the assumption about the presence of WMDs it was intimated was somehow a traitor and anti-American. How did critical thinking and a healthy skepticism about the political or economic status quo become anathema? The need to personally attack those we don't agree with us is a true sign of stunted emotional intelligence. The need to control those who disagree with our point of view by engaging in insecure outbursts and name calling is truly a sad reflection of a person's character. The fact that others reinforce and encourage this behavior is a form of mass diffusion of responsibility that really is deplorable.
I think Moore is being kind, the greedy rich not so nice, they have great ways to brain wash you and own you. They get you to send money you do not have, here is one example.
I saw homeless man buy cup of coffee for a dollar used an interact costing $1.50 and gave a tip of $1.50, is this guy a nut case. OH no, If you multiply that coffee price by a ½ million,that’s how middle class person would buy a house in Vancouver Canada,
No wonder middle class are becoming homeless.
North America’s obsession with big houses has lowered the consumer confidence of 2/3 of the population in the USA that can not afford housing.
Yeah, compared to Wall Street, Moore has nothing. I wish lady love would quit defending people who give a rats behind about her!
Im not defending wall street im defending freedom! They have a right to earn as much as they can legally earn and good for them! Moore's idea that there is a limited amount of wealth and that is owned by everyone is pure marxism its hypocritical on its fave no matter how much money he has or doesn't have!
Sad as it is, there is a limited amount of wealth. Where there are rich people there must be poor people, that's just simple economics. As you seem (I'm guessing here, I'm not sure?) to be a supporter of capitalism, surely you're aware of this? The idea that financially people cannot or should not be equal is a pure capitalist idea. If we were all, say, a million dollars richer tomorrow, every single one of us in the entire world, then prices would just rise accordingly.
No wealth is not limited! Wealth expands with investment and inonvation. Even the poor in America are much better off than they were years ago many have the latest modern conveniences and we are seeing this in other nations as well. Sure thee will always be poor people and maybe that isn't fair but who ever said life is fair? We all can be whatever we want we can all achieve anything its just a matter of desire, determination, and attitude and knowing you're not entitled to.anything you don't earn!
The poor are not better off. $50 now would have been the equivalent of our modern thousands to them. Appliances they would have considered only for the rich have decreased in price and value, meaning they have become more accessible. This doesn't have anything to do with the poor becoming richer, but with the decreasing monetary value of other things.
The idea that we only need desire and determination to get through in life is a wonderful one, and I'm sure it's true for some. Unfortunately it can't be true for everyone, and saying it is just sounds like another way of calling those unlucky enough to be below the poverty line lazy to me.
The chart I posted says different. And yes if you can't make it in this world you are either handicapped to the point where you can't care for yourself or you live in a country without law order and security or you're just plain lazy.
What if you're unemployed through no fault of your own but because there are five to ten people to every job in this current age? What if the only jobs you are able to get (because of lack of prior experience or relevant education you cannot afford) are ones that barely even pay minimum wage?
I am currently employed in a job I love, and I thank my lucky stars every day, because before this I was unemployed and having just come out of university, had very little employment experience. I was terrified that I would never be able to support myself and would have to burden my family by moving back home. I'm extremely lucky and that didn't happen, but lots of graduates like me haven't been so lucky. They cannot all be lazy.
I once worked 2 full time jobs one that required I put in 12 hour shifts... but that's what I had to do to live my lifestyle... its all about choices... I can tell you this if the government took more in tax from wall street it wouldn't have made a bit of difference in my life.
I'm sorry you had to do that, and commend you for being able to stick with it despite how hard it must have been (heck, just one 12 hour shift is exhausting, let alone two). But my point is that in the current recession lots and lots of people can't even get one job, let alone two. Even call centre jobs are over-applied for now. What are they supposed to do? Starve?
Well ... yes if they aren't resourceful enough to suvive... but that's what family and churches are for... there is always a way and when faced with the challenge people will find the way... that said the economy would recover more quickly if the burden of government was relieved both by lowering taxes and by eliminating regulations
How many of the super rich really earn their money, do they do a daily stint on the end of a shovel or any other productive work?
No they don't, they play with money, that's all.
And something is wrong with this....how? Since when does the amount of physical labor you put in vs the amount of mental labor applied become the deciding factor in who makes what?
Yes, there is something wrong with it, people who have money by virtue of having money do nothing but make money. They don't produce anything, they just take off others.
If you earn money, you are entitled to it. Period. If you inherit it, it is still your money. Period. it is nobody else's business what you do with it or how you handle it. If I want to burn ten grand just to watch the pretty flames and satisfy some pyrotechnic fetish, I can do it because it is my money.
There is no rational argument for the idea that the haves should have to prop up the have nots at the point of a government gun.
I think you'd find that burning money would get you into trouble!
Do you really want to live in a gated community with private guards to protect you and to have large areas of your country as no go areas?
It would cost you a lot more than you spend on taxes!
Remember, we no longer have a system that sees full employment as desirable.
We now have acceptable, by big business, unemployment.
"Full employment" as an economic term does NOT mean 0% unemployment (which would be all but impossible anyway).
Destroying currency is illegal, though the government does oversee the destruction of millions everyday.
Obviously you value physical labor over intectual labor... trust me making money by investment requires tremendous effort and time more then the 8 hour day of the man with the shovel and there are risks involved too as well as extreme pressure to perform... its not as easy as you think.
No one "earns their money" unless they use a shovel? Really? Is that where your understanding of economics stops?
No, but it might be were my understanding of the English language stops!
1. to receive (salary, wages, etc.) for one's labor or service
2. to get or deserve as a result of something one has done
I don't see "shovel" in there (though I have a feeling I could use one).
Neither does it mention sitting on your fat butt taking the earnings of other people!
How are you taking the earnings of other people?
If four of us make a widget and one of us sells in the millions while others sell in the thousands, am I somehow robbing someone of their earnings? Can you explain this logic to me, because I find it fascinating....
If you are sitting on your backside with somebody making widgets that you sell for vastly more than the cost of making, and pay the minimum wage to the man who is actually making your money for you. . .
The degree of economic and political ignorance and fantasy-land ideology displayed by some here is just astonishing.
I'm gonna have to call you out on the BS-o'meter.
Look at the poorest people today, and compare them to the poorest 50 years ago.
... and your argument is baseless. Have fun.
"How many of the super rich earn their money"
All of them, actually. If you don't believe me, then you simply have no trust in humanity. IF you can't understand that PEOPLE WILLINGLY PAY THOSE PEOPLE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their services, then It's hopeless to argue with you.
Go ahead - run Microsoft for 20 days. But don't go asking for a bailout when it's bankrupt.
Typing more is pointless.
OK, look at the poorest people today, they can buy a used tv for a fraction of the cost of one 50 years ago, big deal! It doesn't actually make them better off.
Do people really willingly pay these people billions of dollars? There is nearly an uprising in the UK over the £9 million bonus paid to the director of one of the banks that had to be bailed out last year!
But there is only a limited amount of wealth and it is owned by everyone!
Evan tells us that the problem with the monetary system is that it is detached from gold, imagine if it was reattached to gold and it isn't to hard to see that any one person owning a disproportionate amount of that gold would be able to hold the country to ransom.
The fact that the gold standard has been abolished doesn't do away with the basic principle, any country that just prints money is devaluing itself, there isn't actually any more there.
" there is only a limited amount of wealth and it is owned by everyone!"
You don't really believe that some are entitled to all the money do you?
Wealth is not limited (study some economics)
Privately owned goods are not owned by all (study some law and political science)
Is it your intention to try and fit every topic into your Communist world view?
I have studied economics at the feet of the great Evan G Rogers who says that we should have maintained the connection with gold.
There isn't a limitless amount of gold is there, nor a limitless amount of grain, or oil, or pretzels, or money. (Study some economics)
I have never claimed that privately owned goods are owned by all (study some comprehension)
I don't have a communist world view, I have a socialist/capitalist view of the world.
You said "wealth" not gold.
You did make such a claim even if you didn't realize it.
It is very obvious from your posts that you do have a communist world view, even if you don't want to recognize it.
I did realise it and connected it to Evan's claim that the value of money should still be connected to gold.
I'm sorry but if you think that my view is communist then you are woefully ignorant of what that involves.
No, I'm unfortunately all too aware of what it means.
I've given you my educated opinion and my advice. We're just going to go around in circles like this. If you follow my advice, maybe we can pick this up again.
"people who own a lot of gold will be able to control everyone"
You fail to understand basic economics: Supply and demand.
Typing more would be a waste of time.
Lady, you still need to clarify which regulations and which taxes you would do away with...
When I am elected President I'll present a detailed plan! Lol
spoken with true republican spin, you need a button that reads "JLR"
"Just like Romney!"....
we need to change your sign on to Love_spin158!!!!!!
just messin with ya lady, don't mean anything by it..
Lol! I don't care you're entitled to your opinion! I've already spoken about the cuts id make to start with Obamacare then everything else that isn't in the constitution halve defense close our foreign bases and secure our borders then cut corporate taxes to the lowest rate in the world! There fixed it!
You need to see the documentary: Inside Job and THEN you all might get it. Yes the systematic dismantling of the Entire world economy was orchestrated and by a FEW who have a smash and grab mentality, like looters do during a riot. Harvard, Yale and UCLA professors are Helping bring it down by being Paid consultants to big companies telling them how to do it. Wake Up America!!!!!!!!! You have the American Dream do you?
If America is not broke then what would you call it.
1. 46 Million Americans live at or below poverty level.
2. 13 Million American Children are in danger of going hungry every night.
3. 14.000 People live on the streets in downtown New Orleans.
4. Thousands live under bridges in Miami.
5. All our textile, steel, and automobile jobs were shipped overseas.
6. America is in debt up to the point where it can never be repaid
So if its not broke what would you call it.
The Republicans and the Democrats did it and we listened to their spin while they did it. Kind of like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned. America is in serious trouble and if we continue to play political party games it is doomed.
5 & 6 are not true, and the rest are things that can be improved but that will exist everywhere and always to one degree or another. Economic growth and strong communities are able tools for doing so.
In North America a 1970s CEO made 25 times more than the average person wage and I made $20 an hour as a brick mason then. Today a CEO makes 350 times greater than the average income. My wages today would have remains the same if I was still working as in the stated in the 1970s. Housing has gone up by 30 times or more since.
I really how you could say our jobs have not been shipped over seas. The American Textile Industry has been destroyed. All those jobs are gone over seas.
How can we ever repay the debt America owes with out creating two classes of people in the USA which would be the rich and the very poor.
The Democrats and the Republicans broke the country and each and everyone of them should be thrown out of office. If we banned all lobbyist and imposed term limits on U.S. Senators and Congressmen then we would have a different country.
It will take completely changing the American Political system to ever fix the country and every Democrat and Republicans should go. We need a party that will be for America first and to hell with any other country.
No, it's not broke, just too much money in the wrong hands.
Crazyhorse, the reasons you have given are not because we are broke. They exhist because we have a for sale Congress and Senate and State Goverments who realize poverty is big business and very profitable, and they are not willing to fix it, and give up the Lobbying perks!
Lady....the "wait til I'm president" line doesn't work...
If you can't inform us poor electorate now, how can you argue anything?
This is for John.....sell something for more than it cost to make it? What is that called again? Oh, yeah, PROFIT! Silly me.....
There is profit and there is exploitation. Only you and your like could confuse that.
Okay, I'll bite.....what is "my like" again? (This should be good).
I think most people would agree that a fair price for a service or product is the cost of whatever that product/service is worth, plus a nice profit for the one providing that service.
What like we are lauding the bank director for his £9 million bonus, and I'll remind you that bonuses are paid on top of his normal several million pound remuneration!
So you think that people should be rewarded for fouling up!
OK then, forget it.
If you are talking about driving a business into the ground, then no, he shouldn't be awarded any bonus at all.
On the flip side, if he has taken it and made it a success, then he deserves every penny.
you seem to think that outrageously high remuneration is justified, perhaps you would like to comment on this though I'll understand it if you can't.
My ex brother in law worked for either ICL or IBM, though it doesn't really matter for the sake of discussion.
The company was bought by the Japanese who immediately disposed of the top layer of management!
This had absolutely no impact on the productivity of the company, so they got rid of the next layer of management which likewise had absolutely no impact on productivity, so they kept on going until productivity started to react!
Can you explain to me why they were wrong to do that and how the sacked management were actually earning their extremely high remuneration?
I cannot speak to the situation you mention because I am not familiar with it.
For me it is quite simple. If a company CEO can successfully negotiate a large contract, and the programs they put into place result in massive profits for the company, I have zero problem with them receiving equally stellar compensation.
Good CEOs will also know where to cut waste, as evidenced by the illustration you just provided......
Erm, the CEOs were the first to go!
Do you really think CEOs negotiate contracts! That is usually the responsibility of much more lowly workers. They might go out for a meal to do the final bits but not the negotiation. If you think it's worth several millions a year to pay somebody to do lunch...
Um, I hate to break it to you, John, but even if they did cut the top tiers of management, SOMEBODY was still left with the responsibility of running the company.......i.e. a CEO.
And yes, CEO's do in fact negotiate their contract when tapped to run a given company. I'm not sure where you would get the idea that they don't......
Sure, somebody was left with the responsibility of running the company, not running it into the ground.
Funny, when I worked in industry we had a sales department that did all the sales work, including negotiating contracts. The boss did beggar all apart from play golf and refuse us a pay rise because he'd just bought a new Rolls Royce and there wasn't enough money left!
Well, right or wrong, it is his money and his decision. If you are unhappy with your wages, then you are perfectly free to seek out employment in a more suitable and rewarding environment.
Or does that make too much sense?
But was it his money? I don't think he made it playing golf and he certainly didn't work on the shop floor! He certainly didn't have the money to build the factory and he didn't have enough to provide surety for the loan to build and equip the factory and he didn't have enough money to repay the loan without people working for him and doing it for him.
As for moving, doesn't 99.9% of industry work in exactly the same way?
by emdi 8 years ago
Michael Moore says, capitalism has proved its failed. According to him, Wall Street took our money and made bets with it.What is your view on this topic.- A little cat (Emdi)
by Susie Lehto 22 months ago
“How Else Could A Socialist Win 22 States?” Moore said.* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsRFcgHkvAHe claims that no one trusts Democrats anymore – because if they did a “socialist” (Bernie) would not have won 22 states.I don't agree with Micheal Moore very often but in the past...
by awesome77 2 days ago
Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to isolate themselves from the poor!Most rich people like to live in non accessible...
by Scott S Bateman 2 days ago
In my experience, they are more than they are not. Science backs it up. Your thoughts?https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe … 503c1fe516
by mio cid 5 years ago
Mike Huckabee ended his show with these words the other day.He said rich people should live with poor people for a few days so they would experience how hard their life is and poor people should live with rich people for a few days so they would see how hard they work. ...
by Steven Escareno 3 years ago
Michael Moore tweeted recently that he thinks snipers are cowards. Here's a couple of links to some valid news sources that'll explain it far better than I could:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/1 … 00658.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0VUoarnos0Assuming you watched the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|