Do you really think so?

Do you really think so? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subfever -> Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 2:00:49 PM)
I didn't want to initiate a hijack to another thread in this forum, so I decided to create a new thread. quote: ...This is part of why you cannot just "soak the rich". They're smarter and better connected than the people trying to "soak" them. They leave... Do you really think so? First of all, just who is it that you think is trying to soak them? The little guys? Or maybe you are caught up in the left vs right paradigm, and believe that the Democrat politicians genuinely represent the little guys? And if the "soaked rich" are so smart and well-connected, wouldn't they be able to avoid getting soaked in the first place? What's your definition of rich? It's often subjective and relative to one's own status. I'll put my pespective in simple terms, for basic illustration. It goes something like this: The truly elite ruling-class have a million chips each. Poverty and lower middle-class have 0 and 1 chip each. The average joe middle-class has 2 to 3 chips each. Upper middle class has 4 or 5 chips each. What the average middle class typically considers as "wealthy" has 6 to 10 chips each. The million chip players have almost all of the 0 to 10 chip players pitted against and focused upon each other. There's always exceptions, but generally speaking, the 4 through 10 chip players tend to feel something like "Hey, we played the game the way it was supposed to be played. We paid our dues. Everyone else had the same opportunity. Why should I subsidize those able-bodied who have not paid their dues? God bless America. Love it or leave it!" The 0 through 3 chip players tend to feel disenfranchised, and no longer in a position to raise their lot in life to any notable degree. They're often riddled in debt, and often become wary from all the financial pressures in life. Many simply give up and perceive additional effort as pointless. Many are envious of the 4-10 chip players, and will blame them for their woes. These players become easy prey to leftist politicians who spoon-feed them with "I'm for the little guy" rhetoric. It's the million-chip players' game that we are all playing, and it always has been. But most of the small chip players don't want to rock the boat. They're more concerned about protecting and keeping the few chips they've accumulated. So they entrench themselves to the status-quo, and often even become self-appointed guardians of the status-quo. They can't see past the illusions that have been so carefully created to keep them in check. They endear themselves to one side of the left vs. right paradigm, and will fight each other in a non-sensical exercise in futility that will rarely ever address anything but symptoms, or various and convoluted band-aids to symptoms. In so doing, their energies and attentions are averted from the true source of their problems. The million chip players are the source of our problems. Small-chip players who don't understand this, and continue fighting each other, become part of the problem and not part of the solution. This is my last post of 2009. I know my views fall on blind eyes and deaf ears for the most part, primarily because it conflicts with everything we've been taught to believe. Nevertheless, I hope it makes some sense to some of you, and truly connects with someone out there... for I'm 100% convinced that we are living in a woefully indoctrinated society that's going in the wrong direction. May your upcoming new year be all that you wish it to be.

MzMia -> RE: Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 2:05:25 PM)
There are many levels of rich, IMHO. I will give you my definition of border line/basically rich. These days to really be border-line/basically rich, you need to have at least 2-3 million, in liquid assets. And I do mean {liquid assets}, not real estate, mutual funds, etc. That normally will afford you and your family the means to do what you want and need to do. There are certainly many other levels such as the mega-rich and super-star rich: people like Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. People in the mega-rich category should not be linked to those in just the border/line bascially rich category. To be mega-rich, I think you need at least 10 billion to join the party. [;)] This is your last post of 2009? lol, that means you will be posting again in about 10 hours? Happy New Year!

cpK69 -> RE: Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 7:56:27 PM)
I see the situation in the same manner as you appear to; one cannot play “Monopoly” and hope to gain anything toward humanity. Much new hope to you in the new year, Subfever. Kim

Arpig -> RE: Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 8:12:08 PM)
quote: I know my views fall on blind eyes and deaf ears for the most part, If you think your posts fall on deaf ears, try being a socialist on these boards...based on the people on here who are labeled "far left" I must be so far left I have come all the way round to right...[;)]

DrkJourney -> RE: Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 8:23:22 PM)
quote: ...This is part of why you cannot just "soak the rich". They're smarter and better connected than the people trying to "soak" them. They leave... quote: If this is true no one told that Madoff guy. He took a lot of rich and a lot of famous people to the cleaners, everyone that they mentioned on the list that was made public was way beyond "connected" and look how much money they lost, some lost everything....Steven Spielberg is one I remember that was on the list

vincentML -> RE: Do you really think so? (12/31/2009 8:49:38 PM)
Oh yes, I was thinking of Bernie. You beat me to it Drk. Another thing, what's the point in soaking the poor? They have nothing. What really pisses me off is when old folks are scammed. Many of them do lose quite a bit in life savings. Not millions, but life savings, for craps sake.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 12:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Another thing, what's the point in soaking the poor? Soaking the poor is where the big money is. The trick is not to find a way to get one or two big piles of money. The trick is to come up wth a way to take a little money from everyone regularly. When I got my MBA the case study they used as an example was Wrigley's gum. A stupid pack of gum is 25 cents. Costs next to nothing. Millions of people buy a pack of gum every day. The value of the William Wrigley Jr. Company? 23 billion dollars. You put a $1 surcharge on everyone's phone bill every month. 50 million households have a phone. Suddenly you're making 50 million dollars a month from taxing the little guy. Yes, the rich pay that $1 too, but there are very few rich households and they don't even notice the one dollar. The 49 million poor households need that dollar more and there are so many more of them that suddenly it's big money. All of the excise taxes, the sales taxes, cell phone fees, ISP fees, the transportation fees, that surcharges, the gasoline taxes, the energy taxes - any of the "consumption based taxes" - are aimed at the poor. Most people have no idea exactly how much it is they're actually paying in taxes, aside from their income tax - and even if you pay no income tax, you're still being taxed.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 12:56:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DrkJourney quote: ...This is part of why you cannot just "soak the rich". They're smarter and better connected than the people trying to "soak" them. They leave... quote: If this is true no one told that Madoff guy. He took a lot of rich and a lot of famous people to the cleaners, everyone that they mentioned on the list that was made public was way beyond "connected" and look how much money they lost, some lost everything....Steven Spielberg is one I remember that was on the list Actually Bernie Madoff, former chairman of the NASDAQ, is the epitome of the smarter and better connected people. The list of his clients is like a Who's Who of the well-connected. His firm was never thoroughly investigated by the SEC, despite well-documented claims of fraud submitted to them, because he was on a first-name basis with the likes of Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd. I believe that Madoff was able to pull off what he did because he was an insider. Everyone knew he was up to something shady, they just thought he was doing insider trading or some other investment scheme that they could benefit from - which is why they all wanted in. How shocking that, instead, he was bilking his clients. Anyways, I'm not arguing that a good con man or thief cannot manage to steal, swindle or rip off the well connected. I'm saying that as a society, your government will never be able to acquire the assets of the rich because the rich themselves will make sure the system continues to benefit them, no matter what laws or restrictions appear to go into effect and that if you manage to either stage a revolution or pass some truly draconian laws, the rich take all their marbles and bail.

mnottertail -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 1:08:05 PM)
Well, you can go on and on in that vein, some poseur as crown prince vladimir of hackistan or the brother to the uncle of the Standard Oil fortune being greased down for some future backscratch......... Greed begets greed. Ron Greed is good. Michael Douglas in Wall Street (and it is in limited fashion)

housesub4you -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 1:31:13 PM)
I tend to agree, the best way to keep the poor from becoming some of the rich...is to keep them fighting amongst themselves, the whole divide and conquer thing. It works in politics just as it does in every other area of life, just look at the health reform, if those "haves" can keep the "haves not" from forming one voice, the "have nots" will always be that way. money talks and money can buy opinion, tell you what to think and crush you when you start to be a threaten to it.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 1:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever I didn't want to initiate a hijack to another thread in this forum, so I decided to create a new thread. quote: ...This is part of why you cannot just "soak the rich". They're smarter and better connected than the people trying to "soak" them. They leave... Do you really think so? Yeah, more or less. The history of the modern era seems rife with a creation of huge family fortunes and dynasties that survive without ever being broken up. And somehow they all end up being politically connected. People always cry for "reform" and "equity" but somehow, even after the country's gone into debt and business has fled and everyone's out of work from all the "reform", the few elite rich are still elite and rich, and somehow stay in power. This isn't unique to the United States. It's happened before and will doubtless happen again. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever First of all, just who is it that you think is trying to soak them? The little guys? Or maybe you are caught up in the left vs right paradigm, and believe that the Democrat politicians genuinely represent the little guys? I don't think that anyone genuinely represents the little guy - well, anyone currently in a major political party. The number of the established rich and wealthy insiders on the Democratic side of the aisle is at least as big as those on the Republican side. I generally try not to view things from a left-right paradigm and more from a "how does this work as a system" model. Not that I can claim that my models of our economic and political systems are accurate. They're works in progress. I think there's a large "soak the rich" sentiment in this country. You can see it in the opinions of many posters on these boards. I think a lot of political figures get themselves into power by playing on these attitudes. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever And if the "soaked rich" are so smart and well-connected, wouldn't they be able to avoid getting soaked in the first place? This is my entire point. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever What's your definition of rich? It's often subjective and relative to one's own status. I've asked this question to others a lot, myself. From my end of things, I would suppose that one is "rich" if one has better than a million dollars in income a year and/or better than 10 million in fairly liquid assets and one is "super rich" if one has better than 100 million in assets. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever The truly elite ruling-class have a million chips each. Poverty and lower middle-class have 0 and 1 chip each. The average joe middle-class has 2 to 3 chips each. Upper middle class has 4 or 5 chips each. What the average middle class typically considers as "wealthy" has 6 to 10 chips each... It's the million-chip players' game that we are all playing, and it always has been... The million chip players are the source of our problems. I agree with your thesis, more or less. The million chip players have enough influence, connections and outright political power that they will get themselves exempted from any laws designed to hurt them. Those laws never seem to actually dent, break up or hurt the big family dynasties or fortunes. They do, however, crush the 4-5 or 6-10 chip players. I don't think the problem in our society is the upper middle-class or the lower-upper class or whatever you want to call them. The problem is the exactly the million-chip players, whether they're viewed as left-wing or right-wing. My point is that you're not going to "get" them by passing a higher tax on the upper brackets or by "regulating" their industry. They'll get around that. They always have. I think there's a lot more mileage, for the country as a whole, to worry more about how to enable the little guy to do better and to encourange the not-so-little guy to do more than there is to try and take from the "rich". quote: ORIGINAL: subfever This is my last post of 2009. I know my views fall on blind eyes and deaf ears for the most part, primarily because it conflicts with everything we've been taught to believe. Nevertheless, I hope it makes some sense to some of you, and truly connects with someone out there... for I'm 100% convinced that we are living in a woefully indoctrinated society that's going in the wrong direction. May your upcoming new year be all that you wish it to be. All the best in the New Year. [Edited for typos and hangover-related issues.]

Kirata -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 2:20:15 PM)
Hell, I don't wanna soak'em, I wanna be one. Best of the 2009 Millionaire Fair From a $4,000 bottle of whisky to diamond-encrusted timepieces that sell for millions, the annual Millionaire's Fair in Amsterdam offers a range of upscale items strictly for people who say, "What global economic downturn?" I think I'll spend 2010 holding my breath. [:D] K.

Silence8 -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 2:43:57 PM)
As soon as A.I. and automated production gets off the ground, most of humanity will likely be mass-murdered for being a liability. The remaining 1,000-10,000 people left on the earth will be supported entirely by machines.

housesub4you -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 3:19:40 PM)
Dam!!!!! I wonder what a beer goes for there?

philosophy -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 3:28:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 As soon as A.I. and automated production gets off the ground, most of humanity will likely be mass-murdered for being a liability. The remaining 1,000-10,000 people left on the earth will be supported entirely by machines. ...you do realise that the Terminator movies were fiction?

Silence8 -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 3:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 As soon as A.I. and automated production gets off the ground, most of humanity will likely be mass-murdered for being a liability. The remaining 1,000-10,000 people left on the earth will be supported entirely by machines. ...you do realise that the Terminator movies were fiction? Hey, it's not my fault pop culture constantly references its own destruction.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 3:56:45 PM)
I never buy into the whole A.I. taking over thing because it has no ambition. If you are born within a room and have no knowledge of the world beyond it then you have no desire for anything other than the things within the room. Similarly humans want to take over the earth and have little ambition to take over the universe. Colonising the moon is as imaginative as they've got thus far.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 4:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Hell, I don't wanna soak'em, I wanna be one. No arguements there. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata From a $4,000 bottle of whisky to diamond-encrusted timepieces that sell for millions, the annual Millionaire's Fair in Amsterdam offers a range of upscale items strictly for people who say, "What global economic downturn?" One way you can certainly soak the rich is by selling them bizarre things at ridiculously inflated prices, like a giant plastic glob that's a couch or a diamond encrusted glass sword. [;)]

Jeffff -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 5:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Best of the 2009 Millionaire Fair From a $4,000 bottle of whisky to diamond-encrusted timepieces that sell for millions, the annual Millionaire's Fair in Amsterdam offers a range of upscale items strictly for people who say, "What global economic downturn?" I want a 4,000.00 bottle of whisky......and then I am gonna drink it with a splash of soda! All the poor people can go fuck themselves! Jeff

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Do you really think so? (1/1/2010 5:24:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Best of the 2009 Millionaire Fair From a $4,000 bottle of whisky to diamond-encrusted timepieces that sell for millions, the annual Millionaire's Fair in Amsterdam offers a range of upscale items strictly for people who say, "What global economic downturn?" I want a 4,000.00 bottle of whisky......and then I am gonna drink it with a splash of soda! All the poor people can go fuck themselves! Jeff The whiskey itself is Johnny Walker Blue - which you can pick up for about $200 a fifth. The other $3800 was the bottle.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02