1% own half the world's wealth

1% own half the world's wealth (Full Version)

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

Message

tweakabelle -> 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 12:20:31 AM)
A new report from UK charity Oxfam found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99% it was revealed yesterday. The report confirmed recent trends that wealth was being increasingly concentrated in a few hands while large sections of the rest of the world was often mired in poverty and hopelessness. The UK paper The Guardian reported: "The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%. Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016." http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland Is this scandalous situation defensible? Isn't it time that we took wealth re-distribution seriously? Isn't it time that wealth was put to use to benefit the whole of society and the world rather than being the private possession of a tiny number of hugely powerful and influential individuals and families? Short of violent revolution, how can we put this deplorable situation to rights? Indeed, will a failure to democratise wealth lead to violent revolution? Your views comments and opinions .....?

Lucylastic -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 1:11:42 AM)
Ah I got the date wrong, I mentioned it in another post I thought it was 2020, ... I honestly doubt there will be much outcry about it here Tweak. Its not defensible by anyone who isnt a one percenter (wether US or UK or global) Income inequality has always been a problem for the other 99%, in the US in Canada and the UK its a dirty word, that is ignored. Poverty is the poors problems, to be blamed on the poor, to be despised. I dont see a violent revolution against the monied coming, just blame and more marginalization towards the poor. Obama has outlined his tax increases for the one percent and tax breaks for the middle class, yet already the right wing are positing that the tax increase will hit everyone, as if we are all one percenters, . Who amongst any leader of any party in any country is going to put a stop to tax havens, secret bank accounts, offshore havens, and corporate welfare, to ensure that they pay taxes back into the economies they are throttling. Let alone level the playing field. Corps and big money dont give a shit, ergo, the situation will never improve. just my two cents

Sanity -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 4:49:33 AM)
If there werent so many of the poor sucking and shooting intoxicants into their systems as much as possible for most of their lives rather than working hard like successful people do then you would have a much better case for gang tackling the successful, and having government goons make an example out of them As it is though, why do leftists feel that politicians are better off with a citizens' money? Being politicians, they will steal and waste the lions share of it, perhaps reward failure with some And rewarding failure is counterproductive to the extreme, a big part of how we got to where we are at

Musicmystery -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 5:37:27 AM)
Yeah. That must be it. Clever analysis.

bounty44 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 6:19:14 AM)
as I would understand it, the post is a swipe against capitalism, the system that allows for "inequality" of wealth. here is my view and comment: everyplace in the world that has seriously tried socialism/communism to the extent you seem to be advocating, ends in the devastation of the lives you purport to care about. the Winston Churchill quote is applicable. "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." if you are talking about lesser forms of wealth distribution. it already (and in my view unfortunately) occurs in every western nation on earth, with the result that the "poor" there, are better off than most of the rest of the world. another way to put that would be, the 99% here, or where you live, constitute the 1% in the eyes of the rest of the world. so its tough to know exactly what it is you are complaining about. id ask the liberals who are all for the govt taking money from the hands of successful people and giving it to the hands of less successful people---what are you doing with your own personal wealth? if you are giving practically everything away yourself, then you have a moral leg to stand on when you pose this question. if you are not doing that, then quite frankly, you don't. what you are looking at is the monetary/economic version of everyone who plays gets a trophy and there are no winners or losers. if you know anything about human nature, you would know that for most people, that destroys incentive. why one should one work hard, make sacrifices, take risks, etc, if the rewards are the same for those who don't? Margaret thatcher's quote is applicable. "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." historically, along with Christianity, capitalism is a primary reason for the successes and high quality of life the world does enjoy. and yes, what sanity said has an awful lot of truth to it.

Redhusky -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 6:32:52 AM)
You cant trust every politicians. Some are dirty little cheaters . Atleast in my country we have one that i know currently. He publicized in his CV, atleast that every citizen could view, that he has master degree from Oxford. It turn out he has no such thing. This incident happened again , it turn out his doctor of law is invalid too and this happened in 2014.

thishereboi -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 6:36:04 AM)
According to the article... "Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%." Should be interesting to see what kind of solutions the billionaires come up with to even things out.

Musicmystery -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 6:54:50 AM)
Well, then you're not understanding it, and by your view, Henry Ford would be the worst capitalist ever. And Warren Buffet. Well...you can google and make a list if you want. First, you're woefully ignorant of history. The trend the OP is talking about started only in the 1980s, and has worsened since 2001. Second, this is not a socialism vs capitalism point necessarily. And third, nor is it about talking money out of anyone's hands for redistribution necessarily. It's a problem because it's not a feasible long-term strategy. An economy is essentially about how well resources are moving. It's how we measure it, it's how we stimulate it, it's how we grow it. The economic problem with the 1980s/2001 trend is that it has created two economies: one at the top that's doing well, and one at the bottom that's stagnant. Now, if the top wants to simply sell to each other, employ each other, and so forth, that would work. But since they draw from the bottom economy for resources, they are cannibalizing their markets. Henry Ford's great experiment, which vastly (many thought) "over-paid" his workers, also created the market for his product. It worked so well, he increased the $5 day to the $6 day. Peter Drucker, one of the 20th centuries greatest business gurus, pointed out that labor is best thought of as a resource, not simply an expense. That sparked the management revolution in the second half of the century. And the economy flourished. If you want a historical comparison, look at the Victorian Age. We had extremely wealthy barons, with the average worker earning 1/4 of what was necessary to support a family of four, working 80 hour weeks in very dangerous conditions with no rights or safeguards. That's what sparked the early interest in socialism here, and why the wealthy top fought it. The workers wanted rights, better conditions, fairer pay. The 1890s were a horrific depression -- it's what fueled the populist revolution that eventually won such changes as voting directly for US Senators (who formerly were appointed by the governor of each state). That's the "economy" the current right-wing mania is inadvertently advocating. And it didn't work then either--to build railroads and new towns, business leaders actively recruited immigrants to come live there. Why? They were cannibalizing their markets. Today, we have a group that consciously wants to turn America into a de facto oligarchy -- Romney is a major representative of this trend. These people believe the wealthiest are best able to run America, that the less well-off are not suited to the decision making process. How will they fuel this market cannibalization? Via de facto global conquest, thereby bringing even poorer world workers in as a resource. That's not feasible long term either, but as it will take much longer than with America's work force alone, the horizon is too far out for many to consider as the eventual threat it truly poses. And no, I'm not a "soak the rich" guy. While I think, as did Greenspan, that the Bush tax cuts were irresponsible and reckless, I'm not in favor of discontinuing them for the wealthiest 1% -- I'm in favor of discontinuing ALL of them, across the economic spectrum. People whine "you can't do that to the poor and struggling middle class," but when I ask people what they did with their extra Bush tax cut money, they're silent--they didn't even notice the difference. And we were prospering before that--in fact, the longest and largest peacetime expansion in US history. An economy thrives when resources are moving throughout. The 2007 crash was made into a long recession because the hidden liabilities in mortgage derivatives made credit risky, so banks and businesses just sat on their money. And institutionalizing an economy that shuts out the majority of people is foolish. It destroys the largest market, consumers, 67% of the economy. Shutting out global economic participants is no smarter. When more resources are moving, THAT'S the economic tide that lifts all boats--not policies that aggravate income inequality (like the thoroughly discredited trickle-down nonsense). That's what gets small businesses going (and small businesses in aggregate are the largest employer). The problem with the bottom is that they've been acclimated to an economy that's dead. No longer do you get a job with a good company, work hard, and retire with a pension. People need to return to being entrepreneurs themselves. A little over a century ago, having a job was the exception. People need to learn how to bring their skills to the marketplace effectively, to become free of the time=money construct with leverage (which the wealthy totally understand), to become free of the necessity of having a job by being able to market their skills independently. Only then will they be free in times when some of the wealthy turn to oppressive policies to suit their purposes (and not all do, even now). Early in the 80s, I realized that to survive effectively in a capitalist system, I would need capital. Even small capital. And set about doing that. We need to teach this, to help people retrain, retool, rethink, and prosper. And whenever I bring it up here, the litany of excuses and reasons why people can't do that come pouring in. I and many others started with nothing--but that's deemed irrelevant. So it gets dismissed, and people go back to whining, some about the rich, some about the poor. Nonetheless, growing income inequality is a problem, and will get worse. While redistribution isn't an effective solution, neither is trickle down. The problem is that the current system is addressing only the needs of the top. That needs to change to be inclusive--which will also benefit the top. That's what an economy is. Simply holding is wealth, but it means a stagnant economy.

joether -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 7:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as I would understand it, the post is a swipe against capitalism, the system that allows for "inequality" of wealth. Oh no...call out the Capitalist Defenders! Save us from the evil socialism villains. The biggest problem with Capitalism is greed. And that in capitalism there exists no mechanism to control that greed from getting out of hand. When it gets out of hand, bad things have....always...followed. Or did you not live through the recession of 2007? quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 here is my view and comment: everyplace in the world that has seriously tried socialism/communism to the extent you seem to be advocating, ends in the devastation of the lives you purport to care about. the Winston Churchill quote is applicable. The National Football League (NFL) operates with a socialistic model. So does the United States federal government. socialism. Let's take the US Government as an example. Are you aware that many blue states pay more in taxes then are returned to them in federal projects? That red states pay less in taxes but obtain more government projects. If we were to apply 'capitalism' to this situation, the blue states would have fantastic economies, while the red states lived in a state of near-total failure. People would leave those red states for the blue states. Those that remained, whom were not in the 1%, or favored by the 1% would become little more than slaves to their economic masters. The NFL has good teams and bad teams. Teams that perform really well, and others that cant fill half the stadium. Yet as an organization, portions of the profits from the good teams help to offset the loses from the bad teams. If we applied capitalism to the NFL, fully half the teams would be bankrupt by now! How many people would watch the games let alone purchase products bearing the NFL's logo, when their team is gone? Not to many..... Socialism has operated and worked in many places around the globe. Some of them are places you would not expect either! So what is your definition of the word 'Socialism'? Since the places that used socialism, used a version of it and not the true form. Its like here in the United States. Which sounds more likely true: A) The United States operates on Capitalism. B) The United States operates on a regulated form of capitalism. The answer is 'B'. If your questioning it, consider all the regulations tied into stock and commodity trading. In a true capitalism nation, those regulations would not be in place. That greed would trump common sense, morals, and fair play almost within a nanosecond! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 if you are talking about lesser forms of wealth distribution. it already (and in my view unfortunately) occurs in every western nation on earth, with the result that the "poor" there, are better off than most of the rest of the world. another way to put that would be, the 99% here, or where you live, constitute the 1% in the eyes of the rest of the world. so its tough to know exactly what it is you are complaining about. Have you ever been poor? On the streets? Not sure when or where your next meal will come from? Or where you might be sleeping that night? How about dealing with health conditions of every manner? Dealing with thugs, rapists, and criminals of every color with very little safety and protection? Do you think the poor REALLY enjoy being poor under capitalism? The 1% that is being mentioned is....ACROSS THE PLANET. Not just one nation or a dozen. Every place that has civilization. To be poor in America sucks as much as it does in 3rd world nations. The difference is the resources that can be brought to bear on the situation. Under capitalism, if the person has potential, they might get out of poverty and the hell of being on the street. For every star athlete and singer, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of failures. That you desire to ignore them and focus only on the slim slice of reality, shows how little one should give you respect in life! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 id ask the liberals who are all for the govt taking money from the hands of successful people and giving it to the hands of less successful people---what are you doing with your own personal wealth? I help the local pantries and kitchens whom help those that are down on their luck. That I sit down and listen to those that have hellish problems, and try in a number of ways to combat their problems. That I have even once payed for a hotel room to house a family of four because they were going to sleep in the van with temperatures dropping below the negatives without the wind chill factored in. That you have this view that your so superior to others, really is disgusting. An if you don't pay ALL YOUR TAXES, I'll be more than overjoyed to report you to the IRS and law enforcement. Since you really do not display any real attributes or virtues of worthy note..... quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 if you are giving practically everything away yourself, then you have a moral leg to stand on when you pose this question. if you are not doing that, then quite frankly, you don't. Regardless of the style of economic theory used; its up to the individual whom is in a strong position to help and defend those whom cannot defend themselves. There are individuals of deep and small pockets, whom have helped those even more less fortunate than they themselves. Its their up bringing, their education, their religion, or hundreds of other reasons. But that they share a goodness that people like you will never understand. Every nation is composed of individuals whom help other people out of a bad situation. On 9/11/01, as people were fleeing from two burning buildings, there were individuals rushing in to help those that could not get out on their own. Did it matter to them which economic model was in use that day? Or of any other disaster that spans a short or long period of time? quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 what you are looking at is the monetary/economic version of everyone who plays gets a trophy and there are no winners or losers. if you know anything about human nature, you would know that for most people, that destroys incentive. why one should one work hard, make sacrifices, take risks, etc, if the rewards are the same for those who don't? What happens with little children on the playground, and what happens in a corporate board room are two very different things. That you cant seem to understand the difference shows a lack of insight on your part. Do you know how much thanks I get for doing what I do? Whether I am working for personal profit or giving to a charity? You know what REALLY makes me sick? The individuals whom demand a trinket or trophy just to donate time, money, or their expertise to help the less fortunate. I'm guessing, based on what you say and how you say it, that your one of these sort of deluded individuals. quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Margaret thatcher's quote is applicable. "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." "The problem with Capitalism is eventually you run out of other people's money." Yeah, the same can be said with capitalism. Because now its your money. An if you have all the money, there is none for them to give. So how does that capitalistic model work at that point? When a group of individuals have all the power, all the influence, and held to no accountability or responsibility with power? They are called TYRANTS! quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 historically, along with Christianity, capitalism is a primary reason for the successes and high quality of life the world does enjoy. High quality of life eh? I'm sure there were plenty of 'high quality life' during the Crusades. Or the Salem Witch Trials. Or McCarthyism. Its funny that you mention Christianity with Capitalism. Would Jesus be on the side of helping people out, even if it cost him money, time, and his abilities? Or scheming to find new ways to remove every last bit of coinage from their pockets? There are two types of Christians in America: The ones that follow the true path and all the pseudo-Christians that care only about themselves in every shape and form. The first group would sacrifice their soul just to help a non-believer get into Heaven; the second would never consider the notion. The first group gets into Heaven, the second goes to Hell. How about those people whom have to drink bottled water, because their well was poisoned due to fracking by a corporation making profits? Are those people living better thanks to capitalism? This next one is a bit more complicated, so try to keep up. Back in 2007 when the housing bubble burst, many families lost their houses. When it was researched, it was found many of these families had either bad or no credit. In normal circumstances of the law, these people should never have been able to purchase the home in the first place. Back in 2002-2004, Republicans removed a number of regulations from the law books. This allowed companies to offer loans based on 'bad and no credit' to families interested in obtaining that first home. That these companies preyed upon unsuspecting families whom believed the bank would not give them the loan if their credit was not good enough. Is this one of those 'high quality of life' moments your mentioning with capitalism? To watch families remove their things from the house as it was foreclosed and sold at auction? Let's bring up student loans.... Yes young people are told that a good education will bring in a higher return of income during their working years. That everyone has some kind of debt. And that the debt can be acquired privately or through the US Government. Except, if that student, now graduated, with a hefty student loan finds themselves in a serious health condition that prevents them from really working. So how does that former student pay a bill off when they cant work? Its not like they can go bankrupt over it. What is the 'quality of life' with capitalism here? quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 and yes, what sanity said has an awful lot of truth to it. Given the number of posts you have; I can understand why you are foolish to say that Sanity is right on something....

Kirata -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 7:57:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether So what is your definition of the word 'Socialism'? More to the point given the content of your post, what the fuck is yours? socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. K.

usememistress775 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 8:33:33 AM)
So that richest 1% is finally taking back what has historically been there's? And this surprises anyone ? Besides what's really happening is that the "1%" Is still about 70 million people. Whenever the richest 700 people own 50% I'll really start worrying. What the author of those articles probably didn't mention is that it isn't so much individual gain that changes the percentage but that people who amass large fortunes on their own that get elevated to that one percent as it blooms out to cover more and more people. Side note: Not a one truly gives a flying fork about the rest of us.

joether -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 8:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether So what is your definition of the word 'Socialism'? More to the point given the content of your post, what the fuck is yours? socialism n. 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Always with the simple viewpoints and thoughts, eh, Kirata? No Nobel Prize in Economics for your future.... Socialism that your taking is from a government system of usage. How I am using socialism is from the individual system of usage. Do you operate your budget based on capitalism or socialism (or dare I ask.....communistic)? Or something in between? Like say for example: Regulated Capitalism? Since each individual is like a nation but on a micro level; its a fair question, right? None of the economics models by themselves could operate without the other models operating in different concepts and scales. Or were you comatose, on Mars, underground, with a blanket over your head during 2006-2012? Because it was quite well demonstrated that a pure form of Capitalism would have killed the US economy off. Making the 'Great Depression' look like a game of monopoly in comparison. That Capitalism has no mechanism to keep greed in check. And greed is what created the problems that landed this nation into a severe recession that looked like a major depression in 2007. Did the nation land in this depression, Kirata? No of course not. We had President Obama in the White House. He and the Democrats passed a bill into law: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That act, if you had read it (which you never did) stated a number of things that would happen to shore up the loses, create an artificial demand in the market place, and keep workers in their jobs. And as history shows, conservatives and Republicans were against it, and tried every which way to undermine it and the nation (for political reasons). I have a BS in Management, Kirata. I think I could school your useless ass on capitalism, socialism and communism and all the various variations found both in history and simulated models (be they published documents or computerized simulations). That you think on simplistic ideas is both funny and sad at the same time.

Kirata -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 8:37:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Socialism that your taking is from a government system of usage. How I am using socialism is from the individual system of usage. Well no, you're just making up your own language. K.

Zonie63 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 9:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is this scandalous situation defensible? Isn't it time that we took wealth re-distribution seriously? Isn't it time that wealth was put to use to benefit the whole of society and the world rather than being the private possession of a tiny number of hugely powerful and influential individuals and families? Short of violent revolution, how can we put this deplorable situation to rights? Indeed, will a failure to democratise wealth lead to violent revolution? Your views comments and opinions .....? I read about this report as well. Just the fact that some people have more than others isn't necessarily a formula for violent revolution, as long as the poorer 99% are given some consideration. What seems more worrisome is that the powers that be in this world seem to have developed amnesia as to what the world was like during the 19th and 20th centuries, the revolutions of 1848, various labor riots/uprisings, revolutions and coups in multiple countries, world wars, etc. The West was spared some of the harsher events, although to some degree, our governments had some level of foresight in implementing social programs, labor reforms, civil rights, and other measures to make life reasonably better for the lower classes. This had the effect of stabilizing our countries in the long run and drastically reducing the chances of any kind of violent upheaval. Trouble was, it was only really possible in the West for a limited amount of time, and it also was coupled with the West actively opposing such reforms in other countries. With a satiated, well-fed, well-paid working class to generate fierce patriotism and loyalty to Western interests, our ruling class became very powerful on a world-wide scale. Even the differences in wealth didn't matter much, as long as working people could still enjoy a reasonable level of comfort and security - along with an extensive social services system, access to healthcare, a modern infrastructure, public schools, a nice house, nice car, plenty of food - even for those who work blue-collar or menial jobs. Sure, the wealthy have had much much more than that, but from the point of view of the average Westerner, it hasn't really been all that bad when you compare it with other areas of the world or with previous eras in our own history. But on a global scale, it's quite a different situation. While it's been far from perfect, Western power has been strong enough to at least keep some modicum of overall "peace" in this world, even as we've seen numerous revolts, uprisings, and coups around the world which have continued to this very day. But with our industry, technology, and a large enough pool of loyal, patriotic supporters, the West has been able to maintain the upper hand over whatever "forces of evil" we've had to contend with. Judging from our government's actions and the rhetoric of the propaganda machines, I would say that the leaders of the West have been fearful of violent revolution on a global scale for quite some time now. As technology and industry have spread to other nations and increased the world's overall capacity for making war, we also find ourselves worried about weapons of mass destruction ending up in the wrong hands. As for whether this lopsided economic situation will lead to revolution, I think that it's probably likely in some countries which are facing more critical and unstable situations. True to form, the West will respond by sending force to contain any potential revolution or insurrection to try to maintain their own idea of "world order." Of course, this will cost a lot of money, will utilize vital resources, and will also require strong support from the citizenry of Western countries, most of whom have come to expect and depend upon being well-fed and well-paid for their efforts. Revolutions and insurrections in other countries will keep the West distracted for a while, as our national mood seems to be in kind of a protective and defensive mode at this time. A lot of people feel driven to protect what they have and "our way of life" from whatever "Evil Empire" there might be out there. But the question remains whether the West can continue to hold the upper hand and indefinitely contain whatever "evil" might exist, while still maintaining a high standard of living for its own people at home. I would even wonder if the public could even handle the kind of rationing and material shortages we faced during WW2 (which, again, was nowhere near as bad as what was faced by other countries in that war). I think a revolution may be possible, but not very probable at this point. Even at the poorest levels of society, the ones who are viewed with scorn and derision for relying on "government handouts," they still have those handouts to consider, so they won't revolt as long as they keep getting what they need to sustain themselves. The working poor also have some semblance of a meager existence, at least as much as being able to have a roof over their heads and enough to sustain themselves if they live carefully enough. But if that starts to disappear and we regress to the level we were at in the mid-to-late 19th century (where some political factions seem to want to take us), then we would be increasing the likelihood of some kind of upheaval. I think there may be ways of salvaging the situation and avoiding the kind of revolutionary extremism which tends to do more harm than good. Regardless of who has the most money, I'd like to think that the leaders and governments of the world could someday reach a level of cooperation and mutual benefit towards a shared goal of sustaining life on a planet where large chunks of the population still don't even have running water or electricity - or a stable food supply. But this also requires more resources and money which the West seems to be running out of - not to mention the various environmental concerns, such as global warming. It would seem the more logical course of action would be towards peaceful cooperation and pooling our resources to try to be able to solve these problems that affect the entire planet. But with all the political grandstanding and the arrogant posturing and intransigence which pervades our political culture, it's not an atmosphere conducive to peaceful cooperation. It's an unfortunate set of circumstances which we're drifting into. I fear the situation could degenerate very badly if we're not careful.

kdsub -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 9:59:15 AM)
quote: wealth re-distribution seriously I could use a few bucks tweak...will you send them to me? Butch

Lucylastic -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 10:05:52 AM)
try jokin that with a one percenter, oh yeah, you would never even get an appointment LOL

Gauge -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 10:30:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And rewarding failure is counterproductive to the extreme, a big part of how we got to where we are at I'm glad you brought up the bank, Wall Street and big-business bailouts. Rewarding failure is definitely counterproductive. Or... were you talking about something else?

kdsub -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 10:31:30 AM)
Lucy if tweak would send some money I would share it with you... I am generous that way... especially with sexy women...a fault of mine I'm afraid. Butch

Tkman117 -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 11:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If there werent so many of the poor sucking and shooting intoxicants into their systems as much as possible for most of their lives rather than working hard like successful people do then you would have a much better case for gang tackling the successful, and having government goons make an example out of them Wow sanity, I hope you're trolling because that is literally the most vile, evil thing I've ever heard someone say, and I'm no stranger to hearing people spew hate about groups of people.

CreativeDominant -> RE: 1% own half the world's wealth (1/21/2015 11:37:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If there werent so many of the poor sucking and shooting intoxicants into their systems as much as possible for most of their lives rather than working hard like successful people do then you would have a much better case for gang tackling the successful, and having government goons make an example out of them Wow sanity, I hope you're trolling because that is literally the most vile, evil thing I've ever heard someone say, and I'm no stranger to hearing people spew hate about groups of people. Vile because it's true? http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/30/us/drug-addicts-among-the-homeless-case-studies-of-some-lost-dreams.html http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction/poverty-and-substance-abuse/ Even from the sympathetic side, there's bad news: http://blogs.elon.edu/voicesofwelfare/truth-6-alcohol-and-drug-abuse-is-a-problem-that-spans-all-classes-the-rich-the-poor-and-the-people-in-between/

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625