If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The whiniest members of the 1%   (salon.com) divider line 231
    More: Amusing, plutocracy, selfishness, American Justice  
•       •       •

13069 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 10:55 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 11:46:32 AM

super_grass: Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

]


All I can think is that I want to strangle each of those idiots with the intestines of their own pets. And their parents.

/And their parents' pets, too
 
2014-02-08 11:46:35 AM

Nemo's Brother: If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?


What works better, a consumerist economy with a small consumer base, or a consumerist economy with a large consumer base?
 
2014-02-08 11:47:02 AM

captcaveman: [img.fark.net image 412x238]



too funny.  but keep it on the down low. you're scaring the Owners.  they are a skittish bunch. they have convinced themselves that the little people are trying to steal their money.
 
2014-02-08 11:48:32 AM
Remember when your social studies teacher said that honest, God fearing men threw off the yoke off oppressive classism to create a new, free ountry where all men were created equal?  What she was trying to say is, " a bunch of English bankers found the mother lode and started writing debt against it for people to go and settle it and send the profits home and things got a little pear shaped until they regained control in Dec. 1913".  Welcome to the ass end of that business plan.
 
2014-02-08 11:50:02 AM

Nemo's Brother: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.

If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?

This is why your kind that demand an increase in minimum wage while demanding amnesty for all illegals are pulling on both sides of the rope.


The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need.
We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do.
But, you probably don't like that answer - and I'll bet you are really going to hate it when it happens - because that is exactly where we are headed.
 
2014-02-08 11:53:28 AM
If you whiners in the 99% don't stop whining and get busy with the job creating profits for us to fill our swimming pools with to go full Scrooge McDuck, we'll fix that valve in the urinal and stop all that trickle down we do on you.
 
2014-02-08 11:59:19 AM

Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!


.....You kind of come across as a bigoted, old, redneck fool with white hair growing out of his ears, still hanging around and complaining that women and blacks have the right to vote.
 
2014-02-08 12:00:32 PM

bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.


Nope. Not a one.
 
2014-02-08 12:03:24 PM

jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.


And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.
 
2014-02-08 12:04:41 PM

ThighsofGlory: Nope. Not a one.



Then maybe all this intaglio printed bumrag is doing us more harm than good.  And good luck using it unless you put it all on a plastic card, first.  Only terrists use cash.
 
2014-02-08 12:08:37 PM


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

 
2014-02-08 12:08:43 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?


Of course it is.  Money is a lubricant.  It's a convenience.  The only useful thing it does is move around easily.  There's no intrinsic value and frankly, it's all just backed by 17 trillion in debt that somehow, as if by magic, we'll make good on when our great, great, great, grandkids save the world and pay off all of out kited checks.  It's a great con until people start misusing it by shoveling it all into the pockets of a few families.  Makes it look like it's gonna be worthless, soon.  Is that a Weimar in your pocket or was that our Reichstag fire?  Of course it's our money.  Money is a gentleman's agreement.  And we're all out of gentlemen.
 
2014-02-08 12:09:19 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.


Sounds like a stupid, unanswerable question. And the only one who is whining here is you.
 
2014-02-08 12:14:04 PM
jso2897:  "The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need. We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do."

Collective bargaining, right? If so, then I'm good with it.

Used to be that the unions were infiltrated and taken over by by the criminal underworld. Now they're being stomped on by the criminal (read: corporate) upperworld. Given a choice between the two, I'll throw in my lot with the former, thank you.

/trollin' right back atcha, bro.....
//oh, and Perkins, Jamie Dimon, the Koch boys, and all the rest?  Pitchforks, torches, and tumbrels. We've got a remedy for your affluenza.
 
2014-02-08 12:14:47 PM

jso2897: Nemo's Brother: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.

If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?

This is why your kind that demand an increase in minimum wage while demanding amnesty for all illegals are pulling on both sides of the rope.

The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need.
We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do.
But, you probably don't like that answer - and I'll bet you are really going to hate it when it happens - because that is exactly where we are headed.


Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.
 
2014-02-08 12:16:49 PM

Top Geezer: //oh, and Perkins, Jamie Dimon, the Koch boys, and all the rest?  Pitchforks, torches, and tumbrels. We've got a remedy for your affluenza.


As near as I can tell, stepping away from the urgency farm and looking at the actual crap being flung, this seems to be the entire end game of their existence.  Not all that impressive, IMO.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-08 12:19:01 PM

jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

Sounds like a stupid, unanswerable question. And the only one who is whining here is you.


I don't whine, my little giraffe whines.
 
2014-02-08 12:19:40 PM
Awwwwww. The richies are upset.

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:19:56 PM

bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.


Vagina
MrsGina
Angina
Its natures way
 
2014-02-08 12:20:07 PM

ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.


So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"
 
2014-02-08 12:24:43 PM
bunner:
img.fark.net


Look up the tomb of a old-timey plutocrat named George Pullman. He was such a vile piece of evil and so universally despised that when he finally croaked,  he had himself buried under tons of concrete and asphalt out of fear that his corpse would be exhumed & violated by the many, maaaaaaaaany people that he had done wrong.
 archaeology-travel.com
 
2014-02-08 12:26:56 PM
jso2897:  "The solution is simple -... society where all must work in order to eat -


Extract.

I plan to make it so when i am the King.img.fark.net
 Through the multitude of Incarnations, I am always with you
Waiting
Watching
Ruling
 
2014-02-08 12:27:08 PM

bunner: ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.

So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"


We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.
 
2014-02-08 12:28:49 PM
Capitalism is no more a way of life than roller skating and it is no more a solution than a pair of gloves is a winter outfit.  It's one cog in a set of wheels that, when properly maintained, regulated and attended to by honest folks, keeps the world turning.  If you want people to vote for your dog in the dog show, take your dick out of it and stop kicking the other dogs, you self important, blithering greedheads.
 
2014-02-08 12:30:35 PM

ransack.: We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


Or, since money all just a pretendy collection of opinions, we may have to start taking a hard look at what we value and why.
 
2014-02-08 12:31:44 PM

ransack.: bunner: ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.

So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"

We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


or our ruler could give us tasks to do in exchange for food and shelter
 
2014-02-08 12:33:01 PM

haywatchthis: or our ruler could give us tasks to do in exchange for food and shelter


*taps watch*  That doesn't seem to work well, so far.
 
2014-02-08 12:33:10 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.


It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.
 
2014-02-08 12:33:42 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?


It's a meaningless and oversimplified question.  Society, (to which everyone contributes) fosters an environment more amenable to prosperity.  Regardless of the philosophical view of "whose money it is", you either believe that society has a duty to preserve itself, or not.  Unless you're arguing in favor of a completely anarchocapitalist system (no police, no laws, no government, no common coffers, with wealth or violence being the only power an individual can wield), you've already tacitly accepted that some of every individual's wealth must go toward the preservation of society. Whether it's by duty to the social contract, or by virtue of the nature of ownership makes no difference.

The question that is left on the table (the one the grownups are trying to discuss) isn't "whose money is it?".  It's "how much taxation is best for society as a whole, and is our current distribution of wealth detrimental to the welfare of our nation?"
 
2014-02-08 12:44:16 PM
More than half a century ago, "West Side Story" satirized the idea that what was then known as juvenile delinquency was a product of poverty and the psychological maladjustments it produced, and that therefore "this boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care."

It was ROMEO AND JULIET, for f*ck's sake.
 
2014-02-08 12:46:30 PM

Top Geezer: Collective bargaining, right? If so, then I'm good with it.


It only makes sense. If a business can incorporate, so can workers.  Allowing one and not the other automatically unbalances the system.

ransack.: We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


OR we could force companies to pay better wages, take lower profits, and keep their money in the country, thereby growing the consumer base which would in turn increase employment, and eventually return us to a more productive industrial economy.  The 1% might have to accept the awful proposition of only controlling the vast majority of the wealth, instead of basically all of it, but I don't think that's too much to ask of these farkers.

But yes, while all of that's going on, paying a guaranteed base minimum income would keep the bottom 30% afloat.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:17 PM

MayoSlather: It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.


Well put, you pinko-commie bastard.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:41 PM

eil.com

 
2014-02-08 12:50:59 PM

MayoSlather: Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.


Somebody has to wash those Bentleys and dry dock that Hattaras.  Oh, sweet!  A ducat in my piss pail!  That's like, three days rent!
 
2014-02-08 12:52:31 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?

It's a meaningless and oversimplified question.  Society, (to which everyone contributes) fosters an environment more amenable to prosperity.  Regardless of the philosophical view of "whose money it is", you either believe that society has a duty to preserve itself, or not.  Unless you're arguing in favor of a completely anarchocapitalist system (no police, no laws, no government, no common coffers, with wealth or violence being the only power an individual can wield), you've already tacitly accepted that some of every individual's wealth must go toward the preservation of society. Whether it's by duty to the social contract, or by virtue of the nature of ownership makes no difference.

The question that is left on the table (the one the grownups are trying to discuss) isn't "whose money is it?".  It's "how much taxation is best for society as a whole, and is our current distribution of wealth detrimental to the welfare of our nation?"


Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.
 
2014-02-08 12:52:56 PM
half the people in the country worship the ground the walk on, you can't really blame them for thinking they are better than everyone.
 
2014-02-08 12:53:55 PM
By the time a dollar moves 10 times in the above ground economy, the house gets it all back.  And the house is still 17,000,000,000,000.00 in hock and kiting checks.  So, how's that stuffing every penny that could be moving around and funding all the stuff you refuse to pay taxes for thing working out, lord fatass?
 
2014-02-08 01:02:24 PM
www.prescott.va.gov


                                              W A N T E D
Fraud
Collusion to bankrupt the treasury
Homicide
Mayhem
RICO activities
Passing bad checks
Uttering
Aiding and abetting extortion
War crimes
Child abuse
Illegal wiretapping
Fraudulent business practices
Issuing worthless currency
Violation of the constitution
Treason

                                   ARMED AND DANGEROUS.  DO NOT APPROACH.
 
2014-02-08 01:06:13 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.


Yes, generally, they do.  Working is not the only way we contribute.  In fact, spending money is nearly just as important a means of contribution than working for it in an economy like ours, which is why so many are arguing in favor of a base guaranteed income. It gives poorer people the power to drive the economy by spending money that the rich won't because of decreasing marginal utility.
 
2014-02-08 01:08:48 PM

MayoSlather: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.


In all honesty, you are a fool.

Also, Mayo is a disgusting condiment and you should feel bad.

/You're adopted.
 
2014-02-08 01:09:59 PM

8 inches: In all honesty, you are a fool.


No he isn't.  And you're not that entertaining.
 
2014-02-08 01:10:53 PM
Rich kid kills people DUI & gets probation, but poor people have to show ID to buy food cuz fraud will not be tolerated.

Y'know, armed insurrection is starting to look appealing.


/Who the fark could be knocking on my door this early on a Saturday...??!?
 
2014-02-08 01:11:26 PM
That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine
 
2014-02-08 01:12:16 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.

Yes, generally, they do.  Working is not the only way we contribute.  In fact, spending money is nearly just as important a means of contribution than working for it in an economy like ours, which is why so many are arguing in favor of a base guaranteed income. It gives poorer people the power to drive the economy by spending money that the rich won't because of decreasing marginal utility.


criminals contributes by providing jobs for law enforcement and prisons
 
2014-02-08 01:13:42 PM

rzrwiresunrise: /Who the fark could be knocking on my door this early on a Saturday...??!?


Nah, they're sort of counting on it.  How else can they let the other shoe drop and blow out of here in a fleet of Gulfstreams due to a "hostile business climate"?
 
2014-02-08 01:14:07 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.


Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.
 
2014-02-08 01:15:17 PM
haywatchthis: criminals contributes by providing jobs for law enforcement and prisons


And the plague contributes by keeping face mask makers in business.  Doesn't quite pass cost / benefit analysis, though, does it?
 
2014-02-08 01:16:06 PM

trappedspirit: That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine


all you had to say was poor people are jealous
 
2014-02-08 01:17:48 PM

8 inches: MayoSlather: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.

In all honesty, you are a fool.

Also, Mayo is a disgusting condiment and you should feel bad.

/You're adopted.



Nicely constructed argument.

/I actually was adopted
 
2014-02-08 01:18:29 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.


Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report