What the 1% don't want you to know

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds nice, but at some point if a society is going to do this an actual process will need to be established to carry out the objective. We've had and currently have some examples of how this approach has NOT worked. We also have an example of an approach that, warts and all, seems to work pretty well.

Also, all of the hand-wringing in this forum recently about the so called "death of the middle - class, there's plenty of to the contrary about income mobility in this country.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356...wo-decades-ago

Also, the constant bleating about income inequality ignores the reality that the top rungs of income earners in this country are not a static and unchanging group of individuals. Its really more like a revolving door:

".... Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell and I looked at 44 years of longitudinal data regarding individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience these different levels of affluence during their lives. The results were striking.

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/op...rags.html?_r=1

Frankly, if given a choice, I'd vastly prefer a system that allows greater individual economic freedom and mobility, and the opportunity to succeed - or fail - based on what I contribute.

There will always be ass holes, as history shows, that will try to rig the game in their own favor, and some of them will succeed while others end up behind bars. No matter what economic system you deploy, you'll always have ass holes. I'd offer that our efforts at "leveling the playing field" by changing how our current system operates does more damage than the few ass holes who try to rig the game.

What should we do when the "assholes" start to outnumber the good guys? Just keep shuffling off to work with our heads down because; "It's their money, we have no right to ask more of them."?

F**k that BS.

Dave

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by merrylander

There is the rub DQ, most people rather obviously do not love themselves and thus find it impossible to 'love thy neighbour'.

We can't say 'you must love your neighbor.' We can say 'you should act as if you loved your neighbor.'

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

So, you just lose interest when someone starts asking questions you can't answer? Cool strategy. Seems to fit you pretty well.

I lose interest whenever I see it's you posting.

[BlueStreak]

Conservatives are like the Politenessman of governance.

The people;

"This sucks. They're creating jobs but we can't live off of this shit!"

Conservative Politnessman;

"Oh, now, we can't make any demands of business, that would be RUDE! No, instead we ask nicely. Then, when they tell us to pack sand and continue hoarding all the money for themselves, we must suffer quietly. Because strikes and protest are so impolite. You should never embarrass your host."



Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Conservative Politnessman;

"Oh, now, we can't make any demands of business, that would be RUDE! No, instead we ask nicely. Then, when they tell us to pack sand and continue hoarding all the money for themselves, we must suffer quietly. Because strikes and protest are so impolite. You should never embarrass your host."



Dave

It builds character, don't ya know?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, the best way isn't just; "Whatever costs business less."?

Wow. What a concept.

Dave

Spoken like a true lefty.

Actually, I'm sure you missed it, but the money line in the post is here:

Frankly, if given a choice, I'd vastly prefer a system that allows greater individual economic freedom and mobility, and the opportunity to succeed - or fail - based on what I contribute.

On the contrary, you can look to a nice government - protected business like the NFL to see what happens when market forces are removed from the equation. I suspect Payton Manning would throw a football around a field for far less than $15 - $20 million a year, but he plays in a system that is allowed to be a monopoly protected by the gov't. Certainly, players years ago like Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas did it for far less, even when adjusted for inflation. But with the advent additional inflows of capital and no competition, the game (to cable and network TV) and the players sell themselves for astronomical amounts.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Conservatives are like the Politenessman of governance.

The people;

"This sucks. They're creating jobs but we can't live off of this shit!"

Conservative Politnessman;

"Oh, now, we can't make any demands of business, that would be RUDE! No, instead we ask nicely. Then, when they tell us to pack sand and continue hoarding all the money for themselves, we must suffer quietly. Because strikes and protest are so impolite. You should never embarrass your host."



Dave

Dickens captured the attitude perfectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What should we do when the "assholes" start to outnumber the good guys?

We put them into the US Senate and the US House of Representatives where we can ostensibly keep an eye on them.

Seriously, hasn't happened in almost 250 years. We also do tend to prosecute the worst offenders...

....or elect them.

[Bigerik]

Thanks for posting this. I'm gonna hunt up the book right away,

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Spoken like a true lefty.

Actually, I'm sure you missed it, but the money line in the post is here:

Frankly, if given a choice, I'd vastly prefer a system that allows greater individual economic freedom and mobility, and the opportunity to succeed - or fail - based on what I contribute.

On the contrary, you can look to a nice government - protected business like the NFL to see what happens when market forces are removed from the equation. I suspect Payton Manning would throw a football around a field for far less than $15 - $20 million a year, but he plays in a system that is allowed to be a monopoly protected by the gov't. Certainly, players years ago like Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas did it for far less, even when adjusted for inflation. But with the advent additional inflows of capital and no competition, the game (to cable and network TV) and the players sell themselves for astronomical amounts.

Dang! I should have been a football player........

Dave