Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9627

  • Leon Troutsky

    8096

  • Psychic Gibbon

    7930

  • AF89

    6238

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, kicker said:

I like how you say "receiving the largest share of income" as if they just wake up every day and some guy delivers it to their door step.  That tells me where your head is on this, so it's really not worth my time to show you plenty of evidence that wealth inequality isn't actually a problem on the top end.  Who gives a flip in some guy is worth $50,000,000,000 dollars.  I care more about the 120 million people that have net worth of zero.  And more importantly, rich dude isn't rich at the expense of the 120,000,000 people.  

Are you disputing the notion that the folks with the highest income actually receive their income? Obviously it isnt delivered to their house in a truck.....but its actual, tangible income being accumulated to actual tangible wealth. Whether its in securities appreciation or liquid dollars or in property doesnt really change the bottom line so much as it changes the short term practicalities. 

As for wealth inequality being a problem at the top end....I'm not even sure what that means. The troubles of wealth inequality are generalized and diffuse across the economy. I'm not sure why "the top end" would serve as the rubric for how problematic the issue is. 

Further, actually, there are tons of reasonable compelling arguments that the ultrawealthy ARE ultrawealthy at the expense of other people. Obviously thats a case by case study but its not like we've never seen speculative profiteering that made X number of people significantly more wealthy while ultimately costing Y other people considerably. Or situations where private enterprise feels compelled to lay off X workers to maintain a certain level of profit growth or for the benefit of shareholders. And those are just direct cost arguments. If we start drawing the causal tree, the web grows quickly. 

As for "who gives a flip if some guy is worth $50 million" well....thats again, a case by case discussion. For instance, I represent a client who got stiffed six figures on a renovation contractor job by a wealthy home owner. As a result, we had to pursue litigation or eat a six figure loss from a project that was already close to underwater without the screwjob. Two years in and our wealthy home owner has spent ~$250,000 to avoid paying my client even half of what was owed. Is this typical? Perhaps not. It's awfully Trumpian so maybe I'm just the lucky guy to find a more immediate example of money bullying. At the cost of a small business, of course. 

Wealth does not make one inherently wrong or evil or selfish. That is very true. But theres a massive difference between discussing the systemic issues in an economic system with substantial wealth "gravity" concerns and discussing the actual value of a given person's dollars. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BrockSamson said:

Both statements are probably true, but sadly, I think *takes time to swallow pride* SB's is more true. That is, there is no doubt some idjits definitely believe that (I seent it!), and there's at least a chance one of those idjits posts regularly on this board.

So stupid. Claude Taylor and Louise Mensch have already explained how it goes down:

  1. Marshal of the Supreme Court delivers 'case of impeachment' to Trump
  2. Pence gets impeached and indicted for treason
  3. Mueller releases tapes of Paul Ryan discussing GOP money laundering with Russian Ambassador 
  4. President Hatch is sworn in

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...