It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

page: 10
43
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?


I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell


edit on 20-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: stevieray
I do charity too on a smaller scale. They don't deserve better tax breaks than anyone else.

edit on 20-1-2016 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
If you took all the money from the 62, and gave it to the lazy fools around the world, it would be back in the hands of the 62 in 5-10 years.

The lottery proves it every day. As do the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB.

There's a reason that the 1% has all the money....they earned it, and they aren't idiots, lazy, or more into the booze, dope, and flesh than being productive.... like the majority of people on the globe.

That would be about it. Socialism and communism were invented out of pure jealousy and overriding laziness, people (marx) who needed an excuse for their sloth and a method to steal something back from the ambitious and smart.

I'm not one of the 1%, but I have worked for 40 years to build a comfy retirement and happy family. So as soon as the flotsam and jetsam of society steal everything from the truly rich, they'll be looking for me next.


You make an absolutely asinine assumption that everyone is born equal and therefore all have equal opportunity to become one of these 62 people. Therefore, what you state is baseless, thoughtless and practically immature calling everyone who isn't a billionaire, lazy. Feel free to tell that to all the people in this world who literally put their lives on the line for others, everyday...and do so not so much for a paycheck, but because they, at the very least, are their brothers keeper.

Altruism is priceless.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?


I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell



Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I can quote a lot of things. It, however, does not make the things I quote true.

Once space is open to us for example, resources become potentially limitless.

Also no one is asking to be supplied with five yachts, 6 pools, 500 cars 200 of which are ultra rare antiques, 4 mansions, exotic high priced meals daily by the world's best chefs, a personal jet, tennis courts, 1000's upon 1000's of acres, their own private islands, priority care by the best doctors and surgeons money can buy...

All people are asking for is that we raise the baseline from nothing, to having basic room, board and health services. You'd think we were asking for the world the way you all act.

Plus when robotics progress to the point most jobs simply do not exist, we'll already have a sustainable baseline to create a smooth transition that does not by necessity result in violence and death on a massive scale.

Provide people with basic needs first, and you might find them far more excited and motivated to work.
edit on 1/20/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/20/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: stevieray
If you took all the money from the 62, and gave it to the lazy fools around the world, it would be back in the hands of the 62 in 5-10 years.

The lottery proves it every day. As do the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB.

There's a reason that the 1% has all the money....they earned it, and they aren't idiots, lazy, or more into the booze, dope, and flesh than being productive.... like the majority of people on the globe.

That would be about it. Socialism and communism were invented out of pure jealousy and overriding laziness, people (marx) who needed an excuse for their sloth and a method to steal something back from the ambitious and smart.

I'm not one of the 1%, but I have worked for 40 years to build a comfy retirement and happy family. So as soon as the flotsam and jetsam of society steal everything from the truly rich, they'll be looking for me next.


You make an absolutely asinine assumption that everyone is born equal and therefore all have equal opportunity to become one of these 62 people. Therefore, what you state is baseless, thoughtless and practically immature calling everyone who isn't a billionaire, lazy. Feel free to tell that to all the people in this world who literally put their lives on the line for others, everyday...and do so not so much for a paycheck, but because they, at the very least, are their brothers keeper.

Altruism is priceless.

I said nothing about born equal, everyone non-billionaire = lazy, anyone who puts their lives on the line, and so on.

Other than that, your post is wholly inapplicable to the discussion ! Too funny.

Gates, Waltons, Buffet, Jobs, Zuckerberg all came with nothing but good ideas. Woops. And then you have your classic liberals / progressives / RINOs like the Kennedies, Clintons, Rockefellers, Roosevelts, Kruschevs, Ceausescus, Castros, etc. They all love the "one world tripe". Woops.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: stevieray
If you took all the money from the 62, and gave it to the lazy fools around the world, it would be back in the hands of the 62 in 5-10 years.

The lottery proves it every day. As do the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB.

There's a reason that the 1% has all the money....they earned it, and they aren't idiots, lazy, or more into the booze, dope, and flesh than being productive.... like the majority of people on the globe.

That would be about it. Socialism and communism were invented out of pure jealousy and overriding laziness, people (marx) who needed an excuse for their sloth and a method to steal something back from the ambitious and smart.

I'm not one of the 1%, but I have worked for 40 years to build a comfy retirement and happy family. So as soon as the flotsam and jetsam of society steal everything from the truly rich, they'll be looking for me next.


You make an absolutely asinine assumption that everyone is born equal and therefore all have equal opportunity to become one of these 62 people. Therefore, what you state is baseless, thoughtless and practically immature calling everyone who isn't a billionaire, lazy. Feel free to tell that to all the people in this world who literally put their lives on the line for others, everyday...and do so not so much for a paycheck, but because they, at the very least, are their brothers keeper.

Altruism is priceless.

I said nothing about born equal, everyone non-billionaire = lazy, anyone who puts their lives on the line, and so on.

Other than that, your post is wholly inapplicable to the discussion ! Too funny.

Gates, Waltons, Buffet, Jobs, Zuckerberg all came with nothing but good ideas. Woops. And then you have your classic liberals / progressives / RINOs like the Kennedies, Clintons, Rockefellers, Roosevelts, Kruschevs, Ceausescus, Castros, etc. They all love the "one world tripe". Woops.


I crafted an algorithm when I was 14 valued at 1b $. I've put together multi-million dollar companies since then and even given them away for free because I have too many.

Being a Billionaire is more than skill based. It's a personal desire involved with that. You can say no one would ever give away a billion dollars but I'm living proof you can easily make a billion dollars and just not accept it in the first place.

Zuckerbergs website is one of the most unmiraculious websites ever. From a technical standpoint.

Everyone should be conscious of the economic burden they have on others in their surroundings. How can I live peacefully with $1,000,000,000 when 40 million holds so much stratification with every single person I've ever met?
edit on 20-1-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing out my inability to read.
Sometimes dyslexia is hilarious, other times, it isn't.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

Everyone should be conscious of the economic burden they have on others in their surroundings. How can I live peacefully with $1,000,000,000 when 40 million holds so much stratification with every single person I've ever met?


Indeed, everyone SHOULD be, but they aren't and they never will be.

The source of greed, corruption, war, crime, hunger, poverty, etc. IS money, plain and simple.

Stratification is the key word here. And money will always stratify people socially and economically, thus creating the perfect environment for the above mentioned to flourish.

Mo Money, Mo Problems.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Would the situation be any more or less acceptable to anyone on here if, instead of 62 billionaires, it was a single individual whose wealth was greater than that of half of humanity?

Just something to think about.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic

It's extremely uncomfortable being the richest person everywhere you go. It only becomes more daunting when my wealth is what I cut myself short for, a fortune large enough to be a lottery drawing to some. Explaining that detail is impossible to grasp and feels extremely offensive for me to even say to people most of the time.

The main point is the American Dream. I was born poor, and met plenty of people in my success that were born rich. What I pride myself in, is that if I ever lost my fortune, I could make a new one, while I'm pretty sure they can't, and that's why they run society in such a way.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Fair point. Thanks for the insight.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BiffWellington

No, I don't think it would change much other than the ease of pointing a finger at one individual, either in a positive or negative light.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic

Oh come on give me a break.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sparkymedic

This statement pretty much proves to anyone how full of # you are. I don't think you could be anymore disingenuous if you tried.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Our planet and technology is easily capable of supporting our current population quite comfortably. It is the greed and arrogance of humanity that stifles that goal. Sixty two men should not hold more value than 3.5 billion people.
"What's yours is mine. What's mine is mine. Mine. Mine. Mine."


Ok so what... Humans are not very nice...nothing new here. The part I find hypocritical is every human could be working to help every other human to live a better life, but they don't. The rich, middle class or poor all do not do it except for a very small percentage. Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg and others are already looking at giving away their vast fortunes for the good of mankind, so it seems you are complaining about old money with some old Waltons while ignoring the other 7 billion? lol



edit on 20-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?


I probably quote this too much but, maybe it will sink in around here. It explains so much.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell



Would you then agree that scarcity is not so much natural to monetary economics, but manufactured and required for it to function at this part in the game?

It is truly necessary to have oceans of poor surrounding islands of rich for this system to work...capitalism at the very least...but likely true for all other ism's which surround monetary economics.

I believe that monetary policy tends to dictate resource use and distribution. However, it doesn't give a true picture of what resources really are there. Resources become choked in distribution when markets surge or crash. Either way, as money in and of itself is THE measurement of the individuals purchasing power, money is thus the measurement of freedom. I see this as dangerous and crippling for the majority.


No, scarcity is a fact of the natural world.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Damn, this isn't in the mud thread.

Actually, scarcity is a manufactured trait so that already-rich people can make more profit. What's that? Oil, you say? Why, what an excellent example. Oh, Diamond, too?

While it's true that some things are more scarce than others (Platinum), we have more than enough production to end both homelessness and hunger. The issue is that it doesn't make a select few people money. Thus, we do not.




edit on 21/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

In economics, we consider the whole economy.

One of my complaints against Obama's administration was his policies to artificially overvalue energy.

I guess I am going to have to put together a monopoly thread. You will see that monopoly prices are associated with state sponsorship, not the free market.

As a thought experiment, consider the things in your kitchen and how plentiful they are.

Is there enough saffron for everybody?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

There isn't any saffron at all. Saffron is unnecessary. We are not saying that there are enough resources for everyone to own a mansion, have five butlers and maids, every night eating the most expensive and rare of dishes. What we are saying is that the human race has the capacity to produce enough food and housing for every person on this planet.

Is there enough Saffron?
No.
Is there enough food?
Yes.
Is there enough hardwood for mansions?
No.
Is there enough construction material for basic housing?
Yes.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join