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.

 

Richest one percent made 82% of wealth created last year: Oxfam

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I do have a problem with lobbying. No matter who it is. Corporations are not people.




posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

When did I say that? If you think how much money someone makes is the main issue then you are missing my point entirely, it is how that money is spent and acquired that I am concerned about.

Please try to put my words into their correct context.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Post office prices have nothing to do with the subsidies that Amazon is receiving. This is how monopolies are formed. This is an unfair advantage that smaller retailers will not get.


.
edit on 21-1-2018 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: seasonal

Here's a solution.

Go find a way to become wealthier, if you desire. Perhaps a change in career, or even a personal review of one's self.


Otherwise, this is nothing but a classic case of whinging.
Oh please. Correctly assessing that a very small group of people is suctioning virtually all the wealth out of society isn't "whining," it's recognizing injustice to society and all of us. It's recognizing a highly corrupted system. You see, I can both be okay myself financially and also recognize that's unjust. That's what it means to not be a selfish prick. There are lots of other people that do work hard yet are impoverished.


Are they actively reaching into society's pockets and 'suctioning' out the money?

No, they aren't. Only government can do that.

So find a new target for your envy, please.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What makes you think they aren't the government? Lol, if you buy your way into deciding what the government does then you essentially become the one who governs the government.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

So, when exactly would you be putting your whinging to an end?

You were made no promises in this life. So sorry to have to explain that to you.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Many large profitable corps do not pay any taxes, not even the median income tax rates that was somewhere around 14%.
Want to guess who will be paying those taxes for infastructure that the corps enjoy and use? Also want to guess who pays for the war machine that keeps natural resources flowing from all over the world (oil)?



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

So living paycheck to paycheck and barely scraping by is excusable because other people are worse off? Why are we setting the bar so low here?

1% of the population getting 84% of the wealth is not a good thing no matter how you try to spin it.


Not everyone is going to be rich. A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. It is a part of life. All you can do is play the hand you are dealt. Crying and bitching has never made anyone rich or successful.

Prove 1% of the population getting 84% is a bad thing. How is Jeff Bezo's being worth $100 billion affecting you personally? If he wasn't worth $100 billion, how would it change your life?




See? SEE? Eddie gets it! Understands it perfectly!!! Told ya!! Eddie SOOO rocks!
HA! I KNEW Ed would get it! YAY Eddie! Go Eddie! Go Eddie! Go Eddie!

SO THERE!!!


That one is only partially a joke. It's like, maybe 28.3% joke. By weight, NOT volume.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Post office prices have nothing to do with the subsidies that Amazon is receiving. This is now monopolies are formed. This is an unfair advantage that smaller retailers will not get.


Yes they do...

Read this article. Amazon Postal Subsidy



Congress has barred USPS from setting its parcel prices below its costs, to keep it from unfairly undercutting competitors like FedEx and UPS. But the formula for calculating those costs, set in 2006, hasn’t kept pace as packages have come to make up a higher and higher percentage of USPS volume. The law set the share of infrastructure costs associated with packages at 5.5%, but boxes now make up around 25% of Postal Service revenue


Amazon is the largest shipper, so it benefits disproportionately. However, this is because of the above. On the other hand, Amazon may actually be helping the post office because it is helping them get better utilization of assets in some area with increased deliveries. remember, the post office is required by law to deliver EVERYWHERE even if it makes no god damn sense.




Additionally, USPS’s legal duty to provide universal service means that even at a discount, shipping boxes for Amazon helps it generate revenue from potentially unused capacity. Fixed costs aside, USPS package delivery is profitable, helping subsidize rural service and letter delivery. So there’s room for disagreement about whether the situation is actually unjust.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp

Actually no because he was arguing a completely separate point than what I was talking about.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Umm, did you read the article?

This is akin to allowing the USPS to pick winners and losers. No matter how great it is to use unfilled capacity.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

I do have a problem with lobbying. No matter who it is. Corporations are not people.


I actually agree with this one. 1000%
I think lobbying is one of the great evils of our age. Seriously.
I can't really think of a viable solution, though. At least not one that's actually has a Jew's chance at an Al Queda pep rally of being implemented. So, I guess THAT may be a small snag...

See? I KNEW you had it in ya!

Oh, and just a suggestion, but you better watch out for old Ed, 'cause HE gets it!
GO ED!



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: seasonal

Not a solution but a better way to look at the issue. Perhaps.

The income inequality discussed in the OP and elsewhere is nothing new. And by nothing new, I mean it permeates human history. We do not have spreadsheets for the world since the beginning of time but if we did, I am betting the gaps we see today are not much different than always baring normal fluctuation.

I have a roof over my head and food in the fridge. I do not have zillion dollar portfolio but I am OK. How on Earth can I get upset about what someone else has? I have no clue what their circumstances are. By being envious, I am taking a dump on what I have been able to carve out for myself and family.

If the Sultan of Brunei has umpteen billion dollars, so what? What does he owe me?
The problem is not about you, it's about systems and policy. For example, I work in a policy esque career, one that specifically deals with poverty, economics, related issues.

Your answer and several others' doesn't address how systems affect the socio economic and environmental health of society. When people say they are fine, they don't understand many are not and are severely disadvantaged.

The issue is that the dividends of increased economic production in the form of gdp/capita are only going to a very small group. Real wages excepting them have stayed stagnant since the late 70's. Society is deep in debt. Education systems are failing. Many people don't have health care. Economic mobility is very low actually in the US for example. Inter-generational cycles of poverty are very well evidenced.

There are even economists who explain how extreme economic inequality harms the health of all of society.

www.theatlantic.com...

A mature and professional analyst can't just think about themselves nor claim " stop whining and get a job." Those perspectives are amateur and unprofessional at best, cynical and self serving in other cases for those doing well.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp

Cheerleader?

Not only is lobbying bad, it is the bills they write that no one reads before voting for them.

The problem starts and stops with the dems and repubs. But the 2 party system is designed to play off each other and keep each side ( R and D's) bitching at each other while they steal the silverware.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Nothing to add, very well written.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: seasonal

Here's a solution.

Go find a way to become wealthier, if you desire. Perhaps a change in career, or even a personal review of one's self.


Otherwise, this is nothing but a classic case of whinging.
Oh please. Correctly assessing that a very small group of people is suctioning virtually all the wealth out of society isn't "whining," it's recognizing injustice to society and all of us. It's recognizing a highly corrupted system. You see, I can both be okay myself financially and also recognize that's unjust. That's what it means to not be a selfish prick. There are lots of other people that do work hard yet are impoverished.


Are they actively reaching into society's pockets and 'suctioning' out the money?

No, they aren't. Only government can do that.

So find a new target for your envy, please.
Another low information and irrational response. I'm not envious, I work on related issues. Sorry some of us actually have expertise and professional experience related. Go back to the kids table.

They suction this money out through labor and economic regulatory frameworks that do not share almost any dividends of production with workers. Economists have shown that if wages had kept up with increased production and gdp/capita, minimum wage would be at least double or more what it is. Based on the business and regulatory framework we have, only a very wealthy elite are receiving the wealth from industry. Everyone else is losing for the most part. We functionality live in a pro-corporate oligarchy. Also, apparently you haven't heard of corporate welfare. Also, they benefit from socialized roads, public schools, police protection, etc as infinitum. They did not make that extreme wealth in a vacuum not through just "working harder than everyone." That view is so naive it's laughable.
edit on 21-1-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Nothing to add, very well written.
Thanks! Good op



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I find it very ironic that some people visit and participate in a conspiracy forum yet defend the wealthy as if they're innocent. Pretty much every single problem with our government and society in general has its roots in greed and those who are willing/able to pay others to rig the system in their favor.



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Umm, did you read the article?

This is akin to allowing the USPS to pick winners and losers. No matter how great it is to use unfilled capacity.


Yes, I did read it. You didn't.... the picking winners and losers is the opinion of an analyst that is invested in FedEx...



In Sandbulte’s view, this means the Postal Service is “picking winners and losers in the retail world.” But Sandbulte’s investment firm holds FedEx stock, meaning he has a direct interest in critiquing the USPS, and his analysis is debatable on several points. He disingenuously describes the pricing situation as “a gift card from Uncle Sam,” which implies there’s tax money involved. But the USPS doesn’t receive tax revenues


The point is everyone gets the discount, but Amazon is disproportionately the largest shipper. It isn't a subsidy but a result of the post office not updating their pricing. They assume 5.5% of volume is packages but it has jumped to 25% since 2006. Amazon has benefitted from this mismanagement...



posted on Jan, 21 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I find it very ironic that some people visit and participate in a conspiracy forum yet defend the wealthy as if they're innocent. Pretty much every single problem with our government and society in general has its roots in greed and those who are willing/able to pay others to rig the system in their favor.


It isn't defending the wealthy... it is pointing out the lack of logic and economic ignorance in your posts.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join