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.

 

Socialism for the Rich

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Why cant the right wingers just agree and say corporate welfare is bad why is their default to defend our psuedo centrally controlled government picks winners and losers fascist economy




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: doobydoll




It's up to workers to change things. But society of late has been too fragmented to unite and go on strike or something drastic like that, but that's what it needs. A general strike harshly reminds bosses and govts that when workers don't work, nobody gets rich. Stopping their money pouring in, even temporarily, is the only thing that will get their attention because nothing else seems to interest them.


The employees always were the real employers, there is no CEO without the production line.



[Intro: (William S. Burroughs)]
This is war to extermination
Fight cell by cell through bodies and mind screens of the Earth
Souls rotten from the orgasm drug
Flesh shuddering from the ovens
Prisoners of the Earth, come out
Storm the studio




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Edumakated

I hope you brought some time, maybe someone else is willing to explain Captain Obvious?

You idiots from the Corporate Defense League can't even work out the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality. Why bother?

Looks like we're all waiting for something here. Maybe start to read the article now?


You want others to work out your own arguments? So much for "good debate".

I can see in your propaganda some semblance of a reason as to why income inequality is bad, ie. "the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality". That's at least something, but another error in thinking.

As you might know, there is also a correlation between ice cream sales and the amount of sunglasses sold. But icecream sales are not caused by the selling of sunglesses, because correlation does not imply causation.

Child poverty is cause by a lack of money, not by someone else's wealth.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

It's even better than mere ignorance. They actually agree to some degree, at least lip-service wise. But they will fight anyone who's going to change it, which would be the moment they fly their true colors.

Probably middle-management and congressmen on a certain type of Jacob's Ladder, and they will cash in on their profits even if it results in a sacrifice of logics and values. The usual egoism, self-preservation and cunning at work, they're posterchilds for the Odysseus thread.

And I don't blame them for being weak, corrupt and human sailors. I could be wrong here, but I'd say we all carry this burden with us to some degree.


edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Edumakated

I hope you brought some time, maybe someone else is willing to explain Captain Obvious?

You idiots from the Corporate Defense League can't even work out the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality. Why bother?

Looks like we're all waiting for something here. Maybe start to read the article now?


You want others to work out your own arguments? So much for "good debate".

I can see in your propaganda some semblance of a reason as to why income inequality is bad, ie. "the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality". That's at least something, but another error in thinking.

As you might know, there is also a correlation between ice cream sales and the amount of sunglasses sold. But icecream sales are not caused by the selling of sunglesses, because correlation does not imply causation.

Child poverty is cause by a lack of money, not by someone else's wealth.


Yeah, I'd love to know how JK Rowling writiing Harry Potter and selling 500 million books making her a billionaire is causing child poverty.... or how George Lucas ($3 billion networth) creating Star Wars contributed....

Or how the Kardashians are causing child poverty....

Or how even Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle has caused child poverty...

Or how Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel Hedgefund, worth about $10 billion is causing child poverty....

I'm sure PublicOpinion will give us a logical and fact based response.... not.


edit on 13-6-2019 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The bailouts of the banks, the obvious loopholes for the rich, and the massive amount of get-out-of-jail-free cards all show this


I think that's why people like Bernie Sanders gain momentum. He at least mentions this stuff.

I don't believe trickle down is all it's cracked up to be. Countless wealthy entrepreneurs and corporate CEOs move jobs to foreign countries.

I used to watch that show shark tank. *It was about wealthy entrepreneurs(sharks) who make deals to be apart of and help new or much less wealthy entrepreneurs.* There was many times where the sharks refused to deal with entrepreneurs who would not move their American jobs to foreign companies (possibly laying off hundreds to thousands of workers).

My point being that many of the ultra rich don't care about the average American in their objective to increase profits.
And maybe they shouldn't.. I don't know. However, my point is that we are put too much stock in trickle down because trickle down ultimately relies on corporations not screwing over Americans.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




The employees always were the real employers, there is no CEO without the production line.


Absolutely true.

But workers have come to believe they should be grateful to have a job, they should be grateful of the opportunity to work for their poverty. They should feel pride to have a job and be earning their 'living'.

Except they're not earning a living, nowhere near it. And they're told that's their fault too.

Poverty when you work, poverty when you don't work. No point working.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SilentSaturn

Its hard for them to admit that A our current world is the result of progressive politics aka Teddy and Kensyian economics and B that we have a centrally controlled economy where the government decides who wins and who doesnt

They would have to face the reality that their right wing ridiculous philosphy isnt responsible for our current paradigm and that kensyian and progressive government have actually brough us to where we are

Not that im a progressive or kensyian im for abolishing the fed and state run banks



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




I'm sure PublicOpinion will give us a logical and fact based response.... not.


Let's see...

It's not about the individuals but rather about the political paradigm, aka socialism for the rich. And I'm pretty sure none of your examples are related to privatizations, corruption and bailouts. No, I don't hate Jeff Koons, either.
In fact, I don't even hate rich people at all - they keep buying my paintings like the good folks they are. At least some of them do. You know how to contact me in case you wanna be part of this movement. Right?

Try harder?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Edumakated

I hope you brought some time, maybe someone else is willing to explain Captain Obvious?

You idiots from the Corporate Defense League can't even work out the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality. Why bother?

Looks like we're all waiting for something here. Maybe start to read the article now?


You want others to work out your own arguments? So much for "good debate".

I can see in your propaganda some semblance of a reason as to why income inequality is bad, ie. "the correlation of rising child poverty and rising wealth inequality". That's at least something, but another error in thinking.

As you might know, there is also a correlation between ice cream sales and the amount of sunglasses sold. But icecream sales are not caused by the selling of sunglesses, because correlation does not imply causation.

Child poverty is cause by a lack of money, not by someone else's wealth.


Yeah, I'd love to know how JK Rowling writiing Harry Potter and selling 500 million books making her a billionaire is causing child poverty.... or how George Lucas ($3 billion networth) creating Star Wars contributed....

Or how the Kardashians are causing child poverty....

Or how even Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle has caused child poverty...

Or how Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel Hedgefund, worth about $10 billion is causing child poverty....

I'm sure PublicOpinion will give us a logical and fact based response.... not.



I think we already know the answer to that. There is no answer beyond "read the article".



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: PublicOpinion




The employees always were the real employers, there is no CEO without the production line.


Absolutely true.

But workers have come to believe they should be grateful to have a job, they should be grateful of the opportunity to work for their poverty. They should feel pride to have a job and be earning their 'living'.

Except they're not earning a living, nowhere near it. And they're told that's their fault too.

Poverty when you work, poverty when you don't work. No point working.



I don't want to point out the obvious, but you can change jobs.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

In most rich countries, inequality is rising, and has been rising for some time. Many people believe this is a problem, but, equally, many think there’s not much we can do about it. After all, the argument goes, globalisation and new technology have created an economy in which those with highly valued skills or talents can earn huge rewards. Inequality inevitably rises. Attempting to reduce inequality via redistributive taxation is likely to fail because the global elite can easily hide their money in tax havens. Insofar as increased taxation does hit the rich, it will deter wealth creation, so we all end up poorer.

One strange thing about these arguments, whatever their merits, is how they stand in stark contrast to the economic orthodoxy that existed from roughly 1945 until 1980, which held that rising inequality was not inevitable, and that various government policies could reduce it. What’s more, these policies appear to have been successful. Inequality fell in most countries from the 1940s to the 1970s. The inequality we see today is largely due to changes since 1980.

In both the US and the UK, from 1980 to 2016, the share of total income going to the top 1% has more than doubled. After allowing for inflation, the earnings of the bottom 90% in the US and UK have barely risen at all over the past 25 years. More generally, 50 years ago, a US CEO earned on average about 20 times as much as the typical worker. Today, the CEO earns 354 times as much.
[...]

‘Socialism for the rich’: the evils of bad economics

I could go on... and on... and on, but this should be enough for a heated debate. Read the whole thing already, it's worth your time.

However. It's not exactly a very new epiphany of sorts, the relentless quantitative easing after 2008 illustrated who really is "too big to fail". But. Still.... the mantra of free markets and trickle down economics is rolling strong as if "nothing happened at all". Thanks to the MSM btw.

This topic is probably better off in another forum, but I'll post it here for frank replies. Have at it!


One machine for vending
The other take empties
This your land of plenty
This your land of plenty
It was all I could do
To speak gently, gently





It always amaze me how people haven't figured out yet that the only reason they exist, the motive the rich classes of the world have for the continuous existence of the Middle-Class is to elevate a few(soccer stars, rock stars, Hollywood stars, some lucky business men) lucky ones to the highest possible social class for a pleb to achieve, and to stay there.

You think the dudes who own Mcdonalds eat that crap?

You know who is the blame for all of these multi-millionaires and ultra billionaires? The Middle-Class. Billions of us are alive to make a handful of men and women rich, and that happens because Man is selfish and greedy, and he believes he has the right to reproduce, to spread his mediocre genetic material, and thus are born billions whose only purpose is to enrich a few, and to keep those who are rich, rich, and to make them richer by the day.

This could easily be solved by the majority of the Middle-Class men and women deciding to not have kids, and to let only the rich folks make babies, eventually inequality and poverty would end because everyone would be being born to rich people, but you lot are too selfish and you feel that you deserve to have children lmaoooo.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
The bailouts of the banks, the obvious loopholes for the rich, and the massive amount of get-out-of-jail-free cards all show this


I think that's why people like Bernie Sanders gain momentum. He at least mentions this stuff.

I don't believe trickle down is all it's cracked up to be. Countless wealthy entrepreneurs and corporate CEOs move jobs to foreign countries.

I used to watch that show shark tank. *It was about wealthy entrepreneurs(sharks) who make deals to be apart of and help new or much less wealthy entrepreneurs.* There was many times where the sharks refused to deal with entrepreneurs who would not move their American jobs to foreign companies (possibly laying off hundreds to thousands of workers).

My point being that many of the ultra rich don't care about the average American in their objective to increase profits.
And maybe they shouldn't.. I don't know. However, my point is that we are put too much stock in trickle down because trickle down ultimately relies on corporations not screwing over Americans.





Corporate taxes in the US were (at least until Trump), some of the highest in the world. So why would you blame your fellow citizens for seeking better opportunities when it is the government who created the conditions for them to do so?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SilentSaturn



My point being that many of the ultra rich don't care about the average American in their objective to increase profits. And maybe they shouldn't.. I don't know. However, my point is that we are put too much stock in trickle down because trickle down ultimately relies on corporations not screwing over Americans.


You'll have a blast with the Odysseus thread I just linked for toys.

#MythBustersUnite!

a reply to: doobydoll

Thanks for pointing that out. I could post a picture from the gate that has "work sets you free" written on it, but I wont. However. At some point we'll have to talk about fascism and it's corporate merger with the state. And all the propaganda you just mentioned would be a good start for that.

a reply to: toysforadults



They would have to face the reality that their right wing ridiculous philosphy isnt responsible for our current paradigm


I don't think there's a big gap between neoliberal and neoconservative politics. And the more extreme rightwing would be equally guilty with pushing the "middle" further to the right over the last decades. I don't know.

However. A good example for your point would be the wave of privatizations via Agenda 2010 in Germany, which was brought to us by the "oh-so-progressive" people like Schröder (SPD) and Fischer (Grüne). The only thing they didn't succumb to (at that time) was the War on Terror, but Merkel finally made sure we cash in on those profits as well.

It's a tough one to point fingers here. I would rather focus on said philosophy which results in extinction, one way or another. What we need is nothing short of a paradigm-shift. And 'we' keep saying this for decades now, to no avail.
edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Wealth inequality is actually pretty helpful within a certain range. It promotes competition and innovation, for example. The "wealth inequality" we have, currently, is "bad" because -- by design -- the wealthy buy advantages from legislators, and pay to have their less wealthy competition disadvantaged through legislation and regulation. They love to play lip service to the notion that anyone might be as wealthy as they are, if they just had their drive or motivation, but that is simply not true, except in the statistical sense. And where it *is* true, they employ their code-talkers to disadvantage anyone that might threaten their own status.

If, for example, our political system at all levels wasn't as corrupt as it is, wealth inequality would be less of an issue. The spread between the extremes wouldn't be as large, either.

This is fairly basic stuff. The problem is the whole conversation has been marked as "sacred" and most of us aren't allowed to question it or even discuss it among ourselves in any meaningful way.

If you think I'm being histrionic, look no further than the so-called triple A entertainment industry. The latest thing is literally creating a problem (this game is such a freaking grind) so they can sell you the solution (by "time savers" in the in-game store!). You know what else would work? Not tying the enjoyment of your product to some ridiculous grind in the first place.

Now, extrapolate that issue to the larger world around you. Do you really think, for example, that Verizon doesn't do everything they can, including drafting legislation, to make double sure upstarts can't compete to sell their customers high-speed internet?

How much more do the monopolies fight back against competition in transportation, energy, finance or healthcare?

No, by design, wealth inequality -- to the extent we see it today -- is bad for society because the wealthiest people and companies make the rules their own competition has to follow, drowning innovation and stifling progress.

Not to mention actual real-life people, who have far less influence, as individuals, compared to fictional men (corporations), which is dehumanizing almost by definition.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ligyron

No kids for me, I can barely pay my bills. But I like your thinking, that's not a bad idea. The only problem I see, would be the lack of real people on a planet of entitled rich fcks, hence the art would be absolutely wak.



a reply to: 0zzymand0s

The pay-to-win-angle made me smile. That's a very astute observation, it even provides us with an analogy to private education and gated communities.


edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Throughout following this thread was thinking to myself, has wealth changed its meaning since capitalism was first sort of seeded in the 1500s?

There seems to be a trend with wealthy people and poor people in a society, it always seems to end up in some sort of backlash or revolution, we've seen this many, many times throughout history. Has the concept of money run out of I guess best way I cam put is 'capitalism juice', the driving force behind the economic concept is managing fiat currency, which then builds wealth, whether it's net worth, or actual money 'worth'.
I feel like it's almost outgrown itself to the point where money doesn't mean much anymore, and therefore we are just back to almost square one, wealth means power, and lots of it.

My question is, are we on the brink of another revolution against the wealthy? Or are we on the road to 'perfect capitalism'?
Which raises another question, will a form of neo - communism come into play again?

I was thinking to much at work about this...
edit on 13-6-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Ah, but now you see the beauty of asymmetrical warfare.

Yes, "you" can "change jobs" but the jobs can "change countries." Does that sound like a level playing field to you because to most people it is a mile-high brick wall.

Are your kids learning mandarin? Because if they aren't how do you think their "jobs" will fare against 1.8 BILLION highly educated Chinese who are actually good at math and science?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I really hope it will be more of a renaissance that overcomes the Odysseus modus operandi. How is killing a few oligarchs going to change a thing? We're in this together, and syndicalism is actually a thing in many new startups. There's hope at last.

And I'm glad you're here with us to share your thoughts. Hopefully you're not a distinguished surgeon who nearly botched an operation for this...




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Ah, but now you see the beauty of asymmetrical warfare.

Yes, "you" can "change jobs" but the jobs can "change countries." Does that sound like a level playing field to you because to most people it is a mile-high brick wall.

Are your kids learning mandarin? Because if they aren't how do you think their "jobs" will fare against 1.8 BILLION highly educated Chinese who are actually good at math and science?


It is a level playing field because I can choose to do the same. So can you. So can every other citizen of the country.

Also, you have the freedom to start a company and pay your employees a great wage, which is something I never see you guys do.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join