To OWS: what you/we should be demanding

reply to post by macman


Insider trading isn't about wealth-building?

What is its purpose then?

The discussion wasn't limited to US billionaires, so a global reach is required.

Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire who has bribed police, magistrates, and politicians to enable his financial empire to grow unmolested by the laws that bind his competitors. His employees, under his orders and with his knowledge, violated the privacy of many people: crime victims, celebrities, politicians in order to make more money.

The Koch brothers have been repeatedly fined for breaking a variety of environmental laws, political contribution laws, and labor laws.

The op-eds discuss the means and consequences of excessive wealth-building.

Many of these billionaires made their fortunes in oil & gas, and finance: are you claiming that the oil billionaires and financiers of Wall Street have never broken any laws to acquire their wealth? Please, get frickin' real.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I have no problem with wealth-building until it reaches excessive levels that deprive others of the opportunity to create and keep some wealth for themselves.

For virtually every human behavior or endeavor limits have been placed for the greater good of all. This limit is no different, and much less drastic than many. At the uttermost it might effect some 300 human beings in a marginally detrimental way, mainly in their egos, while improving life for billions of other human beings. I say three hundred because most of the billionaires have only slightly more than a billion, so it really wouldn't effect them much.

www.forbes.com...

And you seem to want to protect the "right" of these few to take from the shared economy, which they did not create, which is sustained by the hard work (unrewarded, for the most part), so much that children literally starve unnecessarily, people die prematurely unnecessarily, and crime is created unnecessarily, merely because....why, exactly?

How would it harm you?

The short answer is that it wouldn't in any conceivable, rational way harm you, your prospects in life, or diminish your efforts to gain a better life.

How would it help you?

Let's see, what could be done with 3.3 trillion dollars of wealth released into the global economy in the manner I have suggested?

I'm not talking about just giving everyone a check as their "cut", but rather putting unproductive and marginally productive wealth to work to generate more. Billionaires spending doesn't really stimulate the economies of the world in any significant way:

www.businessinsider.com...

Mostly they buy islands, yachts, planes, art, exotic cars, and throw outrageously expensive parties, none of which create many jobs.

Putting that wealth to work via non-profits that study the oceans, do medical research, environmental research, disaster relief, famine relief, and other such endeavors would stimulate a global golden age of high employment, major advances in science, technology, and medicine unparalleled in human history.

And you would spurn it because it hurts your feelings that you can't be a multi-billionaire?

Look at it from another perspective:

If the 1,210 current billionaires are permitted to continue to build their personal wealth, how much must productivity increase to satisfy a 10% per year growth for them? It would require giving up $450 billion a year to satisfy that demand. Add in a similar amount for the poor wannabe billionaires who currently have a mere $800 million or so.

It is unsustainable.

No matter how much you raise the productivity, that figure is unsustainable without depriving the billions of others of their right to a decent life.

It is no accident that globally we see a demand for "austerity measures". The system cannot produce enough wealth quickly enough to satisfy the addiction of the super-wealthy to constantly increase their wealth.

The system is on the verge of catastrophic collapse.

That is why the protests are global in nature: it is an acknowledgement of systemic failure brought about by a lack of limits at the top.

Individual wealth must be capped, or the world is doomed to repeated violent revolutions and wars that will only reset the game with different players, and the process will repeat again in a generation or two.

I'm sick and tired of watching and living through that particular pattern.

We need a genuine change that changes the [I]rules[/I] of the game, not just the players.

CAP WEALTH.

Originally posted by apacheman

It could be considered an ancient cultural practice, and therefore protected. In a few of those cannibal societies the victim was a volunteer doing it in full expression of his faith.

Congratulations, another irrelevant point. A few more and you'll be close to the record! It doesn't matter what their ancient cultural practice is. It violates the rights of the person that is going to be eaten. It wouldn't be protected in any way. Religious beliefs are protected up to the point that they violate the rights of others.

In different times, different places people disagree upon what constitutes a "right".

You're talking about a democracy, this is a constitutional republic. While you're brushing up on the constitution you should also check out the declaration of independence and learn the definition of "unalienable." We decide what laws are in this country, not rights.

In any case you seem to agree that rights are whatever we choose to agree they are,

No, I didn't.

so if I and others of like mind can help convince enough other people to agree with us, then your "right" to make as much money as you can will be subjected to a reasonable limit for the good of society, for our collective right to have the opportunity to work hard and have something to show for it besides debt.

No, you won't. Any law that you try to pass that regards capping wealth will be unconstitutional and may as well have never existed.

Explain to me how any billionaire's life would be downsized because they were merely one-billionaires instead of multi?

Irrelevant, you are infringing on the persons' rights because you are telling them they can only keep a portion of their property.

And were exactly in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is your right to unlimited wealth enumerated?

Do you read? It has been explained that no one has the right to unlimited wealth.You do have the right to all of your own property, which includes money you have earned. If you don't do anything illegal to get it, or when you spend it, no one can tell you how much you can have.

I recall no such clause.

Neither does anyone who is arguing against your "solutions."

It is my sincere belief that if a limit were adopted your life and the lives of countless others would benefit greatly.

And you have the right to your beliefs.

In the end, I think even the billionaires would agree with me.

Not on capping wealth.

They are stuck in an increasingly ruthless and destructive competition for...what exactly? To see who dies with the most toys?

I really don't care, its their business.

Try thinking through where the end game of unlimited wealth leads. Channeling their competitive instincts into seeing who could best improve humanity's lot could only help heal the world, not harm it, and them, too.

You can throw out as many what if scenarios as you want, it doesn't make your point any more valid.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Insider trading isn't about wealth-building?

What is its purpose then?

The discussion wasn't limited to US billionaires, so a global reach is required.

Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire who has bribed police, magistrates, and politicians to enable his financial empire to grow unmolested by the laws that bind his competitors. His employees, under his orders and with his knowledge, violated the privacy of many people: crime victims, celebrities, politicians in order to make more money.

The Koch brothers have been repeatedly fined for breaking a variety of environmental laws, political contribution laws, and labor laws.

The op-eds discuss the means and consequences of excessive wealth-building.

Many of these billionaires made their fortunes in oil & gas, and finance: are you claiming that the oil billionaires and financiers of Wall Street have never broken any laws to acquire their wealth? Please, get frickin' real.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I have no problem with wealth-building until it reaches excessive levels that deprive others of the opportunity to create and keep some wealth for themselves.

For virtually every human behavior or endeavor limits have been placed for the greater good of all. This limit is no different, and much less drastic than many. At the uttermost it might effect some 300 human beings in a marginally detrimental way, mainly in their egos, while improving life for billions of other human beings. I say three hundred because most of the billionaires have only slightly more than a billion, so it really wouldn't effect them much.

www.forbes.com...

And you seem to want to protect the "right" of these few to take from the shared economy, which they did not create, which is sustained by the hard work (unrewarded, for the most part), so much that children literally starve unnecessarily, people die prematurely unnecessarily, and crime is created unnecessarily, merely because....why, exactly?

How would it harm you?

The short answer is that it wouldn't in any conceivable, rational way harm you, your prospects in life, or diminish your efforts to gain a better life.

How would it help you?

Let's see, what could be done with 3.3 trillion dollars of wealth released into the global economy in the manner I have suggested?

I'm not talking about just giving everyone a check as their "cut", but rather putting unproductive and marginally productive wealth to work to generate more. Billionaires spending doesn't really stimulate the economies of the world in any significant way:

www.businessinsider.com...

Mostly they buy islands, yachts, planes, art, exotic cars, and throw outrageously expensive parties, none of which create many jobs.

Putting that wealth to work via non-profits that study the oceans, do medical research, environmental research, disaster relief, famine relief, and other such endeavors would stimulate a global golden age of high employment, major advances in science, technology, and medicine unparalleled in human history.

And you would spurn it because it hurts your feelings that you can't be a multi-billionaire?

Look at it from another perspective:

If the 1,210 current billionaires are permitted to continue to build their personal wealth, how much must productivity increase to satisfy a 10% per year growth for them? It would require giving up $450 billion a year to satisfy that demand. Add in a similar amount for the poor wannabe billionaires who currently have a mere $800 million or so.

It is unsustainable.

No matter how much you raise the productivity, that figure is unsustainable without depriving the billions of others of their right to a decent life.

It is no accident that globally we see a demand for "austerity measures". The system cannot produce enough wealth quickly enough to satisfy the addiction of the super-wealthy to constantly increase their wealth.

The system is on the verge of catastrophic collapse.

That is why the protests are global in nature: it is an acknowledgement of systemic failure brought about by a lack of limits at the top.

Individual wealth must be capped, or the world is doomed to repeated violent revolutions and wars that will only reset the game with different players, and the process will repeat again in a generation or two.

I'm sick and tired of watching and living through that particular pattern.

We need a genuine change that changes the [I]rules[/I] of the game, not just the players.

CAP WEALTH.

edit on 28-10-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

Your connect the dots is terrible.

The link about insider trading is really the only link that falls under this idea. But, alas it is about insider trading.
So, lets not focus on punishing the person, once convicted of a crime. Lets just state that they can’t make more money then what others state. That will teach them and stop insider trading.
But, I am sorry to say that it won’t.
This is as dumb as making a statement that because there are so many murders, that we will not only punish the murderer, we will put a cap on how many knives people can have, because after all, the murderer used a knife.

I fail to see where it incriminates all that have amassed wealth to the Cap you propose.
And might I say how vey elitist of you to decide what is fair, not fair and what others can and can’t have.
Apacheman, KING OF THE UNIVERSE and all that is pure and holy.
Your links however, did not provide CRIMINAL COURT PROCEDINGS on Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers.
One was a news release about an insider trader being brought up on charges, and another was a PDF talking about law suites.

Nice try though.

Now onto the idea of them buying islands and throwing parties. What business is it of your to what they do with your money?
Also, the idea that such a simple transaction like, buying an island does not create at least one job is laughable.
I guess the Billionaire just drove his private jet up to an island and declared it his.
Oh wait, I forgot. The money to buy the island will go to the current owner, to the lawyers involved with the purchase, anyone else involved with the purchase and/or legal proceedings. Not to mention people involved with appraisals, contractors for building and/or changes in houses and property. The moving company, new furniture and so on.

And now, last but surely not least your self professed statement of being sick and tired of watching and living through patterns and so on.
I guess that you really don’t just want to control a person’s ability to amass wealth, you obviously want to control the person as well.

reply to post by macman


Are you truly that ignorant?

Note I'm not calling you stupid, stupidity can't be cured, but ignorance usually succumbs to facts.

How is limiting a few hundred individuals in order to better conditions for a few billion translate into a desire to rule the world?

I don't give a rat's ass what you spend your money on, or what the billionaires spend theirs on. My point was that their spending doesn't exactly spark economic growth in the same way that the trillions of dollars they hold would if that wealth were released back into the economy from whence it came.

I noticed you failed to address the salient issues yet again: the system allowing unlimited wealth is unsustainable in the long run, and the long run is very nearly over.

Change must occur, and will occur.

The only debate is how violent that change will be, and who will survive it.

Historically speaking, it doesn't look good for the billionaires: whenever past societies have come to this point, it was their heads, and those of their supporters that eventually were lifted on pikes to warn the similarly unthinking greedy. That isn't a threat, merely an acknowledgment of historical fact.

So far as I can see you are ok with untold human suffering so long as you retain the chimerical right to grab as much as you can for yourself without let.

I find that appalling.

Are you sure you're not a sociopath? Your utter lack of empathy would seem to point in that direction.

Originally posted by apacheman

How is limiting a few hundred individuals in order to better conditions for a few billion translate into a desire to rule the world?

And away we go.
So, by taking from a few hundred is ok, just and moral to you. Funny, as that is still considered theft.
And please spare your keystrokes before you huff and puff your way into "well, they stole it" blah blah blah. Please provide proof.
But, with your proposal to take, to provide for others is theft.

I don't give a rat's ass what you spend your money on, or what the billionaires spend theirs on. My point was that their spending doesn't exactly spark economic growth in the same way that the trillions of dollars they hold would if that wealth were released back into the economy from whence it came.

Obviously you do, or you would not concern yourself with the purchases of islands and yachts and such.
You don't care what they spend their money on, so long as it is spent on what YOU deem worthy.
That is as elites and authoritarian as it gets.

I noticed you failed to address the salient issues yet again: the system allowing unlimited wealth is unsustainable in the long run, and the long run is very nearly over.

How is it unsustainable? Please provide proof of this?
Wealth is not finite.

Change must occur, and will occur.

The only debate is how violent that change will be, and who will survive it.

So long as the change it what you want.

Historically speaking, it doesn't look good for the billionaires: whenever past societies have come to this point, it was their heads, and those of their supporters that eventually were lifted on pikes to warn the similarly unthinking greedy. That isn't a threat, merely an acknowledgment of historical fact.

I seem to recall that the part you left out was that those people you speak of were mostly the Governing Body as well. Kings, Dictators, Emperors and so on.
Funny, as it sounds like titles that are synonymous with controlling the people directly with Law and Rules.

So far as I can see you are ok with untold human suffering so long as you retain the chimerical right to grab as much as you can for yourself without let.

I find that appalling.

Yep, because I just want all of those people without anything to just suffer.
Yep, and sure sure.
For that, please read the part just under my screen name.

Are you sure you're not a sociopath? Your utter lack of empathy would seem to point in that direction.

Your mistaking empathy with sympathy.
I empathize with people that are not doing well. But I know that they can work to make things better.
It comes down to what are they willing to do to better themselves and their situation.
Take a Govt handout, or work 3 part time jobs.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Note I'm not calling you stupid, stupidity can't be cured, but ignorance usually succumbs to facts.

Then what is your excuse?

How is limiting a few hundred individuals in order to better conditions for a few billion translate into a desire to rule the world?

Irrelevant, see previous post.

I don't give a rat's ass what you spend your money on, or what the billionaires spend theirs on.

Then shut up about your wealth cap pipe dream.

My point was that their spending doesn't exactly spark economic growth in the same way that the trillions of dollars they hold would if that wealth were released back into the economy from whence it came.

Your point doesn't matter. You don't get to tell someone what to do with their property. Read the sentence again if you don't understand. Repeat as needed.

I noticed you failed to address the salient issues yet again: the system allowing unlimited wealth is unsustainable in the long run, and the long run is very nearly over.

Once you address reality we'll address your uninformed ideas.

Change must occur, and will occur.

Not the changes you are proposing,.

The only debate is how violent that change will be, and who will survive it.

We already established your real message earlier; "Give up your money or die!" And its not helping your case, at least not if you are expecting us to view as a rational, logical being.

Historically speaking, it doesn't look good for the billionaires: whenever past societies have come to this point, it was their heads, and those of their supporters that eventually were lifted on pikes to warn the similarly unthinking greedy. That isn't a threat, merely an acknowledgment of historical fact.

I'm shaking. No, I am. Promise. In America (read:Constitution, declaration of independence) that activity would be illegal. It is the duty of the military and police to protect people, even if they aren't good, or particularly liked, people. If you really ended up in a lynch mob, the military would be there picking you off one by one. You are delusional.

So far as I can see you are ok with untold human suffering so long as you retain the chimerical right to grab as much as you can for yourself without let.

You have absolutely no understanding of what a right is.

I find that appalling.

I'm sure everyone cares what your opinion is. I mean, look at how well your thread is going.

Are you sure you're not a sociopath? Your utter lack of empathy would seem to point in that direction.

Someday, when you graduate high school and you realize that life isn't fair, you'll understand.

reply to post by macman


Wealth is not finite?

Of course it is.

Potential wealth is infinite, realized wealth, concrete wealth, always has and always will be finite at any given moment in time.

No wonder you can't understand squat.

You deny the most fundamental economic reality of all. If wealth was truly infinite at this instant, why would it matter if you shared it? Why would it matter to the billionaires if they lost some of it? Its whole value depends upon its scarcity.

What makes an original piece of art valuable? The fact that it is finite, that there aren't unlimited numbers of originals.

What sets the price of oil? It's perceived scarcity or abundance.

Wealth is based upon real-world things, and those thing are always finite.

Jeez, buy 'em a book, send 'em to school, and all they do is eat the covers.

Originally posted by apacheman

Wealth is not finite?

Of course it is.

Potential wealth is infinite, realized wealth, concrete wealth, always has and always will be finite at any given moment in time.

Please show me where wealth is just defined as US currency?
As I recall, the Govt you seem to love so much, keeps my statement as true as ever. They keep printing money like no tomorrow.

No wonder you can't understand squat.

You deny the most fundamental economic reality of all. If wealth was truly infinite at this instant, why would it matter if you shared it? Why would it matter to the billionaires if they lost some of it? Its whole value depends upon its scarcity.

It is not finite in the idea that there is only 1 moon to be had. Just because 1 person has 100 dollars, does not negate you from earning 101 dollars.

What makes an original piece of art valuable? The fact that it is finite, that there aren't unlimited numbers of originals.

Yes, and why is a Chicken?
That is nice and all, but we are not talking about paintings are we. I have yet to see you call for a cap on how many paintings one person can have.

Or have you???

What sets the price of oil? It's perceived scarcity or abundance.

The speculation market running on a 30 day and 60 day prediction.

Wealth is based upon real-world things, and those thing are always finite.

Money is not finite, as the US treasure continues to print more, precious metals are mined every day and diamonds are harvested as well.

Jeez, buy 'em a book, send 'em to school, and all they do is eat the covers.

Honestly, do you really think you had any hand in raising me? Or anyone else for that matter?

You have zero right's here telling people how much they can earn or make that is not your call to make setting the rules for other's to live by and yet they mean nothing to them.

Nah i demand OWS get a clue.

Edit to add:

As per the Constitution as the founding Principles of this nation our right's come from God not man try as he might to play God.

Any person trying to define right's, property or hell even the pursuit of happiness is Treading on the Right's of every single American in this country.

Nay after a complete read of this thread i am giving it a 5 thumbs down on my worthless meter