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.

 

One person should only be so rich.

page: 27
32
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by maestromason
 


Lame. You know good and well what I'm saying. I stand by my assertion that the US is rife with regulations which keeps it from meeting the definition of free market capitalism. If you are somehow standing outside of the jurisdiction of said norms then my last post is true regardless of whatever grammer filter you choose to place upon it.



edit on 28-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


You make a really good point here. Now that you have freely admitted that regulations have hampered the flow of free enterprise, we can finally realize that the manufactured crisis we face is not the fault of the free market.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I guess one reply didn't suffice?

Instead of three seperate?

On the real though, these people are going to find out what they really have when it all goes down the throne and there is no value to a dime they hold!

Good luck with that because they know they can't and don't have nothing to offer in a SHTF scenario, except many of them are fat and will make a full meal.

edit on 29-12-2011 by ldyserenity because: to clarify



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??


A decent, on-site, warehouse would only run $100,000 or so including security.

If they have $100 million, they have more than enough to build storage facilities.



I dont doubt for one minuet they couldn't build store facilities but what im saying is having all there money in actual physical note form they might stop and think "Gosh, ive got a hell of alot of money, im never going to spend this..."



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
sounds good in theory, but once one of the super rich reach 100million, they'd spend say, 50 million to make the next 50 million, and so on.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make a really good point here. Now that you have freely admitted that regulations have hampered the flow of free enterprise, we can finally realize that the manufactured crisis we face is not the fault of the free market.

I have repeatedly said that the free market allows the super wealthy to exist. They then put a government in place under any -ism that the people want or influence the existing one to regulate the market in their favor. It is still capitalism but not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism, just like communism, fails due to human nature.

So, it isn't the fault of the free market but it is the result of a free market when mixed with human nature. That is something that we are never going to get away from. At least not in our lifetimes. So, thinking that free markets will work is just as utopian as thinking that centralized planning will work.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Yes you have correcetly identified the problem. Government!
Governmental systems facilitate control and regulation that facilitate monopolies and concentration of power.
Artifically "capping" wealth is by necessity another government control and regulation. What makes you think the cap would stay where you set it originally? How do you measure "wealth"? Let us say that we did put this abomination into place in the US. We set the cap on "wealth" at $200 million. How would we measure that $200 million? Would it be just what you have in bank accounts and bonds? Would it include investments? Real Estate? Would it be total amount that HAS been earned or total amount on a monthly basis? Who makes these decisions? Who would keep track of this running total? You would need to allow the government to have total access to your bank accounts so that they could monitor transactions to make sure you did not run over the cap. So once all these questions are asked what makes you think that those with "wealth" would not use their already obtained influence to set these rules in their favor? If I have 300 million I would spend 50 to pay off every congressman I could to craft the rules to my benifit. I would demand the rules only pertain to bank accounts and not tangible property. I would move all of my "extra" wealth into property and any additional funds I would use to continue to influence politicians. Once I was sufficently insulated from this nonsense I would use my influence to begin lowering the "wealth" cap. More and more people would be subjected to the same rules that they wanted to use to punish me! Once I had the cap down to $50,000 I would sit back and stroke my handle bar mustache and laugh!!!! MMMOOOOHHAAAAAAAA!! I wonder what the POOR people are eating today!!!!!



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by maestromason
 


Lame. You know good and well what I'm saying. I stand by my assertion that the US is rife with regulations which keeps it from meeting the definition of free market capitalism. If you are somehow standing outside of the jurisdiction of said norms then my last post is true regardless of whatever grammer filter you choose to place upon it.



edit on 28-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


You make a really good point here. Now that you have freely admitted that regulations have hampered the flow of free enterprise, we can finally realize that the manufactured crisis we face is not the fault of the free market.


Regulations have not exceedingly hampered the markets. Regulations exist for many reasons, some good and some bad. Without regulations such as minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, insider trading laws, enviromental protection laws and especially tariffs on imports, america would be a second class nation or maybe even third class.

The problem is lack of sufficient tariffs on imports which encourages american business to go overseas and exploit their lack of regulations to astronomically increase the profit margin which makes wall street investors happy.

But with the positive for a few comes the grossely negative in that millions are layed-off without it really being their fault. Just about everything is being outsourced, even dating services. lol

In the old days(about 100 years ago) nations had very low income tax and rellied almost solely on tariffs to make government work. Now we are witnessing the opposite.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You make a really good point here. Now that you have freely admitted that regulations have hampered the flow of free enterprise, we can finally realize that the manufactured crisis we face is not the fault of the free market.

I have repeatedly said that the free market allows the super wealthy to exist. They then put a government in place under any -ism that the people want or influence the existing one to regulate the market in their favor. It is still capitalism but not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism, just like communism, fails due to human nature.

So, it isn't the fault of the free market but it is the result of a free market when mixed with human nature. That is something that we are never going to get away from. At least not in our lifetimes. So, thinking that free markets will work is just as utopian as thinking that centralized planning will work.


You are correct in that there is no such thing as permanent free markets. Sooner or later someone gets the upper hand, either because they have many weapons, more social connections, more accumulated capital, read tarrot cards better, more skilled, good managers, better products&services, bribe government, whatever.

That is why it is important for government to always retain the upper hand and "dictate". Sooner or later government gets corrupt as well, in which case it is up to the people to remove those tyrants and install a better government. It is up to the people to guard their democracy or republic. Failure to do so is not acceptable!!



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


That's a whole lot of questions. You showed that the answers don't really matter because those already stroking their handle bar mustaches and laughing won't let it happen. They even have alot of support from those who might stand to gain from a cap.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I'm amused by some of the responses, at least I would be if the subject weren't so deadly serious with such lethal consequences for so many.

The querulous cries of "how would you count it...how could you count it?" are easily answered.
What counts is the sum total of cash, stocks, bonds, and all other financial instruments, plus all real property such as buildings, land, yachts, aircraft, cars, art, jewelry, furs, and collectibles. In short, anything that carries value and serves as a money sink.

As for how do you police it, you hire forensic accountants (I actually know an excellent one who can find a misplaced dollar in a $100 million budget) to audit them on an annual basis. Some of the "best and brightest" could be doing that work instead of inventing new complex derivatives on Wall Street. Since there are a mere 1348 (last count I had) billionaires in the world the cap would apply to, plus some 1,000 more near-billionaires, you'd need about 600 or so auditors to monitor them at 4 per auditor.

As to how to enforce it, that too is fairly simple. Make the punishment fit the crime. Any monies or property that is attempted to be hidden is simply confiscated: !00% loss, not tax writedown, no comp, just gone, and sold at auction, proceeds to the governments having jurisdiction shared equally between federal, state, county and city (or their foreign equivalents, speaking from a US perspective here). Get caught doing it twice, go to jail for a few years and lose the right to conduct business, period. Get caught more than twice, well, here's a 3-strikes and you're out law I can support: loss of citizenship, confiscation of all property and financial instruments within the borders of the country with jurisdiction and declaration of persona non grata status, and shown the door and no more business for you or any company you might have left

Capping wealth won't destroy creativity or productivity. Capping wealth won't deny us any new products or innovations. Those arguments stem from the idea that the super-wealthy are personally responsible for all the ideas and inventions that flow from the companies they control. Get real: they aren't. Bill Gates is a piss-poor engineer who stole MS-DOS, but he was smart enough to market it and hire some really brilliant people to do the actual creating, most of whom didn't get nearly the rewards they deserved. Indeed, after a certain wealth point, it is in the best personal interests of the super-wealthy to stifle new inventions and ideas that might threaten their dominance. We have many threads on that subject here on ATS, or have you forgotten those?

Humanity is marvelously inventive, and capping wealth would not stifle it, but rather unleash it, providing desperately needed capital to thousands of inventions waiting in the wings to transform our economies and world. The super-wealthy tend to retard that progress because they happen to like the world as it is, and don't care for it to be transformed.

Even some of the super-wealthy admit they have too much, but under the system we have, they aren't allowed to stop accumulating lest the other sharks rip them to pieces. A wealth cap would allow them to safely retire and actually manage their fortunes wisely. A wealth cap is win-win for most, save only the sociopaths.

It is not a utopian ideal, but rather a necessary and pragmatic evolution of capitalism. Capitalism without a cap is extremely destructive of societies, great for the very few individuals who ruthlessly exploit everyone and everything they can think of without regard for the consequences, but horrendous for those having to cope with the whims and competitions of the callous. Without a cap, there will inevitably be yet another revolution leading to yet more of the same.

Isn't it time we stopped this insane merry-go-round and made a mature decision about when more than enough is enough?

One of the dangers lurking in the wings is the emergence of new life-extension medical technologies. Do you really want a class of super-wealthy people who live twice as long as everyone else? That is a sure path to permanent global tyranny and one-world government in the hands of an evil elite, for there is no way for it not to turn evil, and would require a truly horrendous war to overthrow, and might not be over-throwable in the end.

Without a wealth cap we are on the way to overt global slavery.
edit on 29-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??


Not really sure How much cash You think $100 million is but it would fit neatly on a standard size pallet stacked to about 3 1/2 feet high.

www.pagetutor.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by onebullet
 


With all due respect, all the greed you are talking about has come from allowing leftwing policies to take a hold of the United States, it's economy and it's citizens.

The Federal Reserve Act was signed and passed by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS in 1913, alongside the IRS as it exists today and all the PROGRESSIVE taxes that the IRS has UnConstitutionally put upon the American people.

All those wars, and coups that you CLAIM the Americans have caused which claimed so many innocent lives was fought against an oponent, or more, the Chinese, the Russians and others all whom happened/happen to be communist or socialist and they were trying to "share/expand" their socialist and "idealistic society", the same one some people in here claim is so perfect, yet this was done ALWAYS by force and those communists/socialists caused more death than the Americans...

As for the Gulf Wars, since PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS gave power to the banking elites/the Feds in 1913 anyone with some common sense would know that the banking elites, and their buddies would take advantage of some situations to make money, because PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS opened the door for this corruption to happen...

BTW, as I have done many times before I can show you proof that Clinton started the second Gulf War, and he even called for a coalition to oust Saddam Hussein, not to mention that he bombed Iraq, and gave us other wars such as Bosnia

And now again PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, and others in the left want to give even more power to the state/government "CLAIMING" it will control corporations, but in fact the United States has been a corporation since 1913, thanks to PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS and the "idealistic utopia" of the left.

I know many people in the left just want what you THINK is the best for everyone, but who gave you the right to decide for others what is best? Not to mention that it is about time for you all in the left to realize that giving more power to the state, even if it is in the name of the people and even if you claim the people would be in power, only causes more problems for the people.

Not to mention that the mayority of the wars were started by DEMOCRAT Presidents.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Ah, so you mean as simple as the setting up of the Feds?

Last time such massive regulations were done the Feds were put in power.

Look, I am no billionaire, not even a millionaire and my income is only of 5 digits, but I still know a bad idea when I see it, and your idea would set up something similar to the Feds if not give more power to the Feds...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Regulations have not exceedingly hampered the markets. Regulations exist for many reasons, some good and some bad. Without regulations such as minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, insider trading laws, enviromental protection laws and especially tariffs on imports, america would be a second class nation or maybe even third class.
...


Beg your pardon but you are wrong. Regulations is what has moved jobs, alongside greed, outside the U.S., regulations have allowed the monopoly of a few industry giants, instead of allowing small businesses to flourish.

Regulations should be like government, small. Put too many regulations, like we have now, and you get rid of economic growth, at least for the country, and people, where the regulations are put in place...


edit on 30-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


How exactly do 600 accountants constitute anything "massive"? How would a law that effects a mere say, 3,000 people out of 7 billion be anything "massive"?

There would be zero negative effect upon most people's lives, including those directly effected, the billionaires. The biggest negative would be purely emotional for them, and wouldn't effect their capacity to buy anything they wanted. If you disagree, please stipulate exactly what difference that you think it would make in their lives beyond the emotional one. I allow that they might get bored not being able to play money games anymore, but that's curable by simply finding different interests. But would they lack for food? For shelter, for medical care, for any of the things for which we work in the first place? Not that I can see, so please tell me what I'm missing here.

On the other hand allowing the capital to return to circulation, to be used not for one person's agenda but for the myriad of enterprises that inventive people can unleash would solve many of the issues facing the world today. The economy would be restored and capitalism rejuvenated.

In case you missed the fullness of my proposal, I'll repeat it.

Allow those over the $1 billion cap four years to divest themselves through tax-free transfers to nonprofit organizations, allowing them to donate up to $200K (that number is arguably too high, but somewhere around there) to any single organization, and allow no organization more than $500K. Make it $250K if they start a new one. Allow them to gift any individual, again tax-free, up to $10 million. The gifts can be cash, stocks, bonds, property, whatever.

One of the elements of this is to divert their attention and energies from competitive wealth building to competitive society building. They've proven they've mastered the money game, so allow them to get out of it while they're ahead. Give them a different game to play, but rig the rules so they damage society too much.

What is being offered them is a unique, non-repeatable place in human history. If done now and done right, it will never occur again. They can be offered the chance to change the course of human history over four years, and launch a golden age the likes of which humanity has never seen, and never will again for foreseeable generations.

Think of what Habitat for Humanity could do with $500K, or the Salvation Army, or Woods Hole. I'd personally exclude political nonprofits, as being likely to be troublesome, but that's just my view, we can discuss it. Think of the surge in science it would engender, and all the jobs flowing from the gifting. Think of all the new taxpayers that would alleviate the crises facing so many governments. Think of how much more good that money would do in circulation as opposed to being sat on as it is now.

I see nothing but good from such an idea, and very little bad.

What bad there might be, at the bottom it seems to be little more than hurt feelings and nothing provably substantive.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??


Not really sure How much cash You think $100 million is but it would fit neatly on a standard size pallet stacked to about 3 1/2 feet high.

www.pagetutor.com...




Well considering ive never seen and will probably never ever see 100million stacked you could forgive me imagining the pile would be much bigger.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


aye, maybe a starving ukranian or a wretch worked to death in the gulag would be more uplifting "COMRADE"



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Regulations have not exceedingly hampered the markets. Regulations exist for many reasons, some good and some bad. Without regulations such as minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, insider trading laws, enviromental protection laws and especially tariffs on imports, america would be a second class nation or maybe even third class.
...


Beg your pardon but you are wrong. Regulations is what has moved jobs, alongside greed, outside the U.S., regulations have allowed the monopoly of a few industry giants, instead of allowing small businesses to flourish.

Regulations should be like government, small. Put too many regulations, like we have now, and you get rid of economic growth, at least for the country, and people, where the regulations are put in place...


edit on 30-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



EXACTLY!

Regulation generally benefits the larger coporations who have the staff and resources in place to comply with regulations- you could refer to Agriculture in the US in the 30s or the Financial Sector in the UK since the introduction of the FSA



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
The theory is nice, and I personally (at least initially) would lose nothing as the last of my savings were used a couple of months ago keeping things afloat- however, in practice I think the law of unintended consequences would come into play and there would be less commerce, productiveness etc (and as we can see from Africa, just throwing money at countries/organisations can lead to a dependency culture and stifle development)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman

How exactly do 600 accountants constitute anything "massive"? How would a law that effects a mere say, 3,000 people out of 7 billion be anything "massive"?

There would be zero negative effect upon most people's lives, including those directly effected, the billionaires.
....


You actually think they would stop at what YOU want?...

You see, now-a-days is very easy for some people to become rich very fast, and you can be certain that the elites would use a legislation like the one you want not to keep an eye on who you want, but on the rest of us, and they will do this "for the good of all". The bad part is that some people, maybe even you, would applaud this sort of legislation thinking it would help the people.

There won't be such a legislation that YOU want, but instead a legislation to check on EVERYONE just to make sure "nobody makes too much money and become rich"...

Meanwhile the truly rich would buy off whatever officials are put in charge of this legislation, the little guys, which would include you, woould be stucked with yet ANOTHER regulation/legislation in the attempt by the elites to control us.

Not to mention that NEW non-profit organizations would spring up over night as the elites divert their money to each other and people like you would be the none the wiser.

Also, about the "non-profit organizations and the advances in science that would occur from it"?...

So you want "The Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd' to have even more money to impose on everyone their failed ideology? Because that's how they would "use science".

That's what will really happen.

Not to mention that BECAUSE of this new legislation new taxes would be imposed on us to pay not for only the 600 employees you claim would be part of the "no more wealthy people allowed brigade" but there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands, and the democrats would claim "see? we are bringing you jobs" meanwhile sticking us from behind with the new taxes and only their friends get to have these jobs...


edit on 30-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join