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: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


What are you talking about? A sensible business will grow only as fast as it can afford to grow with the profits being used for whatever upgrades or expansions. No, I would not ask my employees to fork over any money. I would use the PROFITS from the business, use what I had to BUDGET wages, improvements, etc.

It is possible to run a business within one's means, just like household. Asking strangers to "give you money" on the OFF CHANCE they might get it back plus??? Whatever. That's asking others to gamble on your idea.

Why is everyone so hell-bent on borrowing and using other people's money? THAT is the avarice that has created this whole mess to begin with. If you don't have enough money to hire a bunch of people, don't hire a bunch of people. If you don't have the money to "upgrade" your "machinery", then use the "machinery" you have until such time as you CAN afford it without going into debt.

How does that CONFUSE you!? What is so bloody hard to comprehend about it?
If you don't HAVE the money, you don't SPEND the money! You flipping MAKE DO!!

If you don't have the resources on hand to run the company, then find something else to do with the things you DO have.

Oh, sorry, that's the poor-man's way of doing business. Using what you HAVE to create things that can help you sustain yourself and try to turn a profit if not just break even. If that means you have one employee, 5000 employees, or NONE, and you do the work yourself.


edit on 24-12-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


If the employees own the company and pay themselves enough to be able to meet their daily needs and have a savable surplus to invest, then yes they can and will invest in their own future.

If it fails, then isn't that what capitalism is supposed to be about? Taking risks and trying? You seem to be saying that you expect guarantees of profitability.

I don't think that most rational adult employees would vote in "free beer fridays" to the extent that it would bankrupt the company. To suggest so is to demean the intelligence of workers, a not-so-subtle way of saying that employers are morally and intellectually superior to their employees.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


We do not live in an unbridled capitalist system. Rather, we live in a socialist system which claims to be capitalist. The failure you see before you is due to the bridling. I am unsure why so many are deluded to the point of misunderstanding this, so I suppose I should give more respect to the propaganda.

Communism/Socialism is a way to enforce Charity by law. But a tax for Charity is not the same as giving to Charity. If it is not within a person to give of themselves, then while there may be an appearance of Charity in Communism/Socialism, it is entirely dead - as we see in our own social system. It is not economically viable and it is not morally righteous.

Capitalism is the "way of the world" in that it is based upon natural laws. Does it lead to the "big dog" eating the "little dog?" Yes. However, the regulation of such disparity MUST come in the form of liberty. We must regulate by education leading to exercising the principle of personal responsibility. Otherwise, again, a forced system of Charity is simply a lie.

But do not misunderstand. In local systems, I have no rejection of the Communal Systems, or the Natural Systems. I can imagine States within the Union which are entirely Communist getting along with States that are purely Capitalist. Where the line must be drawn regarding the restriction of government is that the larger the government is in terms of power and scope, the less freedom it must have.

So then, I am saying that local systems should do as the local people desire, regardless of what form that takes, while a unifying national/global system should be particularly relegated to natural laws like Capitalism only.

"Preservation" and Charity should be facilitated by non-governmental organizations like the Red-Cross (regulated by honest accounting of their financial records) and not forced. That forced system is what is failing, so do not be confused and despise a healthy course correction back towards a national Capitalist System. It is what made us strong. And likewise, others should not be confused and despise a local government for adopting Communal Systems according to their own local desires.

Just some things to consider...
edit on 12/24/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by s12345
 
And who gets to make these decisions?






posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Actually, it is not the poor who are jealous of the rich, it is the rich who are jealous of their wealth and are unwilling to share it. Most poor don't seek to be billionaires: all they wish is a life where they can avoid having to choose between food and rent, rent and healthcare. they don't resent the wealthy for being rich, they resent the wealthy for preventing them from joining them.

You go on about government intrusion into private lives, yet ignore employers' intrusions into employees' lives, dictating what they should wear, whom they should associate with, what they can imbibe, what beliefs they can hold, what political affiliations they are permitted. Huge pot calling the kettle black issue.

You seek utter freedom for yourself to deprive others of theirs, and resent it when you're told you aren't allowed to control others.

As we see every day, those who preen most about "hard work", rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" are usually the ones who are actually not working hard at all (make your money work for you), taking the most advantage of the shared resources we have all created (the transportation, educational, and information networks) while being unwilling to foot the bill in proportion to what they take.

And what is a corporation at heart but a way to avoid personal responsibility? It is explicit in the very idea of corporations. Look at all the Superfund toxic waste cleanups: corporations, i.e., groups of individuals, who have created a dangerously toxic mess in the process of garnering wealth, are simply allowed to declare bankruptcy and walk away scot-free, dumping the cleanup costs upon the average citizen. Where is the "personal responsibility" in that? The banksters sold fraudulent financial instruments to a gullible public and have walked away with trillions of taxpayer dollars after creating a global mess for which they abjure responsibility.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Argyll
 


True communism has never been witnessed in society. It goes backward once we mix human greed with everything.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


One of the problems with your thought is the assumption that you are dealing with normal people on all levels, and are not considering the effects that sociopaths have upon the system.

Some 4-6% of humanity are genetic sociopaths, hard-wired from birth unable to feel empathy or to calculate the long-term consequences of their behavior. They physically cannot care about what effect their behavior has upon others beyond the personal pleasure they derive from subjecting others to it. Every species has a predator, and we seem to have evolved our own: one that looks like us and mimics us, but is specifically designed to prey upon our social instincts and take advantage of them. They are intelligent, charming, and powerfully manipulative; the modern corporate culture is overrun with them. Btw, the percentage fits nicely with most predator/prey models.

They pervert and destroy whatever they touch. And the system we have in place that masquerades as capitalism has been perverted by them to the extent that it is vastly broken. A cap on wealth would go far towards limiting their influence and exposing them for what they are.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by s12345

 

I was going to address each point you made, but after re-reading and doing some thinking....I believe it can all be addressed with a more direct simple response.

What I am reading....and please do not take offense to this, as it is not intended.....
but what I am reading is pure jealousy. What is being said in so many words is:

You have what I dont have; therefore, you should not have what I do not have or cannot have.

this is the root of this discussion.

instead of people being happy for the success of others.....they are complaining about what those people have because they themselves to not have it.

instead of being grateful that one is not born into this
....they are demanding that others who are more successful and have more are limited in what they can have.

pure selfish jealousy.
edit on December 24th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Actually, it is not the poor who are jealous of the rich, it is the rich who are jealous of their wealth and are unwilling to share it. Most poor don't seek to be billionaires: all they wish is a life where they can avoid having to choose between food and rent, rent and healthcare. they don't resent the wealthy for being rich, they resent the wealthy for preventing them from joining them.

You go on about government intrusion into private lives, yet ignore employers' intrusions into employees' lives, dictating what they should wear, whom they should associate with, what they can imbibe, what beliefs they can hold, what political affiliations they are permitted. Huge pot calling the kettle black issue.

You seek utter freedom for yourself to deprive others of theirs, and resent it when you're told you aren't allowed to control others.

As we see every day, those who preen most about "hard work", rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" are usually the ones who are actually not working hard at all (make your money work for you), taking the most advantage of the shared resources we have all created (the transportation, educational, and information networks) while being unwilling to foot the bill in proportion to what they take.

And what is a corporation at heart but a way to avoid personal responsibility? It is explicit in the very idea of corporations. Look at all the Superfund toxic waste cleanups: corporations, i.e., groups of individuals, who have created a dangerously toxic mess in the process of garnering wealth, are simply allowed to declare bankruptcy and walk away scot-free, dumping the cleanup costs upon the average citizen. Where is the "personal responsibility" in that? The banksters sold fraudulent financial instruments to a gullible public and have walked away with trillions of taxpayer dollars after creating a global mess for which they abjure responsibility.


for every rich person you claim does not "share" i will tell you of two that i know who do.

it is absolutely pure jealousy. it is a selfish jealous mindset of: you have what i dont have; therefore, you should not have what i dont have.

period.
edit on December 24th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Those that make the most have lied, cheated, stolen the most.

Do the research.

The small elite 1% are undoubtedly some of the most corrupt and ruthless beings on the planet.

We both have different opinions.

Some are service to self., while others are service to others.

Service to self is what is destroying our planet and her many inhabitants.

I am not jealous, I have enough.................but I dislike greed and service to self.

Also, if TSHTF the people who actually build, sew, grow, and know how to care for a children and the injured would be far more valuable than say Beyonce or Madonna.

Did you watch the video I submitted?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Actually, it is not the poor who are jealous of the rich, it is the rich who are jealous of their wealth and are unwilling to share it. Most poor don't seek to be billionaires: all they wish is a life where they can avoid having to choose between food and rent, rent and healthcare. they don't resent the wealthy for being rich, they resent the wealthy for preventing them from joining them.

I understand that is how a person may view things after they are suffering from their poor decisions, but that is not the reality by the numbers. While not in every case, the common truth is that most people spend their money poorly. They are not normally forced to choose between rent and food, they choose between luxuries like TV, movies, video games, rims, and cell phones as opposed to heating and rent. You argument is disingenuous and only puts light on the less common mindset. As silly as the maxim is, where there is a will, there is a way. Simply put, most people are just not willing to make the sacrifice. More so, most people demand to have what is a perverted form of equality and scoff at the notion that they should have to sacrifice to get it.



Originally posted by apacheman
As we see every day, those who preen most about "hard work", rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" are usually the ones who are actually not working hard at all (make your money work for you), taking the most advantage of the shared resources we have all created (the transportation, educational, and information networks) while being unwilling to foot the bill in proportion to what they take.

Again, this is ENTIRELY disingenuous. Wise conduct is wise conduct, and is usually rewarded. I work on a computer and my heavy lifting is done by "equations" rather than my forearms. Should I not be paid for my diligence? So, if my tools are money, should that take away from my dedication? Obviously not. Your argument is not reasonable (even more so in this age of technology) and smacks of the jealousy and ignorance you think that you are avoiding in taking the position you have.


Originally posted by apacheman
And what is a corporation at heart but a way to avoid personal responsibility? It is explicit in the very idea of corporations. Look at all the Superfund toxic waste cleanups: corporations, i.e., groups of individuals, who have created a dangerously toxic mess in the process of garnering wealth, are simply allowed to declare bankruptcy and walk away scot-free, dumping the cleanup costs upon the average citizen. Where is the "personal responsibility" in that? The banksters sold fraudulent financial instruments to a gullible public and have walked away with trillions of taxpayer dollars after creating a global mess for which they abjure responsibility.

YES!!!
And so, the social system which has authorized an immaterial organization to take up the same rights as a living and breathing person which can "shelter" those who wish to avoid their responsibility should be removed. Deregulating the market does not mean that there are no natural regulators. A natural system is self-regulating and nature itself is a good example that it works.

The main issue is that we need to learn that we do not have complete control. Taking control through social systems, on a large scale (as we have done and live under), only delays the inevitable responsibilities we have to the point in which the debt becomes too burdensome to accept. However, social systems, on a local level, are often expressed happily and thankfully and lead to strong communities.

But again, corporatism is not capitalism, it is a form of regulation and IT MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH. It is unnatural and destroys/incapacitates the natural regulators which are intrinsically necessary for freedom to grow healthfully within large scale political structures.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


You are absolutely wrong, that isn't what it is about at all.

Rather, it is about "what you are taking is far beyond any conceivable present or future need, and your selfishness and greed is depriving me of my opportunity to earn enough to live a decent life".

What is so difficult to understand about that?

No one is asking for handouts, all most want is the opportunity to create wealth for themselves, too. They are more than willing to work hard, they have to every day to survive. There is no such thing as the "lazy poor". Being poor means you must work harder than the rich to find food, shelter and healthcare every minute of every day; there is zero margin for error and failure to meet today's goal means you go hungry tonight or homeless tomorrow.

Only the rich and the wealthy can afford to be lazy.

All the poor really want is an honest opportunity to earn a decent living.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Yet another "liberal" wanting to impose a personal beef on the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


No, I have lived a long life with my eyes wide open.

Most that have the most, have the most by taking more than they need.

It is called greed.

You actually support some having nothing while some have so much they couldn't possibly spend it all.

Wars................we went into Iraq because the bankers and oil men orchestrated a "crisis" a false flag to manipulate the 99% to take the oil, the natural resources from another country under the guise of 'freedom, homeland security, etc"

We must sit down and cut the pie more evenly................or the 99% will eventually wake up and realize that some have manipulated and stolen and cut the pie very unevenly.

Again, watch the video and possible there are two books you might want to read: The Chaos Point The World At The Crossroads and Chaos Point, 2012 And Beyond both by Ervin Laszlo.

You just don't understand the injustice - the wrongness, the greed on so many levels.

Give it time, maybe experiences and you will.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I am not wealthy.

But I absolutely, completely, totally, 100% disagree with the premise of this thread.

It is a very childish philosophy that we can make the world "fair" by capping wealth.

First of all, everyone needs to get over the fact that others have more than them. Stop whining about how they got rich. My family has never been rich, in all of the generations back you want to go. So what. I'm still happy, with a happy life. I don't think rich people are any happier than I am. Maybe they don't worry about the same things I worry about, but I think their lives are empty in many cases.

Second of all, do you understand what would happen if everyone had "more" money? EVERYTHING you buy would cost more. So you'd have more cash but you'd have to spend more to get what you need.

It's not the "money". It's the resources that money BUYS. There are still limits to those resources.

If everyone had a million dollars, that million dollars wouldn't go very far.

Get it?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


You deserve 1,000 stars for your keen insight but won't get them from this moderator.

Some just don't understand, they are service to self - which is why our planet and her inhabitants are in the mess we are in.

The planet is run by psychopaths, people who simply only think of themselves.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


I hear you and understand the concern. But let us break that down. There are those corrupt individuals who are prone to chaos (the most common corruption) and there are those who are prone to pride (usually in the realm of power positions). Out of all of those corrupt people, only a small percent are stable enough to gain strength within human social/economic systems. While that possibility is entirely horrible, the regulation to that should be that they must be held to honesty and responsibility and not be able to hide in the shadows. Our regulated system actually protects them. However, the common misunderstanding is that we need more regulation in order to save us from such people. We don't need more shelters for these thieves, we need more light, honesty, truth. And that comes in the form of deregulation, education, and free communion/communal systems on a local level.

The power of a local communal system to restrain one rich individual is great. Unless that one individual can hide behind unjust laws. Then the group becomes powerless. It is the call for regulation to save us which will restrain us. However, if we ask for liberty, we MUST also be ready to sacrifice in order to facilitate it's regulation to prevent the sociopaths from hijacking us as they have already done.

Keep this in mind; Capitalism relies on many to keep itself in check. Socialism/Communism relies on few to keep itself in check. It is far more reasonable to think that, in a free system, that the people will, eventually, demand justice than it is to think that those who are in power will provide it for us. Who usually ends up in power? Those very few sociopaths you are concerned for. So those who you fear are the very people you wish to save you. Instead, let us stand up in our understanding and do what we know it right instead of expecting the thieves to protect us from theft.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
The planet is run by psychopaths, people who simply only think of themselves.


Government-regulated and forced goodness is not true altruism. When will your type EVER get it?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Okay, this seems to be a hot debate. Everyone has different opinions about what would work and what would not. Well, the psychology behind what drives us to be so greedy in our quest for comfort needs to be understood before we can ever come to a conclusion about how to deal with this mess we have found ourselves in. It is my opinion that behind the myriad of issues we have before us today, there is an underlying struggle going on here. To put it simply, I believe the real issue here is what is in the fridge. When people are going hungry, then you know that the system does not work, and you should be trying new ideas.

I want to ask the question, since it seems wrong to put a cap on peoples bank accounts, as it drives people to finding ways to hide and stash their earnings, which is no better than the current problem, what would be the problem with capping the size of companies depending on what type or category they fit into. This idea might be a huge benefit to small business, it would challenge our young people to get broader educations, it might create a healthier, more local food economy, who knows what else. When your business is so big, start a new one. No one company would be able to own all the others because then it would be too big. Nobody is too big to fail. A person may get paychecks from his different companies and live as comfortably as he wants.

Any thoughts on this idea?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by apacheman
 



The planet is run by psychopaths, people who simply only think of themselves.



But even so....why do you spend so much of your energy worrying about them? You realize that a psychopath is never truly happy. Their life is a prison. So what are we to do about it? Execute them?

There are all types of people in this world, with all types of character flaws. We can't fix them all.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join