NBC's Ann Curry Rants: It's 'Fundamentally Unfair' Some Have More Money Than Others

reply to post by jiggerj
Nope.

Money means the "potential" to have something.

I earned that potential.

You're trying to justify stealing my potential to have stuff.

You can't have it.

It's mine.

Go earn your own potential.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Nope. You're describing a closed loop system. But introducing elements just to satisfy your interpretation.

Closed loop? What are we in now? Can we just go to the Federal Reserve and say, "Hey, print me out some money,"?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Nope. You're describing a closed loop system. But introducing elements just to satisfy your interpretation.

Closed loop? What are we in now? Can we just go to the Federal Reserve and say, "Hey, print me out some money,"?

Actually, yes.

They do it all the time.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Then fork some over, Curry. You hypocritical (#!)

Just like a prog.

Always willing to give away other peoples money.

In less than 48 hours, I'm going to be returning to a town in which people not only have this attitude, but also walk barefoot and live on the street.

Not everyone who thinks this way is a hypocrite. Some people hate money, and are entirely consistent about it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
snip..

Seriously ... She needs a course in economics AND she needs to understand the simple
fact that life is not fair to anyone ... anywhere. That, and she needs to get it through her head
that she is not entitled to STEAL from others simply because she's jealous or greedy.

snip...

Just answer me this. Why are the people at the very top. (Governments, Corporations, etc..) Entitled to steal from others? Why when they get themselves in a bind the rest end up paying for it? Why is that fair but not the other way around?

This dude probably thought everything was unfair too....

Homeless men squatting in Ann Curry's $2.9m New York house 14 August 2011

A $2.9m New York house belonging to Ann Curry has been taken over by squatters....

The homeless man was removed from the property yesterday at around 9am.

www.dailymail.co.uk...




Not that I don't believe he shouldn't have been evicted but you know Pot, Kettle, Black and all that.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There is a good point to what she says.

It is seriously unfair. Seriously, SERIOUSLY, unfair.

But anyone can see that. Unless they are willfully ignorant! But it's 2012, it should be apparent to everyone.

So instead of saying it's unfair, it's time people fix or at least think about fixing the problem. I'm sure that it will take decades if not hundreds of years to finish but, it will surely be worth it.

The problem isn't that some are poorer then others. There will probably always be a group of people that value life over money. The real issue that can't be ignored is that the means to earn wealth are too concentrated. The current level of concentration guarantees no matter how hard some people work, they can remain perpetually trapped in poverty or destitution. That is beyond horrific to imagine, let alone experience. For some though that is life.

With our technologically dependent society we can't go back to a kind of Constitutional Agrarian society. Communist, fascist and socialist systems tend to rely on group think, scapegoating and denial of liberty/due process. Communist's scapegoat the lucky, hard working and intelligent people, often to the point of mass murder. Fascism scapegoats minorities and intellectuals to the point of mass murder. While Socialism scapegoats the majority into a kind of emotionally detached subjugation. Regardless, all three rely on bullying and emotional abuse of some sort or another to survive.

The only clear, sane and rational choice is distributionism. Distributionism has all the strengths of Capitalism, without Capitalism's fatal flaw: Capitalism expands to the point of implosion, explosion or both.

The benefit of decentralized systems is that they tend to be more stable, longer lasting and innovative. Also, with only the existence of medium corporations, small corporations and small businesses, the political influence they posses would shrink as you entered larger political circles. That would allow for a more honest, diverse, and truly conscientious running of society, Too big to fail means it is too big to exist.

Imagine all the people that would be employed if the top 100 companies where split into three or four medium sized corporations? Probably millions over night, The only people who would lose out would be the big wig executives who get paid to drive companies into the ground, By making the positions of CEO's, Executives and Managers less like rock star positions, and more like honest duties to society, those positions will attract people of truly noteworthy character.

Such people would perpetuate the distributionist system, as since a corporation could only grow so large, the only outlet for growth(when it is truly necessary) will be in the assistance of creating new distributionist businesses/corporations(think the proliferation of bars and pizza shops. How often a bar owner will get their start working for a pre-existing bar etc).


The reason why society is still messed up, is because of anarchist agitators like the person I am quoting. Imagine how much better the world would be if everyone who wanted to be critical of something offered up an honestly viable alternative/ viable plan of action. If all you can do is to demand the current social structure be torn asunder without offering a viable alternative, your no better then Hitler, Stalin or Mao*.

As such antics make rabid monsters like those listed above, possible.

If you demand something be changed without offering an honest alternative, you are only inviting those with dishonest intent to make that choice for you. That choice, the ability to chose to think for ourselves, well it is the only real freedom we will ever have. Don't let it go to waste.**

*(yeah I know that line is over done, but seriously think about. Without the emotional banner of "upheaval against the old and to heck with the consequences", do you think any of those monsters would of risen to power? )

Originally posted by jiggerj
This is under the misconception that money is personal property. It's not. An economic system is about money always circulating from one hand to the next within that system.

While it's in my hands .. it's mine. While it's in your hands .. it's yours.
It is yours to do with as you please as long as the system is in place.
For now .. it's in place. Money is earned by whoever earns it.
It's their right to keep what they want or to do with it as they please.
To say otherwise is to make people slaves to the state.
And slaves don't work nearly as hard as people who are working for themselves.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jiggerj
This is under the misconception that money is personal property. It's not. An economic system is about money always circulating from one hand to the next within that system.

While it's in my hands .. it's mine. While it's in your hands .. it's yours.
It is yours to do with as you please as long as the system is in place.
For now .. it's in place. Money is earned by whoever earns it.
It's their right to keep what they want or to do with it as they please.
To say otherwise is to make people slaves to the state.
And slaves don't work nearly as hard as people who are working for themselves.

Can you eat money? Can you cook with it, bathe with it, drive it, text on it...
When you hold it, it reperesents all that you will buy. So SPEND it already, before we change the economic system and render your money useless.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Can you eat money? Can you cook with it, bathe with it, drive it, text on it...

You eat what it obtains. At this time money has value. If I earn that value, I should be able to keep it. No one else has a right to that value simply because I have something of greater value than they do. That's theft.

So SPEND it already, before we change the economic system and render your money useless.

Actually, what we do have, is going pretty fast. We decided to fix everything in the house that needs fixing and spend what we needed to spend on whatever we need because we aren't too sure the economic system will be in place in a few years.

Kinda funny you said that jigger ... we are already doing it.

reply to post by InfoKartel


Actually, he's in context.

It's the equivalent of being in a position of financial disaster. If one is in a financial disaster, would it not be 'fair' for others to suffer the same circumstance?

But let's really face it, life is not balanced or 'fair'. It's because there's a mix of chaos and harmony that ATS has all kinds of topics about crazy issues in the first place

You can say thing's like 'nature balances itself' and I'll just say wait for a cosmic disaster to interfere. Things happen.

Deny ignorance, seek knowledge, respect criticism.

reply to post by jiggerj
If I go to your bank, your home, your wallet and take "our" money, you'd have me arrested for theft.

Can we stop all this "our" bull pooky.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Nope.

Money means the "potential" to have something.

I earned that potential.

You're trying to justify stealing my potential to have stuff.

You can't have it.

It's mine.

Go earn your own potential.

edit on 29-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Okay, put your billions of potential back into circulation so I can earn it. No matter what word you replace money with, that currency still belongs to every American citizen (or whatever country you're from).

If you look at a dollar bill you will find: This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.[/i]
Nowhere does it say that it's for hoarding.