I Love Forbes' Annual List of Billionaires....and Why We Don't Really Worry About Poor Socialists.

I love it when socialists try to define what socialism is...

But you know what I love more? I love Forbes' annual list of the World's Wealthiest People.

The Richest People On The Planet 2013

The ranks of the world's billionaires have yet again reached all-time highs, both in terms of the number of billionaires (1,426) and record net worth ($5.4 trillion). The United States still has more billionaires than any other country, but once again the world's richest person comes from outside its borders.
www.forbes.com...

This year's World's Biggest Wallet is once again Carlos Slim Helu.....or socialist filled Mexico. How many socialists are there in Mexico City alone? We get the old story about how Carlos Slim started out as a poor socialist and is now big Kahoona of the Bucks. And Carlos isn't a drug dealer!

The more the radical left hates the Koch Brothers, the wealthier the Koch Brothers get. They're up there at six and seven on the planet with most dollars to invest.

Michael Bloomberg is at 13.....making all his NYC publicity. You wonder why the guy bothers to have a political job. Oh, yeah. He loves seeing his name in the New York Times.

The socialist poster boy and president maker, George Soros, rings in at number 30 on the planet.

The world famous college dropout who didn't protest with the Occupy Crowd, Mark Zuckerberg, just had facebook pick up his billion dollar tax tab. Nice work that all the left leaning posters on facebook wish they could accomplich.

Hey...talk about your collective gone wild...how about those billionaires in the Mideast?
Forbes There are 103 billionaires from The Middle East and Africa, who together own $279 billion. (link tracking not allowed)/Z89lbZ #ForbesBillionaires

Lots of Russian names among the big wig billionaires.....Russia sure has come a long way with their version of Capitalist Communism since the Soviet collapse days.

Same with the Asians....that Maoist Capitalism thing is doing wonders for the world's fastest moving economies along the Pacific rim.

So, what does Forbes remind us every year about the kinetic energy between Capitalism and Socialism? Well, there's a big bunch of socialists within the Capitalist system. There's a big bunch of socialists within the Communist system. Yep. Capitalism and Communism are still the two top dogs in the economic brackets.

Are socialists in general making much headway in their lives from year to year? Doesn't look like it.; The rising price of gasoline at the pump, and inflation in general, just doesn't generate an interesting list that readers want to peruse in Forbes.

Say. What gives with all that?

Socialism is nothing but the capitalism of the lower classes.
Oswald Spengler

Pyramids still form and someone sits atop. Instead of the bottom layer of the pyramid being a pool of potential, it's a pool of misery. mexico

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

One takes advantage of the freedom to compete and is conducive towards the keeping of others at a disadvantage. Capitalism

The other takes advantage of servitude, eliminates competition and is conducive towards making vantage obsolete. Socialism

think about it...

reply to post by retirednature


Socialism is nothing but the capitalism of the lower classes.
Oswald Spengler


I like that. It's apt. Snappy and short and apt. A socialist makes a dollar any way they can.....albeit, most often a limited way to make a dollar.

Except for the socialists who become entrepreneurs. Like the drug dealer who makes thousands a day selling crack to the masses in the neighborhood.

reply to post by retirednature


“The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge.
Oswald Spengler

I would consider myself a socialist and would consider socialist societies to be fairer than money driven capitalist ones.

Two world leaders died this year.

Hugo Chavez who dramatically lowered poverty and increased literacy, education and healthcare by spreading the countries resources around.

Margaret Thatcher who stood for all things capitalist. Made the poor poorer and the rich richer by waging war on the working classes, forcing millions into unemployment and selling off state assests to her rich friends.

I know which society sounds more equal and fairer to me.

Originally posted by coltcall
I love it when socialists try to define what socialism is...

I wish you would Learn what Socialism is, then you could see how stupid your threads are.

U.S. federally funded outfits are socialism

public school system
public library system
social security system
national parks and recreation service
Sewage treatment,
the FCC,
Fema,
EBT/ Foodstamps,
Zoning Laws (so your house isn't next to a giant building or in an area where it is unsafe for a house)
Airport Security
DFCS
and on and on

the new deal that was the beginning of all the socialist based services in the united states.

and of course who would want to cancel free public school, free public libraries, and all those services

socialism is actually pretty good in small doses a socialist republic is much better than a socialist capitalism or a socialist democracy but we destroyed our republic long ago and it only exists in the 'pledge of allegiance' "to the republic for which it stands" no longer exists after the country was forced into bankruptcy during the new deal.

Socialism is a very broad term that extends beyond the classic "socialism vs. capitalism" debate. It's very hard to compare and contrast the two when they, in fact, can work hand in hand to balance each other out.

As an example of them working together, let's look at the Kock Brothers.

The Matador Ranch Company, owned by Koch Industries (yes, THOSE Koch Brothers), sent a representative to the Montana Land Board meeting today to protest a proposed increase to the state grazing lease rate. This rate is what the state charges ranchers who lease state-owned land for cattle grazing. The money earned from these leases helps fund schools in Montana.

The average state grazing rate is currently about $6 or $8 per month for each animal, or Animal Unit Month (AUM). The new rate being proposed is around $12 per month. Everyone recognizes that this rate has been set too low for some time, especially with cattle prices way up. The reason for proposing a new rate is that the market demands it; the average grazing rate on similar private land is $20 and higher!

But the point is, it turns out that the Koch Brothers--the supposed "defenders against socialism"--are some of our most prominent socialists! In fact, they are the state of Montana's biggest lessee. Their 300,000 acre Matador Ranch operation contains over 80,000 acres of state land. The Koch Brothers have been enjoying their subsidized rate, and they want to keep it! They don't want to pay something closer to the market rate, despite claiming to be defenders of free markets. This is "corporate welfare" in its most hypocritical form.

It's widely known that state and federal grazing rates are a subsidy to ranchers. Federal grazing rates are worse. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management rates in Montana and other western states are set at only $1.35 per AUM! The Koch Brothers cash in on that giveaway too, because another large portion of their 300,000 acre ranch is federal land.

So it turns out that the Koch Brothers are not against socialism after all. They're just against socialism for anyone but themselves. And the schoolkids of Montana can go to hell!

Source

Here is a quote that sums up this entire issue quite well:

Socialism for me, not socialism for thee.

In essence, socialism is fine when it benefits you...and bad when it doesn't.

I would only ask that you look more into the definition and application of socialism before you make such statements or threads. It appears as though you do not have a firm grasp on socialism and how it coexists with the capitalist model.

How in the name of reason, do you manage to take the list of those who have made the most money in the world wide system of capitalism and turn it around and call them socialists? Please help me make sense of this.

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
I would consider myself a socialist and would consider socialist societies to be fairer than money driven capitalist ones.

Two world leaders died this year.

Hugo Chavez who dramatically lowered poverty and increased literacy, education and healthcare by spreading the countries resources around.

Margaret Thatcher who stood for all things capitalist. Made the poor poorer and the rich richer by waging war on the working classes, forcing millions into unemployment and selling off state assests to her rich friends.

I know which society sounds more equal and fairer to me.

Oh....PUHLEEZZEEEEE JUST STOP!!

Hugo Chavez died with billions of personal petrol dollars stashed away.....while the poor of Venezuela are so poor that dirt looks like gold to them.

Hey, everyone....buy your plane ticket to Venezuela...or better still, to North Korea. Get your belly full of socialism.

And if the plane seats to Venezuela and North Korea are full, ask your socialist travel agent when the next flight to Cuba takes off.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by coltcall
I love it when socialists try to define what socialism is...

I wish you would Learn what Socialism is, then you could see how stupid your threads are.

When I look at photos of Chicago or Detroit ghettos, I say, 'There's socialism at work in America.'

If you think living in a ghetto is intelligent....oh, never mind...........

Originally posted by Cito
U.S. federally funded outfits are socialism

public school system
public library system
social security system
national parks and recreation service
Sewage treatment,
the FCC,
Fema,
EBT/ Foodstamps,
Zoning Laws (so your house isn't next to a giant building or in an area where it is unsafe for a house)
Airport Security
DFCS
and on and on

No. Those are segments of city and/or state (and in some instances you mentioned, federal) departments funded by capitalist tax dollars.

Remember. Socialists don't pay taxes. Don't have jobs. Don"t etc...etc...etc...

Even the socialist program of food stamps and welfare are paid for by capitalist tax dollars. Because...drum roll as we repeat.....socialism does NOT create an economy. Socialism sucks off of a capitalist economy.

Why are you so proud of other people being billionaires?

What does that do for you?

Don't you realise that the reason they are wealthy is because you are poor, or are you also on that list? Hmmm? I doubt it .

Capitalism creates wealth for a minority class, by exploiting none-property owners who have to work for a privately owned company. For one person to be a billionaire, hundreds of people have to work long ours for little pay. Lucky for you most of that has been moved to overseas cheaper labour markets, so you don't have to experience what real labour industry is all about. All you see is the nicely packaged product, not the sweat, and poverty, and crappy conditions that brought it to you.

Exploiting people is nothing to be proud of.

Originally posted by coltcall
Even the socialist program of food stamps and welfare are paid for by capitalist tax dollars.

Hmm no, they are not socialist programs. Social programs is not socialism.

The reason we have a welfare system is because in the 1800's there was a segment of the middle class that felt guilty for the conditions of the working class. The middle class did not want socialism, which is worker ownership, they wanted to help the poor, but maintain the system that made them poor in the first place, capitalism (private ownership of the means of production).

So they created the social safety-net. These people were liberals, not socialists.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" - Winston Churchill, 1908, as the Liberal Party candidate for Dundee.

Some liberals did use the term socialism, but incorrectly. The reason Marx used the term communism, instead of socialism, was for that very reason...

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

www.marxists.org...

Originally posted by coltcall
Socialism sucks off of a capitalist economy.

If you actually had an understanding of socialism the above statement would embarrass you. Please don't rant about things you don't understand.

As for the Forbes list, I enjoy it as well. I love reading about how the uber rich got wealthy. It's interesting and occasionally inspirational.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why are you so proud of other people being billionaires?

What does that do for you?

edit on 4/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Reminds me that I live in the best economic system in the world....good old American capitalism. That's what it does for me............

Originally posted by coltcall
Reminds me that I live in the best economic system in the world....good old American capitalism. That's what it does for me............

America is not wealthy because it has the best economic system, sorry. There are many reasons for your wealth, size of land mass, slavery, WWII, war economy. Your economic system is no different than other countries. How do expect other countries to compete when America is like 50 countries who have collectivised?

Capitalism is based on exploitation of the working class, now mostly in third world nations where they can pay extremely low wages, and not bother with worker safety or rights, so they can sell you over priced garbage.

Yeah such a great economic system. Do you think life is all about who wins, regardless of who you stomp on?

Do you even realise capitalism is not American? Why do Americans think they invented capitalism? Capitalism my dear friend started in England in the 1750's with the enclosure laws. It wasn't called capitalism until the 1840's when a French SOCIALIST, Louis Blanc, coined the term to mean "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others". Capital meaning private economic property used to hire and exploit labour.

Poverty is not a lack of money, it is the denial of access to the means to produce, starting with land which is how capitalism started in the first place. Denial of access to unused land which took away our liberty. No land no liberty. Money can buy you freedom, but it'll be a cheap knock off from China. Buyer beware.

reply to post by ANOK


American capitalism still remains the most successful economic system anyone could be proud to live within.

In fact, American capitalism is so successful that both Russia and China have remodeled their economic systems to emulate ours.

We have enough domestic oil and natural gas to surpass the energy supplies of Saudi Arabia.

If you can't be proud to be an American capitalist.....I don't know what advice to give you.

reply to post by ANOK


One more thought....the so-called 'poor' in America live better than ninety percent of the people outside of America.

Take a good look at the so-called 'poor' in America. With their iPhones and their iPads and their televisions in every room in the house. Where else but in the American capitalist system can the so-called 'poor' in America drive around in a new Prius?

This liberal media crying about the so-called 'poor' in America is more about politics than about eliminating poverty in America. The only way so-called poverty exists in this great country is when the so-called 'poor' absolutely lay down and don't get up in the morning.

Or they don't want to be reclassified out of the so-called 'poor' economic categories.

Between welfare and food stamps and now free health care.....even for the homeless and the illegals.....well, I don't have to point out that the so-called 'poor' in America have easy access to the internet.

And everyone in America has an equal opportunity to buy yet another iPhone or another iPad thanks to good old American capitalism.

You're welcome.....