Lifestyles of the rich and famous: Obscene wealth inequality at it's worst

page: 2
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


The solution is that the state should own all the basic ameneties..such as the power supply and the public transport system and the housing stock.
All non essential products should be in private hands to generate the economy.
And in most western countries this is how countries were run for many decades. Due to the fact that people who gravitate to money are inherintly greedy and selfish, and amoral pychopaths..they cannot be trusted with anything of importance. Yet in recent times, countries privatised essential public amenities and we see the inevitable results...EXTORSION. Because if someone has control over a critical supply they will extort the people finacially. Thats why we have extorcion in energy markets..in house prices and in privatised transportation..even in garbage collection services.
This is why there is such huge inequality...You have to have atleast 50% of a system based on socialism for the other half of the system to function correctly. Like I said capitalist places like the states have always had social housing and food stamps etc, which are socialist by nature, COLLECTING TAXES IS SOCIALIST...it goes towards the upkeep of the state. Yet most Americans are in complete denial of reality and think America is a 100% capitalist society..A 100% capitalist sociaty would fall apart within about 3 months, due to rampant corruption and extrocionate greed..in fact 100% capitalism is what the USA was on the verge of becoming, when the house of cards fell down..and the world wide depression set in. Capitalism cannot work without socialism..its getting the balance right..and selling off publicy owned, critical services, is the dumbest thing any goverment ever did..short term gain for long term mysery.
edit on 21-10-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)



+6 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Spookybelle
Those with massive wealth are not nearly as sinister as those who think they have a right to dictate how much someone should have.

Eventually you will start dictating what people can eat, how they can dress, and how they should live.

No thanks!


So it's ok when power brokers and the super rich dictate how much the poor should have, what they can eat, and how they can dress and live, but not the other way around?

Curious logic.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

DeadSeraph

Spookybelle
Those with massive wealth are not nearly as sinister as those who think they have a right to dictate how much someone should have.

Eventually you will start dictating what people can eat, how they can dress, and how they should live.

No thanks!


So it's ok when power brokers and the super rich dictate how much the poor should have, what they can eat, and how they can dress and live, but not the other way around?

Curious logic.


I don't know of any rich people purposely targeting groups of people for the sole purpose of keeping them poor. They may take advantage of poor people or create conditions that help indirectly contribute to poor people but I highly doubt that is their sole reason for existing.

They wish to increase their profit and if they could profit more from everyone being wealthy I'm sure they'd be just as fine with that scenario.

However, dictating to someone how much wealth is enough is a line I do not want to cross. You cannot come back from that slippery slope.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

boncho
It takes a ridiculous amount of capital just to run a business today, and most of the profit is in loopholes and tax write offs, which is done by executive accountants and financial advisors, private banking, etc.



This is very true....and you have to really bust your a%$ to make ends meet! I own a small business so I know all about start-up costs here



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Spookybelle
Those with massive wealth are not nearly as sinister as those who think they have a right to dictate how much someone should have.

Eventually you will start dictating what people can eat, how they can dress, and how they should live.

No thanks!


I call BS. For a start if you work your taxed..well thats already dictating how much you earn isnt it? See your one of the many who are so indoctrinated, they cant see commonsense. In fact if your taxed anything, your actually working for the sate against your will for atleast part of your time at work..how fair is that? Not very capitalist is it..???? Your then further taxed if you buy anything...that means more of your hours spent working are indirectly going to support the state...sound like capitalism or sosialism to you??? and then there are a whole slew of other taxes...like property tax and inheritance tax...but the kicker is the mega rich get away scott free..yet your telling people and deluding yourself that the state hasnt already dictated how much money you get to have. Pretty funny.

As far as dictating what you wear or eat..you choose whats on offer, that doesnt mean there has to be any great diversity. In fact look at China, they have a much more varied selection of food than we do...not that id want to eat monkey testicles or whatever but the point is there is no end to their choices of food..and thats a communist country.

As for how you live...uh...you have perimiters due to the law of the land..is the states right to tell you you cannot smoke pot? or that you have to attend school? see your living in the delusion that your free..your not.

edit on 21-10-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-10-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Spookybelle

DeadSeraph

Spookybelle
Those with massive wealth are not nearly as sinister as those who think they have a right to dictate how much someone should have.

Eventually you will start dictating what people can eat, how they can dress, and how they should live.

No thanks!


So it's ok when power brokers and the super rich dictate how much the poor should have, what they can eat, and how they can dress and live, but not the other way around?

Curious logic.


I don't know of any rich people purposely targeting groups of people for the sole purpose of keeping them poor. They may take advantage of poor people or create conditions that help indirectly contribute to poor people but I highly doubt that is their sole reason for existing.

They wish to increase their profit and if they could profit more from everyone being wealthy I'm sure they'd be just as fine with that scenario.

However, dictating to someone how much wealth is enough is a line I do not want to cross. You cannot come back from that slippery slope.


Then may I suggest you read Klein's books or even brush up on your history? There are many, MANY examples of the rich exploiting the poor and doing so intentionally, while being fully cognizant of what they were doing.

What do you call major corporations using sweatshops in 3rd world countries to circumvent labor laws? Is that not a wealthy entity dictating a standard of living on the very people it uses to generate said wealth? If the CEO of such a corporation really wanted his or her workers to have more choice, wouldn't they pay them more? Does money not equal more freedom in today's society? Who is trying to dictate to whom?



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Spookybelle


I don't know of any rich people purposely targeting groups of people for the sole purpose of keeping them poor. They may take advantage of poor people or create conditions that help indirectly contribute to poor people but I highly doubt that is their sole reason for existing.

They wish to increase their profit and if they could profit more from everyone being wealthy I'm sure they'd be just as fine with that scenario.

However, dictating to someone how much wealth is enough is a line I do not want to cross. You cannot come back from that slippery slope.


You dont know of any rich people delibretly targeting groups of people to keep them poor...OK well lets look at the facts.

Social housing and ghettoized neighbourhoods:

You have no choice where you live if your poor, and not suprisingly you end up surrounded by other poor people. Poor people, in many cases, not all cases, but many, give up on life and degenerate, often turning to drugs and then crime to feed those drug habits. So even if your not a criminal or drug user, if your poor your going to have to live amongst the most anti social elemnts..all due to poverty.
if you live in negative enviroments, you have a massive mountain to climb in order to escape. A MOUNT EVEREST OF A MOUNTAIN. And yes it's quite obviously the targeting of a group of people, as ghettos are based on racial types. Black ghettos , hispanic ghettos...or as Hitler made them..Jewish Ghettos..This isnt saying the poor whites escape because they dont..there are plently of white ghettos too. And all face off aginst eachother, suspisious of eachother..thats another part of the scam, keep the poor fighting or hating eachoither...it diverts attention from the puppet masters.

Charity:

everyone knows if you give people a little bit of the pie..like a crumb..they will become acustomed to expect only crumbs..conditiond to expect crumbs. The rich have treated most of the entire world population like this..thats why most of the world is still in dire poverty. Instead of giving people the skills and education to get out of poverty..the rich...including all western goivernments..want to continue to keep the majority of the world in abject poverty..otherwise charity organisations and hand outs would be a thing of the past..whenever we have the power and technology to feed and house everyone on the planet...we dont...because it would be in the worst interests of the rich few..Equality is the oppoiste to privilage or doesnt anyone realize that fact. The privilaged few do not wish to be equal or anywhere close to equal to anyone. World wealth is a finite thing, it is limited..so unlike people are deluded into thinking..even if the third world had basic food, water and shelter, and a very ordinary standard of living, it would absolutley devalue the wealth of the mega rich by trillions. An honest economist might admit that fact...if you can find one. this is also why we have a continual boom and bust economic cycle...its because wealth is finite, you cannot have unlimited world economic growth...its a BS myth.

Education and Religion:

If anyone wants to check out where most hard core religious believers are...they will find them in the third world. thats because when you have nothing, you turn to God, weather he exists or not, you better turn to something miraculous as nobodyelse is going to help you. This also passifies people in most cases, its only when people stop believeing in religion that they finally give up all hope and actually rebel.
The poor only get a very narrow education...one that generally teaches useless facts about useless subjects but definatley an education that helps keep people within the box..Indoctrinating and basically programing people to have very low aspirations from day one. Only the elite private schools educate people with a purpose and encourage personal success.


ONE I FORGOT...GLOBALIZATION:

the rich are well known in gettings things made in the third world, where they can pay workers in sweat shops peanuts...quite clearly targeting a group of people to keep them poor...
edit on 21-10-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison about the wealthy and the poor. I don't think fans of the GOP would want to read this.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison


Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.


Today we have people that can buy whole nations isn't that just a little too much for one person?
edit on 21-10-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Solve this problem, solve the world.

Yes, i'm a prophet.

No, this is not new news.

Money power greed..... #.

I'm close to leaving everything and helping anyone, anywhere, anytime.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Remember back in the day when the ultra rich built things with their money? They built railroads, museums, roads, bridges...etc. Sure they got something in return for their investment but they built things for the greater good with their riches.

Where have all the philanthropists gone? Can you imagine what that person could have built for the people of India with a BILLION dollars?

Instead he built a billion dollar house and staffed it with 600 servants to do his bidding...disgusting!



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


In short Jefferson dropped some commonsense...This is what i mean, its not rocket science..and you don't need to be some great economic genius to see the truth about things. people are just brainwahsed to believe what a few mega rich people want them to believe..because it keeps the same old game, stacked in their favor, continuing.
Hell, we even have a born again Christian on this thread, who openly admits that he is against striviung towards world eutopia because either we dont deserve it or because it will be hell on earth..not sure he actually knows why he is so against a fair world but he is..and that attitude is exactly what the few at the top want people to be like..it keeps them living like Gods on earth.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Spookybelle

I don't know of any rich people purposely targeting groups of people for the sole purpose of keeping them poor. They may take advantage of poor people or create conditions that help indirectly contribute to poor people but I highly doubt that is their sole reason for existing.



They are by being in bed with the government. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder and the government tailors to them alone at the expense to the rest of the nation.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBlackHat
 



.if you can find one. this is also why we have a continual boom and bust economic cycle...its because wealth is finite, you cannot have unlimited world economic growth...its a BS myth.



Good point with the boom and bust cycles. The latest bust cycle is because for Wall Street, they ran out of other peoples money to take in their housing toxic derivative schemes.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBlackHat
 



ONE I FORGOT...GLOBALIZATION:

the rich are well known in gettings things made in the third world, where they can pay workers in sweat shops peanuts...quite clearly targeting a group of people to keep them poor...



And the lies we were fed is that the Chinese were more than willing to relocate to the cities to work when in actuality, Big Business and Government hand in hand in China stole their land in order to force them to relocate.


en.wikipedia.org...



Forced eviction in the People's Republic of China refers to the practice of involuntary land requisitions from the citizenry, typically in order to make room for development projects. In many instances, government authorities working in collusion with private developers seize land from villagers, often with little to no compensation. Forced evictions are particularly common in rural areas, and are a major source of unrest and public protest.[1] By some estimates, up to 65 percent of the 180,000 annual "mass incidents" in China stem from grievances over forced evictions.[2] Citizens who resist or protest the evictions have reportedly been subjected to harassment, beatings, or detention.[3]


The wealthy Chinese Business men in cahoots with the wealthy American Business men and governments were quite happy with this arrangement where a massive amount of Chinese were forced off their positions of independence in order to serve others.


You never see these type of people in many forums support independence from the system all together. They want you to be a slave to governments or business so that you are contributing to the elite either way.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.


And the wealthy elite would have a problem with that. They need everyone's product-ability at work for Wall Street gains and not man working for himself along separate from the system on his own land. With technology, it would be wasted productivity and would allow them to laze about not contributing dividends to their stock portfolios.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

DeadSeraph

Spookybelle

DeadSeraph

Spookybelle
Those with massive wealth are not nearly as sinister as those who think they have a right to dictate how much someone should have.

Eventually you will start dictating what people can eat, how they can dress, and how they should live.

No thanks!


So it's ok when power brokers and the super rich dictate how much the poor should have, what they can eat, and how they can dress and live, but not the other way around?

Curious logic.


I don't know of any rich people purposely targeting groups of people for the sole purpose of keeping them poor. They may take advantage of poor people or create conditions that help indirectly contribute to poor people but I highly doubt that is their sole reason for existing.

They wish to increase their profit and if they could profit more from everyone being wealthy I'm sure they'd be just as fine with that scenario.

However, dictating to someone how much wealth is enough is a line I do not want to cross. You cannot come back from that slippery slope.


Then may I suggest you read Klein's books or even brush up on your history? There are many, MANY examples of the rich exploiting the poor and doing so intentionally, while being fully cognizant of what they were doing.

What do you call major corporations using sweatshops in 3rd world countries to circumvent labor laws? Is that not a wealthy entity dictating a standard of living on the very people it uses to generate said wealth? If the CEO of such a corporation really wanted his or her workers to have more choice, wouldn't they pay them more? Does money not equal more freedom in today's society? Who is trying to dictate to whom?


Exploiting the poor, yes. Keeping them poor just for the sake of them being poor, no.

They derive a benefit from poor people, which goes back to my original point that if they could get an even larger benefit from them being wealthy then they would push for that.

Its about their bottom-line, a persons monetary status is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I don't mind obscene wealth, so long as those with it are doing something to further humanity in a significant way. I think if you top 1b, you should be required to open a lab to do heavy research in something that will advance all of humanity..the long shot stuff though. Stuff not being funded by governments. like a new method of transportation, or as suggested, a moon base...better solar panels, etc.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Waste for thread staring ability
edit on 22-10-2013 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Thank you for this post, DeadSeraph.

The disparancy between the wealthy and the poor, the white and the blue collar, the corporate giants and the modest businesses is one of the most discouraging things for me regarding humanity as a whole.

Surely, OP, you've been to RKOI (Rich Kids of Instagram) right? Have a look around there and check out how the children of the massively wealthy live.
Expect some fury and heavy depression during the experience.

$75,000.00 receipts from a single night out
$60k bottles of champagne
Personal jets, massive shopping sprees, everything that money can buy that shouldn't cost anywhere near that much except they have all this money to burn on frivolous items.

They appear to consume massive quantities of champagne. I don't understand that at all. Is it life rejuvenating after 10k a bottle or something?

And the watches. In my life, I have never even needed a watch, much less one that cost the price of a beautiful home.

The only consoling thought for myself never having children - something I always wanted - is that they would just end up spending their lives working as I have with no hope or future. The only people I see getting ahead are the children/relatives of those who are already doing well.
For the poor, there is no hope. Who wants to live to be 80 when this is all their is?



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


A persons monetary status is entirely relevant. Someone who makes 100 million or more a year is not interested in working at walmart or mcdonalds in an effort to pay off their student loans. They have the capital to play the system.

I highly recommend you read the book I've suggested, as it exposes the very claim you have made as being a complete falsehood.

edit to add:

or you could watch this for a synopsis of the book:

edit on 22-10-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join