85 richest people as wealthy as half of the world's population

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

As long as we live in a free society, their will always be poverty.

The human condition drives poverty. The human condition creates poverty.

Want to eliminate poverty?

Eliminate ambition. We don't want people working harder than others.
Eliminate drive. We don't want people who want more than others.
Eliminate a work ethic. We don't want people who may be better at a job than others.
Eliminate freedom. Because if you're free to excel, then you might make more than someone else.
Eliminate greed. Because we don't want people coveting what others have.
Eliminate vices. Because they cause people to steal, they cause people to lose jobs.

Because once you redistribute wealth, you'll have to do it all over again, unless you eliminate all of the above.

Just read through your post

So - the poor deserve to be poor? They are not worthy? They're not as smart? They're lazy?

Vice?

Not very original Beezer - and way to miss the entire point

What do you think OWS was really about?

reply to post by beezzer


So you think there will always be poverty, and always should poverty? You must say you like the fact there is poverty, because people dont like that there is poverty, and they are the ones who want the systems of humanity changed with its number one priority concious on the existence wealth imbalance of a most severe order. Its either you dont like it and you would want something done about it, or you do like it and want it to remain. You cant say you dont like it, and yet want it to remain, because your words are useless to the high millions of people it affects, and the billions of people it will affect.

Spiramirabilis

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

As long as we live in a free society, their will always be poverty.

The human condition drives poverty. The human condition creates poverty.

Want to eliminate poverty?

Eliminate ambition. We don't want people working harder than others.
Eliminate drive. We don't want people who want more than others.
Eliminate a work ethic. We don't want people who may be better at a job than others.
Eliminate freedom. Because if you're free to excel, then you might make more than someone else.
Eliminate greed. Because we don't want people coveting what others have.
Eliminate vices. Because they cause people to steal, they cause people to lose jobs.

Because once you redistribute wealth, you'll have to do it all over again, unless you eliminate all of the above.

Just read through your post

So - the poor deserve to be poor? They are not worthy? They're not as smart? They're lazy?

Vice?

Not very original Beezer - and way to miss the entire point

What do you think OWS was really about?

Where did I say they deserve to be poor?

Could you point that out for me?

Thanks in advance.

ImaFungi
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you think there will always be poverty, and always should poverty? You must say you like the fact there is poverty, because people dont like that there is poverty, and they are the ones who want the systems of humanity changed with its number one priority concious on the existence wealth imbalance of a most severe order. Its either you dont like it and you would want something done about it, or you do like it and want it to remain. You cant say you dont like it, and yet want it to remain, because your words are useless to the high millions of people it affects, and the billions of people it will affect.

There is always going to be a disparity because everyone is different.

We don't all have the same drives, goals, ambitions, talents.

reply to post by beezzer

We don't all have the same drives, goals, ambitions, talents.

Or - opportunities and advantages

:-)

You really think this is about being best - don't you?

reply to post by beezzer

Want to eliminate poverty?:

Eliminate ambition. We don't want people working harder than others.
People are poor because they're unambitious?

Eliminate drive. We don't want people who want more than others.
The poor don't want more?

Eliminate a work ethic. We don't want people who may be better at a job than others.
Poor people are lazy? Or did you just mean unskilled?

Eliminate freedom. Because if you're free to excel, then you might make more than someone else.
Eliminate greed. Because we don't want people coveting what others have.
Eliminate vices. Because they cause people to steal, they cause people to lose jobs.

Seriously?

Sarcasm? These are the conditions that exist already? This is why there are poor...these are the traits of the poor?

What did you mean to say with this post ?

I'm listening

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

As long as we live in a free society, their will always be poverty.

The human condition drives poverty. The human condition creates poverty.

Want to eliminate poverty?

Eliminate ambition. We don't want people working harder than others.
Eliminate drive. We don't want people who want more than others.
Eliminate a work ethic. We don't want people who may be better at a job than others.
Eliminate freedom. Because if you're free to excel, then you might make more than someone else.
Eliminate greed. Because we don't want people coveting what others have.
Eliminate vices. Because they cause people to steal, they cause people to lose jobs.

Because once you redistribute wealth, you'll have to do it all over again, unless you eliminate all of the above.

This has to be the single most insulting, ridiculous and downright ignorant post on ATS.
Really? The poor are stupid, lazy, unambitious and not very good workers?


You're an utter moron.

AthlonSavage

Things are Tough all over

Well...I always look for the silver lining... Fortunes are up $13M since yesterday. I've got a bet with a couple of pesky Russian comrades that I will overtake them by the end of the year...

Now who wouldn't want to beat the Russians?? lol...that'd be so un-American of you.

blupblup

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

As long as we live in a free society, their will always be poverty.

The human condition drives poverty. The human condition creates poverty.

Want to eliminate poverty?

Eliminate ambition. We don't want people working harder than others.
Eliminate drive. We don't want people who want more than others.
Eliminate a work ethic. We don't want people who may be better at a job than others.
Eliminate freedom. Because if you're free to excel, then you might make more than someone else.
Eliminate greed. Because we don't want people coveting what others have.
Eliminate vices. Because they cause people to steal, they cause people to lose jobs.

Because once you redistribute wealth, you'll have to do it all over again, unless you eliminate all of the above.

This has to be the single most insulting, ridiculous and downright ignorant post on ATS.
Really? The poor are stupid, lazy, unambitious and not very good workers?


You're an utter moron.

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

beezzer

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

No.... but YOU'RE saying that the rich are the only one's with drive and ambition and intelligence and so on?

And that IS utterly ignorant and moronic.

blupblup

beezzer

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

No.... but YOU'RE saying that the rich are the only one's with drive and ambition and intelligence and so on?

And that IS utterly ignorant and moronic.

I did not.

I simply stated that there is a wealth disparity because everyone has a different drive, everyone has different ambitions, everyone has different goals.

If you are of the type that wishes everything is equal, then you will have to adjust ambition, goals, drives for everyone so that they can be the same.

But thanks for calling me ignorant and moronic.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

However, these desperate people are often manipulated by unscrupulous agitators from people who want equality under the law to people who just want stuff taken from those who seem to have more and given to them by force.

This current war that's being waged on the poor is obviously a complete fantasy cooked up by coniving leftists

It does my heart good and gives me some peace of mind knowing that people leaning more to the right are immune to rhetoric and unscrupulous agitators

:-)

Actually the current "war" on the poor is a fabrication of the left, most certainly. Sorry, please point out this "war" on the poor. Public benefits are at an all time high. Since the start of the great society, we have spent 14 trillion dollars (some estimate much more) in fifty years and we still have poverty which demonstrates the fact that you can't solve poverty with massive redistribution schemes.

Disagreeing with buying votes with taxpayer dollars is neither a "war on the poor" nor an indication of "hating the poor." That is typical unfounded and emotional leftist drivel. Rather than using handouts to keep the poor in poverty and to secure their votes like the left, the right wants to help the poor by creating economic freedom that increases the standard of living for everyone.

You cannot eliminate poor people. Utopia, by definition, is unattainable. What you can do is have a system that gives the most opportunity to the most people and give them economic freedom so that they can achieve what they will. The left wants a dependent class because dependent people are more easily controlled than independent people.

beezzer

blupblup

beezzer

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

No.... but YOU'RE saying that the rich are the only one's with drive and ambition and intelligence and so on?

And that IS utterly ignorant and moronic.

I did not.

I simply stated that there is a wealth disparity because everyone has a different drive, everyone has different ambitions, everyone has different goals.

If you are of the type that wishes everything is equal, then you will have to adjust ambition, goals, drives for everyone so that they can be the same.

But thanks for calling me ignorant and moronic.

Your post made me think of something but I can't remember the name. There was a film in the last few years where the libtards got their wish and society had to force everything to make things "fair." Athletic people had to wear weights and so forth so un-athletic people could compete with them "fairly" and smart people had to wear these electronic headbands so they couldn't think as clearly and not be smarter than anyone else. The story was about a boy that finally took the headband off and began to think for himself. I can't remember the name of the film.

NavyDoc

beezzer

blupblup

beezzer

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

No.... but YOU'RE saying that the rich are the only one's with drive and ambition and intelligence and so on?

And that IS utterly ignorant and moronic.

I did not.

I simply stated that there is a wealth disparity because everyone has a different drive, everyone has different ambitions, everyone has different goals.

If you are of the type that wishes everything is equal, then you will have to adjust ambition, goals, drives for everyone so that they can be the same.

But thanks for calling me ignorant and moronic.

Your post made me think of something but I can't remember the name. There was a film in the last few years where the libtards got their wish and society had to force everything to make things "fair." Athletic people had to wear weights and so forth so un-athletic people could compete with them "fairly" and smart people had to wear these electronic headbands so they couldn't think as clearly and not be smarter than anyone else. The story was about a boy that finally took the headband off and began to think for himself. I can't remember the name of the film.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Hope And Change?

beezzer

NavyDoc

beezzer

blupblup

beezzer

Thanks for sharing.

So you mean to tell me that drive, ambition, work ethic, is equal and universal?

EVERYONE has the same drive to work?

EVERYONE has the same ambitions?

Really.

And I'm a moron.

No.... but YOU'RE saying that the rich are the only one's with drive and ambition and intelligence and so on?

And that IS utterly ignorant and moronic.

I did not.

I simply stated that there is a wealth disparity because everyone has a different drive, everyone has different ambitions, everyone has different goals.

If you are of the type that wishes everything is equal, then you will have to adjust ambition, goals, drives for everyone so that they can be the same.

But thanks for calling me ignorant and moronic.

Your post made me think of something but I can't remember the name. There was a film in the last few years where the libtards got their wish and society had to force everything to make things "fair." Athletic people had to wear weights and so forth so un-athletic people could compete with them "fairly" and smart people had to wear these electronic headbands so they couldn't think as clearly and not be smarter than anyone else. The story was about a boy that finally took the headband off and began to think for himself. I can't remember the name of the film.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Hope And Change?

Found it. 2081.

Here is a synopsis:

The film takes place in the dystopian American society of the year 2081, in which all individual inequality has been erased by the fictional 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution and the "unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General", after that cabinet office was created to ensure a "golden age of equality" in the United States. Exceptionalness in the world is destroyed in the name of equality, achieved through the use of "handicaps" - physical devices used to nullify every inborn advantage any person might have over another: "The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains."[2]

Following closely with Vonnegut's original story, 2081 begins with George and Hazel Bergeron — parents of the exceptionally strong, intelligent, handsome Harrison Bergeron — sitting in their living room, watching the ballet on television. George carries many "handicaps", wearing an earpiece and heavy weights to counteract his intelligence and strength, respectively. Hazel, being perfectly average and capable of only carrying thoughts in "short bursts", wears none.

Six years prior, Harrison was taken in a raid on their home by a SWAT team from the office of the Handicapper General. Sitting in his sofa, George tries to think about the event, but can't quite bring himself to recall exactly what happened in between the painful intermittent bursts sent through his earpiece. He continues to watch the ballet instead. The ballet is interrupted by a government news report being read by a news anchor with a severe speech impediment about the escaped fugitive Harrison Bergeron. George watches the report with a hint of interest. The report concludes and returns to the regularly scheduled ballet, featuring delicate ballerinas heavily weighed down to ensure that they are only as graceful as the average person. Just then, loud stomps can be heard approaching the stage, as the ballerinas cower in terror. Harrison Bergeron marches down the aisle and leaps onto the stage with a heavy thud, almost unhindered by the weight of his massive handicaps. In a deviation from Vonnegut's story, he begins his address to the audience in the theater and those watching at home by claiming to have a bomb under the stage, the detonator to which he holds in his hand. The audience listens to his address in shock as he peels off his handicaps and chooses a volunteer ballerina to do the same. He takes her hand, and for a few brief moments, the two dance, unhindered, as the audience watches, mystified by the pair's unbridled grace and elegance.

The enforcers of the Handicapper General, keen to keep this display under wraps, surround the theater and quickly cut the video feed to the television audience as the Handicapper General herself marches down the aisle with a shotgun. On cue, Harrison pushes the button of his "detonator", which rather than detonating the dummy bomb under the stage, sends a signal to a device that overrides the video block, reminiscent of John Galt’s broadcast in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.[3] He looks into the camera with a proud but slightly somber grin. George smiles back at the television. Unaware that the video feed is again being broadcast, the Handicapper General fires the shotgun, killing Harrison and his ballerina. The SWAT team leader, having been unable to stop her before she fired, informs her of their mistake. In surprise and embarrassment, she looks around in realization that this gruesome, atrocious act of oppression has been broadcast for all to see. George stares heartbrokenly into the television as the signal is again blocked, until his train of thought is again broken by the screeching of his headset; true to Vonnegut's telling of the story,[4] the gravity of the moment is lost on them, and they slip back into normalcy.

beezzer

I did not.

You absolutely did.

But thanks for calling me ignorant and moronic.

You're most welcome, I call it as I see it.

The Beez has some points, unfortunately the way he's wording things isn't the best, and he seems to be taking things a bit to the extreme.

First off, 'haves' and 'have nots' are a part of the human condition when we organize in numbers greater than what anarchy can support. We don't live in communities, we live under crony capitalism, in a pseudo democracy.

Second, he's right that revolutions often turn out making the conditions worse than better. We should remain vigilant, and studious throughout whatever movement we choose to follow.

Having said that, he's under a false notion that we live in a "free society". That's no longer the case. Our freedoms have been mostly eroded, and it only seems to still be the case if we place our head in the sand.

Economic disparity is a reality worldwide, however, the trends throughout the years relative to the last century clearly show more is going to the rich, and less for the poor. It's not simply a matter of the rich having more than the poor, and it hasn't always been so lopsided.

Those who would seek to harbor stability in the face of increasing oppression are fools, period. Gotta call it like it is.

We should not fear the outcomes of change in the face of mounting changes which are already something to be feared.

We should be the ones to force the change by our own hands, and with our own minds, collectively shaping the society we wish to live under.

Poverty may very well always be a reality, but the percentage of people who live in poverty in this once great nation is no longer acceptable, and must not grow own iota from it's current state.

reply to post by blupblup


So you are of the opinion that everyone's work ethic, everyone's drive to succeed, everyone's goals should be the same?

(use small words, according to you, I'm an idiot)

reply to post by NavyDoc

Actually the current "war" on the poor is a fabrication of the left, most certainly. Sorry, please point out this "war" on the poor.

Well - I don't actually have the time this morning to flesh this out with good examples - maybe later

But, not much point in my even trying - is there? (In as much as the entire thing is a fabrication)

:-)

You cannot eliminate poor people. Utopia, by definition, is unattainable. What you can do is have a system that gives the most opportunity to the most people and give them economic freedom so that they can achieve what they will.

Absolutely - I have to star you for this

The left wants a dependent class because dependent people are more easily controlled than independent people.

And then you say this

What does the right want Navy? Surely it's not control - is it?

So much for a rhetoric-free discussion

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Actually the current "war" on the poor is a fabrication of the left, most certainly. Sorry, please point out this "war" on the poor.

Well - I don't actually have the time this morning to flesh this out with good examples - maybe later

But, not much point in my even trying - is there? (In as much as the entire thing is a fabrication)

:-)

You cannot eliminate poor people. Utopia, by definition, is unattainable. What you can do is have a system that gives the most opportunity to the most people and give them economic freedom so that they can achieve what they will.

Absolutely - I have to star you for this

The left wants a dependent class because dependent people are more easily controlled than independent people.

And then you say this

What does the right want Navy? Surely it's not control - is it?

So much for a rhetoric-free discussion

Perhaps "left" and "right" are inadequate to use. So many people have different definitions. Let's try "progressive" instead of "left."