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.

 

Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

page: 27
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

teslahowitzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan
 


Tell the good doctor to get to work on the gravitational control this will take, and spend millions, take years of research and development, by the greatest minds, test, safety, effects, and on and on to give you free energy... im sure the doc and everyone is busting their ass and spending all of their money and time and the end result will be... all free......holy friggin poop....read it over and over....your utopia is in your own mind...this theology is possible on earth...in about 200 years, but not with this crooked government...bottom up overhaul, no redistribution, you didnt earn it you do not get it, period. so the lazier i am the more i should get? what is my reason to get out of bed? why should I make any effort to do ANYTHING? and if everyone is the same???

Heh. We have already funded all that in black projects with Our tax dollars.

I don't think it's a "utopia." Just a LOT better than the way we do things now.

And what if we were all talking about it and 99% of us decide to do it? Do you think the 1% would be able to stop us?




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

nenothtu

AlwaysIdeaMan

LOL! Nobody will take any material thing from you if we move away from money and accounting for human energy.



I'm not worried about anyone taking "any material thing" - the idea is absurd if wealth is not measured in material things any more. What I'm saying is that they will try to "redistribute" whatever it IS measured in. If wealth is instead measured in, lets say ideas per second, they will try to take some of mine and redistribute them to Charlie down the block who hasn't had an original idea since he had the idea to invest in a case of "billy" Beer in 1978. If, instead, wealth is measured in friends, they'll try to take some of mine or yours (maybe some of mine AND some of yours) to "redistribute" to Quentin, who just sits on the curb all day forlorn because he can't figure out how to get his own. If wealth is measured in family ties... well, you get the picture. the have-nots will always be squalling because they are have-nots, and can't figure out how to be haves. They want Uncle Sugar to get it from someone else and give it to them so that they can be "haves" too. It doesn't matter WHAT they don't have - they WANT it simply because they don't already have it, all the same.


How do you "redistribute" respect? Appreciation? Self satisfaction? Friendship? Love? Fame? There is no trade, barter, work exchange, money. What motivates us will be our heart, what we WANT to do. There is no way to redistribute that. "Ideas per minute?" If somebody has no ideas, who cares???


Umm... don' tell anyone, 'cause i guess it's a secret, but I already HAVE that choice, as does everyone else if they just care to see it and exercise it. Most people, however, appear to be too wrapped up in crying over what they don't have to see what is right in front of them, that they DO have.



Really? The starving artist working at McDumps has the choice to paint with paints they can't afford? With canvases they can't afford? In a studio they can't afford? No... Most people are working for the weekend when they CAN do what they want to do IF they can afford it. We all are trying to "get ahead, but I have news for you, only a very small fraction can get there.


Abundance won't flow at all until people start realizing what they already have, instead of worrying over what they DON'T have, and how to get it. "Abundance" never comes when you don't have what you are always reaching for, and if people had everything they wanted, they'd just find something else to want, and to pine away over not having.


That starving child is likely realizes what he has, eh? Um... What DOES he have?


Food is not just going to magically appear in front of starving Ethiopian kids. That ain't going to happen no matter how much "free energy" you can manage to inject into the system. Acquiring food takes more than just wishful thinking.


Heh. You don't think all those people who now contribute $20 to charities (that pay themselves first and maybe 2% gets to the ones in need) because they can't afford to go feed them themselves but they do care, being freed to travel, arrange food shipments, and go help directly would sit and just feel badly for these others? Really? I think we humans will ensure food goes where it is needed.


The only "power" anyone has over anyone else even now is the power they are given by their underlings, the people they are "lording it over". If people made that simple realization, the world would change overnight - they would simply stop acknowledging that power, and in doing so it would cease to exist. You see, "power" is in the acknowledgement of it - it's not "power" if no one cares. If "money is power", then stop giving them your money, and watch their entire world shrivel up and die.


And that's why, if you think consuming an herbal substance, for example, is ok, others will always leave you alone. They have no power over you. Right?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.
 




When one has more then they need they must fear something. If I owned a billion dollar company, I am going to make sure the people that got me there, get their share. From the worker on the floor first, and then go up from there. As far as politicians running around saying how we need to redistribute wealth, well as others have stated, give yours away first then we'll talk. In other words actions speak louder then words.


I'll not split the text but will address it by parts. In regard to greed I have already spoken about it in another post but you point a good case for justifying greed, you first define more as an external perception, but it cover more than that it may be a motivator, like eating something you have no need for (or even have better alternatives) to but crave to consume...

In the particular case you cover yes greed can be a perception and often in a business environment it may simply be due to a company's need to form a war chest to counter opposition, greed does not translate well beyond the individual, a company is not motivated by emotions (it is not a person, but a legal construct that often is not under a singular director).

Now on the distribution of wealth you allude I believe that it should be obvious to you as it is to me that it does not work the way you presented it, some distribution occurs but it is not based in fairness or even outright merit.

As for politicians, no one in his right mind cares what they say in today's world unless it hinges on their own interests. As an example you can see how taxation policies are normally structured and how it is spent, that is all we need to know about a politicians view on redistribution.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 





Does not imply trying?

Actually that's exactly what it meant. If you don't enter competitions you won't win. People who claim bad luck typically don't do things that lead to opportunity.


I said lack of trying and also that Live does not permit anyone to be static. It is obvious that not entering a competition will exclude you for any returns, what you seem to dismiss is that you don't win all competitions and that competing has costs.

This is predatory behavior 101, you only spend your resources pursuing targets you have a good chance to win.



Our divorced unemployed family friend keeps moaning about his bad luck, observation of him and other people I know claiming bad luck has told me that they're own behaviour is what's lead them into trouble. One guy in particular keeps going on about how hard done by he is. Has lived at home unemployed from 18 to 40, being supported by parents until he was in his late thirties, no health problems that weren't due to his drinking and dope smoking. But apparently bad luck was the reason he's broke at 40.


A simple competition does not translate well to our complex society, the concurrency and intermixing of variables is too vast to clearly define anyone. The best chance you have is in segregating those in top positions especially since they are a smaller set and share more characteristics amongst themselves. You can't evaluate a barrel of apples by a single one... Consider every steps on the life of a human being under our society and you are bound to see areas that are outside of the individual's control that will shape his path in life. Now consider the chances in comparison with someone that was helped, nurtured or guided toward the right decisions, not the same...



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

spiritualzombie

beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.


beezzer
And I call it how I see it.


No, you re-word it as you see fit. You don't argue with the truth because you can't, so you change the truth to be something you can argue with.

Shame on you.


Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by Antigod
 





Does not imply trying?

Actually that's exactly what it meant. If you don't enter competitions you won't win. People who claim bad luck typically don't do things that lead to opportunity.


I said lack of trying and also that Live does not permit anyone to be static. It is obvious that not entering a competition will exclude you for any returns, what you seem to dismiss is that you don't win all competitions and that competing has costs.

This is predatory behavior 101, you only spend your resources pursuing targets you have a good chance to win.



Our divorced unemployed family friend keeps moaning about his bad luck, observation of him and other people I know claiming bad luck has told me that they're own behaviour is what's lead them into trouble. One guy in particular keeps going on about how hard done by he is. Has lived at home unemployed from 18 to 40, being supported by parents until he was in his late thirties, no health problems that weren't due to his drinking and dope smoking. But apparently bad luck was the reason he's broke at 40.


A simple competition does not translate well to our complex society, the concurrency and intermixing of variables is too vast to clearly define anyone. The best chance you have is in segregating those in top positions especially since they are a smaller set and share more characteristics amongst themselves. You can't evaluate a barrel of apples by a single one... Consider every steps on the life of a human being under our society and you are bound to see areas that are outside of the individual's control that will shape his path in life. Now consider the chances in comparison with someone that was helped, nurtured or guided toward the right decisions, not the same...


Your not grasping the point. If you don't try (enter the competitions) of course you won't win prizes, and you'll percieve the outcome as my good luck and your bad luck, not your failure to try.

I'm sorry, I know you believe luck plays a major part, but from observing the people I know you'd call lucky, Luck comes in the form of constant trying, care with money and investing time and cash into things that produce later rewards. even when it meant extra work or deprivation. All the 'unlucky' people I know (like I said, barring the ill) have ended up in the lowest 10% due to their own behaviour. Which they uniformly refuse to acknowledge. It's always 'bad luck'.Not. 'well maybe I shouldn't have borrowed then spent 30k funding a lifestyle I couldn't afford and can't pay back', or 'Maybe I shouldn't have sat on my ass for 20 years sponging of my parents'.

You don't grasp that over decades, dumb luck has a very minority influence on outcome compared to behaviour. Real luck might hit once or twice a lifetime, behaviour affects life outcome 100% of the time.

Competitions as example.

Person does 1000 competitions a year, odds of winning anything meaningful about 1/2000 overall per compettion. Every couple of years a significant win. This is not luck, it's statistics.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

spiritualzombie
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This revelation that neocons are liberals or leftists I find extremely interesting, but very confusing, so please help me out.

These neocons (leftist/liberals) have been interviewed countless times on FOX News, which was thought to be right-wing conservative. So are you saying FOX News is actually leftist? Because these neocons are still loved by FOX News. Aren't they? Or have they since been disavowed?



Neocons are an infiltration of conservatism by "closeted" leftists in a bid to promote leftist ideology in the conservative camp. The infiltration started some time in the 70's, but the actual takeover of the Republican Party occurred in the early 90's, around the time of the presidency of King George Bush the First and the fall of the Soviet Empire. Fox News launched in 1996, probably as an organ to solidify the takeover. Fox News has leftist/ collectivist leanings in furtherance of that goal, but is not overtly leftist. Instead, it promotes and projects a leftist ideology into the conservative camp, while maintaining an appearance of conservatism so as not to alarm the proles, just as neocons do. They pay "lip service" to conservatism to maintain a following, while promoting collectivist ideals.

I dislike the terms "leftist" and "liberal", "right wing" and "conservative", because they no longer accurately describe the political landscape. During the 1990's the political landscape became fluid, and has not yet gelled again. Those terms are generally used to promote an appearance of the continuity of previous divisions, but the divisions are falling out along somewhat different lines - which is why I use the terms "collectivist" and "individualist" instead, because they seem to me to be a more accurate description of where politics seem to be heading in the US.

"Liberal" and "liberty" both come from the same root. At one time, "liberals" were serious individualists. "conservative" goals were to maintain the status quo, to "conserve" it. Now they have become empty terms, and BOTH camps are marching in the same direction - towards collectivism, which during the 60's, 70's and 80's was associated with "leftism". Neocons seek to promote the notion that the old dividing lines still exist, while surreptitiously erasing them.

It's very Orwellian (hence my use of the term "proles" above"), this drive to change the language to create a new reality. language is used to express thought, but it can be used to control thought as well, if terminology can be successfully reassigned to shape thought in a different direction. We cannot "think" what we cannot accurately describe, because we cannot get the concepts across to others without the proper language.

Around the year 2000, to mark the presidency of King George Bush II, the actual color schemes were changed, swapped "red" for "blue", to assist in the confusion. Confused minds are easier to reformat. It almost got me - but observing what W was doing, and comparing it against what I knew of conservatism, I saw a disconnect there, and left the Republican Party for good in 2003. I ain't going back, and it seems I'm not the only one who left. Republicans were deserting the party like rats abandoning a sinking ship, because they too saw that it no longer represented conservatism.




So are conservatives who watch FOX News actually leftist liberals?



They are collectivists - however one wants to assign that terminology amongst "conservative" and "liberal". Using my wife as a further example, years ago she would have been a flaming "leftist", but is now considered a "conservative". Her ideas have not changed, but the descriptors for them have.




When did this happen? Did right wing conservatives know all along that Neocons like Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc where actually leftists? If so, why did FOX News support them, unless FOX is also leftist? And all it's viewers leftist also?



The neocons started probably in the 1960's, but didn't get much ground. Through the 70's and 80's they gained traction, and around 1990-91 got bold enough to start a party takeover. Fox News was created in 1996, I believe, to consolidate and solidify their gains in that takeover bid, and it was all but completed around 2000. "right wing conservatives" had no idea what was hitting them for the most part, and went with the flow, eating up the collectivist ideals being promoted. Their thoughts and philosophies were being reformed, in the sense of "reshaped", without their knowledge, surreptitiously. What passes now for "conservatism" is nothing more than the "right-wing" of leftist ideology (hence the notion, becoming more common, that both parties are simply "two sides of the same coin")... but it is NOT the conservatism I grew up with.




Please make this make sense. I'm genuinely interested.



Early neocons, like Kristol et al, promoted the notion that they were "reformed liberals" to make the notion more palatable to what were, in those days, actual conservatives. the thinking was "see? they've seen liberalism for what it was, and crossed the fence to OUR side!" when in reality it was an infiltration rather than a change of heart.

Actual "conservatism" is highly individualistic - hence the calls for "smaller government" we see bandied about. Individualism doesn't flourish under draconian government, so actual conservatives are against that. What do we see the Republicans promoting these days? MORE government, BIGGER government. That seems to be the very reason for this thread - ire at the Republican bid for MORE government, BIGGER government that promotes the Wall Street Collective's financial interests. The bailouts were collectivist - they benefitted the financial collective while promoting the idea that they were necessary for the general collective ("too big to fail"... "YOUR economy will crash if we don't help them out", etc). Don't look now, but if you were against that sort of thing, you may actually be a "conservative".

As I recall, Fox News promoted the bailouts... and that tells me all I need to know about Fox News.

W bailed them out... and Obama bailed them out AGAIN. How is that demonstrating a fundamental difference between the two philosophies? It doesn't, because there really isn't one.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

AlwaysIdeaMan

How do you "redistribute" respect? Appreciation? Self satisfaction? Friendship? Love? Fame? There is no trade, barter, work exchange, money. What motivates us will be our heart, what we WANT to do. There is no way to redistribute that. "Ideas per minute?" If somebody has no ideas, who cares???



I don't know how you redistribute it - that's the gig of the "everyone needs to be the same" crowd. I'm sure they'll figure it out - probably by passing another few laws when folks start whining about the other guy having more of what they want, whatever it is. That seems to be their thing - passing laws to limit one and try to enhance the other beyond what the other can get on their own.




Really? The starving artist working at McDumps has the choice to paint with paints they can't afford? With canvases they can't afford? In a studio they can't afford? No... Most people are working for the weekend when they CAN do what they want to do IF they can afford it. We all are trying to "get ahead, but I have news for you, only a very small fraction can get there.



Baloney. "Can't afford" is doublespeak for "just don't want bad enough". There have been things that people tried to tell me I "can't afford", but with judicious reallocation of funds, I found that I COULD afford those things.

This computer is one of them. Because I wanted it bad enough.





That starving child is likely realizes what he has, eh? Um... What DOES he have?



Life. An ability to perambulate. It's a start towards getting what else he needs. The catch is, he has to seize that opportunity... or die with flies in his eyes.




Heh. You don't think all those people who now contribute $20 to charities (that pay themselves first and maybe 2% gets to the ones in need) because they can't afford to go feed them themselves but they do care, being freed to travel, arrange food shipments, and go help directly would sit and just feel badly for these others? Really? I think we humans will ensure food goes where it is needed.



Baloney. They would do that NOW. They give that 20 dollars just to assuage their frazzled nerves and feel like they are "doing something". If they really meant it, they would use their vacations for that purpose, at least. The really serious ones would MOVE there, full time. Out of curiosity, where is this cornucopia of food for the starving going to come from to BE "shipped"? You can't send what is not in existence to BE sent.




And that's why, if you think consuming an herbal substance, for example, is ok, others will always leave you alone. They have no power over you. Right?



Right. They have only the power over you that YOU give them. Revoke it.




edit on 2014/2/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


What ?!? Are you reading what I write or was the reply not intended to me ?

Its the second time I reply to you and you compliantly ignore what I stated... and go in a tangent...

I don't believe in luck at all (nor in magic).

I stand by what I said...



I said lack of trying and also that Live does not permit anyone to be static. It is obvious that not entering a competition will exclude you for any returns, what you seem to dismiss is that you don't win all competitions and that competing has costs.

This is predatory behavior 101, you only spend your resources pursuing targets you have a good chance to win.

A simple competition does not translate well to our complex society, the concurrency and intermixing of variables is too vast to clearly define anyone. The best chance you have is in segregating those in top positions especially since they are a smaller set and share more characteristics amongst themselves. You can't evaluate a barrel of apples by a single one... Consider every steps on the life of a human being under our society and you are bound to see areas that are outside of the individual's control that will shape his path in life. Now consider the chances in comparison with someone that was helped, nurtured or guided toward the right decisions, not the same...


If you don't feel like intelligently replying to what I post at least restrain yourself from writing nonsense without any relation to what I said previously...

PS: I wonder who was the lunatic that stared your post...
edit on 2-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 



The top 1% are supporting the top .0001%. The mindsets of the top 1% are a problem. They should be scared to support the top .0001% for fear of having their assets taken for supporting financial terrorism, fraud, intentionally misleading public through multiple news outlets.


I disagree with this as well. I would say the top .001% of income earners earn most of their money by protecting the top .0001%, but the top 1% to the top .001% are for the most part good, hard working, talented capable people, who are in fact simply highly successful people. The higher you go up the chain, the higher the percentage of psychos you are going to encounter.

I don't put these people on a pedestal like many posters on the thread, I see most of the top 1% as upper middle class. I would also note that there are even more good, hard working, talented capable people, who are in fact simply highly successful people, who don't make that much money. There is much more to life than money.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, the truth about those who worship wealth, they think rich people should be above the law.

It is like the worship of royalty, many believe the rich should not be held to the same standards of justice as us mere peasants.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

beezzer

thesaneone

spiritualzombie
but it should be where we ALL win.


This is what irks me with some people, why should we all win? Should we all be winners even if we don't deserve it or earn it. Who chooses the losers? You?


Shhhhhh!

EVERYONE gets a trophy!


Thanks, Beez.. "No Kitten Left Behind". Drag him and the GPA along at any cost!
And all I wanted was the opportunity to fail rather than its codified inevitability.
Communism, fascism, whatever.. they're all just flavors of totalitarianism. Larry
McDonald had to die because he was politically visible and dead right.
edit on 2-2-2014 by derfreebie because: Politically misspelled to almost get blown through a newspaper



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by diggindirt
 



This country is full of self-made people who used their wits/talents to become wealthy.


And a high percentage of those did so by hook and by crook.

I read what you are posting. The criminal element always feels justified in taking what they want from others. They see victims as fools who failed to defend themselves properly. Murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, it is all the same to them, the victims are the guilty party for allowing themselves to become victims.

That is until they are on the other side of the act.

Sure I have been a victim of white collar crime, got my change on the dollar from several class action lawsuits. I am among the growing majority in getting screwed by the wide spread fraud that has been allowed to be perpetrated on the U.S. public of the last thirty years in the name of the free market scam. I didn't buy any pet rocks, but I have been cheated by those who broke contracts and skated away with lots of peoples money because our current system allows such things.

It has been my observation that what goes around comes around, and there are alot of people with a comeuppance on their way.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Reagan was the first big, successful neocon. It all started with Reagan.

The Bush clan is old school die hard conservatives. They financed Hitler to break the German unions. Straight up, old fashioned class warfare.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by Antigod
 


What ?!? Are you reading what I write or was the reply not intended to me ?

Its the second time I reply to you and you compliantly ignore what I stated... and go in a tangent...

I don't believe in luck at all (nor in magic).

I stand by what I said...



I said lack of trying and also that Live does not permit anyone to be static. It is obvious that not entering a competition will exclude you for any returns, what you seem to dismiss is that you don't win all competitions and that competing has costs.

This is predatory behavior 101, you only spend your resources pursuing targets you have a good chance to win.

A simple competition does not translate well to our complex society, the concurrency and intermixing of variables is too vast to clearly define anyone. The best chance you have is in segregating those in top positions especially since they are a smaller set and share more characteristics amongst themselves. You can't evaluate a barrel of apples by a single one... Consider every steps on the life of a human being under our society and you are bound to see areas that are outside of the individual's control that will shape his path in life. Now consider the chances in comparison with someone that was helped, nurtured or guided toward the right decisions, not the same...


If you don't feel like intelligently replying to what I post at least restrain yourself from writing nonsense without any relation to what I said previously...

PS: I wonder who was the lunatic that stared your post...
edit on 2-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Honestly your posts are bit incoherent, it's hard to figure out what you mean. And it's not just me, my spouse has an english degree and he can't make sense of your responses either.

Which makes the 'restrain yourself from writing nonsense' actually kind of funny. As yet you haven't made a coherent point.

Other posters here should wade in at this point so we have some idea of which one of us is having a malfunction



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
In my opinion the bigger problem is not redistributing wealth but rather making the system a fair one. The only reasons why you have a top 1% rather than a top 30% is because there exists the ability to manipulate and corrupt our political and legal system. If you took away lobbyists and special interests and actually enforced anti-trust laws, places like walmart would fail and 1,000 small businesses would once again exist.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
it's really the .000000016%, these are the top 85 wealthiest people in the world that are ruining it for everyone else. They're the ones that pick the president of the U.S. They rig the voting machines, and just kind of coin toss, which candidate has the most dirty laundry, so they can bribe them, and turn them into their puppet. Warren Buffet heads the list with George Soros.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The royalty of the world are all related to each other.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes, the truth about those who worship wealth, they think rich people should be above the law.

It is like the worship of royalty, many believe the rich should not be held to the same standards of justice as us mere peasants.



Who thinks rich people should be above the law? They should be subject just lke everyone else. But you also need to grasp they most of them earn their money legitimately, often doing jobs that require years of training and massive investments in college feesfollowed by years of on the job experience. They also often supply employment when they run a business and boost the ecomony and create wealth.

Oh how evil.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.
edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


You sound like a person in your early 20s who hasn't hardly started yet and it seems you don't have the ambition to try, so you want what others have worked hard to get.

BTW 500k is in the 1%ers club, are they too the evil rich?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join