Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

reply to post by spiritualzombie


No.

No fascist policies.(private business using government law making via bribery,collusion and lobbyists to give them an advantage on competition)
Redistribution of wealth is not the answer because it delegitimizes free market innovaton and competition.

Redistribution of power outlined by the constitution(separation of powers,public representation, no lobbyists interacting with lawmakers or judicial law interpreters, no lifetime politicians, no earmarks etc) is a better idea.

Closed for review.

The off topic stops IMMEDIATELY. If it does not the thread will be closed. The next person to make an attack on another will lose their posting privileges for a minimum of 24 hours.

Thread reopened.

reply to post by Antigod


You claim big business is necessary for economic success, but you have yet to prove such a claim.

While you named names, you never showed any evidence that these inventors were primarily motivated by profit.

Inventors not motivated by pursuit of wealth, Tesla, he waived his commissions when Westinghouse claimed they were going bankrupt.

Benjamin Franklin, Berners Lee.

The straight fact is that engineering and science is not a path to great financial success.

I don't care to take anything from the rich, I just want those who made their money through the wide spread fraud of the last several years to pay all that money back, and fines on top of that, and for many jail time.

You don't even know what capitalism is, let alone market economics. As the current state of corporatism has evolved, the corporations own almost everything, and no one actually owns the corporations. It isn't capitalism anymore.

The reason to re-redistribute the wealth isn't to give money to the poor, it is to remove it from being controlled by the corporate entity, restore balance to the system.

The answer is an evenly enforce fair set of rules that establish market competition. Something the U.S. was a lot closer to back in the seventies.

Current manufacturing capabilities do not require big corporations. Look up industrial hemp.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

You claim big business is necessary for economic success, but you have yet to prove such a claim.

While you named names, you never showed any evidence that these inventors were primarily motivated by profit.

Inventors not motivated by pursuit of wealth, Tesla, he waived his commissions when Westinghouse claimed they were going bankrupt.

Benjamin Franklin, Berners Lee.

The straight fact is that engineering and science is not a path to great financial success.

I don't care to take anything from the rich, I just want those who made their money through the wide spread fraud of the last several years to pay all that money back, and fines on top of that, and for many jail time.

You don't even know what capitalism is, let alone market economics. As the current state of corporatism has evolved, the corporations own almost everything, and no one actually owns the corporations. It isn't capitalism anymore.

The reason to re-redistribute the wealth isn't to give money to the poor, it is to remove it from being controlled by the corporate entity, restore balance to the system.

The answer is an evenly enforce fair set of rules that establish market competition. Something the U.S. was a lot closer to back in the seventies.

Current manufacturing capabilities do not require big corporations. Look up industrial hemp.

If you didn't grasp why raising the minimum wage raises inflation to the point of making the minimum wage rise pointless, then you aren't going to understand the role of competition and large manufacturing companies in improving peoples standards of living. I did in fact post a simplified version way back. I know you read it, you commented on it.

The simplest way is that small businesses just can't afford to invest in the tech to make true mass (and therefore cheap) production possible. There's only so many times I can explain this. Small businesses also can't invest millions into R&D. It's takes hundreds of millions to get a drug to market. Where is the small scale chemist meant to get those kinds of resources? Or have enough clout or cash to attract the best researchers into a work contract?

If you dismantle all major businesses and go over to a communist system, you still have the same percentage of bent, greedy self interested people in the population. They just find other ways to get power. And they get way more power and control over other people in 'redistributing' systems, where it's legally okay to just seize other peoples stuff 'for the greater good'. Except in the communist system they don't efficiently produce goods and services and boost the economy to gain influence, they just take other peoples stuff.

I don't comment on higher end corruption and other stuff as I have zero interest in it. You get it in every system.

And I did previously post the tax contribution of the 1%, from my govt's figures. In fact, of the two of us I'm the only one who has provided numbers and names.

Look up the history of the inventors I posted. Whether profit was their original motive or not, they sure didn't shy from making one given the opportunity.

Benjamin Franklin, author of 'the way to wealth?' A book about how to get rich.

Tesla. largely motivated early on by the promise of a 50K reward from Edison (who stiffed him). Also...

Tesla Cashes In After word spread of AC's superior capabilities, Tesla was approached by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company and offered a generous deal to license his technology. In 1888 Tesla met with company founder/president George Westinghouse and agreed to license his patents for the sum of $60,000, plus 150 shares of stock and a $2.50 royalty per horsepower generated by his AC motor. Tesla was also given a $2000 a month salary to work for Westinghouse, the equivalent of $48,000 per month today. Furthermore, the $60,000 lump sum was worth roughly $1.4 million in today's dollars. But Tesla's real windfall didn't come from stock, salary or bonuses, it came from those royalties. As AC power slowly became more widely adopted across the country, Westinghouse happily paid Tesla hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties each year.

So I'd take 'his motives were entirely unselfish' with a pinch of salt.

You are disproved.

reply to post by Antigod


Nothing you posted has anything to do with what I posted.

Clearly you know nothing about Benjamin Franklin, or Tesla.

Clearly you know nothing about big pharma.

Modern tech has enabled people to do so much more with so much less, few people have a clue.

The corporate based economic system we currently live in needs planned obsolescence to continue, and even then, a major crash is inevitable. Their is no reward for efficiency, just a downward spiral of increasingly incompetent bureaucracy, ran by arrogant, clueless morons.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

Nothing you posted has anything to do with what I posted.

Clearly you know nothing about Benjamin Franklin, or Tesla.

Clearly you know nothing about big pharma.

Modern tech has enabled people to do so much more with so much less, few people have a clue.

The corporate based economic system we currently live in needs planned obsolescence to continue, and even then, a major crash is inevitable. Their is no reward for efficiency, just a downward spiral of increasingly incompetent bureaucracy, ran by arrogant, clueless morons.

You keep saying that: "You know nothing."

And that's all you post.

Try actually proving your point by showing how the poster you are addressing "knows nothing" about the subjects you are talking about. List links and post quotes. Prove your point.

The poster you are addressing has gone into detail. You have not.

Go ahead. Give it a try, else you're not exactly contributing any content to the thread.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I post more links and more evidence to back my claims than you, or your fellow debunkers.

I also explain the logic and reasoning behind my opinions, which is something very few debunkers ever produce.

Sometimes the nonsense people come up with is not worth taking the time to show how wrong they are. Anyone can make up that kind of bull fertilizer.

Antigod provide no link for his quote, probably becuase the same link points out how Tesla agreed to end the royalty payments, when Westinghouse lied to him, and told Telsa that the company was going broke paying Tesla, as I originally stated.

www.celebritynetworth.com... lionaire/

Out of desperation, George Westinghouse approached Tesla with a proposition. Westinghouse begged Tesla to lower or temporarily rescind his royalty in order to allow the company to survive. Westinghouse further explained that if the company went bankrupt, Tesla would be faced with the nearly impossible task of retrieving his royalties from a stingy bank creditor. To Westinghouse's amazement, Tesla tore up the original contract on the spot. Tesla was grateful to Westinghouse for believing in him when no one else would. By tearing up the contract and relinquishing his royalties, Tesla single-handedly saved the Westinghouse Electric company. In return, Westinghouse paid Tesla a $216,000 lump sum for the right to use his AC patents in perpetuity (that's worth roughly $5.4 million today).

And, Benjamin Franklin's "The Way to wealth" isn't a book aimed at teaching people how to get rich. Franklin's considered living a good life and working hard as being wealthy.

www.swarthmore.edu...

In 1732 I first published my Almanac under the name of Richard Saunders; it was continued by me about twenty-five years, and commonly called Poor Richard's Almanac. I endeavoured to make it both entertaining and useful, and it accordingly came to be in such demand, that I reaped considerable profit from it, vending annually near ten thousand. And observing that it was generally read, (scarce any neigbbourbood in the province being without it,) I considered it as a proper vehicle for conveying instruction among the common people, who bought Scarcely any other books. I therefore filled all the little spaces, that occurred between the remarkable days in the Calendar, with proverbial sentences, chiefly such as inculcated industry and frugality, as the means of procuring wealth, and thereby securing virtue; it being more difficult for a man in want to act always honestly, as (to use here one of those proverbs) It is hard for an empty sack to stand upright"

reply to post by poet1b


Is that the same almanac that say's:

"A penny saved is a penny earned"?

poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I post more links and more evidence to back my claims than you, or your fellow debunkers.

I also explain the logic and reasoning behind my opinions, which is something very few debunkers ever produce.

Sometimes the nonsense people come up with is not worth taking the time to show how wrong they are. Anyone can make up that kind of bull fertilizer.

Antigod provide no link for his quote, probably becuase the same link points out how Tesla agreed to end the royalty payments, when Westinghouse lied to him, and told Telsa that the company was going broke paying Tesla, as I originally stated.

www.celebritynetworth.com... lionaire/

Out of desperation, George Westinghouse approached Tesla with a proposition. Westinghouse begged Tesla to lower or temporarily rescind his royalty in order to allow the company to survive. Westinghouse further explained that if the company went bankrupt, Tesla would be faced with the nearly impossible task of retrieving his royalties from a stingy bank creditor. To Westinghouse's amazement, Tesla tore up the original contract on the spot. Tesla was grateful to Westinghouse for believing in him when no one else would. By tearing up the contract and relinquishing his royalties, Tesla single-handedly saved the Westinghouse Electric company. In return, Westinghouse paid Tesla a $216,000 lump sum for the right to use his AC patents in perpetuity (that's worth roughly $5.4 million today).

And, Benjamin Franklin's "The Way to wealth" isn't a book aimed at teaching people how to get rich. Franklin's considered living a good life and working hard as being wealthy.

www.swarthmore.edu...

In 1732 I first published my Almanac under the name of Richard Saunders; it was continued by me about twenty-five years, and commonly called Poor Richard's Almanac. I endeavoured to make it both entertaining and useful, and it accordingly came to be in such demand, that I reaped considerable profit from it, vending annually near ten thousand. And observing that it was generally read, (scarce any neigbbourbood in the province being without it,) I considered it as a proper vehicle for conveying instruction among the common people, who bought Scarcely any other books. I therefore filled all the little spaces, that occurred between the remarkable days in the Calendar, with proverbial sentences, chiefly such as inculcated industry and frugality, as the means of procuring wealth, and thereby securing virtue; it being more difficult for a man in want to act always honestly, as (to use here one of those proverbs) It is hard for an empty sack to stand upright"

You know, I think Franklin meant 'money made you rich'. I'm pretty sure he was part of the controlling elite you hate too. He certainly wasn't averse to turning a healthy profit from his industry. That actually says that in your post.

Also, that post about Teslas altruism says he did it because it would be impossible to get his money from the creditors he eventually got paid a shed load for the rights.

Westinghouse paid Tesla a $216,000 lump sum for the right to use his AC patents in perpetuity (that's worth roughly $5.4 million today).

Did you not read it properly? I didn't include a link as anyone with a brain could just paste that text into google and find the page.

SO, you've actually posted data that supported me.

I post more links and more evidence to back my claims than you, or your fellow debunkers.

I also explain the logic and reasoning behind my opinions, which is something very few debunkers ever produce.

Er , no. I don't think anyone here agrees with that statement, judging by the lack of stars on your posts. I posted quite a list of well known inventors who appeared to be motivated by profit: you provide three names, two of whom (the only ones I researched BTW) turned out to be earnest money making machines, motivated by profit. So I won that one.

Morbid curiosity, justy how is a small business supposed to find millions for R and D, or for purchasing the machinery for an efficient production line in your perfect redistributionist world? You just ignore it when anyone raises a major flaw like that. I'd actually like to see a logical response, plus a good reason why raising the minimum wage won't affect inflation in that system. I'd like to see an explanation of how small scale manufacture creates complex goods of better quality and more cheaply too, while you are at it.

Please keep your next post to answering that challenge, instead of going on about how clever you are. Otherwise I'm going too back to Candy Crush.

REMINDER!!!!!

Zaphod58
The off topic stops IMMEDIATELY. If it does not the thread will be closed. The next person to make an attack on another will lose their posting privileges for a minimum of 24 hours.

Thread reopened.

reply to post by Antigod


Franklin meant what he wrote, not what you want to interpret it to be.

Same thing goes for your comments on Tesla. You ignore what proves you wrong.

Neither Benjamin Franklin nor Tesla were motivated by greed. You have yet to provide any proof that any of the great contributors were primarily motivated by greed. All you provided was a list of names, anyone can do that.

In fact you have not proven any of your claims.

Where is your proof that raising the minimum wage creates inflation? The U.S. economy performed far better when the minimum wage was much higher.

Businesses are started all the time without millions, many of them out of the garage.

spiritualzombie

Leonidas
So how much money is a person allowed to keep?

Who decides? You?

Decided by a court.

Just checking with you on that answer; You are SERIOUS about a court deciding how much money a person keeps and how much is distributed to everyone else.?

Or did I miss a chance for a sarcastic laugh at the concept of a Court determining how much of my wages are for me and my dependents?

reply to post by poet1b

Where is your proof that raising the minimum wage creates inflation? The U.S. economy performed far better when the minimum wage was much higher.

Minimum wage hikes lead to job losses and price increases (as I said previously).

economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase

... a study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that a higher minimum wage can actually increase the proportion of families living at or near the poverty line, as the resulting reduction in work hours (or a loss of employment altogether) leads to less take-home pay rather than more
.

Here's a link to the Financial times. Here that explains all the problems you get when you raise the minimum wage.

So you think that paying your cleaner a minimum wage of 12 dollars an hour won't cost you more than paying her six per hour?
What you want to look up is cost push inflation.

"Economics" (2nd Edition) by Parkin and Bade gives the following explanation for cost-push inflation: "Inflation can result from a decrease in aggregate supply. The two main sources of decrease in aggregate supply are An increase in wage rates An increase in the prices of raw materials

Businesses are started all the time without millions, many of them out of the garage

Yes, but they need to work their way up to having millions in assets before they can invest millions in the high efficiency production machinery that manufactured goods need so they an be affordable to a mass market. Or they need to borrow millions from a banker. Both of these things are impossible in a 'redistribute the 1%'s wealth' scenario, as no-one would be allowed to accrue that kind of capital.

Manufacture on a small scale makes a more expensive product. This really is basic economics. You'll find it in all the text books, and if you don't believe them ask a manufacturer of something complicated. I mean you learn this stuff at 18 in economics A level. It's not rocket science.

Neither Benjamin Franklin nor Tesla were motivated by greed.

You don't know that at all. Franklin died a very rich man. Tesla would have if he had invested his money in projects that didn't fail. Good with machines, bad with cash. So I think on the balance of evidence, where I posted evidence of multiple inventors making masses of money from their inventions, that your claim inventors mainly work from altruism is unsupportable.

FYI, most R&D these days is done by massively rich huge companies. Some researchers are post grads, but even then it's usually aimed at getting a phd and a good job after (selfish wealth gaining behavior). A minority is done by states and charities, but most research into tech and medicine is personal/company gain driven.

Well, you to answer my challenge

Morbid curiosity, just how is a small business supposed to find millions for R and D, or for purchasing the machinery for an efficient production line in your perfect redistributionist world? You just ignore it when anyone raises a major flaw like that. I'd actually like to see a logical response, plus a good reason why raising the minimum wage won't affect inflation in that system. I'd like to see an explanation of how small scale manufacture creates complex goods of better quality and more cheaply too, while you are at it.

*SNIP*

Tesla never wanted money he just wanted everyone to have free energy, and invent machines that helped humanity, he often day dreamed of a world full of electricity and machines doing work.

He knew very well that the business he was getting into was all about money, that's why he made false promises to several of his employers so he can conduct his experiments and create new inventions. Eventually his cleverness caught up to him, but at the same time he invented great things that literally changed the world. If more people would invest money into great minds such as Tesla and keep investing we can achieve great things, look at the space program in the 60's many, many investors, not just finiancial but man power as well.

A few years back I technically joined the 1%, I worked out west for a few years as a welder / fitter, made some good cash, helped with energy flow, that was money invested by rich company's and people, created jobs.
And it didn't stop there, I invested my money into a friends business about 12,000, that small amount of money I gave him created 15 jobs, and I got the money back and more. Now that I have a house and stuff I am back to just your average joe.

So saying we need to redistribute money isn't the right way to go, we just need the small percentage of that 1% to invest in programs, education, and manufacturing and not hoard it all, just like they needed to invest into Tesla.

thesaneone

blupblup

Nobody gives a crap about boats and nice things and nobody is jealous of anyone.

You don't really believe that do you?
Ask any drug dealer,gang banger, thief, stripper, hooker why they hustle I bet the answer will involve non essential materialistic garbage.

Every drug dealer, gang banger, thief, stripper, and hooker I have ever known doesn't do it to get rich, they do it because it's the only way they know how to survive in the 1%s stacked deck.

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod

 

Businesses are started all the time without millions, many of them out of the garage.

And how many of them are started with no intention nor hope that they expand and grow larger and turn a bigger and bigger profit? How many are done out of pure altruism and how many would be started if the person who started them knew he was going to have the return on his investment, time, risk, labor, and sweat "redistributed" to people who had nothing to do with starting it?

reply to post by spiritualzombie


U can start with the federal reserve. Let me know when it's completed. Otherwise your point it moot. Redistributing wealth from the low grade rich people will not rid us from the top tier controllers.

reply to post by Antigod


You have proven that you don't know what inflation is, should have stayed awake in those economics classes.

Your link puts up a banner that says "Minimum wage rise is maximum idiocy". No credible source would post a headline that sounds like it was written by a seventh grader.

Your quote is nothing but opinion, no examples, no numbers crunched.

And they expect people to register to read this juvenile propaganda, before you can read the poorly written article.

Your claims that Ben and Tesla were primarily motivated by greed completely lacks any level of logic or reason.

Just because Ben was a self made moderately rich man, doesn't mean his motives were based on greed.

That Tesla was a bad business man and spent all his money on research is more of an indication that he cared nothing for money, not greedy at all. There is no evidence that raising the minimum wage has any effect on employment or inflation, although many studies have been done on the subject.

The minimum wage was highest in 1968, which was a pretty good year economically.

www.newyorker.com...

The second chart shows the unemployment rate going back to 1948. If there was a strong relationship between the minimum wage and over-all employment, the unemployment rate would have risen during the nineteen-sixties and fell back during the nineteen-seventies and eighties. In fact, the reverse happened.

Notice this site posts actual numbers to back their conclusions.