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

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I am sorry but you are dellusional. It seems you suffer from the stockholm syndrome.

I can see why I may have deserved that.

You cant blame the government for everything and give these ultra rich parasites a blank check. It fails the logic test in every possible way. People with too much time and money on their hands will plot against the common person anytime they can. They already do!

No, I can't, and yes you are absolutely correct.

I understand that their are rich people with nefarious aims, but I don't want to arbitrarily equate "being rich" with "being evil." I mean, I have lived in ghettos, and there are poor people who are absolutely "evil."

The rich people in power are not evil because they have money. They were like that before they had money. I mean, I have read about the Rockefeller and Rothschild lines, and it seems like these families were bent on domination in any way possible.

Money, for them, was only a means to an end.

I don't like the idea of trying to use government to impose restrictions on how much any person or corporation could earn. That is not "freedom." That is authoritarian, it is only financial authoritarianism, but it is still despotic.

I mean, government is like a rabid dog, and corporations are the guys breaking into your home trying to rob you. You can hope that the rabid dog will defend you but, chances are, it will only wind up biting you. All the while you're being robbed.

Sooooo, how does one protect themselves from a rabid dog and the burglar?

And shrinking the government in relation to what exactly? Getting rid of the federal reserve and irs and going to the gold standard? Getting rid of social security and welfare where millions of americans have grown to relly on such programs from necessity? What exactly do people like you support?

If we did this in the correct order, I think we would be OK.

First off, I am in favor of doing away with all internal taxation. Both against the individual and against businesses. If the government needs to generate revenue (which they do, and that's what taxation is supposed to be for) they can raise taxes on tariffs. We do billions of dollars worth of business in foreign trade, the government could easily generate the money they need without bothering US citizens or businesses.

Social security should be optional, as its a retirement plan the government offers people.

Paying into a welfare fund should also be optional. But, by doing away with internal taxation, I don't think we would need welfare. Businesses would have the incentive to bring manufacturing plants back to the US, as it would be cheaper than mass producing products in foreign countries. Especially if the government levied heavy tariffs on foreign trade. This would give us back jobs and help boost the US economy.

Also, it would benefit foreign countries, because they would not have to internally compete with US companies. Let the competition begin.

As far as the Federal Reserve goes, not only do we need to get rid of it, we need to take everyone associated with it and hit them with things.

The US survived for years without a central bank. Our economy used to be non-inflationary, which means that the costs of living were not sky-rocketing at an exponential rate. The prices of goods and services stayed the same for many many years.

The fractional reserve practices of the federal reserve are mathematically setup to create hyperinflation. The devaluation of dollar is intrinsic to the system itself.



Also it should be noted that Congress does have the authority to issue our currency. The Federal Reserve (a private bank) is not needed. Remember that we didn't have the Federal Reserve until 1913. Even Woodrow Wilson realized, in hindsight, that he had dun goofed by signing the Federal Reserve Act into law.

I remember reading gary johnson saying that trucks crossing the mexican border from either side should pass each other going at 60mph. That is unrestrained globalism. Now there are some or many things I agree with him such as shrinking the military and becoming more isolationist in regards to middle eastern affairs. But I cant agree with his laissez faire free trade baloney.

Was he implying that we need to open up our borders to unrestrained trade (hence the truckers zipping by one another)?

We have become ticks, vampires and whores. Ain't that nice! This mentality started in the black community

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


WOW can't get anymore racist than this...wow...

Entitlement issues is not a poor thing, it's actually a rich elite, thing just watch one of their spoiled brats one day.

3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well..... hmmmmm..... they're buying politicians and lawmakers and telling them to write and pass laws that only benefit themselves while screwing the little guys at the same time. So the question is, why don't YOU care how they spend their money when it is painfully obvious that it is lining their pockets and hurting the economy which YOU rely on to make a decent living?

Because I am a Libertarian. I believe in personal freedoms. If someone wants to influence legally, they have the right to do so. But.....without the corrupt Govt in the first place, there would be no need nor no ability to influence such things.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Like I said, they can spend their money however they want, AS LONG as it doesn't affect me or anyone around me. Well guess what, the way they are spending their money IS affecting me and the whole country, so I ask again, WHY DON'T YOU CARE?

Well, you are spending money on beer and that affects me, because I smell beer and I don't drink. So, I therefore get to tell you not to drink.
While the example is very simplistic in nature, it is the basis of the argument.
These wealthy people made their fortune and they are spending it how they see fit. If there are factual distinct examples of illegal actions, I am willing to look at it. Wildly cast statements of "well, they got their money by screwing the little guy" is bull crap.
Most built a business, pay people as the market dictates and reaps the benefits of such things.
People are not forced (For now) to work a job. People are free to leave a place of employment for another (For now). The owner did not force anyone to work for them.
Free will.
I don't agree with certain companies and their stances, so I go out of my way to not spend my money on their products. Very simple really.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
These huge mansions and fleets of jumbo jets are a byproduct of them buying the system, that's the entire point of the thread. I wouldn't give a rats ass if they had all these things, as long as they earned it fair and square, they haven't which is why I do care. Understand yet?

What is fair and square and who gets to define that?
Fair and square is not getting it by illegal means. Not that the got their money by paying a little less then someone else.
Jealousy is the ugliest color on a person, and it is just as ugly on members here.
You don't get to on one hand, get to judge someone and dictate how they got their money and spend it, and then turn around only to get pissy about people saying those without money should work harder.
Both are judgements, both are BS.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
If these mega rich people didn't offer the government money, the government wouldn't do what they wanted. The governments actions are a direct RESULT of the bribes which the mega rich offer, meaning it is a stemming of the root problem, the mega rich and their bribe money.

No, the root is corrupt Govt. Without it, there would be no corruption.

This is very much like the drunk driver and alcohol.
The driver is the Govt and Alcohol is money.
Without alcohol, the driver may not be drunk, but still shows no responsibility to make good choices, as they would continue to drive if alcohol was there.

Govt is the root of the issue. The wealthy still can't enact law, interpret law or enforce law. That is all Govt. No amount of linguistic gymnastics will change that.
Companies may influence such things, but it is legal, and they are still only the influence.

reply to post by crazyewok


So only limiting certain things. So, basically half way in, half way out.

Yeah, and who gets to determine such things? The corrupt Govt?

I guess I believe freedom for everyone, and not just for some as dictated by the Govt.

EarthCitizen07


You really think the new world order scumbags are progressive rather than liberals masquerading as progressives? Why do they make life tough for north korea and cuba then? Cuba was atacked by JFK who supposedly was a progressive and occupied by the russians who wanted to install nukes back in the 60s. Obama and the UN want tough restrictions on north korea, and even china has turned their back on north korea.

I have no problem with Liberals. The classic Liberal was for less Corp control but also less Govt intrusion.
Progressives are the issue, As they have infected all sides of the issues, and most are the wolf in sheep's clothing.

EarthCitizen07
You guys are perpetually stuck in the liberal vs conservative debate. The liberals call the conservatives facists and the conservatives call the liberals progressives. A battle of hyperbole with zero substance.

Good thing I am neither mentioned.

EarthCitizen07
Yes the extremely rich are a problem. People and families that have amassed billions and trillions. They call them the bilderbergers collectively as a nickname. They meet in private each year at least twice: once at a fancy hotel with the local taxpayers footing the bill and once at bohemian grove which is a 5000 acre private estate. What do you think they talk about at these meetings??????

No, they are not the problem. A corrupt Govt is the problem. Without it, all the wealth in the world wouldn't mean much except they have wealth.

macman
reply to post by crazyewok

 

So only limiting certain things. So, basically half way in, half way out.

Yeah, and who gets to determine such things? The corrupt Govt?

I guess I believe freedom for everyone, and not just for some as dictated by the Govt.

WTF?
Im not saying limit anyone wealth. Only the power one indivial can exert over the goverment.

Only time one should lose there money is if they break the law and get fined. And that fine should go towards fixing what damage they did in the case of corruption.

Well how can you reduce the goverments power and corruption without laws?

Without laws the same sleezy people will start the cycle all over again and you get a big bloated corrupt goverment again accepted bribes ect from big cooperations!

How would you stop that?

Who gets to determine who breaks the law? Well the courts! It all about makeing sure they run well and equally for everyone.

How else would you sort the problem?

And dont just say no goverment. You need a small one if just to handle the military and police.
You will needs at least some laws or system in place to make sure the goverment stays small and uncorrupted and doesnt act above the law.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Private central banking is the problem. The federal reserve issuing debt-based fiat currency that charges an interest rate called the prime rate to commercial banks, then the commercial banks that have shares in the federal reserve tack on their own interest rates and lend that money to the public and business.

In other words the banks are above government and shrink the money supply since they get a cut at each stage of the financial transactions. Commercial banks keep 10% of their money as reserve and lend out 90%. They try to not borrow from the federal reserve that often because it eats away at their profit margin considerably.

The government has no way of raising revenue other than taxation. Taxation on everything that is over-bearing and catastrophic. People dont keep much of their income anymore because the government is indeed too big, intrusive and war mongering. Tariffs are necessary, but alone I think they are not good enough. It will however lessen the internal tax burden quite a bit.

We need public central banking to replace private central banking. The government should be in the business of lending money and planning macro-economic policies. I would study the soviet model and copy that. I am not saying the economy should be planned entirely, just control the flow of money to prevent constant inflation and deflation.

Regardless if we believe in nationalised industry or free market economics unless we get rid of the private central bankers, nothing meaningful and productive will ever happen. The central bankers love keynesian theory(which is part of neo/new liberalism and neo/new conservatism) because they want to destroy the economies of each nation to install the new world order. The new world order being satanic in nature.

macman

EarthCitizen07


You really think the new world order scumbags are progressive rather than liberals masquerading as progressives? Why do they make life tough for north korea and cuba then? Cuba was atacked by JFK who supposedly was a progressive and occupied by the russians who wanted to install nukes back in the 60s. Obama and the UN want tough restrictions on north korea, and even china has turned their back on north korea.

I have no problem with Liberals. The classic Liberal was for less Corp control but also less Govt intrusion.
Progressives are the issue, As they have infected all sides of the issues, and most are the wolf in sheep's clothing.

EarthCitizen07
You guys are perpetually stuck in the liberal vs conservative debate. The liberals call the conservatives facists and the conservatives call the liberals progressives. A battle of hyperbole with zero substance.

Good thing I am neither mentioned.

EarthCitizen07
Yes the extremely rich are a problem. People and families that have amassed billions and trillions. They call them the bilderbergers collectively as a nickname. They meet in private each year at least twice: once at a fancy hotel with the local taxpayers footing the bill and once at bohemian grove which is a 5000 acre private estate. What do you think they talk about at these meetings??????

No, they are not the problem. A corrupt Govt is the problem. Without it, all the wealth in the world wouldn't mean much except they have wealth.

Both new liberals and new conservatives believe in big business judeo-american globalism using the government as leverage to deprive workers of fair compensation and using the government as leverage to force small business into insolvency.

I dont think I can explain it anymore simply to you. Progressives are the solution, not the problem.

Late to the thread, but props to the OP I enjoyed reading it. I also sat through the entire vid synopsis of the book, which was an eye-opener on many levels. It reminded me a little of the book Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. No surprise this thread is long, as the problem is obviously extremely complex and goes back hundred of years dating back to the East India Company. The common link is that the US is still today the "special partner" of the UK, phony wars notwithstanding.

I agree, it's beyond obscene for a man over 70 years old to be worth 73B. If the uber-rich were forced to pay more in taxes, wouldn't they just find more ways to hide their money? Is there really a way to get the cat back in the bag? You could take 50B and just wipe away tremendous suffering, and still not be able to spend the rest. How much money would it take to cure cancer? Or bring it down a few pegs?

Another big facade is the Vatican. How much money do they hide? Think they have the same interest?

I get into these discussions with people face-to-face and always wind up putting my head in the sand for a while since it becomes so overwhelming. Coming to this board is a great way to vent and share with like-minded intelligent people. But after we have out little chats here we always go back to whatever it is we do/don't do. It's frustrating and depressing.

I'm thankful to have a someone to love who loves me back, to have a family and a roof over our heads. I can drive to the beach in 5 minutes and watch the sunset. I am rich.

reply to post by macman


Is it freedom when whether you live or die is decided by the size of your wallet?

Is it freedom when your education is dependant on the size of your/your parents wallet?

Is it freedom that a large part of your actual value of your work is taken by the company to pay extreme salaries to top employees? It is absurdity stating any of the world´s even top 10k richest people made it on their own. They might have started with nothing, but they did not make it on their own. Steve Jobs might have played a central role in Apple, yet he did not make anything alone. Apple would be nowhere without all the employees who are creating products for them, whether the design, factory work or engineering. Even without the cleaning ladies the company would be nowhere. Most of the top people unfortunately have made their money from exploiting people overseas or even at home country by paying them as few as they can while raking in the profits from their work. You think most companies using workforce in Asia pay the worker fair salary compared to local living standards? Far from it.



Is if freedom when it is nearly impossible to start a new company (not start-up) in most fields as it is impossible to compete with already existing corporations? Regulations are not killing the small business sector, corporations are killing it. There is no way for a new company with only a couple of employees to be able to compete with big corporations, when it comes to prices and unfortunately people do not give a damn about whether a company is "good" or "bad", they go for the lowest price.

You can not only blame the corrupt government, the other side is just as guilty. If I wanted to bribe you and you accepted it, both of us would be equally guilty. Your argument is like saying drug dealers are not doing anything wrong, the people who buy are...

The fact that somewhere in the lawbook is a loophole is not a justification for one´s deeds. If murder was legal, it would still be wrong, whatever the law says.

There is one common denominator in all of this - greed. Greed is in human nature - there will always be greedy people out there, who would exploit anyone for profit. That is why there must be regulations that would stop one´s greed, especially competition laws which would ensure that no company would hold too large parts of the market and small/medium businesses would altogether hold the largest share. It is abnormal when a handful of companies has over 60% of the market at their hands. Something like that should be untolerated.

Something I personally like is some rule which would regulate company salaries so no employee would get too large salary compared to other employees. Lowest employee salary:highest employee salary should not be more than 10 times in my eyes. You might be higher in the company, but you do not more than 10 times than the lower employees.

Regulations are important to control greed, to ensure free market and ensure that single people would never gain extreme amounts and every employee would gain a fair share from their work.

reply to post by Cabin


His definition of freedom rests purely on preventing foreign nations from conquering america, while at the same time it seems perfectly acceptable that usa and britain conquer as many nations as they can.

Financial slavery is unheard off for these folks. They rail against the government eventhough the government provides them their paycheck each month, speaking of hypocrisy.

How anyone can support the rich and put all the blame on government is preposterous.

reply to post by crazyewok


First off, I have never stated "no Govt". I have continually stated the smallest Govt possible.

Limiting power is still limiting freedom. It operates under this false idea that everything must and can be fair in life.

Certain people will always have more in life, and some with always have less. No amount of Govt or laws will ever change that fact of life. People will always figure out a way around laws.

We do need laws, but again, laws to apply to everyone, laws that are actually enforced, laws that are simple and the least amount of laws.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No, Progressives are not the solution. Progressivism is the reason why we are where we are.
This idea that all things need to be fair, we all get a medal, the Govt can take care of everyone, criticizing people is not allowed is the reason why we are failing.
If you want to see the other failures in the world, look towards where this Progressive mindset is in motion.
California, broke, restrictive laws, companies fleeing, moronic people in charge, one of the Progressive meccas in the US. Just on ideals alone CA is failing and failing wonderfully.

macman
reply to post by crazyewok

 

First off, I have never stated "no Govt". I have continually stated the smallest Govt possible.

Limiting power is still limiting freedom. It operates under this false idea that everything must and can be fair in life.

Certain people will always have more in life, and some with always have less. No amount of Govt or laws will ever change that fact of life. People will always figure out a way around laws.

We do need laws, but again, laws to apply to everyone, laws that are actually enforced, laws that are simple and the least amount of laws.

But at some point you do have to limit freedom. By deffinition a small goverment will still limit freedom but in a small way.

I should not have the freedom to muder you right? In effcet saying no limits my freedom but in a good way.

Should I have the freedom to rob your house no? Im guessing no and if the police caught me you would want me thrown in prison and also take me to court for damages.

Last example should be with the govermnet. If it robs or is corrupt those repsonsible should be locked up and held repsonsible for damages.

Fact is at some point youn do have to draw a line with freedom or you will get caos with murder and rape legal but you dont want it going the otherway were you cant break a fart without signing a goverment permit. And all of us I think have a diffrent opinion were that line should be drawn.

macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

No, Progressives are not the solution. Progressivism is the reason why we are where we are.
This idea that all things need to be fair, we all get a medal, the Govt can take care of everyone, criticizing people is not allowed is the reason why we are failing.
If you want to see the other failures in the world, look towards where this Progressive mindset is in motion.
California, broke, restrictive laws, companies fleeing, moronic people in charge, one of the Progressive meccas in the US. Just on ideals alone CA is failing and failing wonderfully.

California is the textbook example of liberalism gone wrong. Tax and spend into oblivion on one hand, and with the other hand try to pass social equality laws that for the most part are fake.

Real progressivism is about socialism which means nationalising industry.

Cabin


Is it freedom when whether you live or die is decided by the size of your wallet?

Is it freedom when your education is dependant on the size of your/your parents wallet?

Is it freedom that a large part of your actual value of your work is taken by the company to pay extreme salaries to top employees? It is absurdity stating any of the world´s even top 10k richest people made it on their own. They might have started with nothing, but they did not make it on their own. Steve Jobs might have played a central role in Apple, yet he did not make anything alone. Apple would be nowhere without all the employees who are creating products for them, whether the design, factory work or engineering. Even without the cleaning ladies the company would be nowhere. Most of the top people unfortunately have made their money from exploiting people overseas or even at home country by paying them as few as they can while raking in the profits from their work. You think most companies using workforce in Asia pay the worker fair salary compared to local living standards? Far from it.



Is if freedom when it is nearly impossible to start a new company (not start-up) in most fields as it is impossible to compete with already existing corporations? Regulations are not killing the small business sector, corporations are killing it. There is no way for a new company with only a couple of employees to be able to compete with big corporations, when it comes to prices and unfortunately people do not give a damn about whether a company is "good" or "bad", they go for the lowest price.

Yes, it is freedom.
I have yet to allow excuses like you presented, to stop me from achieving my goals.
I have the freedom to fail and the freedom to succeed.

Cabin
You can not only blame the corrupt government, the other side is just as guilty. If I wanted to bribe you and you accepted it, both of us would be equally guilty. Your argument is like saying drug dealers are not doing anything wrong, the people who buy are...

Since drugs are illegal, both are doing wrong.
Since influencing is not, the Govt taking would be in the wrong.
It still comes down to the simple fact that even without money, you still have a corrupt and/or corruptible Govt.

Cabin
The fact that somewhere in the lawbook is a loophole is not a justification for one´s deeds. If murder was legal, it would still be wrong, whatever the law says.

Only wrong if you believe it then.
Your beliefs don't transfer to others.

Cabin
There is one common denominator in all of this - greed. Greed is in human nature - there will always be greedy people out there, who would exploit anyone for profit. That is why there must be regulations that would stop one´s greed, especially competition laws which would ensure that no company would hold too large parts of the market and small/medium businesses would altogether hold the largest share. It is abnormal when a handful of companies has over 60% of the market at their hands. Something like that should be untolerated.

Greed isn't even definable in amounts. That is where you and others that pitch this bucket of crap are either elitist in nature, controlling in nature or both. You don't get to define greed for others and then push them into functioning under that.
You basically want to tell others what they have to see, when viewing abstract art. It is subjective in nature.

Cabin
Something I personally like is some rule which would regulate company salaries so no employee would get too large salary compared to other employees. Lowest employee salary:highest employee salary should not be more than 10 times in my eyes. You might be higher in the company, but you do not more than 10 times than the lower employees.

So, the King of the World mentality crap.
You get to define what others make, but when they get to decide, you bitch and moan that it isn't fair.
Kind of people screaming down onto people to be more tolerant, while themselves not being tolerant.
Hypocritical.

Cabin
Regulations are important to control greed, to ensure free market and ensure that single people would never gain extreme amounts and every employee would gain a fair share from their work.

That is not what they are there for. Regulation/laws/policies are there to define what is legal and not legal.
You want social engineering to meet your idea of the perfect utopian world you see that everyone should live under.

EarthCitizen07


His definition of freedom rests purely on preventing foreign nations from conquering america, while at the same time it seems perfectly acceptable that usa and britain conquer as many nations as they can.

Excuse me?! When did I state that?
Are you going to offer up more bullcrap as enlightened truth? Or actually state something factual.

EarthCitizen07
Financial slavery is unheard off for these folks. They rail against the government eventhough the government provides them their paycheck each month, speaking of hypocrisy.

The Govt provides me with a paycheck? Another bucket of crap pitched.
I hold little personal debt, yet what is my household debt to the Govt? All due to them borrowing to spend on crap.
The only thing that works to hold me back, is the Govt.

EarthCitizen07
How anyone can support the rich and put all the blame on government is preposterous.

Easy, as stated before.
The Rich did not enact the law, interpret the law or enforce the law. The corrupt Govt did.

reply to post by crazyewok


So, if you believe in what you stated, you are a Libertarian. Welcome to the fold.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Both a steaming piles of controlling crap.

No to both.

Both are certain people telling others via Govt what they can and can't do.

If you believe in that, do you also have your security blanket from your childhood? Because that is what it amounts to.

Like I said, they can spend their money however they want, AS LONG as it doesn't affect me or anyone around me. Well guess what, the way they are spending their money IS affecting me and the whole country, so I ask again, WHY DON'T YOU CARE?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


EXACTLY... they're buying the hell out trampling all of our rights and liberties, thank you for someone pointing their idiocy out to the winner who believes it ok to trample our rights because they have the money to buy the rights right away from us, the little guy, they are, in fact interfering with our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but these same people claim to be constitutionalist, what a bleeping joke!