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

The top elite are going to pay for it either way because you can't get blood from a stone.
Take away the ability to feed ourselves and then the revolution is on.

reply to post by jacobe001


Nobody can ever take away my ability to feed myself, because I can hunt fish and grow my own food, unless they catch me poaching because of licensing, but I'm pretty well a master of being sneaky...so here I don't agree with you, some people are quite capable of eating and feeding their families without big government or big food industry conglomerates.

macman

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.

I am saying you shouldn't be criticisiing the government because you work for them or worked for them in the past. I find it hypocritical that you rail against government as a whole rather than just attack parties and people, the administrators of government, you know the people we elect to run our nation for us.

I didnt state it eloquently enough and it appears to have irked you. Tough, I wont sugarcoat all my replies to people who generalise and spread falsehoods.

All that is required is for rest of us together to say no more. Dont work for them, dont sell to them. Get in their way when they are driving. Some could do worse. I believe the time is very near that the huge majority of poor are going to change the rules. If feedom allows some to live in luxury while children starve then we need something besides freedom for all of humanity to live a humane and happy life.

Maybe freedom is just a step torward something even better.

reply to post by ldyserenity

believes it ok to trample our rights because they have the money to buy the rights right away from us

If you have actually read anything that I, or macman, have posted--you would realize that you are absolutely wrong.

Corporations bribe politicians. This is a problem. But, the collective answer here seems to be (at least, from some of you) to "limit" the amount of money that an individual or corporation can make.

That is economic despotism, the very same thing you are fighting against.

You are complaining about having your rights trampled by businesses buying politicians (which is true, they are being trampled), but you want to return the favor by trampling others' rights.

We do have the right to the fruit of our labor. What I make or produce does not belong to you. The reductive logic, that we have to take people's money away under the premise that they could potentially bribe government is theft in disguise of "its for the greater good" reasoning.

Its like the concept of a thought crime, "arrest them before they have the chance to commit a crime." If a person is bent on bribing a politician, they are going to do so--with or without money. Money is not the only way to bribe someone.

A laaaarge portion of Congress is male. It would be extremely easy for anyone to bribe senators and house representatives with sex. Get the Congressman caught in a scandal and you can make them dance to any tune you want. So, corporations don't use money anymore, now they use sex. What then?

If we follow this continuing theme, we don't allow people to be unequally attractive. Maim anyone that is deemed by the state to be "too attractive." Because when government operates, the only way it can operate, is through force. That is the whole point of the executive. Force.

Every time we have to make a change that tramples people's right, a new form of bribery pops up. What we don't realize the entire time is that politicians choose to be bribed. And the circle of madness continues.

Until, of course, we collectively tell our government that enough is enough, and their pettiness will no long be apathetically tolerated by the American people.

I don't think limiting or capping the amount they can make is the answer, I don't know what is, but limiting or having charters for super corporations sounds like a good idea... a ten year charter and after that they have to reinvest into R&D & sell the previous Patents for competition to smaller businesses starting out (at a reasonable rate, of course) Or invest into smaller businesses. I don't know how else it would be used appropriately. Just Ten years and take your earnings and disband company or prove you should be given another ten years but with good evidence supporting real worthy reasons to be given your extension.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Eliminating campaign contributions in favor of a campaign and vote tax would help a lot in eliminating the two party dictatorship. The politicians not pushed by the ptb have to spend inordinate amounts of time fundraising rather than campaigning. It takes tens of millions last I heard to run an effective campaign.

The tea party has managed to clean the republican party to a large extent. Unfortunately occupy has not managed to do the same with the democrats. The democrats are still a ptb party 90%. Not that occupy is strictly for democrats either. Some people vote green, socialist parties as well. Tea Party votes republican and libertarian.



Also I am not for any salary caps in relation to the private sector. I think this is absurd. If a company is successful then its employees can make whatever is deemed appropriate. The salaries of management are normally determined by the stockholders.

EarthCitizen07


I am saying you shouldn't be criticisiing the government because you work for them or worked for them in the past. I find it hypocritical that you rail against government as a whole rather than just attack parties and people, the administrators of government, you know the people we elect to run our nation for us.

So, because I used to work for the Govt, I can't be critical of the Govt.
Biden......Is that you??? I promise not to tell 0bama that you are on ATS.....

The Govt as a whole is corrupt.
So, I also have heard you state before that groups like the GOP are bad. So, I guess that you have moved onto the idea of individual responsibility. Man, funny how things change.

EarthCitizen07
I didnt state it eloquently enough and it appears to have irked you. Tough, I wont sugarcoat all my replies to people who generalise and spread falsehoods.

Seems that you are the one spreading falsehoods. Like, I don't know, insinuating that I am for attacking other nations and all the other BS you pitched as truth.

The entire damn world is corrupt, we are never going to be 100% rid of corruption... so this is all just moot points. What we need is to go back to charters, tariffs, and shutting down monopolies. Also We should get rid of Monsanto so people can stop being poisoned by GMO's.

reply to post by macman


Sorry if what I posted sounded like a cheap shot but it was not intended that way. I have read lots of posts from military men and women that always blame the government and welfare for all the nations problems.

Its an inaccurate description of the problem. Everything has cause and effect.

Capitalism, especially liberalism, breeds cronyism because it bails out big business in the name of saving the economy which is absolute bull#. As you can see quantitive easing has done nothing but put us deeper into debt.

The government is not at fault. Its bad administrators that mismanage the country and voters that are too ignorant and/or indifferent to try something else. I personally like the government as an institution and would like to work for it. I also like nationalised industry and serving the public. Turd leaders do not make for a lousy government.

macman

Seems that you are the one spreading falsehoods. Like, I don't know, insinuating that I am for attacking other nations and all the other BS you pitched as truth.

Weren't you supportative of bush's wars in afghanistan and iraq? Or was it just neo96 and sonnny1?

Maybe you changed your mind after you found out 9-11 was a false flag? Good for you!

I don't hate anyone for the money they have because I could be happy if I could just grow my own food and have my own self sustainable energy and was left the hell alone by everyone, the only thing I envy of rich people is their ability to escape the penalty of any crime they commit and ability to hire security to keep people the hell away from them and the way they could so totally live off the grid cause they have the cash to buy stuff like solar panels and windmills to be self reliant and not have to pay an electric company.

If I had any kind of savings that's what I'd do, completely close myself off from government and the grid.

EarthCitizen07
Sorry if what I posted sounded like a cheap shot but it was not intended that way. I have read lots of posts from military men and women that always blame the government and welfare for all the nations problems.

Its an inaccurate description of the problem. Everything has cause and effect.

Yep, sure thing.

EarthCitizen07
Capitalism, especially liberalism, breeds cronyism because it bails out big business in the name of saving the economy which is absolute bull#. As you can see quantitive easing has done nothing but put us deeper into debt.

And the introduction of Progressivism has brought us to this place.

EarthCitizen07
The government is not at fault. Its bad administrators that mismanage the country and voters that are too ignorant and/or indifferent to try something else. I personally like the government as an institution and would like to work for it. I also like nationalised industry and serving the public. Turd leaders do not make for a lousy government.

The Govt, not the theory of structure of, the Govt, being people in charge, is the issue. The Govt is the people running it.
So, the Govt is corrupt.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No, I wasn't.
Assuming does no person any good.

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

Yep. Because one day we are all going to die. Then what happens? What was it all for? Why are we even here on this planet? To be slaves? To be gods? To get rich? And then what? This world is in dire need of a serious reset.

reply to post by macman


Capitalism breeds corruption and liberalism has nothing to do with progressivism.

Rothschilds, rockefellers and other scumbags can pretend to be as progressive as they want, but they are actually riding the liberal train and abusing it for their end goal called the new world order.

And the government is much more than just the people at the top who run it.

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente
Anybody arguing that government prevents monopolies please answer how Monsanto has so much representation within the federal government/FDA and how that benefits them.

This whole idea that government is necessary to help poor people be on equal footing with rich people is absolutely insane.

If anything, our government, through social policies KEEPS people poor.


Why does it feel like so many people on ATS buy typical B.S. rhetoric by people who don't understand what they are talking about?

How are corporations kept in check when it comes to monopolies then? Is it not through the law? If there were no laws against monopolies, what would prevent them? Who writes laws? Government. Sure... The government is corrupt and is in bed with the corporations. You won't get any argument from me there. But if you are honestly suggesting that corporations should be regulated even less to solve the issue of corruption and crony capitalism than I have no idea what is left to discuss.

You can parrot Ron Paul all you like. I like Ron Paul. I was hoping he'd win the presidency based on his libertarian values alone, but in the back of my mind I was always worried about his economic policies. You can't let the rich run roughshod over the poor in the name of "freedom". That's freedom for one group of people, and serfdom for the other.

What are you talking about Parroting Ron Paul? Where in my post that you quoted have I parroted Ron Paul? is it only because I his face as my avatar that you attempt to draw some DRY link between my free market arguments and Ron Paul?

Econ 101, corporations are kept in check by their customers, not by government. But when the government steps in as a mafia strong arm, it is that much harder for the consumer to protect themselves. There are examples all over the place that even despite Monsanto bridging their executives and legal teams into the deepest trenches of government, people still march and people still spread the word. In fact it is the reason why Monsanto is so entrenched that the people need to fight THIS HARD to get the word spread out.

What happens when Lamborghini refuses to repair a car they sold? A guy in China smashes it with a sledge hammer in front of a crowd and gets the video to go viral.

If you can't trust the government not to get in bed with the corporation how can you trust it to effectively break down monopolies? Your entire argument is a fallacy right there.

Oh and by the way, people who have earned their money get to decide how they are going to spend it. If a farmer picked apples and sold them until he became a billionaire, who are you to say he does not deserve to benefit from his own hard work? Same goes for a stock broker, all you do is replace the stock with apples and the stock market with the apple market. People who earn their money in shady ways, well there is not much we can do about that, if they have broken the rule-of-law then they will have to answer to that but it has nothing to do with you and your judgements with or without the facts.

At what point is a company too powerful?

If Apple made a phone so good, so efficient, and so popular that they took 90% of the smartphone market share, would that trigger you to demand the federal government to split up Apple's assets and maybe give some parts of Apple's company to maybe politicians? or maybe make Apple's new USA assembly public property? Who are you to say that a company that makes products people want can't have a supermajority of the market share? Is it even possible?


The more and more I write the less and less your argument makes any sense so I'll just stop here.

TheBlackHat
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I see nothing wrong with socialism..well the Marxist version. Communism was more about the state controlling individual freedoms and hense it got a bad press...obviously...but socialism, there was never anything wrong with it in theroy. Socialsm pretty much got hijacked by Communist dictators and something that could have been posotive was tarred with a sh17 stick, guilty by association with Communism.
So in the states socialism is an evil word...whenever most people who belive that are christians...hilarious.
The baby got threw out with the bathwater when it came to Communism and Socialism. And I am sure this was done delibretly..as in the USA there has never been an honest debate about sosialism and how it is not Communism in actual fact. The truth being it has never been in the mega riches interest to have an open and honest debate on a system that would abloish their wealth and power.

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

I have to jump in here. Communism is the abolition of the state. No state = no higher authority to be captured by the capital's interest (and interest!). Marx predicted the exact scenario playing nowadays - fictitious capital taking over every piece of value on Earth, including social capital, that is, the workers. Even Zbigniew Brzezinski pays powerful homage to Marx in his "Between Two Ages".

In order for the capital to be eradicated, there must be no supporting structure. In our days, the authority is the total subjugation to paperwork, be it judicial or bureaucratic.

We already have the connected systems required for a complete re-hauling of the laws. The laws don't make any sense anymore. And if you really think about it, the real laws are probably in the religious field. Socialism was what was "needed" to organize production. But today we know that networks are more resilient, more open to creativity and reflect more accurately the reality of how human society is structured. Wherever there's a hierarchy, there's also a network. The network of CEOs, the network of worker bees. Some are smaller, some are bigger. We now have stuff like the nndb, which tracks a bunch of people's networks. That is what Facebook is already doing and funneling the knowledge of hundreds of millions of networks straight to the bankers. That is why they are thoroughly giddy with the exact condition that mankind is in, but somewhat afraid of the future. That is why there has been a major push for 2012-apocalypse movies in the last couple of years. 2012 was PR Stunt by these high-level networks, make no mistake. They do use selected media to push ideas they want on the people's minds. Every day is a PR concert for a lot of people. That is why they must, by all means, keep us afraid to speak our minds, keep us from letting our creativity flow; you can't be creative - you must only watch these people who we say are creative! Who "we" say are artists! You can only like the "alternative" that resembles something - not the people who go out there and make something unique and different. That is exactly the type of stuff that our laws actually forbid. There are over 4,000 patents forbidden to the public by the Pentagon's decision. Only in the last couple of years consumers really started getting a grasp of the "market" by crowdfunding. This is why bitcoins are so dangerous. So the pieces are out there, sometimes right in front of us.

There's this idea that "it's one's right" to enjoy multi-million dollar bonuses. That is not wealth they "created", that is wealth taken out of the system. Taken to some island off some rich country's shores. Sometimes they don't even live there! But they pay almost zero taxes where they live. It's their "right". The middle class however gets totally crushed while the top is thriving. The minimum-wagers get by with credit and shiny toys. Meanwhile the top is at the top, traveling by chartered planes and enjoying literally the best products the global system churns out. The numbers are out there - take a look at the luxury industry. Those are counted by the few hundred or few thousand products a year. And it's a lucrative market. How can it be so tiny? It's because there's a whole other class, or classes, defined by their wealth. To deny the existence of classes is just silly. Even Citigroup has admitted the Plutonomy is the economy that matters for them, in the end. A person born out of the 10% richest of the territory enjoys vastly different types of freedom in comparison to someone who was born out of a family in the bottom 10% poor portion. The first one won't have to go to the streets begging for money after her mom gets thrown out of her minimum-wage job and has to choose whether to feed her family, or to keep a roof over their heads. But hey, both get to vote! Only the second one probably won't play golf with the President. The second one is part of the "people". A giant number of individuals whose opinions only matter if they speak together by the hundreds of thousands or millions. Each individual might think life is pretty #ty for themselves; but unless they carry pitchforks and fire to a public building, not one molecule of the ones who are running the show will care. It's all about Propaganda, and manipulation of Public Opinion. That is what "reality" shows are about. They don't show your reality, only some proxy for your emotions so that you don't confront them. (Makes you wonder... Is it a coincidence that all the Big Brother shows started at about the same time projects like ECHELON, Trailblazer, TIA, etc. were being first activated?)

Communism, however, will ultimately realize itself, maybe by another name. Remember the only way that capital can have the system for itself is through control. But you can't control the Internet without a lot of people noticing it. It's a shame that people glue themselves to screens which only purport total meaningless, mindless spending and consumption. Awareness of the surrounding world is what made us survive in the first place. We must take that finely-honed skill back. I'm sorry for the rambling, but I'm a bit bitter right now.