85 vs 3 + billion; lets talk income inequality

Yeah but since theres more of them they can sail more boats and de fish your waters. As has happened across the world. Still happy?

What are they waiting for? Um......food, tools, knowledge you know the whole bit. Why are you talking to us when you dont even know or care what it really takes to get things done or why things are not done?

 

How can they do that here, without subjecting themselves to the high cost high tax government that is sure to kill their inefficient operations? I have a law degree, they have to hire lawyers when they want to keep up with compliance. They cant compete.

Food? Did the UN destroy their economy again with free crops? Cant they just grow food like all civilizations before them? How much do seeds go for, are there no trees where they live?

Tools? They have plenty of AKs they can trade in for some tools I am sure. The Romans were able to get running water going, I am sure they can.

Knowledge is more accessible worldwide then ever before. A lot of it is because of those 85 people on your list. They are doing their part to make the world a better place, are you doing yours?

 

Why you are trying to keep me posting outside topic?

Implementation means start shedding central government's authority first to existing city councils and then the mayor passes it directly to the citizens , this is a process of deconstructing the state .
I don't see why the trains will not run and there will be no food , is the government that feeds you ? you are still free to associate , make business deals , produce and cultivate .

"His money" you mean profit generated by using other people's labor ? really this is not the place to explain surplus value.

I guess the Bolsheviks gave you a big scare LOL , no communism is against private property (stocks & bonds) not personal one , you made your house through the work of your hands and nobody is going to take it . There is no such thing as "redistribution" , if you make it you keep it .

 

Well no, you wouldn't have anything to say about it. So thankfully, most of those 85 are very charitable people.

Thankfully though, humans have always found a way to survive.
That's something the .01% forget about when whining about the 1%.
You're only as bad off as you choose to be.


That said, I'd rather be with the 85 than the offsetting billions of third-world-poor.

 

Thats fascinating, so one can choose to wealthy? Indeed those 3 billion are choosing to be much poorer.

Tell me more about how this works.

 

Good post, Im only asking you because yo wanted to interject your communism into the discussion. Now Im interested youre not so keen?

This authority shedding you speak of, does anyone else have the time to take the authority on?

 

Youre already admitting that there are large limits to entry into your labour market, and tell us that there are no barriers to any other field of life across the world.

No not at all, for example in much of Africa they can do subsistence farming and thats about it, politics is ruled by tribe, tradition and factionalism, there is no one power across the lands and little knowledge of how to do anything technical. Picking fruit off the trees is about the length of it.

No they dont have plenty of AKs, and anyway AKs need ammo, oil and spare parts. Plus the trade value is limited, plus they wouldnt what to do with the tools.

Knowledge is not so accessible at all. Those 85 are not doing any thing. Neither are you.

 

Oh c'mon. Even a hardcore commie can admit that Bill Gates made the world a better place and helped expand knowledge access. If you can't admit that, no point talking to you. You are just another greed head like RightWingFraud that wants everyone else to do what you are not willing to do yourself.

Now admit that Bill Gates made the world a better place then those 3 billion combined. Lets get real, or just admit you are stroking your wealth envy.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Take financial risks in your life and you can be wealthy. Choose not to take risks, and you have chosen not to be wealthy.

 

What are you going on about?

Because it has nothing to do with what I said.

 

What that tells me is that US minimum wage workers get paid too much since they would pull in an annual income greater than about 3 billion people as the average median income is less than $10K US. We should cut their wages by 1/3 to punish them for not being born in a straw hut in Sri Lanka (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx)

 

I injected communism as a possible solution , other directly democratic systems may get rid of inequality as well because as i posted earlier kicking the state out of the equation eliminates capitalism (well at least in it's current form but i don't wanna get into anacap nonsense).

The purpose is to pass all legislative and administrative powers directly to the citizens , remember this is not a silly revolution since we have all agreed to do it, there will be bumps along the road and mistakes will be made of course ...this is not an utopia. I can talk timeline for Greece because i know the structure of the government here but not for other countries (day 1 the parliament can no longer legislate and so on).

For someone to take authority means that many others are willing to subjugate themselves to his cause , when they are no longer bound by hierarchical structures why to do it ? if you can be free why to serve?

 

The trouble is then that councils of other people take the more local authority your speaking of, leaving problems again of submission to council authority.

 

Sure Bill Gates invented an operating system, it was a bottleneck in the technology and he captured it. Did he himself make the world a better place? Absolutely not. Total rubbish. It was made a better place by the technology itself which was developed by hundreds of thousands of different people over the last century.

Now, you go ahead and admit that that is the truth.

Absolute balderdash. Thats a choice to take a risk, if the risk fails then have you thus chosen to be bankrupt?

 

Au contraire;

 

You were playing victim in your silly rhetorical OP.
If all the fuel is taken, humanity would find a way to survive.
You're only as bad off as you choose to be.

That's the context in which you removed it from.

 

False. It's well known that larger corporations right here in America hire people who produce more than many people here for a small fraction of the pay. Production doesn't translate into value of the worker, which is where pure capitalism fails. It turns to put the person working to defend themselves when if they're having to work for someone else, they're already at a disadvantage in that negotiation. There's no equal ground because likely the employer has more 'product' (i.e. things, i.e. money) than the person seeing work. Why would any rich person work for a poor person in a free market? This is why there needs to be leverage and put more value on the actual LABOR instead of value on the THINGS made by the labor. Someone's sweat is worth money. Every time. And this is the discount that all employers want...discount on that sweat.

 

No my point is not undermined, you are talking about their theoretical wealth, much of which is not very liquid, as in cannot be turned over to cash in a timely manner. That said, your mention of them using their wealth was horribly laughable. Those 85 have an estimated net worth of just over a trillion, how are they going to afford a quadrillion dollar space ship? At the same time if they wanted to build a spaceship and go to another planet they would have to trade their current wealth to others in order to build that space ship and stock it and get everything they are going to need to live on another planet. This means their wealth is moving to the hands of others, their homes, money, and whatnot. In return they have a spaceship... and who the hell on earth wants to buy a spaceship... it would be the quickest way to squander their wealth. That said, why not just let them shoot off to another planet, if their having wealth makes others poor isn't their voluntarily leaving better for everyone else?

This is true, but it is not always true. You can find plenty of people who have had lots of income who squandered it and have relatively nothing. Not spending money on frivalous things, investing wisely leads to wealth far more reliably than relying solely on income. Most people especially poorer seem more content to have the newest i-phone than to get a cheap phone and invest in their future.

It does happen, my father started his own business, put his house and essentially everything he owned on the line. His businesses was successful but while he ran it he payed himself less than his employees as he kept the money in the business and reinvested. Then when he had enough he sold it and was suddenly wealthy. It can be done and it has.

How about you clarify your point about people's wealth and what you want to do? Remember wealth is houses, cars, stocks, bonds, cash, essentially the sum of all ones assets. Are you now saying that we need to start taking peoples things above and beyond taxes, and giving it to others? If so what kind of effects will this have on human behavior? Doesn't this create a disincentive to hard work? How can that be good for society? Rewarding those live in the moment and seek instant gratification over those willing to save and invest in their futures?

 

Please prove that 85 people didn't have more money than 3 billion poor people in 1900. Kthxbai

 

This is nothing more than the latest talking point meme from leftists. There is no 'wealth inequality'. The proportion of wealth held by the top echelon vs. others has been no different in over 120 years. All that has changed is the amount of money available in the economy to possess.

I defy any leftist to refute this.

 

Yes indeed we'd survive but would you be for or against them leaving with it?

And why do you keep saying one is only as bad off as one chooses to be when history and reality are so firmly against you?

- - - Updated - - -

There were not 3 billion such back then. So you go ahead and tell us about historical income inequality if thats what you want to do.

 

Youve no idea how liquid their wealth is so stop it.

A quadrillion dollar space ship can be paid for in instalments, want proof? - Go down to your local spaceship dealer and have a chat over a cup of tea tommorrow.

And who said their wealth makes others poor? Unless they used a finite asset of course.

Utter BS, whether or not you waste it, to have wealth you must first have an income.

And at every time he had an income. At no point did he not have an income.

How about you answer the question posed in the OP?

 

Hey, at least the guy is actually in office, unlike the *******s who blame Bush for everything despite the fact that he left office 5 years ago.

 

Now you're just lying about your agenda. If I work my ass off and build 4 houses, people like you will immediately label me as one of "the rich" and do everything you can to take what I've made and give it to others either by confiscating the property itself or charging me ridiculous amounts of money to keep it.

While I disagreed with you politically, I actually respected you for being upfront about your agenda (unlike most moonbats who lie about their desire to implement socialist policy). But you just lost me with your gross dishonesty there. Please try and do better.

 

Maybe using council was incorrect from my side , what i mean is that if a community has 1.000.000 people all 1.000.000 of them decide about everything and today with the internet it will not be a problem. Of course you can abstain if a matter does not concern you.

The core of communism is the worker and his right to own the product of his or her labor , it not about being rich or not .
"Others" confiscating stuff that ain't made by them is either tyranny or (like Sovietia) state capitalism .
To say it loud and clear if you are not allowed to keep everything you made on you own then there is no communism.