Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Wealth of the 3 richest Americans > Wealth of poorest 50% of Americans

 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Wealth of the 3 richest Americans > Wealth of poorest 50% of Americans Aaron Scott
Consider that for a moment.

Isn't something out of balance when the three richest Americans own as much as the poorest 175 million Americans?

I mean, do we think that these guys have actually outworked all the poorest 175 million? Or do we perhaps think that the poorest 175 million are actually a bunch of lazy, no good, so-and-so's? If you're like me, you know that plenty of solidly middle class folks can be lazy, no good, so-and-so's.

Isn't there surely something out of balance when just three people can have so very, very, very, very, very much...while 175 million don't have that much between them?

No one is arguing that rich folks shouldn't be entitled to wealth. Even if they got it through "wealth privilege" or even luck, that's fine. But when you realize that a billionaire has enough money to spend...wait for it...

$100,000 A DAY FOR OVER 27 YEARS!!!

I wonder if we can truly say that we are looking out for the poor (that Jesus talked so much about) when, you and I could EASILY get by with only half that much per day? or a tenth that much per day? or a hundredth that much a day?

In fact, I imagine that virtually every poor family could get by on $100/day, in most cases.

If we think it's fine to have a minimum wage...if we can discern that every working person should at least make enough to get place them outside the poverty level...then why are we apparently helpless to discern that anything above X amount MORE than enough?

I am a capitalist (with some socialist leanings), but I think we have become so brainwashed by the capitalist cry, or are afraid that we will be called a commie if we don't adhere to the strict capitalist line, or (and this one is particularly repugnant) we think that one day we, too, will be uber-wealthy and don't want to part with any of our money should that happen, that we think it is somehow alright for there to be so many people struggling...while some are so far above struggling.

How would you feel if you knew that just THREE of our Churches of God brought in more tithes and offerings than the bottom 67.4% While those large churches have far more than enough, plenty of small churches that could do so much more have to struggle by on so much less, perhaps unable to pay (or retain) pastors, etc.?

Just some things to think about. (NOTE: I made up the tithe and offerings number just to provoke thought.)
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/22/18 1:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
Thinking in that direction you wonder how you are gonna 'declare them too rich?'
Then you drop to my level of thinking, how can ANY athlete be payed multimillions for playing a game and your scientists and Brain Surgeons paid tens of thousands.

I think you also should limit how much Miley Cirus makes gettin; nekkid and singing!

Of course it seems ludicrous for some to be so rich. But then you must wait and see, or find out how much they GIVE to the poor and other charities.

The thinking and solving of such problems are above my pay grade. I think we know that GIVING to humans with no 'work' required ruins most incentive to reach outside the Giver.

I remember reading of the plight of the Native Americans, take away their way of supporting themselves and give them money.

Then we have Johnson's Great Society, that hasn't worked too well.

Now I realize I am talking government money here. But if the government were to take half of what all people over 10 Billion have and Give it to folk (or raise the minimum wage) (which raises costs, etc) it will be government money because we in the public sector cannot take the rich guy's money!

Seems to be sorta like a vicious circle.

Did you read of the multi Billionaire in Saudi in the last few weeks who was hung by his feet and beaten trying to get him to cough up 17 Billion? Ain't worked so far I heard.

YES it is out of kilter, but I don't think I deserve a penny of Bill GAtes or even Trumps money. (I would not turn down a gift however!) LOL
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24269
1/22/18 2:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Luxury Communism famousflavius
One day everyone will have the option to live under a Luxury Communism. All needs will be provided for including a Universal Basic Income. The only drawback will be that you have to pledge allegiance to the one world government leader.

You will be able to receive a digital identification mark on your right hand or forehead. This digital identification mark will enable you to have access to your allotted funds so you can buy and sell.
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2447
1/22/18 3:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Wealth of the 3 richest Americans > Wealth of poorest 50% of Americans Nature Boy Florida
Aaron Scott wrote:
Consider that for a moment.

Isn't something out of balance when the three richest Americans own as much as the poorest 175 million Americans?

I mean, do we think that these guys have actually outworked all the poorest 175 million? Or do we perhaps think that the poorest 175 million are actually a bunch of lazy, no good, so-and-so's? If you're like me, you know that plenty of solidly middle class folks can be lazy, no good, so-and-so's.

Isn't there surely something out of balance when just three people can have so very, very, very, very, very much...while 175 million don't have that much between them?

No one is arguing that rich folks shouldn't be entitled to wealth. Even if they got it through "wealth privilege" or even luck, that's fine. But when you realize that a billionaire has enough money to spend...wait for it...

$100,000 A DAY FOR OVER 27 YEARS!!!

I wonder if we can truly say that we are looking out for the poor (that Jesus talked so much about) when, you and I could EASILY get by with only half that much per day? or a tenth that much per day? or a hundredth that much a day?

In fact, I imagine that virtually every poor family could get by on $100/day, in most cases.

If we think it's fine to have a minimum wage...if we can discern that every working person should at least make enough to get place them outside the poverty level...then why are we apparently helpless to discern that anything above X amount MORE than enough?

I am a capitalist (with some socialist leanings), but I think we have become so brainwashed by the capitalist cry, or are afraid that we will be called a commie if we don't adhere to the strict capitalist line, or (and this one is particularly repugnant) we think that one day we, too, will be uber-wealthy and don't want to part with any of our money should that happen, that we think it is somehow alright for there to be so many people struggling...while some are so far above struggling.

How would you feel if you knew that just THREE of our Churches of God brought in more tithes and offerings than the bottom 67.4% While those large churches have far more than enough, plenty of small churches that could do so much more have to struggle by on so much less, perhaps unable to pay (or retain) pastors, etc.?

Just some things to think about. (NOTE: I made up the tithe and offerings number just to provoke thought.)


The 3 richest Americans.
Who are they and are they Republican or Democrat?
I don't hear anything about them - so they must be Democrat.
Also, who said anything about outworking everyone else?
Who says everything starts equally?
God gives different talents as he sees fit.

While I understand it must be tough for you to realize some have no money, or good looks, or intelligence or charm Aaron - it's just the way it is. Of course - I know you of all people understand this. Twisted Evil
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
1/22/18 4:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post NBF... Aaron Scott
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
Consider that for a moment.

Isn't something out of balance when the three richest Americans own as much as the poorest 175 million Americans?

I mean, do we think that these guys have actually outworked all the poorest 175 million? Or do we perhaps think that the poorest 175 million are actually a bunch of lazy, no good, so-and-so's? If you're like me, you know that plenty of solidly middle class folks can be lazy, no good, so-and-so's.

Isn't there surely something out of balance when just three people can have so very, very, very, very, very much...while 175 million don't have that much between them?

No one is arguing that rich folks shouldn't be entitled to wealth. Even if they got it through "wealth privilege" or even luck, that's fine. But when you realize that a billionaire has enough money to spend...wait for it...

$100,000 A DAY FOR OVER 27 YEARS!!!

I wonder if we can truly say that we are looking out for the poor (that Jesus talked so much about) when, you and I could EASILY get by with only half that much per day? or a tenth that much per day? or a hundredth that much a day?

In fact, I imagine that virtually every poor family could get by on $100/day, in most cases.

If we think it's fine to have a minimum wage...if we can discern that every working person should at least make enough to get place them outside the poverty level...then why are we apparently helpless to discern that anything above X amount MORE than enough?

I am a capitalist (with some socialist leanings), but I think we have become so brainwashed by the capitalist cry, or are afraid that we will be called a commie if we don't adhere to the strict capitalist line, or (and this one is particularly repugnant) we think that one day we, too, will be uber-wealthy and don't want to part with any of our money should that happen, that we think it is somehow alright for there to be so many people struggling...while some are so far above struggling.

How would you feel if you knew that just THREE of our Churches of God brought in more tithes and offerings than the bottom 67.4% While those large churches have far more than enough, plenty of small churches that could do so much more have to struggle by on so much less, perhaps unable to pay (or retain) pastors, etc.?

Just some things to think about. (NOTE: I made up the tithe and offerings number just to provoke thought.)


The 3 richest Americans.
Who are they and are they Republican or Democrat?
I don't hear anything about them - so they must be Democrat.
Also, who said anything about outworking everyone else?
Who says everything starts equally?
God gives different talents as he sees fit.

While I understand it must be tough for you to realize some have no money, or good looks, or intelligence or charm Aaron - it's just the way it is. Of course - I know you of all people understand this. Twisted Evil



I...I...I...I got nothing.

All I can is rebuke you...so...REBUKE!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/22/18 6:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
I used to pass most of this off as simple jealousy and the inability to grasp the fact that these super-rich provide many jobs to those complaining about it. But, with the last 8 years, there has been a growing disparity and most of it involves collusion with government in the form of industry regulation and "crony-capitalism". Socialism and big-government depend on the old "one neck to choke" principle in which they'd rather deal with a few very big players than many small ones.

I'm not advocating taking their money, but it would be prudent to look at this as a new phenomenon, sort of like the rise of the monopoly back in the late 19th century was when it was first dealt with. I think I'd like to see pressure put on their liquid holdings and incentives put on re-investment into business. I believe the new tax-rate will help with that some, its a step in the right direction for incentivising business rather than cash holding.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3137
1/23/18 9:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/23/18 10:17 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
https://youtu.be/1Lz-yhjh1kw [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/23/18 10:23 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Uncle JD... Aaron Scott
UncleJD wrote:
I used to pass most of this off as simple jealousy and the inability to grasp the fact that these super-rich provide many jobs to those complaining about it. But, with the last 8 years, there has been a growing disparity and most of it involves collusion with government in the form of industry regulation and "crony-capitalism". Socialism and big-government depend on the old "one neck to choke" principle in which they'd rather deal with a few very big players than many small ones.

I'm not advocating taking their money, but it would be prudent to look at this as a new phenomenon, sort of like the rise of the monopoly back in the late 19th century was when it was first dealt with. I think I'd like to see pressure put on their liquid holdings and incentives put on re-investment into business. I believe the new tax-rate will help with that some, its a step in the right direction for incentivising business rather than cash holding.



The uber-wealthy have the ear of their Senate and Representatives. They party with them, gift them, communicate with them, etc. They have an IMMENSE advantage over common folks. Their money (and contributions) buy them a seat at the table...and they always look out for their interests.

This is likely one element that communism seeks to eliminate (since both capitalism and socialism allow for immense wealth).

If a wealthy person doesn't like a particular bill, they can call their Congressman directly (give or take), while you and I get a form letter reply.

As for all the jobs that the rich provide for everyone else, it must also be remembered that without the workers, the rich would be up the creek. BOTH sides are needed.

Consider that Sam Walton, if he were still alive, would be wealthier than Bezos/Amazon. Walton's heirs have, if I recall correctly, approximately $30 billion apiece. But get this: Instead of these billionaires taking a cut off of their riches in order to do better for Walmart workers...well, they don't. They could be set for life with a measly $5 billion apiece, but NOOOOOOO.

It is no jealousy that motivates me. It's justice. When people can work a lifetime and retire into virtual poverty, while people are buying paintings for $450 MILLION, or otherwise having so much that they couldn't hardly spend it all, something is wrong.

The capitalists gets FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT for enriching America. Yes, they should get some credit, but the workers did the work, made the products, shipped the products, even bought the products. EVERYONE who works (or did work) should share in the wealth of our nation in a more substantial way.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/23/18 10:46 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo


Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left's view that there is a single "pie" and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the "everyone starts with $10". They don't believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3137
1/23/18 10:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
If it continues - unions will rise up again...and monopolies will need to be busted.

Or someone will start getting the better workers by offering them more money...and taking less at the top.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
1/23/18 10:58 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
UncleJD wrote:
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo


Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left's view that there is a single "pie" and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the "everyone starts with $10". They don't believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution.


Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth always, inevitably becomes concentrated, and that there really is no effective way of preventing it from happening. It is basically a natural law. Even with communism or socialism, the economic result is the same eventually.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/23/18 11:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
There is no real answer to this situation. The scripture says, 'The poor you have always.' Vice versa it could say the rich you have always. Some wealthy families are as crooked as a barrel of fish hooks. The same with some poor families.

I had a running discussion with my best friend and brother in law. He was a worker, one of the best any company could ask for. I was in business. He would point out, I could take off and to to Alaska or Hawaii. He had to stay on the job. At the time he worked for Beam Electric. I asked him many times what happens if Beam makes some poor contracts and goes broke, what will you do? I will get another job.

He could never see that Mr. Beam was a multimillionaire because he did what BIL could not do. Mortgage his home, buy equipment and go into business for himself. He was successful, wise and frugal. Many business men go broke and become depressed and commit suicide. Thei workers go down the street they have no skin in the game. BUT most business men when they fail will be back in the game in a year or two until they make it.

How much should they be able to make or amass? The answer differs with most folk. Most wealthy folk did not start out with money, they earned it.

In our society there is no answer to the OP.

I always look back at an interview of a college student when asked practically the same question as stated in the OP. This 3rd yr. College student's answer:,"IT AIN'T RIGHT. THEM PEOPLE GOT ALL THAT MONEY AND AIN'T GIVING US NONE!"
i realize the reporter probably asked many students until he got THAT answer. the one that would stand out, but I know people with that attitude. Embarassed
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24269
1/23/18 1:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post UncleJD
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo


Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left's view that there is a single "pie" and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the "everyone starts with $10". They don't believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution.


Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth always, inevitably becomes concentrated, and that there really is no effective way of preventing it from happening. It is basically a natural law. Even with communism or socialism, the economic result is the same eventually.


I'm no doctor of economics, but this seems too general to explain why some countries (like ours) have a large and successful middle-class. I believe it is due to the constant creation of new wealth due to our historic promotion of free-enterprise. It does, however, give a very good model of static wealth and the eventual status if no new wealth is coming into the system.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3137
1/23/18 2:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Uncle JD... Aaron Scott
UncleJD wrote:
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRLVZTYpGo


Interesting video, but what is the conclusion? One might be that redistribution is necessary. However, this seems to echo the left's view that there is a single "pie" and if one person gets more, then someone has to get less, hence the "everyone starts with $10". They don't believe that you can actually create MORE pie. Wealth/job/market creation is the answer, not redistribution.


Peterson definitely does not advocate redistribution/socialism. He simply points out that this is the way things are—wealth always, inevitably becomes concentrated, and that there really is no effective way of preventing it from happening. It is basically a natural law. Even with communism or socialism, the economic result is the same eventually.


I'm no doctor of economics, but this seems too general to explain why some countries (like ours) have a large and successful middle-class. I believe it is due to the constant creation of new wealth due to our historic promotion of free-enterprise. It does, however, give a very good model of static wealth and the eventual status if no new wealth is coming into the system.



The uber-liberal historian, Howard Zinn, thinks that the middle-class was a construct to vent off the frustrations of the poor. We know that there was a merchant class (more or less the middle class) was back in Medieval times, but in America, the middle class is not necessarily merchants.

Zinn seemed to hold that the creation of the middle class gave the rich an ally in their struggle against the poor. He did not seem to think there was some Illuminati-like conspiracy, but rather that the rise of the middle class gave the poor a target to shoot for...which could take the wind out of their sails in terms of their anger at the rich.

I don't know that that's the case, but Zinn makes more than a little sense to me.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/23/18 3:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Uncle JD... UncleJD
Aaron Scott wrote:

The uber-liberal historian, Howard Zinn, .... makes more than a little sense to me.


You could have made your post a lot shorter and said the same thing. Twisted Evil

Sounds like Zinn got his "theory" straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3137
1/23/18 4:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
One major point that Peterson demonstrates so well is that there really is nothing that can be done to prevent wealth accumulation. Even in supposedly pure Marxist countries such as North Korea, most all the wealth ends up at the top, while those at the bottom and the middle end up with far less (total poverty in most all cases actually). That’s just the way it is. Forced redistribution of the supposedly ill-gotten wealth of the ‘evil’ rich to the supposedly deserving poor (as in the Marxism that Aaron apparently thinks is a good idea), always ends up with far more poor people at the bottom than capitalistic societies ever result in. Marxism also by necessity involves the use of violence to achieve its supposed aim of equality of outcomes. And it always results in a marked loss in productive highly intelligent people in a society, whether by emigration or persecution and murder by government. Peterson is very much opposed to Marxist philosophy, and argues that capitalism is the system that has the most potential to improve the lives of all. There will always be inequity in this present world system, but forced redistribution/Marxism is actually manifestly destructive of capital, of intelligence, and of incentive. Peterson convincingly argues that competition as well as fairness/conscience is built into our nature, and Marxism just tries to eliminate these unalterable fundamental components of human nature (and any humans who refuse to submit to it). The whole premise that total equality of outcomes is or would be the highest good for all in a society is contrary to the hierarchies displayed throughout the animal kingdom and the history of humanity, which hierarchical structure has always (and will always) manifest eventually in any given culture, even in the purest Marxist regime.

Peterson does not say that people should just be fatalistic, however. He says that while the statistical outcomes will always end up with a tiny minority owning the vast majority of the wealth, who precisely will make up that small minority does not appear to be fixed at all. Also, in free market economies, people generally will rise to the level that their respective intelligence, competence, aggressiveness, and industriousness will allow. And at least the last three of those traits can definitely be improved upon by individuals if they desire and will to change themselves and their circumstances.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/24/18 2:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.