Pages

  • Sharebar

Will you ever get rich?

It used to be an easy question to answer if you were headed to Wall Street.

Not so much today...

Yet another look at America's growing wealth gap doesn't instill confidence.

In fact, if you stop to actually read the article you may wind up looking in the mirror and asking yourself some difficult questions with regards to your goals, aspirations and ambitions.

Proceed... with caution.

Very disturbingly the poorest 90 % of Americans make an average of $31,244 a year. While the richest 1% make a hardly inspiring $1.1 million plus.

Two Very Disturbing Extrapolations

1) $31,244 is a very humble amount of money. It is a very humble amount of money if you are a single person in their 20's living in a studio apartment in a not-so-terrific urban neighborhood. Taking into account this must read Zero Hedge article, (assist to VTech Forever on that one) we can safely say that the majority of today's middle class...really is poor. For an average of ~$30K to apply to 90% of the population (i.e. ~270,000,000 people) there has to be an anchor of dead weight pulling down the honest hardworking sub-six figure crowd subsidizing them.

But who cares...we are the elite,right?

Let us examine...

2) $1.1 million dollars is a nice chunk of change. Let's be clear. A mil definitely does not buy you what it once did. But it's still a nice number...

However...

If the top %1 of Americans (i.e. 3,000,000) make a mil...how discrepant is that figure, really?

Considering how many F50-1000 bosses make a lot more, considering the billionaires and media megastars involved...how many people are actually making that much?

Isn't it highly likely that the "typical Wall Street stiff making $400K/year" is the caboose pulling down this party wagon?

Isn't it actually becoming a reality that in the top 1%, the monkeys and the chimps are the anchor babies making the disgusting discrepancy seem more paletteable in this sort of analysis?

Tell me, monkeys...

What do these figures tell you?

Then think about it and answer honestly...

Will you ever really be rich or will you be paying someone else's free lunch so the real %1 do not have to?

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (353)

  • In reply to TNA
    persimmon's picture

    ANT:
    Oh my!
    I always describe myself as omni-attractive lol.

    Whatever, I'm sex-positive (read: slutty) and you sound rich.
    HA ;)
    [now i'm trolling]

  • TNA's picture

    HAHA

    This site does have all kinds of sexual connotations.

    SILVER BANANA

    Gorrila

    King KONG!!

    hahaha

  • In reply to TNA
    persimmon's picture

    ANT:
    Oh my!
    I always describe myself as omni-attractive lol.

    You don't exist without pics!
    [Or whatever it is you breeders say to any woman who ever posts on this site.]

  • rebelcross's picture

    ^^^A religion is a belief system plain and simple, You have your belief system, it is what it is, there is no way to assign a quantitative value to it. Hence you believe what you believe as much as I believe what I believe. You are as a religious as I am (and, yes, I grew up a Christian, deal with it.) Some people are more fanatical, if you will, and more likely to act upon their religious beliefs, hence some Christians might do harm or Atheists may protest in the streets, etc. In fact, in today's society, it seems the greatest amount of fundamentalism and public uproar is from the atheists and agnostics amongst us who have basically waged a very vicious public war on all those that hold a different belief system (well not "all" those, just those that are more associated with America i.e. Christians.)

    That being said, the problem with your argument above is everything you have said is based upon what you believe. You believe abortion is more practical and pragmatic, I know some people who believe it's murder...so how are you going to settle that? It matters not what "seems pragmatic" to you, that fundamentally dodges the ethical conundrum you have gotten yourself into. You want to force people to fund what in their hearts is murder. And don't play semantics with me, abortion is not as clear cut as the death of somebody standing before us, there is debate on the issue, so neither you are I can say for sure what actually constitutes murder in the case of a fetus. However, based on your belief system it is not murder and because it "seems" practical you want others to fund it. To be fair, how about I make you fund a government campaign that publicly denounces homosexuality, because I'm concerned about the "stigma" homosexual children go through, and it fits with my belief system. How about you are forced to fund a program that will draft all homosexuals to the military because it's a practical way to keep our military stocked, and according to my belief system homosexual lives aren't as valuable.

    How do we deal with this? Whose belief system wins? How about nobody's belief system wins. How about if you believe it you go fund it and "make it available" because that's what you believe. Or are you just too fanatical in your beliefs to not force everybody else to follow suit?

    I don't care about the marriage issue, not talking about it, it's not relevant to this matter.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    persimmon's picture

    rebelcross:
    Hence you believe what you believe as much as I believe what I believe. You are as a religious as I am (and, yes, I grew up a Christian, deal with it.)

    You sound like Anne Coulter. I am not religious, I am agnostic. This means I have no religion, which means, FALSE, I am not as religious as you. Was your holy water spiked with idiot juice?

    My beliefs are not based on doctrine, divinity, religion, spirituality, or anything at all related to religion, so, no, I am not as religious as you or, or anyone for that matter.. And as far as your discussion of "belief systems" goes, no, I do not belong to a system. You're dumb for grouping all agnostics, atheists, etc., together. Whereas the Catholic Church has its official word on things, there is no High Authority (dressed like fabulous drag queens, might I add... have you seen the variety of hats the pope has?) That Thinks For Us to guide the agnostics of the world. I am an independent and claim no allegiance to anyone or any label. Except that of "awesome."

    rebelcross:
    In fact, in today's society, it seems the greatest amount of fundamentalism and public uproar is from the atheists and agnostics amongst us who have basically waged a very vicious public war on all those that hold a different belief system (well not "all" those, just those that are more associated with America i.e. Christians.)

    You ignorant, xenophobic piece of shit. This is not a Christian country. It is not your country. It was founded by Christians on the principles of separation of church and state, and what made it great has been immigration, and largely of non-Christians. Without WWII and the persecution of Jews, we wouldn't have gotten the brilliant Jewish scientists of Europe to come lead our scientific explosion.

    Fundamentalism? You call atheistic and agnostic thought fundamentalism? To which Word of God (or anything) are we fundamentally returning to? When someone wants to use the Qur'an for their constitution, I call that fundamentalism.

    rebelcross:
    That being said, the problem with your argument above is everything you have said is based upon what you believe. You believe abortion is more practical and pragmatic, I know some people who believe it's murder...so how are you going to settle that? It matters not what "seems pragmatic" to you, that fundamentally dodges the ethical conundrum you have gotten yourself into. You want to force people to fund what in their hearts is murder. And don't play semantics with me, abortion is not as clear cut as the death of somebody standing before us, there is debate on the issue, so neither you are I can say for sure what actually constitutes murder in the case of a fetus. However, based on your belief system it is not murder and because it "seems" practical you want others to fund it.

    I can fully empathize with the understanding that abortion is murder. I see how one could be so passionate about the issue. My brother and his family march in Washington every year on the anniversary of Roe V Wade.

    But what about a woman who needs a life-saving abortion at 7 months of pregnancy? Pro-lifers I have talked to still would not allow her to get an abortion. Laws forcing women to death for the sake of protecting the POTENTIAL of life in the form of a fetus is plain idiocy, and is a hole in the whole logic structure that pretends to defend innocents from needless death. So, I dare say, this abortion should be allowed, and if one abortion should be allowed, they all should be allowed.

    rebelcross:
    To be fair, how about I make you fund a government campaign that publicly denounces homosexuality, because I'm concerned about the "stigma" homosexual children go through, and it fits with my belief system.

    I don't have to fund government campaigns for this because these denunciations fall from the dribbling lips of cunt politicians every day.

    rebelcross:
    How about you are forced to fund a program that will draft all homosexuals to the military because it's a practical way to keep our military stocked and according to my belief system homosexual lives aren't as valuable.

    This would constitute hate speech and arguably be persecuted as a threat against a protected class / minority of Americans. Gays are (somewhat, sometimes, in some places) a protected class, just as usually, a woman's right to choose is a protected right. Why? Because our justice system has judged on these issues based on our CONSTITUTION, not on some religious beliefs. Anti-abortion legislation is passed in states based on popular referendum bolstered by religious beliefs, not on legal judgements.

    rebelcross:
    How do we deal with this? Whose belief system wins? How about nobody's belief system wins. How about if you believe it you go fund it and "make it available" because that's whay you believe. Or are you just too fanatical in your beliefs to not force everybody else to follow suit?

    I don't care about the marriage issue, not talking about it, it's not relevant to this matter.

    I'm not fanatical, and you lemming Christians exhaust me.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    monkeysama's picture

    rebelcross:
    ^^^A religion is a belief system plain and simple, You have your belief system, it is what it is, there is no way to assign a quantitative value to it. Hence you believe what you believe as much as I believe what I believe. You are as a religious as I am (and, yes, I grew up a Christian, deal with it.) Some people are more fanatical, if you will, and more likely to act upon their religious beliefs, hence some Christians might do harm or Atheists may protest in the streets, etc. In fact, in today's society, it seems the greatest amount of fundamentalism and public uproar is from the atheists and agnostics amongst us who have basically waged a very vicious public war on all those that hold a different belief system (well not "all" those, just those that are more associated with America i.e. Christians.)

    That being said, the problem with your argument above is everything you have said is based upon what you believe. You believe abortion is more practical and pragmatic, I know some people who believe it's murder...so how are you going to settle that? It matters not what "seems pragmatic" to you, that fundamentally dodges the ethical conundrum you have gotten yourself into. You want to force people to fund what in their hearts is murder. And don't play semantics with me, abortion is not as clear cut as the death of somebody standing before us, there is debate on the issue, so neither you are I can say for sure what actually constitutes murder in the case of a fetus. However, based on your belief system it is not murder and because it "seems" practical you want others to fund it. To be fair, how about I make you fund a government campaign that publicly denounces homosexuality, because I'm concerned about the "stigma" homosexual children go through, and it fits with my belief system. How about you are forced to fund a program that will draft all homosexuals to the military because it's a practical way to keep our military stocked, and according to my belief system homosexual lives aren't as valuable.

    How do we deal with this? Whose belief system wins? How about nobody's belief system wins. How about if you believe it you go fund it and "make it available" because that's what you believe. Or are you just too fanatical in your beliefs to not force everybody else to follow suit?

    I don't care about the marriage issue, not talking about it, it's not relevant to this matter.

    Yeah without abortion clinics preggers are just going to throw themselves down a flight of stairs to abort. Or shoot up with drugs. And you'll never convince the Christians. Their sandal wearing skyfairy wizard daddy says it's murder so they're against it. He also says love thy neighbor and not to be greedy, but those are hard to follow because it puts constrictions on ones' own actions, and so it's hard and not fun. Who wants to be nice to people and not be rich as fuck while others suffer? Fuck that, am I right?

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    monkeysama's picture

    happypantsmcgee:
    persimmon:
    ANT:
    Well see, I am pro choice, but I would ideally like to live in a world where no one has an abortion. Birth control, condoms, morning after pill, etc are all cheap and easy ways to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is a very messy and horrible thing.

    I've seen the pics and the videos. Whether you think life starts at birth or before, it is fucking nasty seeing something that resembles a human baby being sucked out of a womb.

    I don't agree with her on much, but I like Hilary Clinton's take on abortion: "It should be legal, safe, and RARE."


    Incidentally that is EXACTLY how I feel about steak.

    You made me smile SB for you!

  • In reply to econ
    monkeysama's picture

    econ:
    rebelcross:
    monkeysama:
    I'm all for contraception and safe sex practices as well, but the religious right is doing everything it can to defund PP. Complete bastards.

    How is somebody a "completely bastard" for not wanting to be forced to pay for something they have a moral problem with based on some fundamental beliefs that are held very close to their hearts? Maybe, you don't share their beliefs or agree with them on anything, but you certainly don't have the right to force them to fund something that is against everything that they stand for just because you believe in it or it may be "economically convenient." Again, I always feel like the coercive agent is more the "bastard" than anybody who is just trying to mind their business.

    I'm anxiously awaiting monkeysama's response to this one...

    (And, before you start name calling and whatnot, let me assure you that I believe in a woman's right to choose.)

    P.S. Totally off topic, but I'm gonna be pissed if this thread gets bigger than the capitalism/inequality one! Just playing, I could give a rat's ass. The debates on these forums are highly entertaining lately. The only thing they need, is more HPM (and more cowbell, but that's another story...)

    P.S.S. Ignore me, I'm drunk...

    Well we kill REAL people in foreign countries every day that have a tenuous, if any, link to "terrorism". Do I get to choose not to fund that? That's pretty fucking close to my heart and shits all over my belief system.

    Anxiously awaiting econs' response.

  • In reply to persimmon
    rebelcross's picture

    persimmon:

    You sound like Anne Coulter. I am not religious, I am agnostic. This means I have no religion, which means, FALSE, I am not as religious as you. Was your holy water spiked with idiot juice?

    My beliefs are not based on doctrine, divinity, religion, spirituality, or anything at all related to religion, so, no, I am not as religious as you or, or anyone for that matter.. And as far as your discussion of "belief systems" goes, no, I do not belong to a system. You're dumb for grouping all agnostics, atheists, etc., together. Whereas the Catholic Church has its official word on things, there is no High Authority (dressed like fabulous drag queens, might I add... have you seen the variety of hats the pope has?) That Thinks For Us to guide the agnostics of the world. I am an independent and claim no allegiance to anyone or any label. Except that of "awesome."

    As ingenious as you seem to think you are with your mindless dribble of what constitutes an agnostic or an atheist or a whatever, you have completely missed the point of my saying it is merely a belief system. Agnosticism is as much a chosen belief system as is Christianity? Do you deny this? I don't care if you have a higher authority or not...you believe what you believe as much as I believe what I believe, follow me here:

    Religion = Belief system

    Your have a belief system, I have a belief system, hence, philosophically speaking, we are both religious in our own ways. My religion is one that has me to believe in a certain higher authority, etc...your religion is one that has you believing that you have no way to know what the universe holds. You believe that as much as I believe what I do. We are equally religious.

    I guess that makes me Anne Coulter, huh? I did enjoy the anger this somehow caused you...but I guess only those of us that believe in a "higher authority" can somehow be "fundamental" about those beliefs.

    BTW - I love how people like you, who really have nothing to say or follow no pattern of logical reasoning love to drop the names of right wingers you hate in your diatribes (i.e. Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, O'Reilly, etc.), even though nothing I've said has anything to do with anything they may have said...nor do they have anything to do with this issue. Keep trying though.

    persimmon:
    You ignorant, xenophobic piece of shit. This is not a Christian country. It is not your country. It was founded by Christians on the principles of separation of church and state, and what made it great has been immigration, and largely of non-Christians. Without WWII and the persecution of Jews, we wouldn't have gotten the brilliant Jewish scientists of Europe to come lead our scientific explosion.

    That's a cute story and nice an all. Perhaps you can point me to where I said this was a "Christian" country. I said Christians are associated with this country and hinted that that's possibly the reason that they've become a target of people who hold certain belief systems that are against this country. Guess that makes me a xenophobic piece of shit, huh? I thought I was Anne Coulter...but just look at the anger you have displayed at the very misconception that somebody may have hinted such a horrible thing...perhaps the "piece of shit" is you...dare I say, a Christophobic piece of shit. "Awesome" huh?

    persimmon:
    Fundamentalism? You call atheistic and agnostic thought fundamentalism? To which Word of God (or anything) are we fundamentally returning to? When someone wants to use the Qur'an for their constitution, I call that fundamentalism.

    It does help to read what I've written. And for those who may be illiterate, I suggest reading it a few times over (and no I'm saying all homosexuals are illiterate, though I know you would love to make this accusation of me as you have shown a pattern of such misconstrued reasoning.) You'll notice I've said that acting out upons one beliefs denotes the idea of "fundamentalism." It has nothing to do with a word of anything nor does it have to do with being agnostic or an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim or purple or green (please show me where I called "atheistic and agnostic thought fundamentalism" as you say.) What matters is that if one is to act upon their beliefs in an extreme way, it is fundamentalism within that belief system. You are as capable of fundamentalism as a Christian or a Muslim if you are to act out upon your agnostic beliefs against those who don't share your beliefs. I would posit that your angry rant against me is fundamentalist in nature due to your very vicious approach to the Christian belief system which I hold. I would also posit that if you look at the streets or watch TV you will see more displays of anti-Christian sentiment from agnostics towards Christians than you see the other way around, hence, I sense strong undertones of fundamentalism by many agnostics in this country. Funny, how I am somehow the right wing crazy Christian zealot that is bringing down this country, when all I want to do is be left alone and go about my own business, and all you and your ilk wants to do is attack me day and night for what I believe and force me to fund the programs that you see fit and live in a way that you see appropriate. I've never forced nothing upon you. I know you're so brainwashed into believing "Christians are evil, they are destroying everything." But take a harsh look at reality, maybe it's time to look in the mirror. You proved it in your rant.

    persimmon:
    I can fully empathize with the understanding that abortion is murder. I see how one could be so passionate about the issue. My brother and his family march in Washington every year on the anniversary of Roe V Wade.

    But what about a woman who needs a life-saving abortion at 7 months of pregnancy? Pro-lifers I have talked to still would not allow her to get an abortion. Laws forcing women to death for the sake of protecting the POTENTIAL of life in the form of a fetus is plain idiocy, and is a hole in the whole logic structure that pretends to defend innocents from needless death. So, I dare say, this abortion should be allowed, and if one abortion should be allowed, they all should be allowed.

    Glad to see you show some maturity here. Outliers are outliers, we can make exceptions in the case of outliers, I don't want to get bogged down on that now. Two irresponsible kids making a baby and then wanting me to bail them out is a very different situation from a mother who is about to die if she gives birth to the kid. It's not fundamental to the overriding argument. One is a sacrifice to save another, one is a sacrifice out of convenience or economic concerns or whatever. So I don't by into the idea that "if one should be allowed, they all should be allowed." That's like saying, "if one prisoner should get out of jail earlier, they all should get out of jail earlier." Different circumstances in different cases. Legal or not, legal in special cases or not, I still have a big problem with you forcing my grandpa to pay for it.

    persimmon:
    I don't have to fund government campaigns for this because these denunciations fall from the dribbling lips of cunt politicians every day.

    Cool story bro, you dodged the issue.

    persimmon:
    This would constitute hate speech and arguably be persecuted as a threat against a protected class / minority of Americans. Gays are (somewhat, sometimes, in some places) a protected class, just as usually, a woman's right to choose is a protected right. Why? Because our justice system has judged on these issues based on our CONSTITUTION, not on some religious beliefs. Anti-abortion legislation is passed in states based on popular referendum bolstered by religious beliefs, not on legal judgements.

    Ugh what...? Oh so hate speech against you is a problem, but murder against a fellow human isn't? As quickly as you say my scenario constitutes "hate speech" and a threat is how quickly I will return the favor by informing you yet again that your idea of abortions constitutes "murder." It comes down to belief system, see what I am saying? You somehow managed to disregard this logic and made your belief system vastly superior. I, the "xenophobe" as you put it,, am the one saying that no belief system is superior. As much as you should not have to deal with the scenario I put forward is as much as I should not be forced to fund abortion. Very simple logic here.

    persimmon:
    I'm not fanatical, and you lemming Christians exhaust me.

    Funny, you seem pretty fanatically against anything that doesn't adhere to your belief system, and yeah it's a belief system...lest your mind be empty and you be incapable of belief. Believing in nothing is as much a chosen belief as believing in something. Deal with it. So walk in lockstep with your fanatical anti-religious buddies...keep drinking the kool-aid. Everybody else is a "lemming" right? As your voices all echo at the same time...

  • monkeysama's picture

    Alright I'm stepping in. Agnosticism is AND is not a belief system. It is a belief system in that it is the position you hold on metaphysics. It is not a belief system in that you don't go to church and you don't spend any of your time considering your actions on a religious level. So thinking about metaphysics for an agnostic could be very low (ie very low religiosity). I tend to think about it more than most and consider myself a secular humanist agnostic.

    Now then.

    Let's get back to hating on rich people.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    persimmon's picture

    rebelcross:
    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    I think you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a religion and fundamentalism.

    You assume that because you know I identify as gay and agnostic that you know anything whatever about my belief system. Don't group me in with anyone else. Assume nothing about my belief system. Up until this point, the only thing you really know is that I support a woman's right to choose and I think it's good social policy to provide reproductive services, including abortions, to the women of our nation. Whereas, on the other hand, you say, "I am Christian," I get a pretty good idea of what your belief system is.

    Um, my Anne Coulter thing was spot on. She wrote a book called, "The Church of Liberalism" which tried to squish everyone unlike her into a cohesive belief system that mimics Christianity in form but is antithetical to it in content.

    I don't have anything against all Christians, but the Christian right who hates me and women. Do us a favor and have your people shut up. The people you see marching in the street are out there as a reaction. They are reacting to bullshit. When I was out marching against the passage of Prop 8 in San Francisco, I was there with fellow agnostics, anarchists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and people who were reacting to religious-fuelled bigotry. I don't have anything against anyone's religiously-inspired belief system so long as they keep it the fuck out of our public space and out of our laws.

  • In reply to monkeysama
    rebelcross's picture

    monkeysama:
    Yeah without abortion clinics preggers are just going to throw themselves down a flight of stairs to abort. Or shoot up with drugs. And you'll never convince the Christians. Their sandal wearing skyfairy wizard daddy says it's murder so they're against it. He also says love thy neighbor and not to be greedy, but those are hard to follow because it puts constrictions on ones' own actions, and so it's hard and not fun. Who wants to be nice to people and not be rich as fuck while others suffer? Fuck that, am I right?

    This is pretty fucking comical. First of all, get it straight, never once did I even approach the issue of the legality of abortion or whether abortion clinics should exist. Not even close to what my argument was...I'm tired of that argument it's an argument for another time. I'm talking about your forcing people to fund abortion, but again, you changed the point and the argument like you always fucking do.

    BUT I must say, your defense of abortion here is laughable. Without getting into the debate of whether or not abortion should be legal, you CANNOT seriously justify it by suggesting it should be legal because "without abortion clinics peggers are just going to throw themselves down a flight of stairs to abort." You know you have to do better than that...that's like me saying "well, we might as well give the terrorists what they want, because they're just going to keep terrorizing if we don't." You know those "might as well" arguments don't work. Argue for it on the basis of what it is, don't excuse a possible unjust action because people might react in negative ways. That is a failed attempt, you're better than that.

    And no need for the fairy stuff with the Christians. Look, I know to you, in your twisted version of reality, religion is the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe. And I know a lot of you were more scared of George W. Bush because he carried a bible than you were of a terrorist that carried a machete to slice your throat with. I get it, no need for the fairy stuff. You know what Christians believe in, maturity goes a long way in getting your point across. I wouldn't insult your heritage or background if I knew what your bloodline was.

  • In reply to persimmon
    persimmon's picture

    persimmon:

    Um, my Anne Coulter thing was spot on. She wrote a book called, "The Church of Liberalism" which tried to squish everyone unlike her into a cohesive belief system that mimics Christianity in form but is antithetical to it in content.

    Oh, I forgot to add: THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING. That's why I called you Anne Coulter.

  • In reply to persimmon
    rebelcross's picture

    persimmon:
    rebelcross:
    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    I think you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a religion and fundamentalism.

    You assume that because you know I identify as gay and agnostic that you know anything whatever about my belief system. Don't group me in with anyone else. Assume nothing about my belief system. Up until this point, the only thing you really know is that I support a woman's right to choose and I think it's good social policy to provide reproductive services, including abortions, to the women of our nation. Whereas, on the other hand, you say, "I am Christian," I get a pretty good idea of what your belief system is.

    Um, my Anne Coulter thing was spot on. She wrote a book called, "The Church of Liberalism" which tried to squish everyone unlike her into a cohesive belief system that mimics Christianity in form but is antithetical to it in content.

    I don't have anything against all Christians, but the Christian right who hates me and women. Do us a favor and have your people shut up. The people you see marching in the street are out there as a reaction. They are reacting to bullshit. When I was out marching against the passage of Prop 8 in San Francisco, I was there with fellow agnostics, anarchists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and people who were reacting to religious-fuelled bigotry. I don't have anything against anyone's religiously-inspired belief system so long as they keep it the fuck out of our public space and out of our laws.

    First of all you dodged everything I said, and you were probably afraid to read it because it hit close to home. Second of all, I don't give a shit what your belief system is, the point is that you have a belief system. And you don't seem to have the logical capacity to understand that you feel as strongly about your belief system as I do about mine, because we both believe in it...it's impossible to believe what you believe in more or less than somebody else...it's just your belief. And you are very fundamental in that belief as verified by your vicious anti-Christian rant. This is simple stuff, genius. Just because they told you that you don't have an organized religion does not mean that you don't philosophically have a belief. Nice try, though.

    Nice with the blah blah blah, complete cop out. Totally "awesome" by you as you like to say. What a hypocrite, your more of a fundamentalist zealot than the "evil Christians" who you think are out to get you. By the way, I don't know many Christians or right wingers that hate women. In fact, I love women...I love models actually...so..yeah don't know what you're getting at there, cool attempt at rhetoric though.

    And I don't care about the time you went out and had Jews and Christians marching side by side with you. Turn on any channel on TV and if you don't see the constant anti-Christian rhetoric then you're just...dare I say...biased or sick or twisted or...sick.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    persimmon's picture

    rebelcross:
    I am a victim, so please forgive my faulty logic and misinformation!

    From Wikipedia:
    Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific set of _theological doctrines_ typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism.

    I think for myself, fundamentalists do not have to.

  • rebelcross's picture

    Again nice try, completely irrelevant and not getting anything done. Attack me all you want, I'm an asshole as it is anybody can tell you that. But you really didn't do much for arguments there.

  • In reply to rebelcross
    persimmon's picture

    rebelcross:
    Again nice try, completely irrelevant and not getting anything done. Attack me all you want, I'm an asshole as it is anybody can tell you that. But you really didn't do much for arguments there.

    I've grown tired of exposing your faulty logical constructions.

    I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your rhetoric.

  • rebelcross's picture

    Well what is doctrine sunshine? Look it up...it's simply a belief system...work with me here, break it down. I laid it out for you, you really had nothing to say about it.

    Well I guess you think for yourself because all your anti-Christian friends tell you that you do. That's awesome. You seem to be spewing the same poison that every anti-Christian zealot spews but...whatever. I agree I am a victim though, a victim of trying to weed through the broken logic that you keep posting.

  • In reply to persimmon
    rebelcross's picture

    persimmon:
    rebelcross:
    Again nice try, completely irrelevant and not getting anything done. Attack me all you want, I'm an asshole as it is anybody can tell you that. But you really didn't do much for arguments there.

    I've grown tired of exposing your faulty logical constructions.

    I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your rhetoric.

    Actually, you've exposed nothing, you pretty much said "Blah blah blah" and went on a tangent somewhat unrelated to the many points I made...but your logic is faulty too because I say it is. See how that works?

  • persimmon's picture

    My logic is tighter than a priest's pants when he looks at a six year old.

  • In reply to persimmon
    rebelcross's picture

    persimmon:
    My logic is tighter than a priest's pants when he looks at a six year old.

    Well then that settles it, alright. Let the WSO community take note of that when you judge above back and forth that took place. And we'll leave at that then, I'm a bit exhausted anyway. Anyway, it was fun for a while.

  • Edmundo Braverman's picture

    Just to bring things back to the wealth disparity argument, I think I can provide a bit of perspective (living in France) of what happens when the rich are toppled, impoverished, and killed by the poor when the disparity grows untenable. It happened in the French Revolution.

    France was an oligarchy much like the US back then. Sure, you had a king and we have a (*cough* democratically elected) President, but the real power was in the hands of the wealthy. And that wealth was concentrated among a handful of uber-rich families. Along comes the Revolution (much like we're seeing in MENA today). The king is murdered, and all the richest families are stripped of their wealth and impoverished. Their wealth is then distributed to the masses (sort of).

    So what happened?

    Within 60 years (or roughly 3 generations) all of France's wealth was back in the hands of those original families. That's exactly what would happen in the U.S. too.

    Study after study has been done on the subject. If you took the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, it would be back in the hands of the rich in no time. Perhaps the biggest authority on the subject is Dr. Dave Chappell:

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    monkeysama's picture

    Edmundo Braverman:
    Just to bring things back to the wealth disparity argument, I think I can provide a bit of perspective (living in France) of what happens when the rich are toppled, impoverished, and killed by the poor when the disparity grows untenable. It happened in the French Revolution.

    France was an oligarchy much like the US back then. Sure, you had a king and we have a (*cough* democratically elected) President, but the real power was in the hands of the wealthy. And that wealth was concentrated among a handful of uber-rich families. Along comes the Revolution (much like we're seeing in MENA today). The king is murdered, and all the richest families are stripped of their wealth and impoverished. Their wealth is then distributed to the masses (sort of).

    So what happened?

    Within 60 years (or roughly 3 generations) all of France's wealth was back in the hands of those original families. That's exactly what would happen in the U.S. too.

    Study after study has been done on the subject. If you took the money from the wealthy and gave it to the poor, it would be back in the hands of the rich in no time. Perhaps the biggest authority on the subject is Dr. Dave Chappell:

    Yeah, but comparing the wealth disparity of France pre-revolution to today is kind of silly. Rising food costs and ruinous taxation of the poor (in order to pay for a variety of wars - France was essentially bankrupt) meant that the poor were starving to death or hungry while the rich oligarchs kicked it in style at Versaille. So in some sense, the French revolution is very similar to the MENA crisis - rising food costs and poverty with a disaffected and distant monarchy.

    Additionally, to say that the French Revolution did nothing to change the wealth disparity in France is a little hard to prove. Maybe wealth tends to aggregate, but if it were not for the French Revolution wouldn't the wealthy be even wealthier - they would have had years to solidify their holdings, collect interest, and consolidate power rather than have to rebuild from being ruined and their families killed. If anything you just seem to be advocating a revolution every 60 years. In that you have much in common with Thomas Jefferson who advocated periodic revolution - "The tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and martyrs." Of course he also had illegitimate children with his slaves and was kind of an all around asshole. But there you go.

  • In reply to monkeysama
    econ's picture

    monkeysama:
    econ:
    rebelcross:
    monkeysama:
    I'm all for contraception and safe sex practices as well, but the religious right is doing everything it can to defund PP. Complete bastards.

    How is somebody a "completely bastard" for not wanting to be forced to pay for something they have a moral problem with based on some fundamental beliefs that are held very close to their hearts? Maybe, you don't share their beliefs or agree with them on anything, but you certainly don't have the right to force them to fund something that is against everything that they stand for just because you believe in it or it may be "economically convenient." Again, I always feel like the coercive agent is more the "bastard" than anybody who is just trying to mind their business.

    I'm anxiously awaiting monkeysama's response to this one...

    (And, before you start name calling and whatnot, let me assure you that I believe in a woman's right to choose.)

    P.S. Totally off topic, but I'm gonna be pissed if this thread gets bigger than the capitalism/inequality one! Just playing, I could give a rat's ass. The debates on these forums are highly entertaining lately. The only thing they need, is more HPM (and more cowbell, but that's another story...)

    P.S.S. Ignore me, I'm drunk...

    Well we kill REAL people in foreign countries every day that have a tenuous, if any, link to "terrorism". Do I get to choose not to fund that? That's pretty fucking close to my heart and shits all over my belief system.

    Anxiously awaiting econs' response.

    Are you presuming I support that? It should be obvious from everything we've discussed on this site that I do not...

  • In reply to econ
    econ's picture

    econ:
    monkeysama:
    econ:
    rebelcross:
    monkeysama:
    I'm all for contraception and safe sex practices as well, but the religious right is doing everything it can to defund PP. Complete bastards.

    How is somebody a "completely bastard" for not wanting to be forced to pay for something they have a moral problem with based on some fundamental beliefs that are held very close to their hearts? Maybe, you don't share their beliefs or agree with them on anything, but you certainly don't have the right to force them to fund something that is against everything that they stand for just because you believe in it or it may be "economically convenient." Again, I always feel like the coercive agent is more the "bastard" than anybody who is just trying to mind their business.

    I'm anxiously awaiting monkeysama's response to this one...

    (And, before you start name calling and whatnot, let me assure you that I believe in a woman's right to choose.)

    P.S. Totally off topic, but I'm gonna be pissed if this thread gets bigger than the capitalism/inequality one! Just playing, I could give a rat's ass. The debates on these forums are highly entertaining lately. The only thing they need, is more HPM (and more cowbell, but that's another story...)

    P.S.S. Ignore me, I'm drunk...

    Well we kill REAL people in foreign countries every day that have a tenuous, if any, link to "terrorism". Do I get to choose not to fund that? That's pretty fucking close to my heart and shits all over my belief system.

    Anxiously awaiting econs' response.

    Are you presuming I support that? It should be obvious from everything we've discussed on this site that I do not...

    By the way monkeysama, I'm a little confused by your response. Is that your attempt at dodging the question? Or is your response really, "Right-wingers want to force me to fund something I'm morally/ethically against, so I want to force them to fund something they're morally/ethically against."?

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    econ's picture

    Edmundo Braverman:
    France was an oligarchy much like the US back then. Sure, you had a king and we have a (*cough* democratically elected) President, but the real power was in the hands of the wealthy. And that wealth was concentrated among a handful of uber-rich families. Along comes the Revolution (much like we're seeing in MENA today). The king is murdered, and all the richest families are stripped of their wealth and impoverished. Their wealth is then distributed to the masses (sort of).

    Can someone explain to me how "the rich" in the US are powerful? Sure, they have the money to afford more "stuff" -- but doesn't that just mean they're wealthier and not necessarily more powerful? In some cases, wealthy people get special privileges granted by government, in which case I would agree with you that they have power.

    It seems to me, that without the power of the government, rich people don't have all that much power. If you guys think I'm way off, please give me some counterexamples, because I could definitely change my mind (I just haven't heard anything convincing, yet).

    Edmundo Braverman:
    So what happened?

    Within 60 years (or roughly 3 generations) all of France's wealth was back in the hands of those original families. That's exactly what would happen in the U.S. too.

    I know jack sh*t about France, but I provided some resources in the capitalism/inequality thread about social mobility in the US. Basically, it doesn't seem to be the case in the US that the wealthy families are the same families over time. There seems to be more turnover than most people believe...

    For example, the first link below states: "Of those in the top 1% in 1999, only 44.6% were still there in 2007."

    Here are some of the links:
    http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/06/some-ne...

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020700...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug&playnex...

  • TNA's picture

    No one addresses my post. Rich save and invest. Poor spend and accumulate debt. This is why they have no assets.

    Either fundamentally change how they handle their finances or nothing will change.

    Naaaa, that does feel as good or get the votes as stealing from the rich does.

  • bfin's picture

    Watch the video eddie put up although its funny its extremely true.

    The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

    WSO is not your personal search function.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    XPJ's picture

    UFOinsider:
    In my darker hours, I scan the web looking for a place in the Islands where I can just disappear to. The thinking goes: Fuck this, I'll go be poor in paradise.

    Literally made me laugh out loud, UFO. I do the same...

  • In reply to econ
    monkeysama's picture

    econ:
    econ:
    monkeysama:
    econ:
    rebelcross:
    monkeysama:
    I'm all for contraception and safe sex practices as well, but the religious right is doing everything it can to defund PP. Complete bastards.

    How is somebody a "completely bastard" for not wanting to be forced to pay for something they have a moral problem with based on some fundamental beliefs that are held very close to their hearts? Maybe, you don't share their beliefs or agree with them on anything, but you certainly don't have the right to force them to fund something that is against everything that they stand for just because you believe in it or it may be "economically convenient." Again, I always feel like the coercive agent is more the "bastard" than anybody who is just trying to mind their business.

    I'm anxiously awaiting monkeysama's response to this one...

    (And, before you start name calling and whatnot, let me assure you that I believe in a woman's right to choose.)

    P.S. Totally off topic, but I'm gonna be pissed if this thread gets bigger than the capitalism/inequality one! Just playing, I could give a rat's ass. The debates on these forums are highly entertaining lately. The only thing they need, is more HPM (and more cowbell, but that's another story...)

    P.S.S. Ignore me, I'm drunk...

    Well we kill REAL people in foreign countries every day that have a tenuous, if any, link to "terrorism". Do I get to choose not to fund that? That's pretty fucking close to my heart and shits all over my belief system.

    Anxiously awaiting econs' response.

    Are you presuming I support that? It should be obvious from everything we've discussed on this site that I do not...

    By the way monkeysama, I'm a little confused by your response. Is that your attempt at dodging the question? Or is your response really, "Right-wingers want to force me to fund something I'm morally/ethically against, so I want to force them to fund something they're morally/ethically against."?

    No, I'm saying that it's impossible to create a policy response to an issue that satisfies everyone, so claiming that someone is offended by a policy response or doesn't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. If EVERYONE is offended by a policy response or think it's morally reproachful then clearly that's a different case. Today, slavery is a good example. 99 percent of people would say we should not revert back to a slave society (although how we treat illegal immigrants in this country may be another matter).

    However, take abortion. Clearly it's a divisive issue with some in favor, and some not. I would say it's about as close as any policy can be to dead even 50/50. If we don't allow abortion pregnant women will shove clothes hangers up their vaginas to abort, where if we do allow it they can do it safely in a clinic. So the obvious answer is one death is better than two. No one can stop a women if she chooses to abort either - it's a crime that can't be prosecuted. Much like IP law (at least where downloading music comes in) it's an unenforceable law and I am against having unenforceable laws on the books - it cheapens the peoples respect for governance and paints law enforcement as ineffectual and silly.

    My example with the war shows an example where a decision was made that, even if some people are offended, the majority felt, at the time the war was started, that society would be worse off if we did not take action. I was, and still am, in the minority. That is slowly changing as even the right begins to realize that spending billions fighting overseas when we don't have enough money at home might be a bad idea. My main argument with the war is that it shows a blatant hypocrisy of the right - namely that they are against killing fetuses but foreign people are ok. Specifically the Christian right, as their Christianity tends to only extend as far as their neighbors' pants. Another of my favorite of the (Christian) rights' critiques is that spending money on teachers' salaries is socialism, but when a failure of education leads to higher crime they favor building bigger prisons. I imagine that the Republicans who favor Scott Walker in Wisconsin are also in favor of "getting tougher on crime". But perhaps that's a discussion for another time.

  • freroht's picture

    In my econometrics class I had a research about this same issue, 5 years ago.

    The biggest correlation is taxes. As taxes get lowered- in all countries- the income inequality grew. It is the sad truth: if everyone was taxed at 90%, we would be closer to each other (communism), and if people do not get taxed, the richer would get richer (total free market).

    I think it is all about finding the right medium.

  • freroht's picture

    I also this issue is very important in a social point of view. If 70 or even 90% of the population feels disenfranchised; they will revolt and probably cause uproars.

    It is in the best interest of capitalism to have a good relationship with society.

  • In reply to freroht
    monkeysama's picture

    freroht:
    I also this issue is very important in a social point of view. If 70 or even 90% of the population feels disenfranchised; they will revolt and probably cause uproars.

    It is in the best interest of capitalism to have a good relationship with society.

    I'm long on pitchforks and torches futures.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    UFOinsider's picture

    oops, double post.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    UFOinsider's picture

    oops, triple post

    Get busy living

  • In reply to monkeysama
    econ's picture

    monkeysama:
    No, I'm saying that it's impossible to create a policy response to an issue that satisfies everyone, so claiming that someone is offended by a policy response or doesn't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. If EVERYONE is offended by a policy response or think it's morally reproachful then clearly that's a different case. Today, slavery is a good example. 99 percent of people would say we should not revert back to a slave society (although how we treat illegal immigrants in this country may be another matter).

    I totally agree that it's impossible to create policies that satisfy everyone. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I'm in favor of a society which allows even more decentralized decision making. In other words, lets limit the number of issues we decide via a centralized (political) process, as political solutions are necessarily one size fits all and must therefore leave a lot of people unsatisfied. So, the decision about when life begins will have to be made politically (since, of course, we can't just allow each person to have their own definition of when life begins, and therefore their own definition of when murder occurs). But, that doesn't mean we have to fund abortion publicly, since that forces a lot of people to fund murder (at least according to how they define murder). I personally do not believe that life begins at conception, but I still do not want to force people to fund abortions with their tax dollars.

    P.S. Unfortunately, the funding of the military and the decision about going to war has to be made politically. So, I agree that it sucks to make people pay for something they don't agree with, but I feel that in this case it's unavoidable. That's the distinction I would make between funding abortion and funding the war.

    P.S.S. Why do you keep talking about coat hangers? I never said we should outlaw abortions. All I said was that they shouldn't be funded with tax-payer money. That's a crucial distinction.

  • In reply to freroht
    econ's picture

    freroht:
    It is in the best interest of capitalism to have a good relationship with society.

    I agree that it's bad to have people feel disenfranchised. But, I completely disagree that capitalism promotes that feeling. Many economists make the argument that capitalism benefits the poor much more than it benefits the rich. Their argument is that the rich are always doing well in any kind of society. Capitalism allows the poorest people to be fed, own/rent homes, have a great deal of leisure time, etc. I think it is a complete myth to say that capitalism disenfranchises the people at the bottom.

    Lets not hijack the thread by completely discussing this at length, so if you want to start a discussion, please make a post (preferably in the Econ Group, as I'd love to have a bunch of these debates saved there).

  • In reply to XPJ
    UFOinsider's picture

    XPJ:
    UFOinsider:
    In my darker hours, I scan the web looking for a place in the Islands where I can just disappear to. The thinking goes: Fuck this, I'll go be poor in paradise.

    Literally made me laugh out loud, UFO. I do the same...


    Sweet, I'm thinking the Caribbean, how about you?

    As for the inequlity debate, I've had a taste of both sides, so I can offer this:
    As long as the ruling class brings home the bacon and for the most part leaves the average person to their own affairs AND there is a decent chance of getting to that level if someone REALLLLYYYY wants to work that hard, inequality isn't all bad. Personally, I've worked jobs that were low paying but very enjoyable, so I didn't care about the low status....but getting out of that situation was hellishly difficult.

    However, when the ruling class starts raping the system and neglecting their responsibilities [the children typically do this, vis a vi: Paris Hilton], they deserve whatever happens to them when the starving mob bends them over and makes them their biach. At this point in life, I manage people at one job, I'm a senior member of my weekend job, I associate with the *literal* ruling class of my area and I'm a partner in a side business: Yeah I'm getting paid $^6, but if I slack off, then other people suffer and I will be [figuratively] dragged out and shot.

    It's a mix of background, smarts, and work ethic, and you basically have to choose where you want to fit into the system. Personally, I steer clear of grand theories of how the world / our country should be organized. That's a job for extremely power hunrgy old men, which I am not.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    UFOinsider:

    As for the inequlity debate, I've had a taste of both sides, so I can offer this:
    As long as the ruling class brings home the bacon and for the most part leaves the average person to their own affairs AND there is a decent chance of getting to that level if someone REALLLLYYYY wants to work that hard, inequality isn't all bad. Personally, I've worked jobs that were low paying but very enjoyable, so I didn't care about the low status....but getting out of that situation was hellishly difficult.

    I really don't think there's a ruling class in this country, and I also think that when bankers use terms like that, it does a disservice to the profession.

    We live in the US, which is ultimately ruled by a constitutional democracy. And voters can always vote for a socialist if they don't like the current situation.

    However, when the ruling class starts raping the system and neglecting their responsibilities [the children typically do this, vis a vi: Paris Hilton], they deserve whatever happens to them when the starving mob bends them over and makes them their biach. At this point in life, I manage people at one job, I'm a senior member of my weekend job, I associate with the *literal* ruling class of my area and I'm a partner in a side business: Yeah I'm getting paid $^6, but if I slack off, then other people suffer and I will be [figuratively] dragged out and shot.

    Dude, aren't you still a college student? You can talk about the "ruling class" whe you graduate. Frankly, I think working/well-off adults who talk that way are utterly clueless and likely to stop being part of the "ruling class" they like to define so much, but at that point, you will at least be free to talk about it without having the fact that you're a college student hanging over your head.

    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us and because we see the big picture of accruals and eponential returns working in finance. We work like crazy, we save like crazy, eventually that starts bearing fruit for us- fruit that we might lose, but we will hopefully be able to maintain. But it doesn't mean there's some sort of caste or class system in this country. My grandpa lives on $10K/year and he is even more capitalist than me- Capitalism means he doesn't need to work in old age because he spent his whole life saving. And he gets the same vote everyone else does.

    So IMHO, libertarianism always needs to come with a healthy dose of egalitarianism and populism. Capitalism- arguably even civil liberties as well- have a duty to prove to 51% of voters that those things are worth keeping. And not so the "ruling class" can stay on top but so that everyone who has struggled and worked and thrifted like crazy can keep what they've worked so hard for.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    econ's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us

    I honestly don't find that very convincing.

    IlliniProgrammer:
    Capitalism- arguably even civil liberties as well- have a duty to prove to 51% of voters that those things are worth keeping.

    Are you arguing that in capitalism, the majority of the people need to "agree" with something? Not true. You can satisfy niche markets, unlike one size fits all governmental "solutions." If you want a blue car, you can have a blue car. If I want a green car, I can have one...

    Also, it's actually a myth to think that democracies lead to policies that 51% of the population agrees with. This has been researched extensively by public choice economics, which takes the romance out of politics. But, I don't want to go there...

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    monkeysama's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:

    Dude, aren't you still a college student? You can talk about the "ruling class" whe you graduate.

    Many revolutions were started in universities....

  • In reply to econ
    monkeysama's picture

    econ:
    IlliniProgrammer:
    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us

    Once people figure out that no matter how hard they try they will stay crushed in debt at the bottom of the social pyramid they'll stop believing in the field of diamonds and start wondering why the rich deserve their palaces.

  • In reply to monkeysama
    UFOinsider's picture

    monkeysama:
    econ:
    IlliniProgrammer:
    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us

    Once people figure out that no matter how hard they try they will stay crushed in debt at the bottom of the social pyramid they'll stop believing in the field of diamonds and start wondering why the rich deserve their palaces.


    With all due respect, the majority will never be at either extreme. As long as the vast majority are more or less content, not a whole lot is going to change.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to econ
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    econ:
    IlliniProgrammer:
    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us

    I honestly don't find that very convincing.


    What do you mean? The US, above all, is a very pragmatic country. We use capitalism not because it's necessarily the "right" thing to do, but because it works. We were willing to support undemocratic regimes in Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, and Argentina because it made sense- even though it wasn't necessarily right, so if voters get angry enough and convinced enough that capitalism is broken, there is no stopping them- just like there is no stopping the unrest in Libya even though Gadhaffi holds more power within Libya relative to the populace than the rich do in the US.

    If becoming a Peoples' State makes sense to ~60% of voters and they are motivated enough in that belief, that's probably what will happen. Therefore, as a matter of pragmatism, it is the duty of those for whom capitalism is working well for to make sure that it's also working well for most people in this country.

    IlliniProgrammer:

    Are you arguing that in capitalism, the majority of the people need to "agree" with something? Not true. You can satisfy niche markets, unlike one size fits all governmental "solutions." If you want a blue car, you can have a blue car. If I want a green car, I can have one...

    Absolutely. If you want a green car, and have the money, you can have one, and it's not up to other people to tell you what to do. But the industrialists of the 1890s saw that people, rightly or wrongly, get angry when someone has a green Rolls and they can't afford a green bicycle. That's bad for business, even though it might not be the industrialists' faults.

    So they spent money on public libraries and gyms, cut back the workweek a little, and it resulted in a system where there was some very minor redistribution of wealth, but nobody was complaining.

    The notion of there being an economic ruling class doesn't accomplish anything for the would-be "ruling class" members and it only serves to piss off people who aren't members of this "ruling class".

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    UFOinsider's picture

    IlliniProgrammer:
    UFOinsider:

    As for the inequlity debate, I've had a taste of both sides, so I can offer this:
    As long as the ruling class brings home the bacon and for the most part leaves the average person to their own affairs AND there is a decent chance of getting to that level if someone REALLLLYYYY wants to work that hard, inequality isn't all bad. Personally, I've worked jobs that were low paying but very enjoyable, so I didn't care about the low status....but getting out of that situation was hellishly difficult.

    I really don't think there's a ruling class in this country, and I also think that when bankers use terms like that, it does a disservice to the profession.

    We live in the US, which is ultimately ruled by a constitutional democracy. And voters can always vote for a socialist if they don't like the current situation.

    However, when the ruling class starts raping the system and neglecting their responsibilities [the children typically do this, vis a vi: Paris Hilton], they deserve whatever happens to them when the starving mob bends them over and makes them their biach. At this point in life, I manage people at one job, I'm a senior member of my weekend job, I associate with the *literal* ruling class of my area and I'm a partner in a side business: Yeah I'm getting paid $^6, but if I slack off, then other people suffer and I will be [figuratively] dragged out and shot.

    Dude, aren't you still a college student? You can talk about the "ruling class" whe you graduate. Frankly, I think working/well-off adults who talk that way are utterly clueless and likely to stop being part of the "ruling class" they like to define so much, but at that point, you will at least be free to talk about it without having the fact that you're a college student hanging over your head.

    I think a lot of us take on libertarian attitudes because capitalism has worked for us and because we see the big picture of accruals and eponential returns working in finance. We work like crazy, we save like crazy, eventually that starts bearing fruit for us- fruit that we might lose, but we will hopefully be able to maintain. But it doesn't mean there's some sort of caste or class system in this country. My grandpa lives on $10K/year and he is even more capitalist than me- Capitalism means he doesn't need to work in old age because he spent his whole life saving. And he gets the same vote everyone else does.

    So IMHO, libertarianism always needs to come with a healthy dose of egalitarianism and populism. Capitalism- arguably even civil liberties as well- have a duty to prove to 51% of voters that those things are worth keeping. And not so the "ruling class" can stay on top but so that everyone who has struggled and worked and thrifted like crazy can keep what they've worked so hard for.


    Ruling class = people who make the decisions in society. I'm not interested in parsing words here, I simply make the point that as long as the system keeps the majority of people satisfied, the level of inequality is irrelevant....AS LONG AS the people all the way at the top keep the system going: which is the case in the US. In other places, say Libya, not so much

    Get busy living

Pages