« First « Previous Comments 12 - 51 of 55 Next » Last » Search these comments
The market doesn't care about fair--fair is irrelevant. It's completely subjective.
It's true that there isn't much we can do about automation, which is why we very quickly need to develop a way to redistribute wealth.
The market has no prejudice. A dollar from you is the same as a dollar from me. It is 100% fair until people start projecting false ideals like "economic justice."
Wealth inequality has benefits and pitfalls. Automation can shield us from some of the bad effects. Robots can help fight crime.
Our goal should be total growth. A higher tide has the potential to lift all boats, if all skippers are doing their jobs.
A global cap-and-trade child-birth permit system will solve overpopulation and poverty in the long run.
Child-birth is one of the few areas that need global regulations. Without it, future population growth will always happen in the poorest, least-educated areas and/or families. Imagine that future.
The market has no prejudice. A dollar from you is the same as a dollar from me. It is 100% fair until people start projecting false ideals like "economic justice."
No prejudice does not mean fair.
Wealth inequality has benefits and pitfalls. Automation can shield us from some of the bad effects. Robots can help fight crime.
Large wealth inequality has no benefits. Automation cannot shield us from anything--it increases inequality.
Our goal should be total growth. A higher tide has the potential to lift all boats, if all skippers are doing their jobs.
Total growth cannot be sustained in the face of large inequality. Hasn't history taught you that?
Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates. Automation can be used to fight crime and maintain stability.
That said, a society should strive for opportunity equality.
Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates.
Large wealth inequality creates a small, entrenched upper class, and a very large entrenched lower class. It reduces demand and kills an economy. There is nothing good that comes from such a situation.
Wealth inequality creates economic incentives at the cost of higher crime rates.
Large wealth inequality creates a small, entrenched upper class, and a very large entrenched lower class. It reduces demand and kills an economy. There is nothing good that comes from such a situation.
This is why opportunity equality is important.
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
The criminal cops who committed these crimes should have their arms and legs amputated so that they can no longer commit harm. The judge who obstructed justice and protected them should have the same done to him.
And then what do you do with the disembodied limbs?
Extra credit for creative answers!
Beat Kim Jung-un to death with them!
The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.
I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)
This is why opportunity equality is important.
Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity
The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.
lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
The criminal cops who committed these crimes should have their arms and legs amputated so that they can no longer commit harm. The judge who obstructed justice and protected them should have the same done to him.
And then what do you do with the disembodied limbs?
Extra credit for creative answers!
Sell them as trophies to hang in the living room.
I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)
Why would trusts be necessary if you have no inheritance taxes?
This is why opportunity equality is important.
Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity
Larry Page and Larry Ellison. Both were not born rich.
Gengis Khan, the greatest person ever walked on earth, was dealt a terrible hand.
Money equals opportunity only in an overly-regulated world.
I say abolish inheritance tax but severely restrict the use of trusts. Rich kids should be tempted to spend every of their dollars at the earliest opportunity. This is how wealth should be "redistributed." :-)
Why would trusts be necessary if you have no inheritance taxes?
To keep money in the family by imposing restrictions on the use of funds.
The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.
lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.
So what? Why do you hate success?
I used to admire Bill Gates when he was in the conquest mode.
This is why opportunity equality is important.
Money = opportunity in a free market. It's impossible to have equal opportunity when you have large wealth disparity
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
Larry Page and Larry Ellison. Both were not born rich.
Gengis Khan, the greatest person ever walked on earth, was dealt a terrible hand.
Money equals opportunity only in an overly-regulated world.
Wonderful. You come up with 3 exceptions. Yes, it is not impossible to be successful if you are born poor. But the odds are very much against you.
You cannot argue that in a free market, someone born in East St. Louis has the same opportunity as someone born in Palo Alto.
To keep money in the family by imposing restrictions on the use of funds.
lol--nobody creates a trust to keep money in a family by stopping people from spending it. Other than minors. Do you think that's a big problem that needs fixed--allowing minors to spend freely?
Do you think that's a big problem that needs fixed--allowing minors to spend freely?
Yes. :-)
More business activities.
The upper class is no longer entrenched. Large businesses can be upsurped by small startups.
lol---as Microsoft is usurped, Bill Gates seems to be doing just fine.
So what? Why do you hate success?
I used to admire Bill Gates when he was in the conquest mode.
Ah yes, back to the usual argument. Hating success. I love success. And a healthy economy allows many, many, more people to be successful.
Less wealth disparity encourages success!
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.
Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?
Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.
Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?
Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.
I would agree they have less opportunity especially if they are inner city residents. Inner cities are like quick sand, not many manage to get out unless they have NBA skills.
I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.
Rather than change the subject--do you guys think someone born into poverty has the same opportunity as someone born into upper middle class?
Since you think opportunity is the most important variable--answer me that.
They have different types of opportunities. Those born rich are not necessarily motivated.
It is easier for the kids to attain mediocrity if the parents are middle class.
Middle class should not be a goal.
The real danger in life is not failing. The worst thing that can happen to a person is aiming too low and then achieving the goal.
The mind is powerful. The best opportunities come to those who are open minded. We all have emotional baggage. The key is to let go and to embrace.
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
Come on--enough with the bogus arguments. There are always exceptions. That does not disprove the rule. There is most definitely a correlation between success and family wealth.
The majority of Forbes 400 are self-made.
I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.
Is that sarcasm?
They have different types of opportunities. Those born rich are not necessarily motivated.
It is easier for the kids to attain mediocrity if the parents are middle class.
Middle class should not be a goal.
The real danger in life is not failing. The worst thing that can happen to a person is aiming too low and then achieving the goal.
Does "different" opportunities = fewer opportunities?
Motivation is not an opportunity and is irrelevant.
So, let's try again--do you agree that being born into poverty provides less opportunity than being born into upper middle class, for example?
Less wealth disparity encourages success!
That's pretty much empirically disproven. In the former DDR (eastern Germany) there was no wealth disparity at all for the most part (excluding the members of the Politbuero) - success was nowhere to be found! What encourages success is the opportunity of vertical moves, which is being squashed by the current tax policies of taxing the wage slaves more and more and the crony capitalist bailouts by the government and the Fed of failed entities that belong either in jail or in bankruptcy. If people look at those examples, they know the rule of law has been abolished and they are at a significant disadvantage, therefore discouraging success.
That's pretty much empirically disproven. In the former DDR (eastern Germany) there was no wealth disparity at all for the most part (excluding the members of the Politbuero) - success was nowhere to be found!
Sorry--I wasn't specific enough--obviously zero wealth disparity is a problem too. Low to moderate disparity is probably ideal.
Reduced disparity from where we are today encourages success. That has been empirically proven.
The majority of Forbes 400 are self-made.
Maybe--I don't have time to look up all 400--but how many were born into poverty? A few, probably, but many fewer than were born into middle class (Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, etc.)
The point isn't that it is impossible to rise out of poverty--the point is that it's much harder than being successful out of the middle class.
I just can't figure out why it is so difficult for them to get out of the inner cities.
Is that sarcasm?
No. I really mean it.
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
And each one was a 1%er. Gates' parents were Corporate Lawyers. Buffett's Grandfather was a Harvard Alumni, his father a Wealthy Businessman and Congressman, Jobs was adopted by a top 1% Engineer Family, Obama's White Side were also 1%ers, descendents of owners of gristmills, governors, and well off farmers, as well as related to 6 other presidents.
Out of the top 10 richest Americans, the only one not born a 1%er is Ellison
Wow, out of 10, only 1 is NOT a 1%er by BIRTH.
Bill Gates made it. So did Warren Buffett, Obama, Steve Jobs, and the thousands more. We also have 10 million millionaires. They all have one thing in common....they took the opportunity given to them.
And each one was a 1%er. Gates' parents were Corporate Lawyers. Buffett's Grandfather was a Harvard Alumni and a Congressman, his father a Wealthy Businessman, Jobs was adopted by a top 1% Engineer Family, Obama's White Side were also 1%ers, descendents of owners of gristmills, governors, and well off farmers, as well as related to 6 other presidents by maternal blood.
Out of the top 10 richest Americans, the only one not born a 1%er is
I would agree. They all had access to good education, safe neighborhoods, loving family and good friends. The ghetto kids have nothing like that.
I edited the above: I thought that Buffet's grandfather was the Congressman, it was his Father.
I edited the above: I thought that Buffet's grandfather was the Congressman, it was his Father.
I get the point and agree.
I'm off to dinner with my family and take the opportunity to encourage and motivate the children.
It's not good the ghetto kids may not have a father to do the same.
The hardest thing to overcome is the mindset. Very few can grow beyond their associated labels.
Larry Ellison is the closet thing to an Ubermensch nowadays.
I would agree. They all had access to good education, safe neighborhoods, loving family and good friends. The ghetto kids have nothing like that.
People in different situations must look for different opportunities.
For example, someone growing up poor may better understand the spending habits of poor people, which is traditionally the group with the highest profit margin.
Someone growing up rich can leverage his network of contacts.
Someone from the middle-class can build innovative products because his peers have sufficient disposable income and there are enough of them.
NEVER emulate someone else. You can only be successful as yourself.
The worst liability of being poor is the belief that wealth is a sin. The middle-class thinks that wealth beyond a point is a sin. The rich embrace their wealth, of course, this is why they stay rich.
People like to think their actions are ethical and pious. Yes, even serial killers have their "justifications."
« First « Previous Comments 12 - 51 of 55 Next » Last » Search these comments
Ferguson police mistakenly arrested an innocent man before viciously beating him so bad he was taken to hospital and then charged for bleeding on THEIR uniforms'
Henry Davis, 52, was arrested in Ferguson, Missouri, on September 20, 2009
Police had mistaken him for a man of the same name with an outstanding warrant
Davis claims police realized their mistake but still locked him up
He was allegedly beaten by a group of four officers
He was held for several days before being charged with four counts of property damage
Police in Ferguson had mistakenly arrested a man before the Michael Brown shooting and, after realizing, proceeded to beat him up in a holding cell and then charge him with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms, it has been claimed.
Henry Davis, 52, had missed his turn off for the Missouri city of St. Charles during heavy rain late at night on September 20, 2009, pulling over about 20 miles away in Ferguson.
While waiting for the rain to clear about 3am, a patrol officer ran Davis' plates and arrested him on an outstanding warrant - however it was the wrong Henry Davis.
The wanted man had a different middle name and Social Security number, but Davis, a welder, said the officer cuffed him and put him into a patrol car without explanation, The Daily Beast reported.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726727/Ferguson-police-mistakenly-arrested-innocent-man-viciously-beating-charging-bleeding-THEIR-uniforms.html