Jump to content

.


cybercoma

Recommended Posts

Assets don't have to last forever, as minimum income levels will be provided by taxing the Millennials. Millennials need to learn how to look after themselves before thinking about taking care of aging boomers. I predict that more lazy Millennials will kill their aging parents to get at their assets.

Smart parents will take their assets and turn them into annuities and gift to their kids the portion they don't need to cover their living expenses. The parents get to enjoy seeing how their kids spend their inheritance (or maybe not, in some cases). And the kids now have a vested interest in the parents living as long as possible. Win-win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No...wealth is often earned...I'm earning some right now.

The definition of "earned wealth" is highly subjective. It's ironic that right wing economists deride government efforts at wealth distribution. As time move forward, more and more economic effort in rich countries is wasted on free market services that do nothing but protect or redistribute wealth, like banking, security guards, lawyers and advertising. The amount of effort that actually goes into producing goods and services that people actually want becomes less and less. Automation and efficiency ought to be increasing peoples' options of working or not. Instead, technology is regularly used to enslave and oppress workers.

Ironically, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few is a major drag on the economy. Poor people spend almost everything they have. Rich people just bid up the price of luxury property.

The accumulation of wealth is a bad joke and the joke is on the 99%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The accumulation of wealth is a bad joke and the joke is on the 99%.

No, the very concept of the "99%" is a joke, and a bad one at that. We have already established that anyone earning about $47K is amongst the world's Top 1%. Everything else is just the usual garden variety moaning about the "rich" and why they shouldn't have more than others.

Wealth can be earned, and I and many others will resume doing so tomorrow. Heck, I'm earning more wealth just sitting here and typing in my den. It's a simple concept that works well....wages for labour...save some instead of spending it. Invest wisely. Rinse and repeat. Wealth will soon follow. But watch out, for the socialists will try to take it away. I'd rather burn wealth than give it all to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the very concept of the "99%" is a joke, and a bad one at that. We have already established that anyone earning about $47K is amongst the world's Top 1%. Everything else is just the usual garden variety moaning about the "rich" and why they shouldn't have more than others.

You've established nothing. Trying to apply one number across countries where the cost of living is very different is meaningless and pointless. Obfuscation and misdirection - that's what we've come to expect from you.

If anyone has ever done the analysis to figure out the average sustainable level of living that could be had by all, I'm not aware of it. It would be interesting to know, however.

Wealth can be earned, and I and many others will resume doing so tomorrow. Heck, I'm earning more wealth just sitting here and typing in my den. It's a simple concept that works well....wages for labour...save some instead of spending it. Invest wisely.

More propaganda. Your investments may be increasing in value but that doesn't mean that you are "earning" anything. The word earning implies that you've done something to deserve it.

Rinse and repeat.

And bleat like a sheep. Capitalism has ceased to be mostly about efficient production of essential goods and services. It's much more about market manipulation, asset theft through elaborate investment mechanisms and the mass propaganda known as advertising. The people are being manipulated on a grander scale than Stalin could ever dream but people cling to the feeble illusion of free choice.

Part of the reason that the Soviet Union collapsed was that people ultimately saw that their system was based on a gigantic lie. Sooner or later (sooner if inequality continues to increase), people in the developed economies will come to the same conclusion.

Some people can see through the elaborate ruse that is capitalism. It isn't difficult but it flies in the face of so much conventional wisdom that few do it. More is the pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who work make value. They are paid less than the value they create. That is theft. Capitalists take no real risks, ever - they never starve - we do.

Any fool can get rich by gambling with other people's money, which the already-rich can do easily. If they lose, they are no worse off, and can instead spend their time using their media telling us that anyone can be rich. Poor education (they won't pay for better) allows them to get away with this, while the mugs applaud.

There is reality in both these comments!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no substance just anger? How many new businesses and product launches fail? Come on, I'm on the side of reducing income disparity but comments like this are just silly.

And this is a common theme used by capitalists.

All the while never really serious about changing any arrangement that would see them taking away less!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has ever done the analysis to figure out the average sustainable level of living that could be had by all, I'm not aware of it. It would be interesting to know, however.

Why would anyone bother to do that ? Do you only aspire to live at the minimum global sustainable income? Fact is, wages and wealth in many nations far surpasses the "global average", but I don't see anyone rushing to give theirs up.

More propaganda. Your investments may be increasing in value but that doesn't mean that you are "earning" anything. The word earning implies that you've done something to deserve it.

But I did...and nearly anyone else can too. Just take saved wages (that's the earning part) and open up an account....it costs nothing. Has nothing to do with "deserving" anything. What an odd way of thinking.

...Some people can see through the elaborate ruse that is capitalism. It isn't difficult but it flies in the face of so much conventional wisdom that few do it. More is the pity.

And yet, you and many other of the same ilk don't seem to be leaving capitalism any time soon.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything else is just the usual garden variety moaning about the "rich" and why they shouldn't have more than others.

Why they shouldn't is really only an issue when it's the result of a playing field that's been deliberately tilted or rigged in their favour by people in power.

You should see the chest pains and diarrhea your garden variety sycophants suffer lest too much attention turn towards doing anything about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why they shouldn't is really only an issue when it's the result of a playing field that's been deliberately tilted or rigged in their favour by people in power.

You should see the chest pains and diarrhea your garden variety sycophants suffer lest too much attention turn towards doing anything about that.

And how is that working out for them ? Are the many wealth redistribution schemes "earning it" ? The "playing field" has winners and losers...always has...always will. Moaning and bitching about it after the fact is just a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd just cave in and give up and become a pessimist.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing, when that's what you are.

I suppose if Canadians rejected democracy and asked for return of monarchy I'd have some tough choices to make for sure. Pretty hypothetical though, and I'm not sure what the point is unless it's for you to point at me and say "see, you're cynical too". But that would be based on the scenario of democratic renewal being utterly rejected in favour of ... dictatorship one supposes versus your viewpoint on today's situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing precluding them from rejecting Canada and localizing. That's not just an alternative, I think it's an inevitability because the present course of action, that of maintaining the course, is completely unsustainable and it will not last, nothing ever does - it's just a matter of time. Preparing for and even helping that unfold is the appropriate thing to do.

Things are getting worse for Canada which is inevitability a good thing. So I'm actually an optimist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I suppose if Canadians rejected democracy and asked for return of monarchy I'd have some tough choices to make for sure. Pretty hypothetical though, and I'm not sure what the point is unless it's for you to point at me and say "see, you're cynical too". But that would be based on the scenario of democratic renewal being utterly rejected in favour of ... dictatorship one supposes versus your viewpoint on today's situation.

It was democratic renewal that led to the present circumstance....hardly the solution. Maybe we should just shame all the rich people and tell them about Jesus of Nazareth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing precluding them from rejecting Canada and localizing. That's not just an alternative, I think it's an inevitability because the present course of action, that of maintaining the course, is completely unsustainable and it will not last, nothing ever does - it's just a matter of time. Preparing for and even helping that unfold is the appropriate thing to do.

Fine, but that's not the crowd "not caring". That would mean the emergence of a new stakeholder group and a focus of concern that isn't given attention now.

And... it's also different than saying "f*** it, I'm out". I'm trying not to sound too judgmental on your group by the way, even if I'm prescribing actions. I myself had my industry eliminated by the stroke of a pen, so I know these things are difficult.

But I think refocussing democracy so that those who have the same concerns are joined with the ones who make the decision is such an obvious solution that I will keep beating it to death. I think that the only think for us to do is to start talking about our problems in those terms until the current pet projects in the area of Open Government are given real power.

Things are getting worse for Canada which is inevitability a good thing. So I'm actually an optimist.

All you have to do is talk about what is wrong ... in the right way. Attaching government power to the public is a proven method - that's how representative democracy was designed and how it works. We're now disconnected, so everything looks wrong. This is why you have people at all points on the spectrum complaining. It's perceptions and engagement that are misaligned.

Framing this as an adversarial stand off - "rich vs poor" "Canada vs the world" "industry vs the environment" "region vs region" - might be useful if we had ways to arbitrate those types of misalignments but we don't. We, instead, have a griping industry that assures us that problems, when framed in this way, will never be solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was democratic renewal that led to the present circumstance....hardly the solution.

I'm intrigued by your assertion. Go on.

Maybe we should just shame all the rich people and tell them about Jesus of Nazareth.

Another rich-vs-poor cash grab is shaping up anyway, and the wealthy don't seem to be ready to deal with it. Otherwise, why would they nominate rich-snob-from-the-80s-college-movies Mitt Romney. That alone is a hallmark of a group that doesn't understand itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by your assertion. Go on.

The corporatists created government to their liking after the first round of "democracy", only to be stymied by anti-trust laws. So they went global, where the "emerging markets" were anyway. Heck, Canada still has "crown corporations".

Another rich-vs-poor cash grab is shaping up anyway, and the wealthy don't seem to be ready to deal with it. Otherwise, why would they nominate rich-snob-from-the-80s-college-movies Mitt Romney. That alone is a hallmark of a group that doesn't understand itself.

I don't know why you focus on Romney...he is not that rich. Try to broaden the issue beyond the usual 'Merkin navel gazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, but that's not the crowd "not caring". That would mean the emergence of a new stakeholder group and a focus of concern that isn't given attention now.

That's right, it would be public's fed up with waiting for the crowd to leave them be - a refreshing change.

And... it's also different than saying "f*** it, I'm out". I'm trying not to sound too judgmental on your group by the way, even if I'm prescribing actions. I myself had my industry eliminated by the stroke of a pen, so I know these things are difficult.

My public you mean.

But I think refocussing democracy so that those who have the same concerns are joined with the ones who make the decision is such an obvious solution that I will keep beating it to death. I think that the only think for us to do is to start talking about our problems in those terms until the current pet projects in the area of Open Government are given real power.

Sounds good on paper but I simply just don't believe it. People have been talking about reforming our democracy for decades now.

All you have to do is talk about what is wrong ... in the right way. Attaching government power to the public is a proven method - that's how representative democracy was designed and how it works. We're now disconnected, so everything looks wrong. This is why you have people at all points on the spectrum complaining. It's perceptions and engagement that are misaligned.

Things are pretty FUBAR all right.

Framing this as an adversarial stand off - "rich vs poor" "Canada vs the world" "industry vs the environment" "region vs region" - might be useful if we had ways to arbitrate those types of misalignments but we don't. We, instead, have a griping industry that assures us that problems, when framed in this way, will never be solved.

And if we can't arbitrate things they will work themselves out naturally through a revolution industry, like they always do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The corporatists created government to their liking after the first round of "democracy", only to be stymied by anti-trust laws. So they went global, where the "emerging markets" were anyway. Heck, Canada still has "crown corporations".

Sure. Your point seems to lead to the conclusion that governments' mode of operations is a tug-of-war between power and the people. This fits with your general take on things, which is something like "'twas ever so...".

And, I agree.

I don't know why you focus on Romney...he is not that rich. Try to broaden the issue beyond the usual 'Merkin navel gazing.

America leads, in every sense. His wealth is secondary to his persona, and ultimate vulnerability as a cartoon private-school-lad. It's not fair, but what is ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, it would be public's fed up with waiting for the crowd to leave them be - a refreshing change.

My public you mean.

Yes, and yes.

Sounds good on paper but I simply just don't believe it. People have been talking about reforming our democracy for decades now.

They did reform things, as BC submits above, but it is just enough out of memory. I can't ask you to change your heart, and open it to the possibilities of things. We both may be too old for that. I thought "Yes we can" was inspiring, but had little faith it would amount to much. Then again, I was surprised when a president that was supposedly so unpopular won handily in 2012.

Things do change, and they will. I suggest that we understand how the fault lines will appear, and start talking about how things will get better after they get worse then.

And if we can't arbitrate things they will work themselves out naturally through a revolution industry, like they always do.

Revolutions of that scale are older than the world wars. Revolutionary change can happen without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. Your point seems to lead to the conclusion that governments' mode of operations is a tug-of-war between power and the people. This fits with your general take on things, which is something like "'twas ever so...".

The "people" have proven that they cannot collectively manage the fruits of capital and wealth creation, and government just adds more debt. In golden goose stories, the goose never goes into debt.

America leads, in every sense. His wealth is secondary to his persona, and ultimate vulnerability as a cartoon private-school-lad. It's not fair, but what is ?

Not any more...you are stuck in the past. Capital is now global, and moves freely across borders. America gave you the Internet, but it will not give you "open government" to squeeze more money out of the evil rich people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "people" have proven that they cannot collectively manage the fruits of capital and wealth creation, and government just adds more debt. In golden goose stories, the goose never goes into debt.

If the people are just "the masses" then they're not expected to ask for more than bread and circuses, and they will have that.

Not any more...you are stuck in the past. Capital is now global, and moves freely across borders. America gave you the Internet, but it will not give you "open government" to squeeze more money out of the evil rich people.

America doesn't lead ? Aw, B_C, our Canadian humility has finally rubbed off on you. Indeed America is the global home of wealth, now and for the foreseeable future.

"Open Government" is no more about squeezing money out of the rich than it is about stopping government spending although some proponents of OG think both of those things. Again, it's the alignment of power, money, and utility with the people involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...