On Apr 29, 5:56 am, Eat the rich <goofin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:00 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Socialism is control of property and means of production by the state.
> > It has nothing to do with "generosity" or "charity." Which is why it
> > always fails--and why it stands diametrically opposed to the teachings
> > of Christ. Hermes doesn't seem to belong to the list at all. Buddha
> > seems to agree with Yeshua that spiritual matters are separate from
the
> > cor****eal world altogether.
> > --
> > NeoLibertarian
>
> >http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
>
> Generosity and charity is to let a few hold most of the wealth. Think
> about it. We, the m*****, are too stupid and base to know what to do
> with wealth so it's better if we let the plutocracy decide how wealth
> is distributed. They know the right formula of how much wealth to
> give us to keep us alive so that we can build all of the things that
> they want.
>
> 20% percent of our population controls controls around 85% of our
> wealth. The bottom 80% controls only 15% of the wealth. To
> simplify, imagine a room with a hundred people. The combined wealth
> of everyone in that room is 10 million dollars. The richest 20, who
> control about 85% of the wealth, each has 425000 on average or 8.5
> million total. The bottom 80 people, who control only 15% of the
> wealth, each has 18750 dollars on average or 1.5 million total.
>
> What does 85% wealth get you? More say with politicians since we have
> no sensible campaign financing laws. More control over how resources
> are used. More say in how our economy operates and how jobs are
> managed. Your little stack of dollars only buys you enough to live on
> and perhaps some toys to keep you distracted from how little say you
> have in your life.
First, your psuedoname says a lot about you.
The reason 20% hold the wealth that they do is because they are
smarter than
the other 80%. The wealth was not given to them; it was not
"distributed" to them. You too could earn more wealth if you were
smart enough and made the right decisions.
You are wealthy not because of what you make; you are wealthy because
of what you save. (... and how you save). Sure, there are the Paris
Hiltons and Kennedys who have inherited wealth, but most of the
wealthy in the US are first generation wealthy. ( I don't know about
the UK)
You identified the problem in your closing sentence, "...and perhaps
some toys
...."
Americans are hung up on materialism. The lower 80% have cable or
satellite, cell phones, GPS, Big screen TVs, multiple TVs per
household, DVDs, new cars (more than one per family) , computers,
Internet service, air conditioning,
microwave ovens, three bedroom "starter houses" and on and on and
on... The
lower 80% buy toys that rust, break and turn to dust.
I also know people who are first generation wealthy. They ALL spent
less than they earned. They delayed purchase of toys. And/or they
invested a ****tion in the private sector, And/or they took out a loan
to buy rental property, And/or they went into debt to start a
business. And/or they took out a loan to pay employees when their
business wasn't making a profit. All worked hard and long hours. You
too could be among the top 20% (or even the top 10% or top 1%) who
hold the wealth, but you don't want to take the risk. You would
rather stay home and play with your toys (that will rust, break and
turn to dust). All the while, *****ing about the fact that wealth was
not "distributed" to you.
Jane
|
