[Phantom Hoover]

aerosmith: the jonathan swift of their time

[S-99]

What's the alternative?

I have heard of none.

Eat the rich.  There's only one thing that they're good for.

Get rich and don't become these ****ers in drag.

The one thing i've come to understand about money is that, the more you save, the more opportunities you give yourself. The other is use it or lose it. Using money mostly goes after doing what you need and want with it. The other part of using it is investing. Losing it goes after mindless spending and overtly not having a goal with your money; lack of ambition and planning.

The problem with rich people is the fact that they do have so much money and they need to use it, and more overly, want to use it (people don't get rich without any vision). Despite laws, there will always be rich people to sway things their way through manipulation of anybody. Now, never abolish the rich. That would be stupid. I would never care for such a thing because at it's most base abolishing the rich would mean caps on how much money you are allowed to save and make. Making money legitimately was never illegal, nor is saving it, or using it. However, how you make and use it does matter; this is a separate topic though.

In college i was in a government class at college (part of the required courses). One thing the instructor did was ask the students about how they like being poor and in debt, and whether or not the rich should give to them. Unfortunately a bunch of students raised their hands. Then he countered with playing a video about a successful CEO who didn't have a problem writing his own pay checks based on the continued success of him being a CEO of a thriving business, and the CEO stated that it was never illegal to make or save any amount of money.

How many students raised their hands was disturbing. One may argue that the students are in a bad financial situation taking out loans, getting a job, and renting a place all for school. But, how bad are they really off if they could do all of this in 2004. Compared to the people who maybe get half a meal a day or something like that and are out of work trying to get another job, tooth and nail everyday; these are the people I would figure who really need the hand out.

[Luis Dias]

I think you took him way too seriously. Nobody's saying the rich should be "abolished".

[Nuke]

i only claimed that they should be vivisected so we can see how they work. after that idk, i dont have the money to put them back together so i guess they can just be used for meat.

[BloodEagle]

i only claimed that they should be vivisected so we can see how they work. after that idk, i dont have the money to put them back together so i guess they can just be used for meat.

Heh.  Soylent Green.

[Nuke]

no, no, no. dont hide your cannibalism. display it proudly!

[Mr. Vega]

That's like saying the solution for crimes is better humans.

What I mean is that the capitalism we have is already "bridled". However, the system is such that rich men will always find themselves lobbying for the Rulemakers of the world to get the rules work for their benefit. This is just how it always plays out. And the world is such a place that the rich can always store their cash in some corner of the world where governments "unfortunately" can't grab it. Globalization has been a boon for the rich like nothing else, for they treat countries as restaurants where they go and eat, go away if the price is too high or the food unpleasant. We hear that all the time "Raise the taxes for the rich and the wealth flees for other nations", etc.

The capitalist system is unbridled by nature, by fiat. It will always degenerate into this sort of monster.

And it will only get worse and worse given the power of automation and artificial intelligence.

1. Capital controls. When they were in place prior to 1970 globalization actually promoted development. Capitalism need not follow the Washington Consensus.
2. LAND VALUE TAX. Appreciation of real estate has become the single largest de-facto source of capital gains. So tax that appreciation away. The rich can move their money offshore but they can't move their land.

Many, many economists repeatedly point out that the tax codes of most major democracies are filled with ludicrous loopholes, tax expenditures (popularly known as "credits" or "relief"), and modifications to what are fundamentally pretty robust systems - proportional increases in payable tax rates based on level of income.  That system was, incidentally, favoured quite heavily by even Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" proponent himself.

The modern idea of progressive taxation pretty much BEGAN with Adam Smith. Noone ever actually reads his stuff - he wasn't anti-government but anti-rentier. And his "invisible hand" quote was about the potential harmful effects of what we now call globalization being defeated by the home bias of capitalists towards their native countries- one prediction he was obviously wrong about. The modern use of that term was a complete fabrication made up by later conservative economists trying to turn him to the exact opposite of what he really was.

[S-99]

I think you took him way too seriously. Nobody's saying the rich should be "abolished".

I probably did.

[666maslo666]

The rich are of course vital for the economy, their investments advance humanity a lot. They just have to be properly regulated so that common man benefits from it, too, and the inequality doesnt get too big. Anyone who seriously wants to "abolish the rich" is deep inside communist kookoo land. They tried that in my country for 40 years and it was a huge failure.

[JCDNWarrior]

Neophytes, huh? I was expecting them to be called Neonates..