MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

06 January 2007

50% of the Wealth is held by 2% of the people. Who are those people, and why do we allow it?
As John Dickinson says in the musical 1776: “Don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. ."
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 06 January | 23:50
I should think it's dead obvious by now that the modern robberbarons have screwed us all to the wall again.

What happened the last time?
posted by Five Fresh Fish 07 January | 01:08
FFF, if any of those 2% obtained that cash through illegal means, then yes, there's something for us to complain about. Otherwise, what's all this about "allowing" it? Are you really screwed to the wall? I'm not, and I doubt anybody else here is. And the last time? Last time what? Maybe Stalin and Mao were on the right track? I doubt it.
posted by pieisexactlythree 07 January | 01:13
Shit, I'm disabled and I am nowhere near screwed to the wall. In fact, if this economy continues as it has for another couple years (and I have no reason to doubt that it will), I can possibly work part-time and be in even better shape than I am now.
posted by mischief 07 January | 01:54
I wish more people were sharing that 50% of the wealth, namely myself and Mrs Slack, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. Occassionally I'll drive through an area with loads of embarassingly large houses and wonder where the hell all of this money is coming from and what mis-steps I've made in life to not be part of the elite. But I've never had an axe to grind with the rich just becasue they're rich. If they're not oppressing others or obtaining their money through ill will, good for them. There are a lot of rich bastards out there that should be ashamed of what they've become, but I can say the same thing about a lot of poor bastards struggling to pay their bills.
posted by Slack-a-gogo 07 January | 01:55
pi3, mischief, etc, did you read the article?

The war profiteers have stolen literally billions of dollars from the citizenry.
posted by Five Fresh Fish 07 January | 05:04
50% of the Wealth is held by 2% of the people. Who are those people, and why do we allow it?

Not all that wealth is cash sitting in a checking account. A lot of it is paper wealth--controlling stakes in large public companies--which has its value tied intrinsically to its owner. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs and others. Kinda hard to share it or redistribute it, though Buffet and Gates seem to be looking for a way to do it without destroying value.

Now, I would agree that we shouldn't allow these kind of fortunes to last multiple generations (like the Waltons, for example). A few of the richest agree with this.

“The idea that you get a lifetime of privately funded food stamps based on coming out of the right womb strikes at my idea of fairness.”

- Warren Buffet
posted by mullacc 07 January | 05:09
pi3, mischief, etc, did you read the article? The war profiteers have stolen literally billions of dollars from the citizenry.

This is why people outside this little Internet community of ours won't listen to you. The 2% you pointed to in your post include your war profiteers along with the Pierre Omidyars, George Soros's and Michael Dells of the world. If you can't distinguish between those groups, you've lost your audience.
posted by mullacc 07 January | 05:14
Good for them 2%.

I wish I were one of them. If am not, one of my great-great^n-parents screwed it up. I can live with it. Perhaps my great-great^n-son won't screw it up. Whatever.

Bunch of commies, that's what you all are.

PS: I'm drunk, so I can't be held responsible for any of the comments I post here.
posted by qvantamon 07 January | 05:21
Clearly, the solution is to impeach Bush and replace him with Terry Jones.
posted by Daniel Charms 07 January | 05:40
You don't want to take money away from rich cat, do you?
posted by qvantamon 07 January | 06:08
Who are those people, and why do we allow it?

(In other words, it's not people, it's cats)
posted by Daniel Charms 07 January | 07:23
Gee, fff, if it's about war profiteers, then you should have been more specific. Your post as it is sounds like nothing more than a generic lefty rant. Besides, at $1600 per American over 4 years, I know I can afford it.

Plus, the Dems control Congress now, so I expect that they will investigate every facet of this war and everything else Bush has done over the last six years. Hell, I will lay odds (computed AFTER I drink my coffee) that the Pelosi posse will reopen the 9/11 investigation.

So, sit back and relax. The next two years will be one of the most explosive political dust-ups between the Legislative and Executive branches that the US has ever seen. Hell, by this time next year, we could be witnessing a real impeachment.

Hey, "Pelosi posse"! Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? (Remember, you read it here first! heheh ;-P )
posted by mischief 07 January | 11:04
Nancy Pelosi has a posse.

(Hey, speaking of that, is it still acceptable to like Shepherd Fairey after that SS/WalMart/Obey thing?)
posted by box 07 January | 12:15
I'm part of the 2%.
You're all fired, especially five fresh fish
posted by matteo 07 January | 19:02
Okay, I didn't read the article and this isn't on-topic, but... Here's my beef with the usual libertarian-esque response to the general lefty 50% of wealth rant: Why should I get all hot and bothered when the government consolidates extreme power, but not give a poop when private individuals and corporations do? To my mind, power is power is power. If Bill Gates wanted to use his wealth to build a mercenary army and oppress us all, he sure as hell could just as easily as any government. Corporations use their influence to stifle free speech and related liberties all the time. How is it magically any worse for an organization called "government" to consolidate power and redistribute resources than it is for an organization called "The Gates Foundation?" One could argue that government has a monopoly on power in most of the economic sectors that it operates, and, therefore, its wealth is acquired without consent, but, with my understanding of economics, you just don't acquire the megawealth of billionaires without equally operating within a monopoly of some sort.
posted by Skwirl 08 January | 13:39
MULLACC || GO SEAHAWKS!!! *Ahem* That is all...

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN