watch
- Thread starter Yuri Zhivago
- Start date
Yuri Zhivago
Mayor
i hope brain dead cons will enjoy this video.
Very simple and easily understandable even for habitually dumb coins
Very simple and easily understandable even for habitually dumb coins
freyasman
Senator
That was a good video, spasiba
NightSwimmer
Senator
The 99% who think they are just a step away from being among the 1% see everything from a different point of view. Reality has no meaning in the lives of these folks.
P
PACE
Guest
Wow!, 311 million people versus 54 trillion, with the top 1% own 50% of the investments,
so the "entitlement" put in place by Bush certainly works to the benefit of the top 1%,
So the conclusion is that any change to this paradigm is considered socialism,
And reality, versus perception, versus ideal is so far removed from each other, that there is no trending whatsoever.
That is a tremendous and very dangerous risk to a social make up, and a cohesive egrarian and investment based society.
This looks like the type of economics that led to the fall of the Roman Empire, and others.
Thanks Sash, this was illuminating.
Regards
Pace
so the "entitlement" put in place by Bush certainly works to the benefit of the top 1%,
So the conclusion is that any change to this paradigm is considered socialism,
And reality, versus perception, versus ideal is so far removed from each other, that there is no trending whatsoever.
That is a tremendous and very dangerous risk to a social make up, and a cohesive egrarian and investment based society.
This looks like the type of economics that led to the fall of the Roman Empire, and others.
Thanks Sash, this was illuminating.
Regards
Pace
worldlymrb
Daddy
Hey Yuri/Pace, the top 1% (mega rich globalist), just saw their income DOUBLE since your boy's faux recovery began in 2009, while the working middle class income DROPPED by .05%
forward.
forward.
Drumcollie
* See DC's list of Kook posters*
The video does get right to the heart of the matter...Republicans think the money you get should be earned...and that when you earn it is yours. The proper wealth distribution is not wrong...but it must be done correctly...and who ecides who gets the money, cause I need to budy up with them...I guess get a green energy company and you get the money...cause look at all those failures and yet they get money.I guess taking from from Rich republicans is the proper Ideal.
P
PACE
Guest
Prove it
P
PACE
Guest
No, the video gives the math, and a pre-condition is that both democrats and republicans agreed with the modeling, your sociological or polemic contribution is not part of the equation at all.
it doesn't even register.
Regards
Pace
it doesn't even register.
Regards
Pace
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Thank you for posting this Yuri. I have seen it before and it explains a lot about what ails the world economy and also what religions and philosophers have spoken about for centuries regarding the evils of certain things.
G-R-E-E-D
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed
G-L-U-T-T-O-N-Y
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gluttony
While there are some truly wonderful people who have fallen upon very incredible fortunes of wealth not because they were looking for wealth and they do great things with it, many of them passing most of it along to people in need, there are others who appear to pursue the very thing their religions, sages and history has shown to cause problems and here we are, yet again.
What are possible solutions? In its most basic form and one that operates in a vacuum of affecting only itself (which is impossible based on where income for business comes from), business formulas that consider only bottom lines and not the wider spectrum of how bottom lines are made possible beyond the talent and management of those who own or operate a business, are inherently at odds with any society they operate in.
Profit is not evil except perhaps in the way people profit and excessive profit in ways that affect and harm the societies they exist within.
One would believe that even children could point to the problem of a business that used so much water to produce what it sold that it began to or had left the area it operates in, without drinking water, that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The company might say, but we provide jobs and income, but that simply ignores how it is also cutting off its nose in the longer run and if its product needs to consume so much water it runs all the places its production plants are dry, it is not sustainable and while it might be profitable because people want to buy the product, it has a negative impact that cannot be ignored.
In the U.S., there are both those who purposefully deny their profitable business could possibly be doing greater harm to their society than good and there are those who may not have the brain capacity to do the math, much less think about why the math should be done and there are those that place blind loyalty to something or some others or individuals over and above reality.
I've always thought that it was good practice to decide upon a mulitple of the lowest paid employee in any business as the compensation for the highest paid. The incentive to do better remains and if the top person wants more in compensation the multiplier remains the same so that if he/she gets more, the pay scale goes up throughout the organiztion. Because many CEO's are also members of boards of directors of other companies, they have been reluctant to place any limits on their pay and instead have the motivation to suggest the idea that if someone does not pay top dollar, they are not going to get the best CEO's.
This appeared to lead to the creation of obscene "Golden Paracute" compensation packages that paid out huge bonuses, severances, benefits and options regardless of the performance of the CEO or the companies they were supposed to manage successfully and that has led to people taking advantage of such packages, essentially jumping from job to job, doing the minimum contracted to collect the package and then quitting. The "best people"????? I don't think so. Con artists and capitalists along the same line as thieves who capitalize on people's trust and their not paying close enough attention???? Perhaps, maybe even probably, but because they wear suits, they seem to believe their actions are less criminal or at minimum, less "wefare" fraud than those who take advantage of a system to bilk it at the low end of the income scale.
We all have egos Yuri, just some seem more hyped than others and in a nation such as this, "success" in some eras has strickly been asscociated by much of society as the amount of material and financial wealth one has or acquires, not whether they are modest and happy or otherwise virtuous. As mentioned above, we are experiencing the pitfalls of such eras. Recovery from them seem to come as people change their focus of measure of success from material wealth to something more spiritual in nature such as one's humanity, one's all around virtue. A new era begins that rejects greed for a while until it swings a pendulum too far in an opposite direction.
The problem I see now is that deregulation and lax regulation along with greed and a building return of an era where material wealth (against virtue and humanity) became the focus and measure of success and as a result, all the same negative things that have occurred in other such eras in history have repeated themselves, but have been manifested in different ways and to different degrees.
While it seems time for the pendulum to begin swinging the other way, I also believe we need some wisdom to know that pendulum swings from one extreme to another probably cost more to society than keeping the range of the swings in opposite direction a lot more modest.
I think some people like to equate moderation with mediocrity when they are not truly the same things. We can still have people pushing limits a completely opposite poles, but stability comes from not trying to tip the boat over on either the port or the starboard side.
Maybe even more important a question to all factions of society would be how much are they willing to give up in radical pursuit of either left or right, up or down, backwards or forwards.
Pushing the limits, like all other things, does not come without a cost. If society is willing to accept the cost to it, of great politcal and moral philosophy swings, then that is the way they should proceed. IF society says they prefer more stability with eyes and ears still open to progress and change, then working toward compromises and joint solutions to problems should be the way they proceed.
I don't know how many more times we need to experience demonstrations of the pitfalls of most of the money in the world or in this nation, in the hands of the relative very few and what that means in terms of power and influence, bought by great sums of money.
Can there truly be representative government or society where the wealthy can, with their wealth, essentially buy representation in favor of their continued wealth, influence and power?
Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, the man most quoted by the founders of this nation, suggested that too much equality as is harmful to a society as too little. In light of the suggestion of the video you posted and what history has shown us that seems to be about right.
Is it a call to become mediocre or a call to become cutting edge, healthy and stable economy because of political and other moderation where the effects are positive to society, but positive reinforcement in other ways than material wealth for radical positive advancements to humankind.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...y-forfeit-by-not-patenting-the-polio-vaccine/
OldGaffer
Governor
Since 72% of the richest 400 Americans inherited their money and did not have to work a single day, just how do you consider them "worthy"? At some point the 1% will have it all and the rest of us nothing, that is when things like firing up the guillotine and standing oligarchs against the wall starts happening.Will you be one of the ones manning the barricades to protect your betters from the rabble?
