Because I dont want to lead a revolution I just want to be in one.
They are fat from the food we give them.
They fail to consider that they're rich because of society. Or they just don't care. I wonder how much money they would have if nobody bought their stuff. Somebody willing to provide alternate goods/services w/o being greedy and letting it be known (think eco coffee etc) would be able to take some of their profits. People should boycott.
I'd like to respond to the first part of this - Straight out of objectivism. When you analyse something, often its absurdity comes into view.
What is worth more to a person who buys a cup of coffee? Their $1.50, or the cup of coffee? The cup of coffee is more important to them - otherwise they wouldn't buy it. It's an exchange of value where BOTH sides are benefitting. The purchaser is GAINING value by purchasing that cup of coffee because they value it more than the money they're spending on it. The seller values the money more than the cup of coffee. If they DIDN'T value it more (say a $50 cup of normal coffee), then they wouldn't buy the coffee.
Right now, many (most?) people consider starbucks coffee more valuable than independant coffee places. This could be for their consistency, taste, value, or brand. We do like to show off to others in different ways.
My retort to your statment of "They're rich because of society" would be to ask how this is any different than saying "The middle and lower class get their luxuries from the rich creators, investors, and industrialists. Without them, there would be no plasma TVs, TV Dinners, Coors Light or affordable IKEA furniture. The middle and lower class need to stop trying to steal - to "have their cake and eat it too" - by getting their money's worth when they buy a product and then demanding their money BACK from the people who make these luxuries available. It's an obscene gesture of greed and childishness and they need to get their shit together and cut it out. Just as much as "The rich are rich because of society", so it is that "The poor are living better and better because of the rich". The only difference is that you don't see the poor getting their products stolen from them at a rate of 30% or more, while the rich are getting their profits taken from them at that very rate."
Please, do explain.
It describes how the entire history of the United States of America has been a tug and pull battle between the people (who actually do the work) and the bankers (who don't create any wealth but just extract interest from the real economy of production and consumption like a big parasite)
Please, do explain.
First of all, I would agree that many things are taken too far by the protesters. The rich weren't the only ones whose greed fueled the economic crises. The thing is that most people are getting poorer while the "1%" are getting richer. That shows that people are getting less value from the things they buy. Not all of them are being greedy. However, being the ones who already have the wealth to invest doesn't justify disproportionately more wealth. My point was that people should support people who are not being so greedy, not that the rich shouldn't have money for what they do. Part of it is also that people are upset about having to bailout banks while the people who invested poorly get even more money.
Lol....if people weren't made to work so many hours by the 1% then they wouldn't need to pump themselves full of stimulants all the time!
Bah... Ram... Ewe...
Bah... Ram... Ewe...
To your breed, your fleece, your stock be true.
Sheep be true.
Le gasp! How Atlas shrugged, now you're getting it.
I can't find a way to make an actual, coherent response to this without saying something that will get me infracted. I'll try a short one though:
Mictim Ventality.
We should never have to engage in physical altercations with others, we should never murder each other, and we should never act irresponsibly... in a perfect world where we're all robots... but they happen all the time, and they always will. Greed will always be with us.
What would some reasonable "Things that need to be done" be then?
If you tax investments more, there will be less investments to small businesses, individuals, etc.
If you stop bailing out the banks then the banks will collapse and there will be far, far less loans to people.
If you tax the rich, they will raise prices on their items to make up for the amount they were taxed.
If you limit the amount that people can work or earn in a year, then many, many rich people won't work as much.
Of course, I'm in favor of one or more of those things above... but I'm fairly sure it won't happen. Is that defeatism, or is it being honest with myself? People fear change. Many would rather just complain and keep trying to get what they can (greed from the bottom) from those who have worked to get their money - whether honestly or unscrupulously (greed from the top).
The only fair things that I could see as a conclusion would be:
Educate people on how to manage their money. (This won't work because many poor people have a strict policy against learning.)
Let them learn themselves through failure and hope that they seek to be more responsible (But many won't, and you have to be ok with that.)
I'm not trying to justify the rich, but to say that we're all, for the most part, greedy bastards who want things we haven't worked for and want to devise a way to get it. That goes for the rich who defraud people, and the poor who want the government to defraud the rich. To those people who say "We need to do something about the hungry in the streets" I would say "What have you done to help them?" If their response is "I am petitioning for a new law so that the rich have to pay for it" then I lose all respect for them. If their response is "I am raising money for charity" I feel a slight bit better. If their response is "I am making sandwiches and distributing them myself, out of my own pocket" I have a great deal of respect for them - they're learning themselves and we'll see where it takes them. Their views will most definitely change though.
I wouldn't be surprised if the figure reflects the financial distribution, as centralization seems to be the preferred method of control, in most structures, apparently it leads to efficiency in decision making, thus productivity.
I've noticed some people are obsessed, or paranoid about the concept of control, which leads them to interpret irrelevant data, and almost randomly connect dots to support their ideas(i.e that they're been controlled). The English language's subjective, and can lead to confusion in communication, it's not like a programming language or maths, where an idea could be communicated to express strictly one definition, so the likelihood is that you'd find evidence which reinforce your assumptions, if you hold the thought, and believe it to be true, even if it doesn't exist.
They want to be asked questions about themselves, and appreciated for who they are, which of course is a basic, understandable request, but I'd rather learn about people by spending time with them, and picking up on their traits, preferences, and uniqueness, I'm generally interested in understanding people when I feel they're been themselves, not too self conscious, calculative, or wearing their transparent fa
Now is not the time to let a few greedy people violently hoard the wealth.
How exactly does one violently hoard wealth?
Am I violently hoarding wealth because I keep a few grand in readies at any time in the bank and increase this in line with inflation?
Am I violently hoarding wealth because I use my excess earnings to pay down my mortgage?
I think you don't understanding how macro-economics relates the fiscal positions of individuals. At once you would call for massive inflationary measures whilst at the same time decrying individuals who react against it as anyone in the same situation would. Thus the more you inflate the more those who are rich by definition of ingoings > outgoings will continually restrict supply until they feel secure.