"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett made that remark more than three years ago and it still holds true today — only the gap between the richest and the poorest has gotten even wider.
Here's how bad it is: Oxfam now calculates that the 85 richest billionaires on the planet, including the likes of Carlos Slim, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/07/globalpost-richest-poorest/18640031/
Countries with high population density accompanied by extremely corrupt and overbearing central governments (China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, etc) will make sure that there are only a tiny fraction of those with power dictating the lives of the masses they control. America has been working towards that unflattering goal for sometime as well.
stop buying the richest 85's products then.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2014, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: fsquid on November 10, 2014, 12:15:03 AM
stop buying the richest 85's products then.
Or stop them from using the publicly owned infrastructure for free?
that works both ways, fsquid.
go for it, contact your reps.
Quote from: stephendare on November 10, 2014, 11:07:15 AM
and good luck with the public campaign for international boycotts!
I only boycott the French
Quote from: finehoe on November 09, 2014, 01:37:04 PM
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett made that remark more than three years ago and it still holds true today — only the gap between the richest and the poorest has gotten even wider.
Here's how bad it is: Oxfam now calculates that the 85 richest billionaires on the planet, including the likes of Carlos Slim, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/07/globalpost-richest-poorest/18640031/
Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur. He is best known as one of five co-founders of the social networking website Facebook.
Warren Buffet, as a child displayed an interest in making and saving money. He sold chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines door to door. He worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school he made money delivering newspapers, selling golf balls and stamps and detailing cars, among other means. On his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route.[17] In 1945, as a high school sophomore, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops.
Carlos Slim, Slim was born in Mexico City, Mexico in 1940 to Maronite Catholic parents, Julián Slim Haddad and Linda Helú, both of Lebanese descent. In 1911, Julián established a dry goods store, La Estrella del Oriente (The Star of the Orient). By 1921, he had purchased real estate in the flourishing commercial district of Mexico City. These enterprises became the source of considerable wealth. In August 1926, Julián Slim and Linda Helú married. They had six children: Nour, Alma, Julián, José, Carlos and Linda. Julián senior died in 1953. Carlos Slim's mother, Linda Helú Atta, was born in Parral, Chihuahua, of Lebanese parents who had immigrated to Mexico in the late 19th century. Her parents upon immigrating to Mexico had founded one of the first Arabic language magazines for the Lebanese-Mexican community, using a printing press they had brought with them.
Bill Gates, Born on October 28, 1955, in Seattle, Washington, famed entrepreneur Bill Gates began to show an interest in computer programming at age 13. Through technological innovation, keen business strategy and aggressive business tactics, he and partner Paul Allen built the world's largest software business, Microsoft. Born: October 28, 1955, in Seattle, Washington. Son of William Henry Gates II (attorney) and Mary Maxwell (teacher); married Melinda French (Microsoft manager), January 1, 1994; on of 3 children. Attended Harvard University, 1973–1975. Son of William Henry Gates II (attorney) and Mary Maxwell (teacher); married Melinda French (Microsoft manager), January 1, 1994; children: three.
DAMN! It's pretty obvious these evil people should be forced to give 90% of their riches to the poor, after-all they earned that money... and that's not fair to 'Victim Democrats.' Never mind that they are also among the largest charitable givers in the world, they should be loaded in a boxcar and hauled to Yekaterinburg! Escorted to the basement of Ipatiev House, they could be shot with little protest and cheers from the far-left humanists. I'm certain execution.
...Okay, so I couldn't resist!
Most of the tech billionaires give way too much lip service to a whole lotta nothing. They are by far the most annoying rich people we have in America today.
There's actually a social war going on in SF where the established are fed up with the tech wealth. Reason? The old-money folks, who have "only" a few hundred million or so give a much larger percentage of it up to local charities, and they donate to museums or cultural outlets (theater companies, the opera, parks, etc), essentially keeping them going and keeping SF world class, which is a large part of the reason tech is there in the first place as it's a city that attracts smart and interesting people. They throw better parties, too. There's something to be said about inheritance, and more often class comes with (and people worked A LOT harder for their wealth back in the day...many of the new billionaires are literally kids who came up with some stupid app idea and had others implement, and they earned billions overnight hardly lifting a finger, their financiers and programmers guiding the way and their PR guys keeping them out of the spotlight when they get into trouble - i.e. Snapchat CEO snafu last year).
All of this new tech wealth - these people honestly don't know where to put their money. Finally there is some talk (so far again just lip service) that some Valley companies will pitch in for transit (which benefits their own companies the most, but also benefits the region), and some companies have tried to help their own PR by donating to after-school programs, etc, but the tech CEOs throw corny parties (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/11/tech-and-hollywood-stars-celebrate-leaders-of-life.html) and barely contribute a dime to stuff in their own backyard. Instead, because they don't know how to put all of their wealth to better work for the common good, they're being LAZY and just asking to be taxed more.
Fuck'em.
I like the old school billionaires who made great libraries and cultural institutions happen and whose wives made great and interesting cities happen with their elaborate use of their hubbies' bank accounts. I see a difference firsthand behind the older wealth and the new wealth (i.e. douchebags MY AGE who are even douchier than I am who now have a billion dollars in their bank account...which only makes things worse), and it makes me long for days past. Most tech billionaires are hubby-wife billionaire teams - their wives aren't interesting socialites. Instead their wives are ball-busting nerdy tech women who are also their own billionaire CEOs who are the most UNINTERESTING women I've ever heard of. No interesting stories from these people. No more social magazines. All speeches and talk about tech/business. WTF So idiotic.
I have no problem with super rich people, but nowadays it's too often some immature 20s-30s something nerd kid turned tech douche who comes into way too much money, doesn't know what to do with it, so gives a bunch of traveling speeches on "business", throws a few pennies to after-school programs, pats other douchey tech billionaires on the back (it's the biggest pat each other on the back business I've ever witnessed, holy cow), MARRIES A FEMALE TECH BILLIONAIRE EQUIVALENT SO YOU GET THE MOST BORING RICH HOUSEHOLD EVER, and call for higher taxation because they're "making too much money".
OMG - my thoughts on the matter...
I want to be fairly rich some day. But I don't want these douchebag idiots clamoring for higher taxes on anyone making $250K+ because they feel entitled to speak their ill informed LAZY opinion based on the fact that they are ill equipped to handle the money "bequeathed" them. These people don't even donate super large sums to their alma maters. Leave that up to the non-tech billionaires, or super rich people from days past. So pathetic.
Case in point about tech and lip service. My newsfeed gets slaughtered everyday by such posts as (and I had to leave Twitter altogether, omg):
"People have this vision of being the CEO of a company they started and being on top of the pyramid. Some people are motivated by that, but that's not at all what it's like.
What it's really like: everyone else is your boss – all of your employees, customers, partners, users, media are your boss. I've never had more bosses and needed to account for more people today.
The life of most CEOs is reporting to everyone else, at least that's what it feels like to me and most CEOs I know. If you want to exercise power and authority over people, join the military or go into politics. Don't be an entrepreneur."
- Phil Libin, CEO of Evernote
Followed up by comments from friends such as:
Aside from occasional project cancellations and silly turf battles, I'm a lot happier as Staff Engineer today than I was as CEO or VP at various past jobs.
I literally just hopped on FB knowing my wall would be filled with people quoting themselves or other 25 year old CEOs of tech who they admire (granted Phil is in his late 30s/early 40s, but comes across as a very inexperienced CEO), and then followed up by posts from people my age who have already been CEO and seem to think they've figured everything out as a result.
The tech industry as a whole is run by the most dull people ever who are so full of themselves, their industry, and lip service. The guy who reposted Phil's quote came on a ski trip last year as a boarder and talked his skills up, a lot (everyone knows that when it comes to skiing/boarding, you play yourself down before hitting the slopes with others as you REALLY don't want to get yourself in trouble on some double blacks when you can barely manage a blue). Borrowed another friend's GoPro, got left behind at the first summit, and proceeded to film himself barely boarding down a bunch of blues. #douche
Funny how much we've demonized those in finance as a-holes who are in it only to make money and screw everyone else over, and how much we've demonized prior titans of industry as ruthless, evil people. I miss me some robber/oil barons, railroad magnates, and wall street pimps! And their ever interesting wives!
http://www.youtube.com/v/OG3PnQ3tgzY?hl=en_US
"Most of them became wealthy by being well connected and crooked. And they are creating a society in which they can commit hugely damaging economic crimes with impunity, and in which only children of the wealthy have the opportunity to become successful. That's what I have a problem with. And I think most people agree with me."
Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation
http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Nation-Corporate-Criminals-Corruption/dp/0307952568
Buffet just structured the Duracell deal to be tax-free, I guess actions speak louder than his words?
I read an article somewhere (might have been here) that said in this country, around the turn of the century, the disproportion of wealth was almost as bad as today. The difference was the businesses involved: the superrich were the industrialists, factory owners, etc.
What happened over time was the natural dispersion of taxation and inheritance, etc., and today that wealth is spread out over a much wider area.
So, give it a hundred years and it will be equitable again :-)
Quote from: IrvAdams on November 13, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
What happened over time was the natural dispersion of taxation and inheritance, etc., and today that wealth is spread out over a much wider area.
Except there was nothing "natural" about it. It was a conscious political movement to enact progressive income taxes, strong unions, and universal education. It didn't 'just happen'.
Quote from: finehoe on November 10, 2014, 06:16:33 PM
"Most of them became wealthy by being well connected and crooked. And they are creating a society in which they can commit hugely damaging economic crimes with impunity, and in which only children of the wealthy have the opportunity to become successful. That's what I have a problem with. And I think most people agree with me."
Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation
http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Nation-Corporate-Criminals-Corruption/dp/0307952568
Well then this should be easy to solve. We simply round them up, and take their money from them. If we give it to the government we can be assured that it will not be misused. Once we've rounded up all of the rich, we can get the intellectuals, business owners and hell we're already half way home in taking over the health-care industry. In true socialist countries, there are never any party elite's... Obama, Putin, Kim Il-sung and Li Keqiang, would be working down at the collective right alongside the rest of us. NOT!
Quote from: finehoe on November 13, 2014, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: IrvAdams on November 13, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
What happened over time was the natural dispersion of taxation and inheritance, etc., and today that wealth is spread out over a much wider area.
Except there was nothing "natural" about it. It was a conscious political movement to enact progressive income taxes, strong unions, and universal education. It didn't 'just happen'.
How is that working for you? Declining wages, declining unions, declining education. After 30 years we only need 6 more to "set things right".
Quote from: bill on November 14, 2014, 12:05:38 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 13, 2014, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: IrvAdams on November 13, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
What happened over time was the natural dispersion of taxation and inheritance, etc., and today that wealth is spread out over a much wider area.
Except there was nothing "natural" about it. It was a conscious political movement to enact progressive income taxes, strong unions, and universal education. It didn't 'just happen'.
How is that working for you? Declining wages, declining unions, declining education. After 30 years we only need 6 more to "set things right".
That's a good point, finehoe. Today's tax system is much more lenient on the wealthy. Many years of conservative politics in the 80s and 90s has left us with a very non-progressive tax formula.
The IMO bigger picture is living wages, and raising the minimum wage moreso than vilifying the rich. They will still have tons of money, be envied etc no matter how much the government 'rightfully' tax them. Even in the ideal 'moral utopia (whatever the hell that is) the rich being taxed to the legal maximum, and working class getting a comfortable livable wage, that gap would still be the same.
The 85 don't care what the tax rates are because they aren't going to pay those taxes.
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 08:04:29 AM
is that based on your vast knowledge of the nature of taxation. Or even perhaps the years between 1935 and 1990 in America? Because the actual facts are literally the exact opposite of this absurd claim.
The rich are evil blah blah blah...So what are you gonna do, protest like Occupy Wall Street? Yeah, that worked so well...Meanwhile the livable wage issue for the working class is ignored, right? I don't have any 'vast knowledge of taxation' but you are kidding yourself if you think that the 85 richest aren't gonna still be very rich, regardless of any taxes.
^^^It will still be a significant gap, that's what I was saying. Gotta take everything so damn literal...
Semantics...
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 08:04:29 AM
Quote from: I-10east on December 02, 2014, 11:27:11 PM
The IMO bigger picture is living wages, and raising the minimum wage moreso than vilifying the rich. They will still have tons of money, be envied etc no matter how much the government 'rightfully' tax them. Even in the ideal 'moral utopia (whatever the hell that is) the rich being taxed to the legal maximum, and working class getting a comfortable livable wage, that gap would still be the same.
is that based on your vast knowledge of the nature of taxation. Or even perhaps the years between 1935 and 1990 in America? Because the actual facts are literally the exact opposite of this absurd claim.
The difference between then and now is that they didn't have many alternatives back then, and transportation and communication made the alternatives that were available less attractive back then. You couldn't put your money in an Irish corporation, pay 12.5% taxes, accumulate wealth, and cash it out by selling your stock and realizing capital gains at 20%. You couldn't invest your money in Poland at all.
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 12:53:13 PM
semantics? um ok. here is a bit of advice i got as a child: before you use fifty cent words, you should pay someone a quarter to tell you what they mean.
Well it is an slang phrase. You're taking everything so literal again. That's softball stuff, so I'll give you that one so you can feel good about yourself.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=semantics
Quote from: fsquid on December 03, 2014, 12:56:35 PM
The difference between then and now is that they didn't have many alternatives back then, and transportation and communication made the alternatives that were available less attractive back then. You couldn't put your money in an Irish corporation, pay 12.5% taxes, accumulate wealth, and cash it out by selling your stock and realizing capital gains at 20%. You couldn't invest your money in Poland at all.
This is a good point. That's why the plutocrat owners of our government are pushing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 01:03:04 PM
Whether or not you could invest in Poland doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Sure it does. Being able to park your money in foreign locales makes it much easier to avoid US taxes.
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 01:11:20 PM
Switzerland wasn't invented within the past 20 years, you know. ;)
True enough, but diversification is the key to limiting your losses.
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 01:03:04 PM
Quote from: fsquid on December 03, 2014, 12:56:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 03, 2014, 08:04:29 AM
Quote from: I-10east on December 02, 2014, 11:27:11 PM
The IMO bigger picture is living wages, and raising the minimum wage moreso than vilifying the rich. They will still have tons of money, be envied etc no matter how much the government 'rightfully' tax them. Even in the ideal 'moral utopia (whatever the hell that is) the rich being taxed to the legal maximum, and working class getting a comfortable livable wage, that gap would still be the same.
is that based on your vast knowledge of the nature of taxation. Or even perhaps the years between 1935 and 1990 in America? Because the actual facts are literally the exact opposite of this absurd claim.
The difference between then and now is that they didn't have many alternatives back then, and transportation and communication made the alternatives that were available less attractive back then. You couldn't put your money in an Irish corporation, pay 12.5% taxes, accumulate wealth, and cash it out by selling your stock and realizing capital gains at 20%. You couldn't invest your money in Poland at all.
So why didn't the economy show this giant historic disparity during the height of taxation rates on the wealthiest? Whether or not you could invest in Poland doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
because wealth wasn't as mobile which is what I said.
Insomnia again.
The two fellows on the cover of a book titled ... "We Want You To Be Rich". One is Donald Trump, and other is some Oriental fellow.
Well ... What if we don't want to be rich? What if we are beyond that wish? I certainly don't want to be rich ... at least not filthy rich, because I see the insanity of striving to be, and I understand the destructive consequences of this striving, consequences endured by those who are simply trying to make a living.
This feeling of thinking it best and good to strive for riches is killing America ... the environment ... and the economies throughout the world. The promotion of this kind of thinking, as promoted in this book and many like it, is encouraging a way of thinking that puts money and profits ahead of everything else, including what is right and honest ... including one's concern for the wellbeing of others, and ultimately what is good for oneself.
Riches are to be sought in the spirit, in the calm contemplation, in the steady work toward creating ... producing ...toward stability ... without the rush to monetary excesses at the expense of everything good and morally sound. Riches lie in enjoying the process of understanding the world and its magic ... its wonder.
The individual who strives for riches ... to obscene levels ... is mentally strained to a warped perception of life, prone to excesses in the feverish attempt to achieve riches at all costs ... and usually travels a path bordering on illegal activity ... or at least offensive and destructive to the lives of others, to the health of the economy, and to the environment.
The mainstream media, the get rich television programs, the advertisements offering all kinds of schemes to get rich ... promote an impossibility. All cannot be rich. Only a few can be. And if the truth were known, only a few really want to be rich. And many of those that do get rich ... those who've succumbed to worshiping monetary riches ... the extremely rich ... have, by their actions, destroyed the economy in general, and therefore destroyed the ability of the mass of workers to make a livable wage ... or the have a job.
The promotion of the idea of being rich, is a promotion of an insanity ... of a destructive path for anyone taking it.
For those like Donald Trump, and other schemers who "want all others to be rich too" ... and understanding their great need ... I would like to somehow give them more riches. I would like to obtain as much money as possible, and to satisfy their obsession, cram as many one hundred dollar bills as possible down their throats, and up their asses, up their noses, and into their ears ... so that finally, they will have achieved that excess in riches to which their obsession has drawn them. To make sure they have enough riches, we might place a few dozen hundred dollar bills into a blender ... mix in a little water, mustard, and ketchup perhaps ... and via two 3/8" I. D. hoses, pump the blend, under sufficient pressure of course, simultaneously up their asses and down their throats, plugging the other orifices of course, until they bloat with riches, assuming a blimp shape as the pressure increases ... thereby ensuring that these predatory beasts of riches, are satisfied that they have enough, that they are richer than almost all of us combined, the workers, the real producers of the sustaining wealth of any economy.
Additionally, for those further obsessed with exhibiting their obscene wealth, we might introduce helium into the pumps, blowing the beasts up to float as blimps across the nation for all to see and admire.
Quote from: stephendare on December 04, 2014, 12:49:20 PM
These people never ride first class because they never fly commercial. He rides first class; they own airplanes. They don't own homes, they own estates — so many of them in fact that not one is "home" in the normal sense. Now extend that — for most of these people, not one country is home either.
You and me, we live in a city. Chris Rock, he lives in a city and travels a lot. Real Money lives in the world, everywhere, all of it. And most are loyal to none of it.
And the media that these people own have convinced the teabaggers that their interests are the same as the uber-wealthy.