Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somebody tell her to appeal the accredited investor rule. PCAL, you got a direct line with her?
Tell her about that.
It's the rule that states you need $1M of assets not including your primary residence or 2 years of $200K/annum income with expectation of continuance, before you are eligible to invest in early stage contributions.
For example, if someone came back from the war with no legs, they wouldn't be able to participate in early stage contributions for American company Facebook for example where every $1000.00 invested became worth $900,000.00 at some point during its market capitalization.
Why is this fair?
The same soldier with no legs could take his entire net worth and buy lottery tickets in one night, but can't participate in early stage contributions?
What is the probability of hitting a winning lottery number?
Hate to burst your bubble but the people at the top change over time. In fact Forbes original richest 400 list in 1982, 30 years later only 10% made the 2012 list. It is fluid. In fact in today's dollars none of today's billionaires would crack the top 10 all time richest people. Not even close.
The notion that people become very rich and the family stays there or increases wealth over time is false. And with inflation always increasing what is a millionaire or billionaire is not the same as it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago. The heirs of the rich tend to screw up and blow money they never earned. It is human nature. Read THE GOOD EARTH. I grew up in a wealthy Los Angeles neighborhood. I know personally several friends and acquaintances that blow the family fortune.
Soo...a list of 400 really old and wealthy people made 37 years ago has only 10% of them left on it...I wonder....
The average age of the most recent forbes 400 is....67. Yeah. Your idea of a data point is nonsense. They're not on the list because most of them are dead. And its easy to blow a family fortune in the millions. Not so much in the Billions. In point of fact if you look at actual data you will find that wealth mobility in the US is very low. In fact as the Gini index rises, mobility and opportunity falls. Its a real problem. And nonsense like your link where you deceive people about the problem does not help. These people are often not on the list anymore because they are dead.
We are doing fine. No need to destroy the country because some people want a giant economy sized Cuba here.
We are not doing fine. Thats the problem. We are concentrating the wealth at the top and slowly starving our economic engine. Even from a purely capitalistic point of view this is idiotic. Whats worse is that the sheer amount of outrage thats building over this will result in us going too far the other way. And thats going to occur because of people like you insisting that there is no problem, when the majority believes there is.
The answer to the problem is NOT more government which steals from the rich and gives to themselves while trickling a little to the poor. The solution is to REMOVE government intrusion into the free market, letting the free market work.
When people are allowed to voluntarily exchange based upon mutual agreement without government interfering, everyone wins. Billionaires would have no power over anyone other than they can buy more stuff.
Milton Friedman and many other economists have shown that removing all or almost all government interference from free trade benefits everyone exponentially, especially those at the lowest economic classes. Government intrusion into the free market is ALWAYS protectionist in one form or another regardless of how the action was sold, i.e. for the children, etc. This is an undeniable fact of economics.
Is our system seriously corrupted? You bet it is. Is more government the answer? Absolutely not. Tell me something. Who do you trust to run government that will work toward your best interests, disregarding their own political interests because doing so would likely cost them their next election? I'd argue that I trust no one but myself to work toward MY best interests. Given this truth, a FACT of economics, how does more government force in the market, which reduces my choices benefit me? It simply doesn't benefit me or anyone else EXCEPT those with the most money to steer government interference in THEIR direction.
If government force, compelling the will, beliefs, morality and dictates of others doesn't benefit me or you, how could demanding MORE of that government force benefit you unless you are a billionaire with enough $$$ to get legislation to go the way YOU want?
Seriously folks! This isn't rocket surgery!
But then again, the above is just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
... What?
I understand a free market just fine, but the economy and a free market isn't what is being discussed. More government intrusion is Not what is being discussed.
The underlying point she was making and working toward is that there are no laws governing a lot of how politicians at varying levels conduct themselves. The few laws that are in place are not applied across all branches equally.
Making such a law(s) would in no way constitute any sort of intrusion on the private sector or the markets. Unless your assumption is corporations have a free market right to buy congress, I'm not sure what the free markets and how they work have to do with her point whatsoever.
Even a broken clock is right on occasion. She is correct about how skewed our politics are toward the wealthy. Unfortunately, that's the only thing she's been right about since her campaign started. Her winning of her district has more to do with the previous incumbent being disliked and her district being full of low information voters than it does with any sort of intelligence on her part. Anyone who can read the "Green New Deal" and continue to think that she is the future of the Democrat party is one wave short of a shipwreck. I will be amazed if she isn't the first victim when the Dems start eating their own prior to the 2020 elections.
Soo...a list of 400 really old and wealthy people made 37 years ago has only 10% of them left on it...I wonder....
The average age of the most recent forbes 400 is....67. Yeah. Your idea of a data point is nonsense. They're not on the list because most of them are dead. And its easy to blow a family fortune in the millions. Not so much in the Billions. In point of fact if you look at actual data you will find that wealth mobility in the US is very low. In fact as the Gini index rises, mobility and opportunity falls. Its a real problem. And nonsense like your link where you deceive people about the problem does not help. These people are often not on the list anymore because they are dead.
In my opinion wealth disparity comes from social welfare programs that create lifetime dependency. Yes they provide basic needs but they replace the motivation to better oneself. I am not saying they should be taken away but then need to be revamped.
Look at the current list of the 15 most wealthy Americans. Most of their companies did not exist 20 years ago. Most did not inherit the money. Most came from middle class backgrounds. And these are the richest Americans. And as I linked before the richest Americans today come no where close to the richest of all time adjusted for inflation, just go back 100 years or less. Its just hyped up nonsense to stir the pot.
You make false assumptions with nothing to back them up. Just that playing robin hood is popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
We are not doing fine. Thats the problem. We are concentrating the wealth at the top and slowly starving our economic engine. Even from a purely capitalistic point of view this is idiotic. Whats worse is that the sheer amount of outrage thats building over this will result in us going too far the other way. And thats going to occur because of people like you insisting that there is no problem, when the majority believes there is.
Politicians play the class envy game and the blame game and people eat that up. Of course it is popular. No one wants to hear the need to stay in school, work hard for years and years, stay out of trouble and off drugs and use birth control. And you have to be self motivated. I don't know anyone with the above traits from any race that stayed poor. And I do know lots of people who are doing well and started with nothing early in life.
Much more effective to say its not your fault its rich people holding you back. You deserve what is theirs. It is the looters mentality on a grand scale
However that is why we have a representative republic because the whims of the masses are often wrong as they are now. I believe anyone is capable of great things and a great life if they follow what I listed above. You believe lots of people are losers and without a helping hand they have zero chance.
I hope to see the day when those purchasing politicians along with corporate and banking lobbyists are flushed down the toilet.
In the 70s, you had less than 200 lobby offices in DC, today that number is in the thousands.
It has been downhill ever since for the majority of Americans.
This video from Congress should be a wake-up call for many.
Do you agree with Ocasio Cortez here?
Unfortunately she tried to make it a partisan issue. A post I read online sums it up pretty well I think:
"Every little bit of that was a straw man.
Just replace every mention of a business sector with "public union", "environmental activists", "SJW activist" or "abortion provider", and you get the same exact answers and implication.
And, in the end, the only valid argument that that whole exchange supports is one for limited government because if there were no sellers, there would be no buyers. The less power government has to pick winners and losers and to force people to conform, the less need there is to try and influence elections."
I understand a free market just fine, but the economy and a free market isn't what is being discussed. More government intrusion is Not what is being discussed.
The underlying point she was making and working toward is that there are no laws governing a lot of how politicians at varying levels conduct themselves. The few laws that are in place are not applied across all branches equally.
Making such a law(s) would in no way constitute any sort of intrusion on the private sector or the markets. Unless your assumption is corporations have a free market right to buy congress, I'm not sure what the free markets and how they work have to do with her point whatsoever.
By removing unconstitutional laws and regulations on the free market and the very concept that this nonsense is somehow constitutional, you remove the power the rich have because as it is right now, all a rich person need do is fork over some $$$, then later demand some legislation that benefits their bottom line. Getting rid of those unconstitutional laws and regulations removes this pay for play nonsense.
If you look closely at each and every law or regulation which in one way or another affects the free market, each and every one of them affects competition. They impose a set of rules that weren't in effect when the big players in that industry were initially entering the market and/or place some restrictions which impose very limiting cost barriers to entering the market.
That is known as crony capitalism and it is exactly how the rich manage to entice and control people in government. "I'll kick in $$$ IF you seriously consider my proposed legislation, which of course would benefit everyone because... safety."
Ron Paul's very brief blog on the subject reveals how it basically works, and THIS is the ONLY way the rich can have power to control congress. After all, why would the rich give copious amounts of money if they didn't get anything in return for their "investment"? Do you honestly think rich people are going to throw away their money for altruism? Of course they wouldn't. They expect pay for play. https://www.capitalism.com/governmen...te-monopolies/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
