CBS News Uses Pie Slices To Illustrate America's Wealth Inequality

[carolina73]

I know people that make good money that have little net worth. The money comes in and gets spent trying to look rich.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is their wealth to dispose of as they will.

Your trite nonsense is a typically pushy statement that can only survive if accepted without thinking about it. No one can do anything he wants with his own money; tilting the playing field of the next generation is criminally anti-social. Can a father bribe an umpire to help his son, the pitcher, win the game just because he does it "with his own money"? So that is a meaningless phrase, no matter how many economic bullies preach it from the ruling-class's pulpits. Only those who hate their own fathers for not getting rich and setting them up halfway to the finish line can support Birth-Class Supremacy.

Apply it to sports. Can a player pass on his position to his son? Unquestionably, that would destroy the game, just like hereditary power has destroyed every civilization that has ever existed. If you answer that such inheritance is wrong only because the club owners have the right to determine who plays, not the former players, that proves my point. We, the people, own the competitive playing field for the next generation. If we have to do it on our own, so must the HeirHeads. And they will get nowhere near where they've gotten in Terminal America. We must force them to surrender their Affirmative Action; cut them off from Daddy's money and connections at age 18. If the affluenza clique has a future, America doesn't.

[Admiral Ackbar]

You can not explain economics to Communists. It is about them having power to control everything. It is not that things are unequal it is that they want to decide how the inequality will work. They want to pick the winners and losers.

Hint the best way to be a winner in that system is to be a Communist Party Member. Party members always get nice slice of the pie.

[Chris]

Your trite nonsense is a typically pushy statement that can only survive if accepted without thinking about it. No one can do anything he wants with his own money; tilting the playing field of the next generation is criminally anti-social. Can a father bribe an umpire to help his son, the pitcher, win the game just because he does it "with his own money"? So that is a meaningless phrase, no matter how many economic bullies preach it from the ruling-class's pulpits. Only those who hate their own fathers for not getting rich and setting them up halfway to the finish line can support Birth-Class Supremacy.

Apply it to sports. Can a player pass on his position to his son? Unquestionably, that would destroy the game, just like hereditary power has destroyed every civilization that has ever existed. If you answer that such inheritance is wrong only because the club owners have the right to determine who plays, not the former players, that proves my point. We, the people, own the competitive playing field for the next generation. If we have to do it on our own, so must the HeirHeads. And they will get nowhere near where they've gotten in Terminal America. We must force them to surrender their Affirmative Action; cut them off from Daddy's money and connections at age 18. If the affluenza clique has a future, America doesn't.

You over-pack that post with emotion but none of your analogies fit.

Think about it for a second. Say you earn a certain amount of wealth. Who's is that? Yours or society's? If you say society's then what is your incentive to work to earn it? If it's yours, then it's yours to decide what to do with it. Period.

[The Sage of Main Street]

[QUOTE=Admiral Ackbar;2788449]You can not explain economics to Communists. It is about them having power to control everything. It is not that things are unequal it is that they want to decide how the inequality will work. They want to pick the winners and losers.

Hint the best way to be a winner in that system is to be a Communist Party Member. Party members always get nice slice of the pie.[/QUOTEUnder Communistism, a Government Clique Owns All the Businesses; Under Capitalistism, a Private Clique Owns the Entire Government. Same Difference.



Communists should be called "Communistists," just as Capitalists should be called "Capitalistists."

[The Sage of Main Street]

none of your analogies fit.

Say you earn a certain amount of wealth. Who's Whose is that? Yours or society's? If you say society's, then what is your incentive to work to earn it? If it's yours, then it's yours to decide what to do with it.

Your training-wheels logic can't get you very far.​ If a plutocrat sets up his kids halfway to the finish line, anyone with self-respect would refuse to enter a race like that unless first breaking their legs and making them crawl the rest of the way. It will be done.

[Chris]

Your training-wheels logic can't get you very far.​ If a plutocrat sets up his kids halfway to the finish line, anyone with self-respect would refuse to enter a race like that unless first breaking their legs and making them crawl the rest of the way. It will be done.

Another poor analogy. It's not a race.

If I work to earn a dollar, who's dollar is it? Mine. Does my working to earn a dollar keep you from working to earn a dollar? No.

[MisterVeritis]

I know people that make good money that have little net worth. The money comes in and gets spent trying to look rich.

I drive a paid for 2010 Ford Focus. Invest. Invest. Invest.

[carolina73]

Your trite nonsense is a typically pushy statement that can only survive if accepted without thinking about it. No one can do anything he wants with his own money; tilting the playing field of the next generation is criminally anti-social. Can a father bribe an umpire to help his son, the pitcher, win the game just because he does it "with his own money"? So that is a meaningless phrase, no matter how many economic bullies preach it from the ruling-class's pulpits. Only those who hate their own fathers for not getting rich and setting them up halfway to the finish line can support Birth-Class Supremacy.

Apply it to sports. Can a player pass on his position to his son? Unquestionably, that would destroy the game, just like hereditary power has destroyed every civilization that has ever existed. If you answer that such inheritance is wrong only because the club owners have the right to determine who plays, not the former players, that proves my point. We, the people, own the competitive playing field for the next generation. If we have to do it on our own, so must the HeirHeads. And they will get nowhere near where they've gotten in Terminal America. We must force them to surrender their Affirmative Action; cut them off from Daddy's money and connections at age 18. If the affluenza clique has a future, America doesn't.

You have it backward. No one is supporting rich kids born with a silver spoon.
People are refusing to support theft by people that did not earn the money and want to take it. If I want to give my money to my kids, then I earned that money and I want to make sure my next generations have support. If I decide not to sell my company at retirement and leave it to a son or grandson then are you saying that you think you have the right to take the company, that I built or paid for? I would rather turn on the gas lines and blow it up.

You are taking the view of a thief. Someone else earned that, but you want it for no other reason than you are envious. You do realize that in the end you will get nothing, because people will not build what others are going to steal. Not only will you get nothing but you will also not be able to find the goods because the businesses will have no reason to be created. Your new I-Pad will be a piece of slate and a rock that you can use to scratch in a picture or letters.

[Chris]

You have it backward. No one is supporting rich kids born with a silver spoon.
People are refusing to support theft by people that did not earn the money and want to take it. If I want to give my money to my kids, then I earned that money and I want to make sure my next generations have support. If I decide not to sell my company at retirement and leave it to a son or grandson then are you saying that you think you have the right to take the company, that I built or paid for? I would rather turn on the gas lines and blow it up.

You are taking the view of a thief. Someone else earned that, but you want it for no other reason than you are envious. You do realize that in the end you will get nothing, because people will not build what others are going to steal. Not only will you get nothing but you will also not be able to find the goods because the businesses will have no reason to be created. Your new I-Pad will be a piece of slate and a rock that you can use to scratch in a picture or letters.

You are taking the view of a thief.

True, and that is the way a socialist will frame it. That land, property, labor, goods, and services are not owned by anyone, are everyone's, and therefore what you call earning it is theft and they are owed a part of it. I've heard these arguments so many times. The problem with that argument is if land, property, labor, goods, and services are not owned by anyone, then, logically, they are not owned either by all and in reality nothing is taken and nothing owed.

Wealth is generated by work that makes use of those things and is thereby earned.