General / National Strike?

[F250 29203]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This seems like as good a time as any to remind everyone that capitalism will be relegated to the dust bin of history one day.

 

Doubtful, capitalism even exists in the utopian european countries. No one wants to get rid of it except ideological extremists. We all have mixed economies, the real debate is about where the free-market should be applied and where it shouldn't.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m pro capitalism but unregulated and you end up with what we have now.  A too-big-to-fail oligarchy that controls everything.  

The capitalist system should have rules and enforcement to ensure fair play is preserved.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

This seems like as good a time as any to remind everyone that capitalism will be relegated to the dust bin of history one day.

 

You and Hugo keep up the

good fight for communism. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

They get a month not months and that would be for those lucky enough to find a job. Spain has had double digit unemployment for as long as I can remember. Their youth unemployment is incredibly high, it's very common to see older people working jobs there that teens would work here. If young people think it's challenging getting work here after college it's very difficult in Spain.

 

How about their quality of life? What about their average debt? Do they have massive student loans to pay back combined with absurd medical expenses?

I’ll go back to my USSR example.  Just because you have low unemployment, doesn’t mean everyone is happy and not struggling to get by.

This celebration of employment numbers is cute but it’s just a ruse to make people think everything is hunky-dory.

[DaysOff 8212]

They're spending their grandkids' money to get a month of vacation time and universal care, but by all means you should move there. And take that numbnuts DD with you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m pro capitalism but unregulated and you end up with what we have now.  A too-big-to-fail oligarchy that controls everything.  

The capitalist system should have rules and enforcement to ensure fair play is preserved.

Too big to fail is the opposite of unregulated, dumbass.  Bailouts and other bullshit in which we engage are anything BUT capitalistic.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How about their quality of life? What about their average debt? Do they have massive student loans to pay back combined with absurd medical expenses?

I’ll go back to my USSR example.  Just because you have low unemployment, doesn’t mean everyone is happy and not struggling to get by.

This celebration of employment numbers is cute but it’s just a ruse to make people think everything is hunky-dory.

You would go back to a USSR example, wouldn’t you comrade.  I do enjoy your communist trolling of the board under the guise of liberalism. They eat it up.  

[Hate 20250]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ll go back to my USSR

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Too big to fail is the opposite of unregulated, dumbass.  Bailouts and other bullshit in which we engage are anything BUT capitalistic.

If they were well regulated they wouldn’t be too big to fail and therefore wouldn’t require government bailouts.  

So which do you prefer, a capitalist system with solid guardrails OR too-big-to-fail socialism with corporate welfare bailouts?

Edited June 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[ScottishHorn 172]

On 6/22/2018 at 5:38 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I'm a Pollo Regio fan, but my wife and the suburban people around me are afraid of it. Too foreign for them. My son drank his first soda when he was 5 years old, a sprite, at a Pollo Regio when we were running errands and found ourselves in the bad part of town. He still remembers that.

Pollo Regio is great and cheap.  Can feed whole family for 12-15 

Edited June 24, 2018 by ScottishHorn

[ScottishHorn 172]

11 hours ago, Incredulity said:

So basically another Occupy_________?

 

 

 

 

It's ok, cities could use more piss and shit on the sreeets

[ScottishHorn 172]

Can you count sucker's! The future is ours...if you can count!  Look what we have here before us...we have the socialists, next to the communists...we've got antifa..right next to the fascists..nobody is wasting nobody..and that is a miracle..and miracles are the way things ought to be...you're standing now with 9 delegates from over 100 left wing groups and there's over a 100 more.  That's 100,000 hardcore members.  250,000 counting affiliates and 50,000 more living in their parents basements not organized, or in shape, but willing to fight...can you dig it? Can you dig it?  Can You Dig It!!!! 

Now here's the sum total...the Democrats could run this country..one party.  Nothing would move, smoke or drink anything unhealthy without us allowing it to happen.  We could tax the people to death, the corporations, the rich, because we have the government suckers!.  Can you dig it.

The problem in the past is the politicians have been turning us against one another.  We have been unable to see the truth, because we have been fighting over handouts...our handouts, our little piece of money...that's crap brothers!  the money is ours by right, because it's our money.  

All we have to do is keep up the general truce. We take over one city at a time. Secure our territory...secure our stuff...because it's all our stuff!

[bad_teammate 13561]

12 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Lulz. You ever heard of a little something called philanthropy?  

And asking why billionaires “need to exist” tells me everything one needs to know about you. 

Philanthropy is something that only needs to exist when wealth distribution is moving in the wrong direction. Redistribution of wealth is something that is going to happen in any economic system and the policies of that economic system determine the ways in which wealth is redistributed. The goal of capitalist systems is to concentrate wealth, and the existence of a billionaire class is a testament to its efficacy.

And no, billionaires do not need to exist. And inherited billions do not need to exist. No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature.

There are dozens of extremely harmful effects of extreme wealth concentration and virtually no benefits other than to the billionaires themselves and the short-sighted and narrow-minded bootlickers who love them.

- Elimination of the middle class
- Dramatically outsized influence in political life
- Reduction in worker rights and protections
- Reduction in social mobility
- Increase in militarism
- Hostility in overseas relations
- Cozying up to corrupt overseas wealth regimes

etc...

Quote

I’d argue this generation of billionaires has a lot of self starters. 

It's not really a matter of arguing, there are statistics.

30-40% of the billionaires in America inherited their wealth almost straight-up. A significant percentage of the 60-70% left over got a nice boost from family loans/investment to start their businesses.

Now that it's clear that billionaires are not actually self-starters in general, you can now transition to an argument as to why those things are OK, but the reality is that you're peddling an American Dream narrative that is almost entirely bullshit.

There's an irony screaming in the face of someone who (1) loves self-starters and (2) promotes the extreme wealth concentration class but bootlickers don't have time to notice the irony of their own positions.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Philanthropy is something that only needs to exist when wealth distribution is moving in the wrong direction. Redistribution of wealth is something that is going to happen in any economic system and the policies of that economic system determine the ways in which wealth is redistributed. The goal of capitalist systems is to concentrate wealth, and the existence of a billionaire class is a testament to its efficacy.

And no, billionaires do not need to exist. And inherited billions do not need to exist. No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature.

There are dozens of extremely harmful effects of extreme wealth concentration and virtually no benefits other than to the billionaires themselves and the short-sighted and narrow-minded bootlickers who love them.

- Elimination of the middle class
- Dramatically outsized influence in political life
- Reduction in worker rights and protections
- Reduction in social mobility
- Increase in militarism
- Hostility in overseas relations
- Cozying up to corrupt overseas wealth regimes

etc...

It's not really a matter of arguing, there are statistics.

30-40% of the billionaires in America inherited their wealth almost straight-up. A significant percentage of the 60-70% left over got a nice boost from family loans/investment to start their businesses.

Now that it's clear that billionaires are not actually self-starters in general, you can now transition to an argument as to why those things are OK, but the reality is that you're peddling an American Dream narrative that is almost entirely bullshit.

There's an irony screaming in the face of someone who (1) loves self-starters and (2) promotes the extreme wealth concentration class but bootlickers don't have time to notice the irony of their own positions.

I think those things are okay, I know of and know personally several billionaires who are utter self starters, and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

[David Dennison 19560]

26 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I think those things are okay, I know of and know personally several billionaires who are utter self starters, and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

The state already redistributes wealth. Mostly upward to the ruling class like the billionaires you mention. They don't get to be billionaires without the state.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The state already redistributes wealth. Mostly upward to the ruling class like the billionaires you mention. They don't get to be billionaires without the state.

It’s amazing how misguided you are. Every post you make has a statement that is factually wrong. I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. 

[David Dennison 19560]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s amazing how misguided you are. Every post you make has a statement that is factually wrong. I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. 

It wouldn't have been. That's a fact. 

[bad_teammate 13561]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s amazing how misguided you are. Every post you make has a statement that is factually wrong. I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. 

I would love to have that conversation, because there is no way in hell any capitalist can make money without the protection of the state. Do you seriously need it explained to you?

Who secures his mineral rights?
Who enforces them?
How does he get his product from one place to the other?
Who secures and ensures his capital?

Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.

41 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I think those things are okay, I know of and know personally several billionaires who are utter self starters, and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

Hello, I am Rex Kramer and I don't actually have any thoughts to express, but I am very scared of those who do.

[bad_teammate 13561]

47 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

... and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

Sometimes it sucks being clairvoyant. lol

"No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The right has successfully ”othered” anyone that talks about regulations as socialist or communists.

It’s a great trick because we have so many suckers that buy that “free market” bullshit that always leads us to an economic catastrophe.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[ScottishHorn 172]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The state already redistributes wealth. Mostly upward to the ruling class like the billionaires you mention. They don't get to be billionaires without the state.

You could argue the state exists for the benefit of the billionaires and all citizens of this country.  The middle class isnt shrinking because of billionaires. The middle class is shrinking because of decisions made by the state.  Some decisions made by the state helped create some billionaires and some decisions directly impacted the destruction of certain industries and jobs.  I'd agree that some CEO's make too much at the expense of their employees.  I would never say that about a small business owner.  If someone inherits wealth, who cares.  In our free society,  the person that earns that money can do what he wants with it.  He was taxed.  The united states government takes in more money than any government in the world but unlike other countries, they do a much better job of wasting it.  They waste half of it actually, just be shear incompetence.  Pressure the government to be fiscally responsible and you can pay down the debt, have your single payer and a solvent social security system

[Chrispy 132]

52 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I think those things are okay, I know of and know personally several billionaires who are utter self starters, and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

That’s because you don’t get it man, it’s called counterculture, quit harshing their vibe dude.

[bad_teammate 13561]

Just now, ScottishHorn said:

You could argue the state exists for the benefit of the billionaires and all citizens of this country.  The middle class isnt shrinking because of billionaires. The middle class is shrinking because of decisions made by the state.

Who influences those decisions made by the state?

Quote

I would never say that about a small business owner. 

And no one else would, either. Small business owners are thrown up as shields to protect the rule of billionaires. No one is talking about small business owners.

Quote

If someone inherits wealth, who cares.  In our free society,  the person that earns that money can do what he wants with it.  He was taxed.

The inheritance tax is just a tax.

And a lot of people care about inheritance being a tool to perpetuate wealth concentration and overall inequality.

Self-starters:

[David Dennison 19560]

6 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

You could argue the state exists for the benefit of the billionaires and all citizens of this country.  The middle class isnt shrinking because of billionaires. The middle class is shrinking because of decisions made by the state.  Some decisions made by the state helped create some billionaires and some decisions directly impacted the destruction of certain industries and jobs.  I'd agree that some CEO's make too much at the expense of their employees.  I would never say that about a small business owner.  If someone inherits wealth, who cares.  In our free society,  the person that earns that money can do what he wants with it.  He was taxed.  The united states government takes in more money than any government in the world but unlike other countries, they do a much better job of wasting it.  They waste half of it actually, just be shear incompetence.  Pressure the government to be fiscally responsible and you can pay down the debt, have your single payer and a solvent social security system

Where do you start? Which programs get slashed first?

Edited June 24, 2018 by David Dennison

[bad_teammate 13561]

"The middle class isn't shrinking because of billionaires."

[David Dennison 19560]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"The middle class isn't shrinking because of billionaires."

And this is why the ruling class needs the protection of the state. The truth is not good for their safety. No wonder they want the poor as ignorant as possible. An educated lower class would lead to their slaughter. It's happened before. It can happen here.

Edited June 24, 2018 by David Dennison

[ScottishHorn 172]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Who influences those decisions made by the state?

And no one else would, either. Small business owners are thrown up as shields to protect the rule of billionaires. No one is talking about small business owners.

The inheritance tax is just a tax.

And a lot of people care about inheritance being a tool to perpetuate wealth concentration and overall inequality.

Self-starters:

Who influences those decisions made by the state?

Special interest groups on both sides to a fine job but the poor decisions made by the state would be made anyway because those in government are morons and rely on 3rd parties to tell them what to do.  You want to tell me Maxine Waters or some other lifetime politician knows anything about high finance? The automobile industry, oil industry, tech industry?.. fuck no.  Thet vote how the party votes or how they are told to vote.  If the government actually governed and represented the interests of all us citizens and only us citizens we wouldn't have these problems.  Yeah, some special interest groups wouldn't be happy but 75% would.  You can never make the radicals happy

[David Dennison 19560]

1 minute ago, ScottishHorn said:

Who influences those decisions made by the state?

Special interest groups on both sides to a fine job but the poor decisions made by the state would be made anyway because those in government are morons and rely on 3rd parties to tell them what to do.  You want to tell me Maxine Waters or some other lifetime politician knows anything about high finance? The automobile industry, oil industry, tech industry?.. fuck no.  Thet vote how the party votes or how they are told to vote.  If the government actually governed and represented the interests of all us citizens and only us citizens we wouldn't have these problems.  Yeah, some special interest groups wouldn't be happy but 75% would.  You can never make the radicals happy

You wouldn't like a government that represented the interests of all U.S. citizens. 

[bad_teammate 13561]

1 minute ago, ScottishHorn said:

Who influences those decisions made by the state?

Special interest groups on both sides to a fine job but the poor decisions made by the state would be made anyway because those in government are morons and rely on 3rd parties to tell them what to do.

What is it you mean by "both sides" here? Capitalist/anti-capitalist?

Quote

 You want to tell me Maxine Waters or some other lifetime politician knows anything about high finance?

What does Maxine Waters have to do with any of this?

Quote

If the government actually governed and represented the interests of all us citizens and only us citizens we wouldn't have these problems.

Yes, you're right. Which is why your resistance to the idea of equitable wealth redistribution is so bizarre. You are licking the boots that are holding you down by the throat.

[bad_teammate 13561]

You have nothing to lose but your chains, my man.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Philanthropy is something that only needs to exist when wealth distribution is moving in the wrong direction. Redistribution of wealth is something that is going to happen in any economic system and the policies of that economic system determine the ways in which wealth is redistributed. The goal of capitalist systems is to concentrate wealth, and the existence of a billionaire class is a testament to its efficacy.

And no, billionaires do not need to exist. And inherited billions do not need to exist. No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature.

There are dozens of extremely harmful effects of extreme wealth concentration and virtually no benefits other than to the billionaires themselves and the short-sighted and narrow-minded bootlickers who love them.

- Elimination of the middle class
- Dramatically outsized influence in political life
- Reduction in worker rights and protections
- Reduction in social mobility
- Increase in militarism
- Hostility in overseas relations
- Cozying up to corrupt overseas wealth regimes

etc...

It's not really a matter of arguing, there are statistics.

30-40% of the billionaires in America inherited their wealth almost straight-up. A significant percentage of the 60-70% left over got a nice boost from family loans/investment to start their businesses.

Now that it's clear that billionaires are not actually self-starters in general, you can now transition to an argument as to why those things are OK, but the reality is that you're peddling an American Dream narrative that is almost entirely bullshit.

There's an irony screaming in the face of someone who (1) loves self-starters and (2) promotes the extreme wealth concentration class but bootlickers don't have time to notice the irony of their own positions.

Funny you worry about the middle class yet advocate for open borders. 

I guess you believe our schools are properly funded, health care costs are falling, and affordable housing is abundant. With all of the low skilled jobs available and the death of automation, this is all just winning. 

GTFO with you bullshit about the middle class, strike that, about Americans who you don’t give two shits about until they serve your purpose. 

Commie-Nazi

Edited June 24, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[ScottishHorn 172]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And this is why the ruling class needs the protection of the state. The truth is not good for their safety. No wonder they want the poor as ignorant as possible. An educated lower class would lead to their slaughter.

That curve is based almost completely on the expansion of global commerce, finance and technical developments.  This doesn't have anything to do with the actual shrinking of the middle class.  All this shows is wealth creation

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And this is why the ruling class needs the protection of the state. The truth is not good for their safety. No wonder they want the poor as ignorant as possible. An educated lower class would lead to their slaughter. It's happened before. It can happen here.

Democratic playbook on immigration. 

[F250 29203]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How about their quality of life? What about their average debt? Do they have massive student loans to pay back combined with absurd medical expenses?

I’ll go back to my USSR example.  Just because you have low unemployment, doesn’t mean everyone is happy and not struggling to get by.

This celebration of employment numbers is cute but it’s just a ruse to make people think everything is hunky-dory.

As I said before, they've had high unemployment for a long time. While that may not mean anything to Hugo, it is indicative of a struggling economy, which in turn causes a shit ton of personal issues for its citizens. Anyways, they are not going to be on any of the top 10 lists for QoL.

You are all over the place in this thread. You seem to want to complain about wealth inequality but then ignore the importance of employment which is fundamental to wealth creation. Just in case you forgot, unemployment is directly responsible for creating wealth inequality.

[sheeeit 129]

20 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I will admit economics is not my specialty.  However, I don’t think people in the United States have any idea how hard our population works compared to other free societies like France or Spain.

Our lifestyles are completely different.  Those are the shackles I’m referring to.  We are so economically powerful because our population works themselves to death.  Why?  What are we working so hard for? What do we hope to achieve? 

 

15 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Fuck yes we should be more like them. 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/40-of-spanish-children-live-in-poverty/

But they apparently do get great vacation days.

[David Dennison 19560]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

As I said before, they've had high unemployment for a long time. While that may not mean anything to Hugo, it is indicative of a struggling economy, which in turn causes a shit ton of personal issues for its citizens. Anyways, they are not going to be on any of the top 10 lists for QoL.

You are all over the place in this thread. You seem to want to complain about wealth inequality but then ignore the importance of employment which is fundamental to wealth creation. Just in case you forgot, unemployment is directly responsible for creating wealth inequality.

I'm not sure this is correct. Most poor people in this country have jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows and wealth inequality is getting worse.

[David Dennison 19560]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/40-of-spanish-children-live-in-poverty/

But they apparently do get great vacation days.

Something about living in glass houses and stones.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not sure this is correct. Most poor people in this country have jobs. Unemployment is at historic lows and wealth inequality is getting worse.

You should have stopped at “I don’t know what I’m talking about” - you go off the rails any time you attemp a second sentence in your post.

why all of a sudden the concern for poor and middle class Americans?  All of your preferred opinions result in their decimation. You just flop from topic to topic with zero understanding that each issue doesn’t exists in a vacuum. Keep up those zesty one liners.

Edited June 24, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19560]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

You should have stopped at “I don’t know what I’m talking about”

why all of a sudden the concern for poor and middle class Americans?  All of your preferred opinions result in their decimation. You just flop from topic to topic with zero understand that each issue doesn’t exists in a vacuum. 

The thing is, all of your preferred opinions result in harm to the poor and middle class.

See how politics works?

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The thing is, all of your preferred opinions result in harm to the poor and middle class.

See how politics works?

Explain your work. In more than one sentence. How are open borders helpful for the lower and middle class Americans?

How does granting Asylum to anyone who is poor helpful to the American lower and middle class?

Edited June 24, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19560]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

Explain your work. In more than one sentence. How are open borders helpful for the lower and middle class Americans?

I'll let liberal Rick Perry explain it to you.

[ChickenSandwich 9961]

Lol. Can’t form two sentences on your own. 

Communist. 

[David Dennison 19560]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Lol. Can’t form two sentences on your own. 

Communist. 

Did you read it?

[sheeeit 129]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Something about living in glass houses and stones.

LULZ  I am out of this one.  I just found it funny that you and Hugo are openly wishing that our country was more like a country that has 40% of its children living in poverty.  

[David Dennison 19560]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

LULZ  I am out of this one.  I just found it funny that you and Hugo are openly wishing that our country was more like a country that has 40% of its children living in poverty.  

Did you not see how poorly the United States does? Did you miss that part?

[sheeeit 129]

I also love how statistics work sometimes.  There are a myriad of studies on child poverty that rank the USA either even with or worse off than Mexico.  Yet, there are literally hundreds of thousands of mexicans willing to risk their lives and their kids lives to get into the USA and there are virtually zero americans risking anything to get into mexico.

[David Dennison 19560]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I also love how statistics work sometimes.  There are a myriad of studies on child poverty that rank the USA either even with or worse off than Mexico.  Yet, there are literally hundreds of thousands of mexicans willing to risk their lives and their kids lives to get into the USA and there are virtually zero americans risking anything to get into mexico.

Myth is powerful.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I would love to have that conversation, because there is no way in hell any capitalist can make money without the protection of the state. Do you seriously need it explained to you?

Who secures his mineral rights?  A LANDMAN.  I GUESS THAT THE STATE FACILITATES THIS RIGHT, ANYONE CAN JUST DO IT, HUH?
Who enforces them?  THESE RIGHTS AREN'T CHALLENGED.  BUT TO YOUR POINT, SEE ABOVE.
How does he get his product from one place to the other?  HE BUILT MULTIPLE PIPELINES IN MULTIPLE STATES AT GREAT CONSIDERABLE CAPITAL TO HIM.
Who secures and ensures his capital?  HE GETS CAPITAL FROM BANKS, AND HIS PROPERTIES SECURE THE DEBT.  WHO "ENSURES" HIS CAPITAL?  THE FUCK KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT?  THE VIABILITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS WHO LOAN MONEY, I GUESS.  ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WHO "INSURES HIS DEPOSITS?"  

Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.  SURE.  BUT YOU'RE MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.  WE ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THIS STATE.  WE SHOULD JUST GO BE BILLIONAIRES!  THERE IS NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR BECOMING SUCH; THE STATE CREATES THEM.  JESUS WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT.

Hello, I am Rex Kramer and I don't actually have any thoughts to express, but I am very scared of those who do.  ON THIS MATTER?  NO, I DON'T, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A BROKEN SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF BILLIONAIRES.  RATHER, I SEE A LOT OF IDIOTIC PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO PROPPING UP THE MIDDLE CLASS BY TAKING AWAY FROM THE RICH.  THAT WON'T EVER WORK, IS ANTI-CAPITALIST, AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM YOU (YOU AND DD) AND HUGO ARE SCARY AND MORONIC.  PLEASE MOVE TO VENEZUELA NOW.

Jesus.  See above.

[deadshank 24654]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Myth is powerful.

Your BS reeks to mythical proportions. 

[bad_teammate 13561]

10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Jesus.  See above.

Rex Kramer: "I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. "

Also Rex Kramer: "Sure. (Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.)"

Self-contradiction and screaming emotionalism. #sad

Trevor Rees-Jones absolutely would not be a billionaire today without various state agencies ensuring his rights and protecting his holdings. That is an uncontroversial statement and any emotional freak-out based on it is a result of your own instability and lack of coherent worldview.

48 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Funny you worry about the middle class yet advocate for open borders. 

The enemy of the middle class is not the lower classes.

47 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

That curve is based almost completely on the expansion of global commerce, finance and technical developments.  This doesn't have anything to do with the actual shrinking of the middle class.  All this shows is wealth creation

You are wrong, of course.