No, that is simply not true. We just wish it were.
And money doesn't even correlate with the quality of your work: see executives who get millions on payouts after running companies to the ground.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
And money doesn't even correlate with the quality of your work: see executives who get millions on payouts after running companies to the ground.
Never heard of theft and plunder?
The highwayman is a successful entrepreneur worthy of congratulations.
We’re also talking about people who can do nothing, go to bed and wake up a billion dollars richer due to stock market movements. How the feck people can say they earned everything they have is beyond me.
this is a highlight tweet from a genuinely deranged account
Those executives were handed very big responsibilities in running these companies, weren't they? They had to be successful in whatever they do to be awarded such positions in the first place.
That's not the rule, that's the exception. You got to have a very grim perception of reality if you think that the majority of successful people were involved in theft and plunder.
Do nothing? Those people made a successful decision to hold those stocks. What about people who lose billions due to stock movements? As I said, you get rewarded for successful decisions.
@Giggs86
https://web.archive.org/web/2014090...org/blog/4/22/14/pikettys-capital-what-wealth
the existence of wealth itself is politically determined by what rights the government does and does not grant. for example - no right to health, a broad right to property.
https://web.archive.org/web/2014090...org/blog/4/22/14/pikettys-capital-what-wealth
the existence of wealth itself is politically determined by what rights the government does and does not grant. for example - no right to health, a broad right to property.
It’s high stakes gambling and nothing more. Do we treat people who win millions at the roulette table like successful icons who deserve everything they get?
Let's keep this thread on the election please.
Warren continues to be awful. This BS strategy of her is why she has been tanking for a while now.
That California Love.
So it's acceptable unless it's not?
For merely one clear, documented example in late 19th century Congo
wealth from plunder was the rule not the exception. Practically all financial success in the region and far beyond was achieved through plunder. From individuals to entire states enriched themselves through plunder. Money in people's hands today was put there through theft over a decade old.
These were some of the most successful people of their time.
very very concering re wiconsin, which i always assumed would be the easiest of the 3
A guy I know who moved to Wisconsin about 5 years ago (from south west england) has weirdly become a huge Trump supporter. We’re talking a reasonably intelligent very chilled surfer grom from a group of very liberal friends. He’s sharing absolute nonsense on Facebook about Trump being amazing for Animal rights, amazing for minorities, amazing for farmers, amazing for healthcare.
I have a suspicion that local tv news, radio or social media micro targeting is happening big style there as it’s been identified as a key state for Trump to win and hold the senate.
You can't be seriously comparing investing in securities to gambling. It's gambling only if you decide to gamble. If you have a solid investing strategy then you will earn money 99% percent of the time. The stock market has been the biggest wealth building vehicle for the last century with average annual return of 10%. I would love to explain further how the stock market is not gambling but let's just agree to disagree and not derail this thread any further.
We don't have Brexit here to distort public opinion and the politics of England in general is different from the US. Also, Corbyn and Bernie aren't exactly the same kind of politician despite having the progressive connection.
Exactly, if you play the game then you play by it's rules...unless she can magic money out of her arse.
I repeat — no one earns a billion dollars let alone 60 billion. That doesn't mean people aren't entitled to vast wealth from working hard, managing companies, and playing the game right. Notice that millionaires aren't being demonized — only that we want them to pay their fair share of taxes since they benefitted from public property and utilities + the workers who work hard to help make them a success. The conditions that allow for billionaires to exist is a completely fecked system. More money in the hands of working and middle class people need to happen and it's gotta be done in more ways than just wages. Public benefits and investing in green technologies with the extra taxes on billionaires will go a much longer way than wages. Also, billionaires hoard their money in offshore accounts doing feck all. Regular people actually spend money to stimulate the economy.
Just look at the $200+ million Bloomberg spent on commercials. Imagine all that money instead going towards building schools, hiring teachers, invested in green technology, public housing, funding universal healthcare, etc. Instead, billionaire network executives are even richer than before.
Wisconsin might be the biggest concern here, even though if I recall correctly Bernie did well there versus Hillary.very very concering re wiconsin, which i always assumed would be the easiest of the 3
Either way, it might be only Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that will actually matter in the end.
At the risk of sounding like a paid shill for Bloomberg, his campaign spending is a mere drop in the bucket compared to his philanthropic efforts:
Just this week there was a report in the NYT on how he donated billions of dollars to educational institutions, nicotine addiction, the WHO, gun safety, culture and so on and so forth.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/15/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-spending.html
Knock him on his policies but his money is the last thing to mock considering he spent $9.1 billion since 1997 towards philanthropic efforts.
So society should be at the mercy of billionaires? Sure, good for him that he donates to charities, but states powered by the interests of working people could have even more vast sums of wealth than they already do to contribute back to society. $9.1 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the focused efforts of governments.
Additionally, people who have billions can buy governments to make laws that favor themselves. Bloomberg is literally trying to buy his way into the presidency. No individual should have that power. It undermines democracy and that's wrong on so many levels. I wonder how much he's donated to Republicans in his life?
So fecking what? I'd rather the money was distributed fairly in the first place instead of him having his name on soup kitchens or whatever. The robber barons did that but they were still stinking rich while millions of Americans lived hard scrabble lives.
Why is it that poor people and poverty exist in the first place? Go back throughout history. It's all the result of rich and powerful people, whether it be royalty or billionaires, sucking up the wealth for themselves and leaving the peasants to fiend for themselves at a pittance. We've become somewhat fairer today since ancient times thanks to democratic institutions who had the courage to do something for the people. But more is needed, still.
Philanthropy is a tax break, an ego trip and a tool for currying favour and asserting power.They should just pay fair wages and fair taxes.
some on ere defending the oligarchs.
good grief.
good grief.
Didn't you say the only non-Bernie candidate you would vote for is Steyer, actual billionaire?
He's not exactly Abramovich, admittedly, but... billionaire.
What are you on about? You complained that the money he's spending on his campaign could be better used elsewhere and I pointed out its a mere fraction of his philanthropic donations which went to exactly the causes you listed and more.
I liked what I heard at the debate.
What is this discussion about? Or is it over your head?
Lets hear your answer.
How is him making money off of Bloomberg inc, a financial data company he founded make him unfair or nefarious? Does anyone call Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg etc oligarchs and thieves?
Again, Bloomberg consistently pays above market salaries and no one ever accused them of short changing employees.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/bloomberg/salaries
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Bloomberg/salaries
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/dk-en/3002634/bloomberg-technology-salaries-new-york
That's nonsense. Stocks prices are result of company performance and investor confidence. Companies hire new CEOs to boost both. Depending on situation, it's their fault due to mismanagement and in other cases due to wider financial situation and market trends.
Zuckerberg literally sold our personal data without permission so not the best example.
That was completely irrelevant to Facebook's success.
He is a thief though. And it certainly wasn't irrelevant to the fecker getting even richer.
I just find it a bit funny that a True Believer such as yourself would have a billionaire as your only alternative to Sanders, and then go on to talk about oligarchs. And while it's not quite the same, you've also expressed quite the fondness for John F. Kennedy, who essentially came from a family of the absolute elite, and would have been nearly a billionaire himself today (his father would easily have been one).
It's not incredibly damning or anything, it's just mildly interesting.
Wait, so investing isn't like playing roulette like Kentonio suggests ?
Investors are the one gambling. Not the CEO's of big corporates (CEOs of funds and like obviously excluded).
He didn't get rich by thieving. That incident aside, fact that Facebook is still popular attests to that.
Maybe read my whole post.
It's just a bunch of olds these days who take memes for being the truth.
Billionaires literally buy up governments and people are defending them.
- Status