I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
Both of these seem a bit extreme to me... what is the real figure?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-11 2:01
Carlos Slim and every other walking ethnic stereotype on the planet.
The 1% is because of Capitalism, not because corruption or favoritism. The economic system we life on is inherently unbalanced. The rich people tend to be more rich, and the poor people tend to be more poor. Is like playing a realtime strategy game. Once one player is stronger, it keeps growing stronger, while the other players weaken.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-07 12:38
>>45
>while the other players weaken.
That's not really an aspect of capitalism. You need to honestly examine why any individual person is poor before you call it an inevitable consequence of the economic system. Poor people tend to be poor and remain poor because they are uneducated and make poor decisions. Someone intelligent enough to increase their income and leave "poor" status behind rarely stays poor for long unless there other factors involved.
Name:
strategos!!Li82Oww1WEWDvJJ2012-01-07 17:25
>>46
I supose being uneducated is something just natural for the poor people, like the eye's color, or having two legs, isn't it?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 7:20
>47
Capitalism is factor in favor of providing better education opportunities for poor people, capitalists desire a skilled educated workforce and will invest in training schemes and promote literacy to achieve this.
Capitalism doesn't solve this problem completely but then it's not supposed to be a utopia that solves every problem like communism, fascism, anarchism or socialism, utopias only exist in your imagination, on the other hand capitalism is a practical policy that can be implemented and promoted to help reduce problems. Actual improvements to people's lives are more desirable than ideological extremism that strives for perfection while in practice achieves far less compared to pragmatism.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 14:10
>>47
It's statistically true that poor people tend to be uneducated.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 20:01
>>46
Or like me: poor because we don't want to join the stupid rat race, but just want to enjoy our lives with our family.
Problem is: just plain poor doesn't exist anymore. now it's : "dirt poor", or "filthy rich"
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 22:06
The 1% is just a term Lefty fags use to demonize anyone who owns a successful business. You don't own a business, therefor, you are a victim and are being robbed somehow. Everyone should be rich and not have to work. Except for the rich people who have to pay most of the taxes. We out number them 99 to one, therefor, we should take everything the 1% have because it was stolen from us somehow. This is Democracy after all!
Then, we will spread the wealth by giving all of our money and the money we take from the "rich" to the elite who give the money to other rich people to spread the wealth. Then these other special rich people who are on our side will give to those who obey them. Then we all become equally poor except for the elite who rule us all.
>>55 accuse person of being aligned with Hitler
I said no such thing. Your ``arguments'' are completely irrational, and each post you author will only prove that assertion further.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:30
>>39
>People don't vote for Democrats because of ``poverty''.
No, they vote because they bought into the class warfare, racism and social justice bullshit that the Democrats exploit but never try to fix.
Obamacare is the perfect example of that. It made healthcare even more unaffordable and Obama handed out of waivers to all of his political friends and allies. Hypocrisy at it's best.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:40
Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district.
>>57 No, they vote because they bought into the class warfare, racism and social justice bullshit that the Democrats exploit but never try to fix.
The reason I know that most people that vote Democrat (at least historically) is because they were long-known as the ``working people's party'', and it was like that until a decade or so ago. This idea that the Democratic Party is for the working person is of course slowly fading away.
It's funny, every political party that has historically been for worker's rights have degenerated into faux right-wing hyper-capitalist groups of dipshits that give a huge middle finger to working class people all over. The Democratic Party in the United States, UK's Labour party after the 1970s, Australia's Labor Party after the early 1960s. It'll only be a matter of time before Social Democratic parties in continental Europe follow suit. Left-wing economics are dead, left-wing social ideas seem to be here to stay, though.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-12 0:57
In short, The Left has become the party of cultural suicide and blackhole economics. The Right is whatever the liberal journalists declare it to be.
Welcome to the age of dishonesty. Your vote isn't worth shit anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 2:59
>>34
You know it's impossible to disagree with that speech, since money in the form that Rand describes it(in the form I thought of it when I was 11 years old) is just a neutral tool of exchange.
The only problem is that in the real world money became something completely different - I think we should have more kinds of money - the money described by Rand and the game money used for stock speculation double-deriving/insuring and so on - kinda like gold/gp in your game of choice - that way the people that work could work and one day say: 'fuck the system of inflationary "gain' above our heads" and make the exponentially growing overhead of inflated funds moot in an instance.
But since we have a single concept of money for both working and speculating with - one can only derive that the monetary system is definitely a fucked up concept to say the least.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 3:35
>>61
>in the form I thought of it when I was 11 years old
You know someone has a good argument against Rand when they start with some cheap comment along the lines of 'I thought Rand was cool in college but then hurr durr!'
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 7:59
>>62
You know that someone has a good idea of what money is when they think it is tied to intrinsic labor-value (labor in its most widest sense, e.g. something we might consider useful or awe-inspiring - something positively influencing production: brilliance/ability to adapt and think ahead/manual skills and everything in between).
antiTl;dr: Nassim N. Taleb - Black Swan for starters
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 19:05
>>59 Democrats
>"working people's party"
>was like that until a decade ago
What planet was this on? On Earth, the Democratic Party since the Rosenfelt Administration has been the party of "vote fer us an' we'll give ya this nice big welfare check, here nigger nigger nigger, here nigger nigger nigger, and remember, those mean old Republicans want to take your welfare check away from you"
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:45
>Democrats
Obama just killed a plan to create tens of thousands of jobs with an oil pipeline project. He did it and laughed at America when he did it.
He's rich and doesn't give a fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 2:32
>>65
>Tens of thousands
with modern production and construction methods - more like a few hundred + a thousand managers + billions of dollars of worthless capital in "investments'.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 11:11
>>65
Hurr nurr ima bury my head in the sand and pretend global warming doesn't exist! Liberuls talk about it so it must be a made up lie derk derk. Nerp!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 16:33
>>67
Hurr nurr ima bury my head in the sand and pretend green bullshit doesn't destroy the economy.
implying the economy is more important than having a liveable planet
Try again retard!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-19 17:49
>implying "global warming" wasn't always a fraud to terrify the public into letting the government control even more of our lives
>implying Stephen Schneider didn't admit it openly in his interview with Discover Magazine in October 1989
implying right wing conspiracy theories are more credible than actual scientists implying Stephen Schneider represents all climate scientists
You really are making this too easy.
Speaking of the 1%, I just saw this funny political commercial dealing with the 1% v 99%. Really funny and innovative advertisement. Better than the normal junk you see online.
Small changes in average temperature can have drastic effects on climate. And 1934 was a statistical anomaly. I can lie with cherry-picked numbers too you stupid twat.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 20:15
>implying "climate scientists" are real scientists. PROTIP: real science has falsifiable hypotheses
>implying Stephen Schneider didn't create the "global warming" meme in the first place and the discipline of "climate science," despite not even having a background in meteorology
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 21:59
implying that "if we don't drastically reduce carbon emissions, shit will hit the fan" is unfalsifiable implying you even know what falsifiable means implying it's not common for scientists to change disciplines
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-20 22:10
Everyone is the 1% implying that there is a 99% would mean that 99% of the people in the world agree on the same things and want the same things in reality the world it split into a shit load of groups that are like .01 % each with the same goals
If winters are more severe, it's because of "global warming." If winters are less severe, it's because of "global warming." If the aggregate climate data does not change, "renormalize" it until it does. Proclaim IMMINENT DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM if Whitey does not go back to the caves. Get caught making shit up with "hockey stick" graph. Deny it shamelessly. Hackers give your email archives out, showing you spending decades promising to "hide behind the non-disclosure agreement" and "finding a neat trick" to "hide the decline." Liberal newsmedia imposes total blackout. Apply for another government grant.
"climate science" is politics, not science.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." --Stephen Schneider, interview in "Discover" Magazine, October 1988
tl;dr if "cancer researchers" working for a tobacco company got publicly exposed engaging in this type of blatant lying and shenanigans, would you believe anything they had to say? no? why do you believe "climate science" cranks, then?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-21 12:50
The "top 1%" are the same people who push socialism, high taxes and "global warming" propaganda so certain big industrialists can crush competition (create monopoly) by making all of their competitors pay higher taxes, while they themselves are exempt from it. Then later, when the economy has had enough and people protest, they swoop with their big media outlets and blame capitalism for the crisis and not government intervention.
A shame Occupy Wall Street is in their pockets too, since all OWS has demanded so far is more and more government up people's asses.
If winters are more severe, it's because of "global warming." If winters are less severe, it's because of "global warming."
Source please.
If the aggregate climate data does not change, "renormalize" it until it does.
Riighhht... because normalizing data isn't common at all. Mathematics is some mysterious voodoo that scientists use to trick us.
Take quotes out of context. Spin your own conspiracy theory. Rinse. Repeat.