Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 6
Seen on Twitter:

41 billionaires are now as rich as the poorest half of the world population -BofA

And a comment on the above...

good for them. They are much more valuable in many more ways than the net worth than over half of the world's population too.

How can someone be so stupid? As if these billionaires created that wealth out of thin air.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What do you suggest?

Taking money from the billionaires and giving it to people who didn't earn it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
What do you suggest?

Taking money from the billionaires and giving it to people who didn't earn it?


Yes. Absolutely.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Yes. Absolutely.

SLL"

Seriously? You aren't joking?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Taking money from the billionaires and giving it to people who didn't earn it?

How exactly did the billionaires earn it?
Report on the beeb this morning saying that wealth of the 1% increased over $1 trillion since the start of the pandemic while the wealth of the bottom 50% has declined. Obviously the lower 50% has been hit hard by the pandemic. So what have the top 1% done differently do to earn their this increase.

My guess is .... less than they were doing before due to the pandemic
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"How exactly did the billionaires earn it?"

Risking your money / investing your money = earning any gains.

This isn't about physical labor.

You either "earn" a living with your labor, "earn" your living with your brain, "earn" your living with risk/investment, etc. etc.

All = earn if you gain from your efforts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Taking money from the billionaires and giving it to people who didn't earn it?

How exactly did the billionaires earn it?

Report on the beeb this morning saying that wealth of the 1% increased over $1 trillion since the start of the pandemic while the wealth of the bottom 50% has declined. Obviously the lower 50% has been hit hard by the pandemic. So what have the top 1% done differently do to earn their this increase.


The billionaires earned it by suppressing the wages of their workers while advantaging changes which increased their productivity. They earned it by stealing the extra value the workers provided to society during the past 40 years, creating a system in which the people who do the labor reap none of the rewards, and are reduced to working for de facto subsistence wages. This doubly advantages the owner class, making the workforce sufficiently desperate as to be entirely unable to fight back.

The truth is that the rich mainly "earn" their wealth through investment of wealth and the "work" done by their money. They don't have to actually labor themselves, but are left with the leisure to lament the "lazy poor" who don't deserve more than subsistence wages. Read today (can't find it now) that worldwide 41 billionaires own an amount of wealth equivalent to the wealth of 50% of the world's population. Because, you know, they're so "virtuous," and "work so hard," and provide the real benefits enjoyed by the rest of society.

Those nurses? Lazy, fungible people who have no "skin in the game" anyway. By "skin," of course, they mean money. And the "risk" taken by the owner class when they "invest?" A fraction of their wealth might be lost in the quest to double it, and in either case the difference would not be noticed in the least in their lifestyle and comfort and self-indulgence, while millions worldwide suffer and died for lack of resources monopolized by the very few.

Yes. I would take money from those people and give it to people who "don't work," particularly since millions who "don't work" don't work because there are insufficient jobs, because the jobs that do exist pay wages so low that workers can't even afford the transportation to get to the jobs, or to pay for the child care necessary to allow the workers to leave their children in a safe place, who are too dispirited or unhealthy or physically or intellectually incapable of "competing" in a system designed to exploit those who fail to "win" within the system.

Yes. Take the money from those who don't work but have money that works for them, and give it to the people who don't work, millions because they can't work, but also those who really are lazy or feckless simply because every living human being has a right to the basics of a decent life merely as a consequences of being alive.

Pay a nurse 400 times what you pay the CEO of a company that makes video games, and I'll allow that the system distributes its rewards on the basis of actual "merit" and "benefit to society." Absent that, this world needs a redistribution of wealth and a re-evaluation of "value."

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. I am not joking.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"creating a system in which the people who do the labor reap none of the rewards"

What kind of crazy think is this?

Labor is a contract, $ for your service. Workers bear no risk of loss like the business does or it's investors therefor the workers should never ever get their pay + profit as that profit is pay for the risk.

Market sets wages and businesses do not suppress wages, only an excess of people willing to work for less suppresses wages. Employers drive up wages to compete for or attract the talent they need, based on skill of job = what the market rate is.

"every living human being has a right to the basics of a decent life merely as a consequences of being alive."

Basic yes, what the left wants is cradle to grave which is not basic, the lefts wants everything provided.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Taking money from the billionaires and giving it to people who didn't earn it?

You don't see the absurdity in your statement? That those billionaires 'earned it', as if all by themselves without the sweat of so many others.

Too much disparity of wealth won't be good for anyone, rich or poor, in the long run.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A side note, SLL, but your writing is always a pleasure to read: both cogent and eloquent. The poster you're responding to went "grey" for me several months back, after it became clear we'd get nothing but regurgitated cultist tripe from that source. This society needs better critical thinking skills so badly, it's like we just saw our very mode of government nearly toppled through disinformation.

Oh, wait....

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The people who work in the billionaire's factories and shipping yards and delivery networks and farm fields and slaughterhouses and retail stores and for-profit health care and for-profit prisons and merceanary contractors and more DO earn it -- they just aren't being paid what they have earned.

If billionaire profiteers won't share the wealth voluntarily via better wages and benefits, then their profits (derived from paying poor wages etc.) should be taxed to 90 percent like the good old days. They should pay massive fines for environmental devastation. They should be prosecuted and fined for OSHA violations, human rights violations and violating immigration laws by hiring undocumented immigrants (while donating to politicians who persecute those same immigrants.) They should pay massive tolls for their use of taxpayer funded infrastructure like roads, ports, airports, water and sewarage systems, inspection and customs, etc etc.

They can only ride on one yacht at a time. The rest can be plowed back into the society that supports them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Thanks, Steve. People don't want to think -- they want to be told what to believe.

The naïve belief that capitalism is in any sense based on a theory of justice is a direct consequences of people unable to anticipate consequences.

People like the original poster here actually believe that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, and the huge gap between the billionaire and the child growing up in a tin-roofed shack expresses the ultimate "justice," wherein that if that child does not somehow find a way to avoid being exploited and become a billionaire himself, he deserves to live as an indentured servant in the hypocritical system of capitalism which bills itself as a "merit" system.

They actually see nothing wrong with a system which GUARANTEES that some people must suffer -- even starve, even die -- so that others may become rich enough to be able to do and have pretty much anything they want. They actually regard a system which produces this kind of result INEVITABLY as "moral." As a "just" system, in which the rich are rich because they are the most "deserving."

Every time I entertain the pathetic truth that people actually believe this stuff -- that they are actually able to define the system in which we live as in any way "just," it reminds me of, as you say, the degree to which half the population of this country is terrifyingly lacking in critical thinking skills.

And -- perhaps even worse -- any moral core whatever.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
sgiz, I would certainly love to know what your occupation is/was, if you care to disclose.

did you work in the public sector or for a state,federal or local government, or quasi-governmental institution like a university, or ?? Were you a member of a union or bargained-for unit or always a free agent?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"They actually see nothing wrong with a system which GUARANTEES that some people must suffer -- even starve, even die -- so that others may become rich enough to be able to do and have pretty much anything they want. They actually regard a system which produces this kind of result INEVITABLY as "moral." As a "just" system, in which the rich are rich because they are the most "deserving."

----

In other words, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" "Those who be wont to die should do it then, and decrease the surplus population."
Print the post Back To Top