Quote:
Originally Posted by greymouse
The doctrine that every man and every woman ought to strive solely to enrich themselves with no thought of any other priority has underwritten the amazing concentration of wealth among the very few that has taken place since the Seventies. The idea that only a tiny minority of people matter and that these few carry the rest of us lazy and stupid slobs on their economic backs and hence deserve to receive the 21.8% of reported income that the top 1% received in 2005 is part of why Americans have been so passive while their personal incomes remain flat or decline in real terms and the rich get richer rapidly.
|
I don't think that most rich people believe that 'every man and every woman ought to strive solely to enrich themselves with no thought of any other priority'. That seems to be a stereotype brought on by people who themselves aren't rich
You know, if I came on here and said that all single, black women are welfare queens, there would be outrage amongst the board, and rightfully so. But it's amazing the amount of vile that gets spewed against the rich, especially the top 1%. I suppose the reason for this is that these people are the only minority that's still safe to pick on.
Quote:
|
The top 1 % received, I would hesitate to say "earned", more than the the bottom 150 million in total. If that doesn't upset you, you are probably a Randist
|
Why would that upset me? If you're in charge of a company who made a billion dollar profit last year, why wouldn't they give you several million for your troubles? I mean, it's not much money by comparison.
Quote:
|
and imagine that you are likely to join the wealthy elite, by and by, possibly in the sky.
|
Well, I've read the bios of many leaders of tech giants, and many of them started out in their garages. To me, that's what makes this country great - you can start out with nothing but an idea and make a fortune.
Quote:
|
So, I'm sorry to hear about the Randism. I think we will not be having a dialog about what is best for the country, however, I will say that "socialism" and "communism" have nothing to do with "regulation" of the powerful on behalf of the powerless.
|
So who do you consider to be 'powerless'? As the the main theme of your post seems to be that 1% of the country is ruling every body else, do you then mean 'only a tiny minority of people matter and that these few carry the rest of us lazy and stupid slobs on their economic backs'?
Quote:
|
Look at the level of satisfaction expressed by consumers of internet connectivity in this thread for information about how well profit seeking has served to keep consumers happy with the mega corporations they have no choice except to buy from because no other choices exist.
|
Yeah, I will agree... there are probably a few sectors that should be regulated. Water, electricity, etc. But let's face it... 95% of the crap that these mega-corporations are pumping out is stuff that we don't need, so we (as a society) could choose to put the smack down on any of that stuff. No government regulation needed there. Hell, I think it could be argued whether broadband is really needed. I mean, you COULD get by on dialup, even if it means you can't download the latest Snoop Dogg album in less than a minute, or stream the 'Lost' season finale at 1080p.
