[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
I wrote that after writing about how millions of africans are currently dieing of aids because they can’t afford drugs. I was just rambling. You are right though 100 million is such a small sum how would those rich people survive. Rainjack you are a sad and ignorant little man.[/quote]
Dude - you wouldn’t know ignorant if it stared back at you in the mirror - and you prove it every morning when you get up and go to the bathroom.
And seeing as you don’t have the balls to post your stats, or post any photos of yourself - I call bullshit. That is unless you can beat 230+ and 11% BF.
My bet is you still live with mommy and daddy, and you have never held a job in your entire life. How close am I?
Rainjack what the fuck are you doing on this thread. Until you contribute an opinion or something on the topics being discussed, just shut the fuck up. Prove me wrong on what I’ve said. I want to hear what is wrong with that certain post that you hate. If you actually hold up a good arguement I’ll concede that im slightly more ignorant than you(if that is possible).
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Rainjack what the fuck are you doing on this thread. Until you contribute an opinion or something on the topics being discussed, just shut the fuck up. Prove me wrong on what I’ve said. I want to hear what is wrong with that certain post that you hate. If you actually hold up a good arguement I’ll concede that im slightly more ignorant than you(if that is possible).[/quote]
One day, when you grow up, you will see what we mean. At least I hope you are young; there is no other way of explaining the things you write.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Rainjack what the fuck are you doing on this thread. Until you contribute an opinion or something on the topics being discussed, just shut the fuck up.[/quote]
Me? Shut up? Contribute to what? Your idiotic ramblings? Last time I checked, you little fuck faced idiot, this wasn’t even your damn thread. If doogie has a problem with me being on here thumping dumbasses like you in the ear - I’ll listen. But - if anyone should be shutting the fuck up - I vote we sew your flappy little lips shut.
After I stopped my uncontrolled laughing at the thought of you trying to take a tough-guy stance in defense of the idiocy that has rolled off your keyboard - I realized that you actually think you are right. That rich people shouldn’t keep all the money they have earned. That if they make too much, Paul Bunion will be there to make sure he gets his fair share of other’s profit.
I’m not going to respond to anything you have said other than to say - sometimes a person so stupid comes along that it gives me pause, and for a moment I almost believe in gov’t mandated abortion.
I think the “we have programs for mentally ill people so that they don’t go on the streets and cause crime” is also pretty competitive for most retarded statement ever posted.
Mentally ill people who are too sick to get a job and can’t afford medication often wind up on the street. Once on the street many people resort to crime as a means to survive.
[/quote]
True, but the mentally ill don’t statistically cause any more crime than people who are sane. Also, some of them are really good at chess.
Rainjack first of all that post was just me rambling. The point I was trying to make is that there are too few people who hold far too much of the worlds wealth. If that money was put to use in RESEARCH or CHARITY then the world would be a much better place. How can you argue with that. If those rich dudes put a shit load more money into research instead of lining their pockets they might actually become richer. If they were forced to put the majority of profits into research, their would be plentiful high tech and scientific jobs. It would start an endless process of economic and scientific advancement.
You are wrong. If the incentive to build wealth and be a rich sumbitch is removed, so are jobs, tax revenue, gov’t programs etc.
Get a job. Better yet - start a business, bust your ass trying to make it profitable, and then come back in here and see if your kumbaya bullshit doesn’t stink even to you.
You can’t punish people for being rich. They may just take their toys and go home - then you’d be really screwed.
I said 100 million. The rest should go to research which would in turn bring more profits. Thats not punishment. 100 million is way more than anyone needs. Read the thread “The future is Bright.Not”. It is full of bullshit, but it brings to light the lack of innovation that could cause a downward spiral in our civilization. If the billions of dollers rich people poccess was put towards research our civilization would attain the means to flurish. They would maintain control over it and they would keep 100 million. It was just an idea I never expect anything similiar to occur. I just can’t understand why it seems to rediculous to you Rainjack.
Paul, think about it this way: if you imposed a ‘wealth cap’ of 100 million, who in their right mind would continue to try and make more money? And you can’t very well impose it immediately and go “Alright Gates, hand over that 60 billion”, as soon as people got wind of the law they’d be gone.
In a free capitalist society freedom and stability of capital is paramount to smooth functioning of the economy. Capping wealth will encourage the flight of wealth to more free economies.
When the capital leaves the methods of production, research and development leave with it.
What drives research is need and opportunity. A pressing need and the opportunity to solve it. IF that opportunity is profitable more investors will take the risk and invest the capital needed. Government is inherently poor at managing at managing dynamic changing programs. They are better at repetition.
The fascist/communist overtones in your theory would make it unworkable in all but the most repressive nations. These are the same nations who would not attract capital investment anyway.
Capital is fluid and if a nation was going to cap mine at $100M then I am taking my business to more friendly places. I couldn’t depend on the $100M not being lowered to $50MM in the blink of an eye.
If you disagree with any of these counter arguments please let me know why?
My idea is just that an idea. It will never happen. But if every country agreed then where would we go. Imagine Gates’s 60 billion going towards medicine, space or alternative fuel research. The rich would maintain control over the research and whatever came out of it. So they would have assets that are equal to the initial sum. Once something is developed they sell it and the profits are redistributed to researchers. I’m gonna try and shut up now on this thread. One day you guys will see me on the cover of time magazine where I shall be worshipped for thinking of the idea that saved man kind from corperate greed. Even though I’ve been insulted and criticized for my thoughts, I still feel glad that there are people who care enough about politics to argue with a complete stranger about important issues.
In a free capitalist society freedom and stability of capital is paramount to smooth functioning of the economy. Capping wealth will encourage the flight of wealth to more free economies.
When the capital leaves the methods of production, research and development leave with it.
What drives research is need and opportunity. A pressing need and the opportunity to solve it. IF that opportunity is profitable more investors will take the risk and invest the capital needed. Government is inherently poor at managing at managing dynamic changing programs. They are better at repetition.
The fascist/communist overtones in your theory would make it unworkable in all but the most repressive nations. These are the same nations who would not attract capital investment anyway.
Capital is fluid and if a nation was going to cap mine at $100M then I am taking my business to more friendly places. I couldn’t depend on the $100M not being lowered to $50MM in the blink of an eye.
If you disagree with any of these counter arguments please let me know why?[/quote]
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
I said 100 million. The rest should go to research which would in turn bring more profits. Thats not punishment. 100 million is way more than anyone needs.[/quote]
If you take money away from those that earn it and have too much that is wrong. People would make sure that they don’t have more than 100 million. You make the assumption that everyone would still be making the exact same money after you instituted the enough is enough doctrine. They wouldn’t. If you take away the incentive to get rich - or even richer - you are killing jobs. You are killing the very thing that make entrepeneurs tick - the opportunity of being rewarded for their risks. Taking from them just because they make too much is absurd.
Who are you to say how much is “more than anyone needs”?
Because I am a small business owner. I created whatever sliver of wealth I may have by hard work and a desire to do better than I did yesterday. I don’t need some punk-assed kid who has never worked a day in his life telling me that if I do really, really well then I have too much and the gov’t should take it and redistribute it.
You go make a shitload of money and see how much of it you think the government should keep.
You keep saying that it was just an idea - yet you keep defending it as if it is a great idea. It’s not. You would know that if you actually participated in the economy other than using daddy’s credit card to go shopping.
In a free capitalist society freedom and stability of capital is paramount to smooth functioning of the economy. Capping wealth will encourage the flight of wealth to more free economies.
When the capital leaves the methods of production, research and development leave with it.
What drives research is need and opportunity. A pressing need and the opportunity to solve it. IF that opportunity is profitable more investors will take the risk and invest the capital needed. Government is inherently poor at managing at managing dynamic changing programs. They are better at repetition.
The fascist/communist overtones in your theory would make it unworkable in all but the most repressive nations. These are the same nations who would not attract capital investment anyway.
Capital is fluid and if a nation was going to cap mine at $100M then I am taking my business to more friendly places. I couldn’t depend on the $100M not being lowered to $50MM in the blink of an eye.
If you disagree with any of these counter arguments please let me know why?
Im talking about forced investment
[/quote]
That a contradiction in terms. It’s actually called tax’s if the government does anything with it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
I said 100 million. The rest should go to research which would in turn bring more profits. Thats not punishment. 100 million is way more than anyone needs.
If you take money away from those that earn it and have too much that is wrong. People would make sure that they don’t have more than 100 million. You make the assumption that everyone would still be making the exact same money after you instituted the enough is enough doctrine. They wouldn’t. If you take away the incentive to get rich - or even richer - you are killing jobs. You are killing the very thing that make entrepeneurs tick - the opportunity of being rewarded for their risks. Taking from them just because they make too much is absurd.
Who are you to say how much is “more than anyone needs”?
you are right 100 million is an absudly small amount. yeah right
I just can’t understand why it seems to rediculous to you Rainjack.
Because I am a small business owner. I created whatever sliver of wealth I may have by hard work and a desire to do better than I did yesterday. I don’t need some punk-assed kid who has never worked a day in his life telling me that if I do really, really well then I have too much and the gov’t should take it and redistribute it.
Good for you. The government wouldn’t redistribute it, you would to research that is relative to your business. The government would regulate and make sure the money is spent.
You go make a shitload of money and see how much of it you think the government should keep.
You keep saying that it was just an idea - yet you keep defending it as if it is a great idea. It’s not. You would know that if you actually participated in the economy other than using daddy’s credit card to go shopping.[/quote]
Forever the majority of people have been poor while a tiny percentage of rich people hold most of the capital. The only thing that caused the middle class to boom was innovations. Once the innovations disspear so shall the middle class. Such a boon of research funding would ensure many years of prosperity for the rich and others.
I am just a punk kid. But my family isn’t rich or poor. My dad has no credit cards. When I need cash I go and bail hay for 12 hour days in the hot summer heat. Back when I was 13 I did the same. When I was fifteen I worked 10 hour days in a small local sawmill. If I was a billionaire I would keep 100 million and invest the rest in research. What could you possibly need that 100 million couldn’t get. By the way you quoted your stats earlier. Im 17 yrs old 215 pnds around 15% bf, I bench 290, deadlift 305 and squat 250(pretty sad) I doubt you even care but I thought I would respond anyway.
I am just a punk kid. But my family isn’t rich or poor. My dad has no credit cards. When I need cash I go and bail hay for 12 hour days in the hot summer heat.
[/quote]
What does any 17 year old need money for? All you need is $1.25/day for school lunch money. You can ride the bus to school. Anything a 17 year old makes over $6.25/week should go to research. It’s only fair.
