That’s enough internet for you. There’s a nice girl by the name of Keely, she’d be a perfect match for you. Make sure to name your kids Fidel, Adolf, Lenin and Karl.
7 Likes
I am going to take a wild guess and say it was because of the government and central planification.
The gap is going to stabilize because we don’t tax the rich, everyone is going to be a millionaire and be adble to have whatever they want (nevermind how the fuck is everyone going to manage to build their own skyscraper, their ferraris, their beach houses, and whatever else they want in their lifetime), and generally the more people there is the more everyone each of us can have.
Being a republican is actually a feel good thing.
This statement is contradictory. If it can always be increased, it isn’t finite.
The amount of wealth is being constantly increased, predominantly by the super-rich like steve jobs, elon musk, Henry ford, ets. All generate far more wealth than they consume.
2 Likes
Right… I’m honestly curious where he’s getting these ideas.
How do you account for intellectual property and intangible assets?
A dollar is nothing in itself.
No point in having a rich society if only one person has everything and the rest still has nothing.
Now sorry to everyone here but I am not a republican, therefore I am not infinite. I probably won’t be able to respond to everything in this thread.
Hmm… no, it would be globalization. You know, the idea that Merkyl, Trudeau and all the other commies get off to.
Neither am I.
2 Likes
Thanks, I’m aware of how fiat currency works…
What 1 person has everything in America?
How do you know anyone here is? I am not a registered Republican.
So, anyway, where do these ideas come from?
Cuba technically is in America…
Lol, but not even Fidel had everything.
1 Like
I want to revisit this. So, we should have a poor society because in Capitalism there are winners and losers?
There are winners and losers in every system. There will always be winners and losers.
3 Likes
Please, define what exactly constitutes a “very big chunk”? Very big in relation to what? And what resource(s) are they supposedly in control of? You can’t just say shit like this without having some sort of notion of the resource(s) you’re referencing, just how much is “very big chunk” and in relation to what is the comparison?
3 Likes
The wealth of the top 10 wealthiest people in the world compared to 2015 global GDP.
Look at Bill Gates. Microsoft employs about 120,000 people. Do you think that would have happened if he had been capped at $1M? Probably not.
Warren Buffet started Berkshire Hathaway from the money he earned on his paper route and they employ over 300,000 people now.
This thread is nuts.
4 Likes
Because regular people overall would have more if Ford hadn’t gotten rich developing the assembly line… uh, no…
But they would be better off is Gates and Jobs hadn’t revolutionized the personal compute…um… no…
4 Likes
Put it this way, Polo, if you have more stuff than me, your chunk is too big. The goal is to minimize inequality. Diversity is good, as long as it doesn’t mean that some of us are going to make more money than others. That kind of diversity is real bad.
Working in the public sector is good. Creating public sector jobs is called good economics. Those jobs are the moral choice, cause capitalism creates a lot of unhappy. It’s better if you stay really far away from the free markets, unless you want to give your money to Keely so she can get a liberal arts degree which has no economic value. Then it’s all good.
3 Likes
Hypothetically how would you cap something like that? Lets say he owns 10% of Microsoft and was at his 1M limit well before that. Is he allowed to sell a small amount of his ownership for 1Billion? Can he sell a 2nd house he owns for money?