• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Eight richest men own as much as 3.6 billion poor"

Mr Person said:
Quibble about how big the list should be, but increasing wealth disparity has never failed to lead to social unrest, sometimes revolution.

It really shouldn't matter whether or not you think of the moral worth of that unrest or revolution. It doesn't matter where you think it lies on the scale of evil to good, the bottom line is that it happens. It is something to worry about.

Well, if a pragmatic approach to objective reality is your thing.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see from your post- the solution is either for the Government to confiscate their assets or make it so people like this can't make so much money in the first place.
 
Northern Light said:
I also never said anything about Trump. Since you have failed twice now to respond to anything I actually said, I'm done spending time on you. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

The first post of yours I responded to talked about corporations having too much power, specifically over government and, by extension, over us. I responded that that the government doesn't even follow it's own rules and also has too much power over us. You called this a non-sequitur and claimed the government at least has accountability (contrary to the examples I just provided where the government ran roughshod over its own rules and acted above accountability). I brought up Trump because he is a good example of how a vote doesn't really provide accountability.

And your response is that I'm not responding to you? I think that you just don't want to recognize or deal with the argument at hand. The government isn't going to save you from corporations, because the government sees you as nothing more than a number on a ledger, just like a corporation. If you vote for them, you are a customer, much like if you buy a corporation's products, but unlike a corporation, vote for the other guy in politics makes you "an enemy of the people", or whichever group is the protected class du jour.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Quibble about how big the list should be, but increasing wealth disparity has never failed to lead to social unrest, sometimes revolution.

It really shouldn't matter whether or not you think of the moral worth of that unrest or revolution. It doesn't matter where you think it lies on the scale of evil to good, the bottom line is that it happens. It is something to worry about.

Well, if a pragmatic approach to objective reality is your thing.
Click to expand...

KLATTU said:
As far as I can see from your post- the solution is either for the Government to confiscate their assets or make it so people like this can't make so much money in the first place.
Click to expand...


I mentioned historical facts. You didn't attempt to prove me wrong, nor did you so much as post words of disagreement. It seems to me that all you did was note my lean, note that the subject involved money in general, and issued a programmed canned response.

That's bad.



You may have overlooked what I am about to bold, which is a copy/paste from my quote above: "It really shouldn't matter whether or not you think of the moral worth of that unrest or revolution. It doesn't matter where you think it lies on the scale of evil to good, the bottom line is that it happens. It is something to worry about. Well, if a pragmatic approach to objective reality is your thing."

Which words are the problem?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Those people also have very little cash. An overwhelming amount of their wealth is stake in companies that are very rich. And yes, I'm sure that gives them access to vast sums of cash, but the whole concept of "8 richest men" is designed to paint a mental image of these old white dudes literally swimming in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.

They built wealth that did not exist in the world before they built it, and almost all of it is in their companies.
Click to expand...

I would call this fairly naive. Many of these people sit on the boards of each other's corporations, and get paid outrageous sums of money to go to one meeting a year. I've listened to many Corporate CEOs and Executives say that they deserve their salary and bonuses, because that's what the market dictates for their talents. They control this very market that supposedly dictates their incomes.
 
KLATTU said:
As far as I can see from your post- the solution is either for the Government to confiscate their assets or make it so people like this can't make so much money in the first place.
Click to expand...

First of all - a publicly held company should reward it's shareholders with dividends and capital gains, not the executives and CEOs. These executives get a high-paid salary for their work. They shouldn't be rewarding themselves with elaborate bonuses in addition to this. How about they get the same Christmas bonus as the lowest paid employee of the company?
 
Mr Person said:
I mentioned historical facts. You didn't attempt to prove me wrong, nor did you so much as post words of disagreement. It seems to me that all you did was note my lean, note that the subject involved money in general, and issued a programmed canned response.

That's bad.



You may have overlooked what I am about to bold, which is a copy/paste from my quote above: "It really shouldn't matter whether or not you think of the moral worth of that unrest or revolution. It doesn't matter where you think it lies on the scale of evil to good, the bottom line is that it happens. It is something to worry about. Well, if a pragmatic approach to objective reality is your thing."

Which words are the problem?
Click to expand...

I was just asking a question. If you say it's bad, then I presume you think something should be done about it. What?
 
Media_Truth said:
First of all - a publicly held company should reward it's shareholders with dividends and capital gains, not the executives and CEOs. These executives get a high-paid salary for their work. They shouldn't be rewarding themselves with elaborate bonuses in addition to this. How about they get the same Christmas bonus as the lowest paid employee of the company?
Click to expand...

Well, isn't that up for the company to decide?
 
brothern said:
It is bad that eight individuals have half the world's wealth.

Edit: I cast no judgement on the drive or those men, or their productivity and success. I'm wealth and success driven as well.

However looking at it from the perspective of the continued success and long-term survival of the human species - We need our wealth to be invested in the correct places.

A million individuals, who if they suddenly did have to worry about health, shelter and nutrition, and therefore were enabled to pursue education, careers and self-development ... It is a million times more valuable to us as a species than a single individual with billions of dollars to his/her name.
Click to expand...

And what exactly is stopping those so called million people from developing or earning their own wealth?

Is Buffett standing in their way?

Has Jeff Bezos made it impossible for someone else to prosper?

That is the thing too many fail to understand....

The only thing holding most people back from success is their own aversion to risk, and fear of failure

Stop blaming the super wealthy for other people's weaknesses
 
If this really is a problem then the 3.6 billion people can stop giving these rich guys their money.

They can stop buying from Amazon, they can stop buying computers, and they can stop using telephones in Mexico.

Does anybody think that will ever happen?
 
Media_Truth said:
First of all - a publicly held company should reward it's shareholders with dividends and capital gains, not the executives and CEOs. These executives get a high-paid salary for their work. They shouldn't be rewarding themselves with elaborate bonuses in addition to this. How about they get the same Christmas bonus as the lowest paid employee of the company?
Click to expand...

The lowest paid employee can be replaced easily. CEOs cant.

Forbes Welcome
 
KLATTU said:
Well, isn't that up for the company to decide?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Board, or the employees? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The Board votes to give themselves bonuses, stock options, etc., etc. And Board Elections - that's a laugher. Outsiders and shareholders know next-to-nothing about board members.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
Are you talking about the Board, or the employees? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The Board votes to give themselves bonuses, stock options, etc., etc. And Board Elections - that's a laugher. Outsiders and shareholders know next-to-nothing about board members.
Click to expand...

So youre saying the shareholders are to blame?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If you think that, you didn't read the article. The article is about the wealth of these 8 individuals compared to the rest of the world. It is you who are trying desperately to make the article about power. So you have been using the article for your own tangent, which certainly happens. It doesn't prove that the world is a plutocracy unless we use your made up definition of proof.

You used an example of the Gates Foundation creating think tanks to help underdeveloped countries in Africa creating their own solutions as a demonstration of power and you not having a voice. Ok, how would you help Africa? The floor is yours, impress us.
Click to expand...

Um, never did I state the article was about power. It is about the money a very small amount of the population own. I am well read and know much about the Bill and Melinda Foundation. You asked me a question and I responded with facts. In the US this foundation has much say about education. That is one example. Money and power go hand and hand. If you want to bury your head in the sand, feel free.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Um, never did I state the article was about power. It is about the money a very small amount of the population own. I am well read and know much about the Bill and Melinda Foundation. You asked me a question and I responded with facts. In the US this foundation has much say about education. That is one example. Money and power go hand and hand. If you want to bury your head in the sand, feel free.
Click to expand...

You may be well read, but one person you don't seem to have read a lot of is your own posts.

Between your #10 where you implicate the article as proof of a plutocracy and in post #92 and #96 where you talk about money being power, you seem to be talking a lot about power.

Regardless, the article is not proof that we live in a plutocracy and just because you post facts, doesn't mean that they support your point that we live in a plutocracy. Even the agenda driven article doesn't say or imply that.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You may be well read, but one person you don't seem to have read a lot of is your own posts.

Between your #10 where you implicate the article as proof of a plutocracy and in post #92 and #96 where you talk about money being power, you seem to be talking a lot about power.

Regardless, the article is not proof that we live in a plutocracy and just because you post facts, doesn't mean that they support your point that we live in a plutocracy. Even the agenda driven article doesn't say or imply that.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. You believe that the people we vote for to represent us have our best interest in mind and not there to serve the wealthy people who pretty much put many of them in those positions. It is becoming more and more like the former, but you don't believe so. People like Walker and Rubio put into those positions thanks to Koch money. I could go on and on but you will deny that that is in fact true, so it really is a waste of time at this point. We will have to agree to disagree.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
That is your opinion. You believe that the people we vote for to represent us have our best interest in mind and not there to serve the wealthy people who pretty much put many of them in those positions. It is becoming more and more like the former, but you don't believe so. People like Walker and Rubio put into those positions thanks to Koch money. I could go on and on but you will deny that that is in fact true, so it really is a waste of time at this point. We will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

The story was about 8 people and you move the goal posts to extrapolate whatever agenda you want. You made a statement and could prove it because it isn't true that we are a plutocracy because of just these 8 wealthy people.

Feel free to move along.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The story was about 8 people and you move the goal posts to extrapolate whatever agenda you want. You made a statement and could prove it because it isn't true that we are a plutocracy because of just these 8 wealthy people.

Feel free to move along.
Click to expand...

I don't need to move along. The whole reason I stated what I did is due to the very few people in this country that own a whole lotta (sic) money and have a whole lotta (sic) sway.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I don't need to move along. The whole reason I stated what I did is due to the very few people in this country that own a whole lotta (sic) money and have a whole lotta (sic) sway.
Click to expand...

Shoo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom