Whenever you look through history, usually when people live in bad conditions or feel as if things become too lopsided in favor of one group, things like revolutions/protests happen. The frustration and anger can turn into violence. It's not a good thing at all.

The real issue is that too many resources are in the hands of too few and that can turn into unwanted influence. With these enormous resources things like political funding for particular groups/candidates or media disinformation can (and does) happen.

I'm unsure how you can possibly make your statement. It's a problem, and the problem by nature is getting worse and worse as time goes by. If anything thinks that we as humans should live in a system where such a small group of people benefit so enormously I almost have to question your ethics.

Epic... I especially like the parts in bold. "literally everything" should have a profit margin behind it. Certainly anything being "rational". Also, no doubt science will fix everything. $100 crude is proof of that obvious trend towards the efficiency of innovation. Easy game. ... Rational stuff.

But, at the core of your message is this: Earth should just be 25 million multi-millionaires, ... the other 7+ billion are just a drag on world +EV.

This may be the best post of the new year, thus far. I don't even disagree with it all, as I will fully concede there are far too many human beings on a planet only built to handle 1-2 billion of us. But 25 million? Seriously? ... Not for nothing, but just what do you think IS capital? ... What's going to power all the machines? Fission?

Further, are you reserving your bungalow on Elysium so you don't have to live among us?

It appears the belief system goes something like: Certainly if you're not very well off, you shouldn't ever procreate. ...Oh, and thanks for all the labor you others provided to this point. We've gotten fabulously wealthy off your toil. Now, stopping getting pregnant and die off. You can't afford it. Only we can. ... And if you disagree with me, you don't belong on a poker forum.

Holy stuff, dude... Do you get aroused when you look at images of this woman?:



Meanwhile, back here in reality: Cheap labor and abundant, cheap natural resources is what powers capitalism in the first place. Labor no longer is cheap, and resources no longer are abundant. Oops, suddenly capitalism is seizing up.

Its really not worth responding to his post. It has so much laughable stuff in it it would take pages and pages to address it all.

The first sentence was laughable.

You just described the entire forum.

That's not true. Plenty of people have very sensible views based in logic. Some people don't, and that's what really drives the political discussions.

You think free markets really exist? What are your view on the prevalence of protectionist policies and non-value-adding market manipulation?



Pairing trickle down theory with this false choice is really played out. It's like 10 times more played out than the expression "played out". We have all seen the total failure of unbridled "capitalism". We have all seen the success of democratic socialism. You're going to have to come up with something better than this thoroughly debunked crap.

This is pretty much the perfect response to that quote about "nothing pleases me more than inherited wealth".

The one underlying belief that unites almost all of us, even the most leftist democrats and the hardcore pro-capitalist conservatives, is that meritocracy is a dominant and non-negotiable feature of the ideal economy. We might not agree on how to achieve it or reckon it exactly the same, but we all want fair play and outcomes which some way or another reflect fair play and equity. So the idea that inherited wealth is good should be recognized as completely off the political spectrum.

I cannot tell you how laughable this post is.

Well I for one think it's laudable to share your wealth, but apparently if you share with it with only a few people it's unfair, so far better that you spend it all on hookers and blow for yourself.

Hey why not stimulate the underground economy while you're still above ground?

But if you're letting your kids get hookers and blow... now that's unfair. (Well, it's okay if you're still alive and they're young and reckless, but heaven forbid they get the option after your death).

Theoretical question.

What would the world be like if those poorest 3.5 billion people didn't exist?

Daniel10 seems to be saying the world would be a much better place, that humans would live better. I especially think our future as humans would be much brighter. Most environmental scares would be non-existant in his theoretical world of 25 million population. The benefits of a much healthier earth are immeasurable.

To take the initial question of this post further, what would the world be like if the poorest 6 billion people on earth didn't exist?

lol

These are the people who actually do the work that produces the cheap goods you enjoy. If these people suddenly disappeared your ass would be in virtual slavery within a year if not months. Either that or you would be killed while resisting.

That's starting to go away with 3D printing. And, will only continue more and more. Just saying, not necessarily refuting the bolded.

Without a doubt the conservative quackjobs drive the discussions. The vast majority of posters here are liberals. Without the 15 or so conservatives we'd have some boring discussions.

So can you imagine what it is like to be the poor old Queen?
The boiler in Buckingham Palace is 60 years old.

What, though, is the Queen to do? Obviously the answer is not
pay for it herself out of her own enormous fortune because …
well, she is the Queen. We – her largely indifferent subjects
should be ecstatically happy to pay for her repairs.

Still, everyone loves our dutiful Queen and republicanism
remains at a low ebb.

This is Conservative ideology at full throttle.
We cannot increase tax on those with big incomes because they
are the motors of growth and may leave. We are simply to accept
that such concentrated wealth is a global trend.
To say otherwise is some kind of anti-business communism.
The anger towards bankers as the undeserving rich has dissipated
as we are fed constant tales of vital entrepreneurs.
Those at the top should not have to open their books, as they
themselves are an actual asset.
The vastly wealthy are now called "wealth creators".

(c/p is ez'r then writing )

Highly doubtful. It will always be cheaper to make a million of something verses just one or two. Now highly specialized short run stuff yes. 3D will change that drastically.

In 1884, the American Committee for the Statue of Liberty ran out of funds for the Statue’s pedestal. Newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer urged the American public to donate money toward the pedestal in his newspaper New York World. Pulitzer raised over $100,000 in six months. More than 125,000 people contributed to the cause, with most donations being $1 or less.

Debatable... In any event, the vast majority of liberals here are moderate and most are loyal disciples of our ongoing system of corporate totalitarianism. Don't be fooled by the posturing.

Well maybe the better question is what will happen if technology one day completely obviates the global slave force.

You can be pretty sure that this won't result in a huge paradigm shift where the wealthy elites step down and say wow, that was fun while it lasted, time to share everything now and let technology work for everyone.

Here in this country there have been many people made redundant by the enlarging of the labor market to include most of the world. Companies go over seas for cheap labor etc. and now there are a lot of "useless" people who don't contribute to profit making. One way we have dealt with that here is by ballooning the prison system and pretty much hoarding people in cells. The increase in the prison population has nothing to do with some spontaneous spike in crime. It's a result of savage sentencing laws and the war on drugs, the only rational explanation of which is to control the now surplus in the lower socioeconomic groups.

In places like Columbia and Brazil they are less civilized. They just go out and kill people in what's called "social cleansing".

Most of them are not really liberals but rather rank and file democrats. They defend the party line and don't let their thoughts wander too far, valuing loyalty and dogmatism over common sense.

Like they see who funds Obama's campaign, see who he appoints to regulate the financial sector, see the bogus gestures toward reforms he put into place after bailing them out, yet won't acknowledge the obvious quid pro quo. This is just one example. You could look at almost anything tho.

What cheap goods that I enjoy are coming from the world's poorer half of people?

Fruitpickers picking my bananas? Some cheaply manufactured clothes?

I think you're wrong here. I think most of the people on this site are pragmatists who dislike much about Obama. They just think the alternatives were so much more horrendous that there was no real contest.

I would argue that most people on this site don't really see any candidates who really represent what they would like. But given a choice between a moderate liberal and all the racist, sexist right-wing nutjobs who are presented as an alternative, there is a clear cut choice.

The problem for liberals is there are so very few political choices.

Look at healthcare - there are plenty of liberals who think Obama wussed out and didn't deliver the liberal choice for healthcare - a single pay system.

Liberals are the ones who are disappointed at Obama for things like not dismantling the Patriot Act, not closing Gitmo, etc. (these aren't issues for the conversatives)

I think there liberals are greatly disappointed with Obama. They simply defend that the GOP alternatives were so much worse.