APP - The Wealth Reality

[Rune]

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that poor people weren't ready to buy homes that were out of their price range and decided to stop paying on the house.

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that *people* bought houses, then lost their jobs when the economy crashed, then the banks raised their interest rates on the ARMs they pushed with lies and deceitful practice, then foreclosed in the largest, most obscene wealth grab in the history of mankind.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that *people* bought houses, then lost their jobs when the economy crashed, then the banks raised their interest rates on the ARMs they pushed with lies and deceitful practice, then foreclosed in the largest, most obscene wealth grab in the history of mankind.

isn't your federal government supposed to babysit people to prevent them from doing such stupid shit like buying a house they won't be able to pay for if they lose their job?

 

[Rune]

isn't your federal government supposed to babysit people to prevent them from doing such stupid shit like buying a house they won't be able to pay for if they lose their job?

No.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No.

then why should they protect people from corporate free speech?

 

[Rune]

then why should they protect people from corporate free speech?

Corps are not people. They have no rights, and in fact operate under government license.

Look into your precious founders' healthy fear of corporations.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Corps are not people. They have no rights, and in fact operate under government license.

Look into your precious founders' healthy fear of corporations.

I have. i'm also of the mindset that corps are not people and don't have constitutional rights, yet so many of you pin your interpretations of the constitution on what the USSC says it is while calling me an extremist, so what do you think I should go with? my own interpretation or the courts?

 

[Rune]

I have. i'm also of the mindset that corps are not people and don't have constitutional rights, yet so many of you pin your interpretations of the constitution on what the USSC says it is while calling me an extremist, so what do you think I should go with? my own interpretation or the courts?

I would go with your own knowledge that CU is evil, and fight it tooth and nail.

Stop standing on some principle that bushels of money shouldn't buy congressmen and face the reality that it does.
Next, we need to dismantle K Street.

 

[I'm Watermark]

You will have to define what a "market democratic socialist" is.

Briefly, what we believe is this: Within the economy, co-ops should take over the function of top-down corporations and the government, the government - which we want to be highly localized should take over any functions the population decides would be better suited to a state.

 

[apple0154]

So how much of their wealth should the gobblement confiscate?what percentage? Should someone only be allowed to attain a certain net worth? Who decides what that number is?

It’s not about confiscating wealth, per se. The problem is the disparity between people. In times of war and there are shortages of goods governments ration because the wealthy would buy all the goods and then sell them at a much higher price. Closer to today many places have restrictions on the purchase of concert tickets in order to discourage scalpers. So, let me ask you a question. When it comes to life’s necessities do we tax the wealthy or do we ration?

So the new spin is that it was rich people who could afford their payments that brought about the housing bust it wasn't people who defaulted? It wasn't government intervention?

You’re confusing ‘affording’ with ‘paying for’. Two very different things. It was the “rich” who bought a number of homes requiring more homes to be built. And as for people being able to afford payments I’ll give you the perfect example. Many people around, say, 50 years old bought homes in Nevada for retirement. One case in particular was on TV. The guy had raised his family and he and his wife thought it would be a great idea to buy a retirement home, pay all or most of it off over the next 15 years, then sell the family home and retire.

Great plan. Unfortunately, the value of the retirement house dropped so the guy had a choice. I don’t recall the exact figures but here’s an example. Let’s say he put $25,000 down on a $150,000 home. Two years later the house is worth $90,000. So, he can keep paying a mortgage of $150,000 - $25,000 = $125,000 on a house worth $90,000 or he can walk away losing the $25,000 he put down. What would you do? Because of the way the plan was drawn up for the poor people no collateral was required and only a minimum down payment. In many cases it’s usually 25% down or some collateral or some guarantee the mortgage would be paid but because those things were not required the not-so-poor had little to lose. Their wager was $25,000. That’s it. No bankruptcy hearing. No possibility of losing their main home because it wasn’t used as collateral. So, as people like him purchased homes it drove up the price of homes for the poor. Supply and demand. Adam Smith’s “invisible insidious hand of the market. When the market went bust those guys simply walked away. If the government had limited the plan to new buyers only and one house only things would have been very, very different. And, btw, some countries have exactly that type of plan to avoid exactly what happened in the US.

You price my point. A program designed by someone like you failed miserably because you never, ever, ever think of in intended consequences. The net effect is you and your ilk trash our economy.
We would be better off if you stopped trying to make a difference.

No, the problem is a plan designed exclusively for the poor would have been ridiculed. People would have whined that the poor were getting something for nothing. Unfair treatment of the wealthy. Just like some react every time a suggestion is put forward to help the poor. Just like people are carrying on about ObamaCare. To hell with the poor. If you can’t afford a house, no house. If you can’t afford medical care, no medical care. If you can’t afford to live, die!

I always find it interesting that those who claim to champion the cause if the poor like yourself claim to be "rich". What if you just satisfied your own conscience with your own resources and left the rest of us alone? You know freedom?

I am not rich. However, I was lucky. Besides selling property for a profit I married a gal who makes a high income so I just have myself to support and the finer things in life consist of either driving my old cars or having a beer under a tree in the back yard watching the fish swim. Oh, and contributing to JPP, of course.

There was a time when I was quite poor. Literally on the street but I’d prefer not to discuss those details. Suffice to say I haven’t forgotten.

 

[apple0154]

BTW you obviously can't be a student of history if you advocate government rationing.

I am sure the gobblement elites will make sure they and their cronies go without while proles like you get first dibs.

I know history and I know rationing is not the answer. Thus, tax. Problem solved.

 

[apple0154]

then explain why liberals and their in pocket politicians continually make things harder for middle class people to become wealthy by adding more and costlier rules and regulations for business.

Because business doesn't give a damn about anyone or anything, from employee safety to pollution and everything in between.

 

[apple0154]

or, alternatively, you could look at the truth/reality and see that poor people weren't ready to buy homes that were out of their price range and decided to stop paying on the house.

If interest rates stayed the same (no predator loans) or investors were excluded the picture would have been quite different.

 

[Banned]

you are a total fool to actually believe that nonsense

I am just following the limited view illogic of most economists and such.

If one gets a college education they make an above average income. right?
so if everyone gets a college degree everyone makes an above average income?

 

[Banned]

Coeps are not people and money is not speech.

 

[apple0154]

IF I have a job earning $1 million a year, and you have a job earning $20k a year, then each year which passes, my wealth is going to grow faster than yours. This disparity is never going to change, it will only broaden as the years go by. Ten years from now, I will be exponentially wealthier than you. All your video shows, is this common sense dynamic of capitalism, which any imbecile should know already.

It's like a marathon race. If one competitor is a pro marathon runner, and another is a virtual novice, who is going to be leading after the first leg? Will the novice close the gap the second leg, or is more likely going to be a greater disparity between he and the pro? What if we extend the marathon for another 25km, would the novice be able to change the dynamics of what is happening? Again, it's more likely this would just result in more disparity. Now, we can hobble the pro, put weights on his ankles so he can't run as fast, and maybe the novice can keep up pace, but let's say the novice actually wins the race, against a hobbled pro... what has been accomplished? Next year, will we need to hobble the novice? How about all the other novices who did't win? Is it fair to them? Eventually, you'd have everyone competing with various weights, and we'd keep adding weight to those who succeeded, trying to make things even, but eventually, we would have all runners so weighted down, they simply couldn't complete the marathon. This is what you want to do with capitalism.

See, what people need to understand here, with the whole "wealth disparity" argument, is that it's not about fairness or making things better, it's about ushering in an age of Socialism, which requires us to kill Capitalism first. Karl Marx discovered that the only way to create a vibrant socialist economy, was to eliminate all capitalism. This works for a hot second, until the ruling class becomes greedy and corrupt, then we all live in squalor until our ruler decides to cap our asses.

You started off good but but it didn't take long to veer off course. The common sense dynamic is anything but common sense. That's the point.

It is the size of the disparity between the contestants/competitors that's the problem. In your analogy the disparity between the pro and the novice is much greater than the disparity between the novices themselves. That's why this idea of wanting to make everyone equal is nonsense. No one here ever suggests everyone should be equal financially. They, and I, say the disparity should not be as great as it is. That's the point.

I posted the definition of Socialism before but perhaps a reminder in in order. "Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

No one here is suggesting that. I, for one, say keep capitalism. Let the people build businesses (production). Let the people do the distribution. Let everything continue as it is but tax the people who are successful just enough to ensure those who are not successful have access to life's necessities. No one is suggesting a boat or new car for everyone. However, access to transportation via bus passes for the poor would work well. No one is suggesting a new home for everyone. However, access to shelter is a good idea. The same applies to food, clothing, medical care, etc.

This idea of equal distribution of finances is a bogus argument. No one here has suggested that, let alone stated it.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Because business doesn't give a damn about anyone or anything, from employee safety to pollution and everything in between.

That's just the base function of our private sector. Make profit. Satisfy shareholders. There's no room for concern when it comes to the public.

This is why we need to radically reform it by getting rid of employers.

 

[Banned]

Anything that improves the bottom line is good.

 

[Phantasmal]

That's just the base function of our private sector. Make profit. Satisfy shareholders. There's no room for concern when it comes to the public.

This is why we need to radically reform it by getting rid of employers.

I just posted an article about that, co-ops! I think it is a fabulous idea!

 

[Banned]

I just posted an article about that, co-ops! I think it is a fabulous idea!

Let the shareholders run the corps.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

It’s not about confiscating wealth, per se. The problem is the disparity between people. In times of war and there are shortages of goods governments ration because the wealthy would buy all the goods and then sell them at a much higher price. Closer to today many places have restrictions on the purchase of concert tickets in order to discourage scalpers. So, let me ask you a question. When it comes to life’s necessities do we tax the wealthy or do we ration?



You’re confusing ‘affording’ with ‘paying for’. Two very different things. It was the “rich” who bought a number of homes requiring more homes to be built. And as for people being able to afford payments I’ll give you the perfect example. Many people around, say, 50 years old bought homes in Nevada for retirement. One case in particular was on TV. The guy had raised his family and he and his wife thought it would be a great idea to buy a retirement home, pay all or most of it off over the next 15 years, then sell the family home and retire.

Great plan. Unfortunately, the value of the retirement house dropped so the guy had a choice. I don’t recall the exact figures but here’s an example. Let’s say he put $25,000 down on a $150,000 home. Two years later the house is worth $90,000. So, he can keep paying a mortgage of $150,000 - $25,000 = $125,000 on a house worth $90,000 or he can walk away losing the $25,000 he put down. What would you do? Because of the way the plan was drawn up for the poor people no collateral was required and only a minimum down payment. In many cases it’s usually 25% down or some collateral or some guarantee the mortgage would be paid but because those things were not required the not-so-poor had little to lose. Their wager was $25,000. That’s it. No bankruptcy hearing. No possibility of losing their main home because it wasn’t used as collateral. So, as people like him purchased homes it drove up the price of homes for the poor. Supply and demand. Adam Smith’s “invisible insidious hand of the market. When the market went bust those guys simply walked away. If the government had limited the plan to new buyers only and one house only things would have been very, very different. And, btw, some countries have exactly that type of plan to avoid exactly what happened in the US.



No, the problem is a plan designed exclusively for the poor would have been ridiculed. People would have whined that the poor were getting something for nothing. Unfair treatment of the wealthy. Just like some react every time a suggestion is put forward to help the poor. Just like people are carrying on about ObamaCare. To hell with the poor. If you can’t afford a house, no house. If you can’t afford medical care, no medical care. If you can’t afford to live, die!



I am not rich. However, I was lucky. Besides selling property for a profit I married a gal who makes a high income so I just have myself to support and the finer things in life consist of either driving my old cars or having a beer under a tree in the back yard watching the fish swim. Oh, and contributing to JPP, of course.

There was a time when I was quite poor. Literally on the street but I’d prefer not to discuss those details. Suffice to say I haven’t forgotten.

1) of course it has to be confiscating wealth otherwise you wouldn't be brinigning this up. Stop lying about your true intentions

2) cite proof of "the rich" buying up all the homes driving up the prices. Never heard that one before

It kind of flies in te face of Greenspan keeping interest rates artificially low while the gubmint forced lenders to provide risky loans.

Again all you do is bolster my argument that programs for the poor only result in a mess and inefficiency.

We should not make people comfortable in poverty which is what you proscribe. Your belief system is cruel