Might be something stashed away in that swamp too,

while we're creating wealth equality by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, we should also create race parity.. A master race would solve that.

What the fuck are you guys debating?

If you take ALL those top 85 people and put all their money combined together it would come up to 5.7 trillion dollars.

The US govt. will spend 3.8 trillion in 2014 alone.

I say again...WHY aren't the bleeding hearts railing against the all-powerful and RICHEST entity on the face of the Earth?
The U.S. Govt.

The U.S. Govt. is the one with all the "wealth" and it's the one that chooses to spend it on weapons of war and death while making sure that every member of Congress and the Senate are richer than any of you will ever be.

The top 85 people at least earned their money. The U.S. govt. just takes it.

And what good do they do with it?
The poverty level is higher than ever.
And we have the lowest percentage of the population in the workforce ever.

But let's be sheep and let the govt. convince us is it's all Bill Gates' and the rest of the "rich" peoples fault because there is a magic "pie" of wealth and they have taken more than their fair share.

Some of y'all are just plain out fucking pathetic. Grow a set and EARN money.

I have noticed that Relentless is on that kick lately. I am not certain why that is, but hopefully he reads a bit of what these .0001%ers have done in a very positive way to benefit the world.

I don't think I've read anywhere that Warren Buffet has had his army attack any other countries.:winkwink:

And Warren Buffet is worth 60 billion dollars. The US Govt. spends more than that in ONE week!

That explains it.. The dumbass can't afford an army!

and with all their donations things still continue to get worse for the poor.

how many of that group are contributing to labor and environmental disasters in other countries? their donations are like tiny bandaids on huge gushing stab wounds when you consider what they do also damages people and the world we live in.

i just wonder why is that wealth is so tightly controlled to such a small group of people? what is it that makes it unachievable for most? why will minte never be a billionaire and warren buffet is? why will minte be a millionaire (assuming he is) but i won't be? etc.

what sets these people apart from others?

You are aware that 85 people is many less than the total population of the house, senate and Supreme Court. You are also aware, especially in the aftermath of citizens united that those 85 wield considerably more power than anyone in congress since they can now effectively pick the people in congress. The ONLY thing protecting anyone right now is that the 85 are not in agreement. As that number becomes even smaller agreement become even easier to reach.

Having 85 people control as much wealth as 50% of the population is not a financial problem. It's a power problem. A very dangerous one, with fewer and fewer meaningful safeguards and rapidly accelerating concentration. If wealth did not create influence it would hardly be a problem at all... But it does.

Not sure about your pricing methodology. He likely has enough money to destroy the entire planet if he made that his goal.

An 'Army' is such a pre-1990s concept...

Please provide just 1 example of how the 85 top international billionaires from South Korea, Russia, Malayasia, China, Hong Kong, Germany, India, Brazil, CHile, Nigeria, Ukraine, Thailand, Columbia, Japan, Phillipines, etc, et al, have come together and used their concentrated power to influence something, anything.

he said that IF they agreed they could control anything they want, but they don't, which is why they aren't.

Exactly. It's now a battle of 'do the oligarchs you agree with win or lose to the oligarchs you disagree with' on any particular issue.

If you think those 85 people would be unable to buy local elections, have judges appointed, impact text book content of public schools, distort the news media, alter the environment, affect life expectancy, and so on individually... You are fooling yourself. Now what happens if ten of them agree about something, or twenty? What happens when all you need are twenty? Keep in mind, 85 people have PERSONAL fortunes equal to the wealth of 50% of the population. That doesn't include the massive corporate interests they each control or influence. And as dyna mo rightly points out, this is an international cartel... Not restricted or feeling a sense of allegiance to any particular nation.

Do you really think you live in a republic with a democratically elected government making the decisions?

He can reply for himself, it's his thread.

Nevertheless, I'll reply to you. You missed the point entirely.

The good news is that it is mathematically impossible/improbable for 85 people to actually agree on anything. And those wealthy people still have a boss. And those are the customers. Sears was a heavy hitter for 100 years. They owned retail and catalog sales. Money changes hands based on performance, not luck.

I am less concerned about people like Warren Buffet than I am about the Paul Ryan's and Barack Obamas of the world. With people like Buffet you have an incumbant..someone that has decades of experience to fall back on to make important decisions. With politicians they are mostly transient. They have 4 - 8 years to make an impact and if they are successful, great! If not they become a footnote in history and the rest of the world pays for it.

The operative word is *IF*.
You or Relentless will be hard pressed to point out any examples of powerful ego driven people that will bow to the next powerful ego driven man. It just doesn't happen.

Indeed, that was my point.

If an asteroid hits the planet tomorrow we will all be dead. If a giant tsunami hits Los Angeles and kill everyone, If there really are aliens at Area51.

If is a lot bigger word that it looks. It should really have a lot more letters in it.

And that was my point. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

How many people is too few? 84? 75? 10?

Many of the people in that 85 have no boss. Bill Gates doesn't answer to stockholders anymore and Warren Buffet could probably run around naked at board meetings with his sack painted yellow... and not have a single person at Berkshire sell their stock as a result. You are watching an international ruling class coalesce and it will be generational, not performance based for the most part. The Walmart heirs didn't build Walmart and their grandchildren will have had even less to do with its rise.

There is a reason we got rid of mulch-generational rulers. If you need proof of that being a valuable move, look no further than W being elected based most on his family name - and how big a catastrophe that turned out to be. Good luck imposing term limits on people worth upwards of 25 Billion dollars who want to blow the tops off mountains, wreck the financial markets with high frequency trading or feel a permanent slave class is a good idea.

Bow to? Unlikely. Collaborate with? Yes, often and always to their own mutual benefit. When it benefits the mutual interests of 85 people they wont have to bow to each other, though the other 7.4 billion of us will end up having to bow to them. You seem to value your autonomy less than you claimed. :2 cents:

When there are 85 asteroids on a clear collision course with our planet, and their combined force is capable of destroying all life on Earth as we know it... be sure and let me know. :2 cents:

Maybe it was my stint in a nuclear missile battalion. Old Jeff, was in the same division I was in and he would be able to verify what I am saying.

You are concerned about rich people. I was in my early 20's for the last year of my stint in the US Army. I was a B team member of operations in Pershing. What that means is that I had the keys to 9 very large nuclear warheads. President Kennedy had installed a system called PAL..permissive action link so that in order to detonate the missiles you had to program in a sequence of numbers. Which I would've had a 1/9999 chance of guessing

But I could've launched them . Imagine. The Soviets would see these blips on their radar coming towards them faster than anything else in the sky. They would've known that they were live nuclear weapons. From the time we launched in Germany they would reached the targets in less than 15 minutes. No time for the pentagon or USAEUR to communicate with the Soviets. Do you think the Soviets would've launched?

You apparently like to worry about things you have no control over. Most of our nuclear arsenal is still intact and ready to rock & roll..so there is something more and very real
you should worry about. :)

The ultrarich guys..I don't even think about them.

To be clear, I'm not worried in the least about 'rich people', we aren't talking about 'rich people', we are talking about people who have many thousands of times what any rich person has in terms of wealth and probably millions of times what a rich person has in terms of influence. I'm not a big fan of a guy in a silo with a 1 in whatever chance of guessing the launch codes either. That's a good reason to change the way we handle launch codes, not a good reason to ignore other problems that are at least as serious.

You seem to believe if many things are broken, why bother trying to fix any of them. I do not share that viewpoint. I believe if many things are broken, we have a lot of work to do. :2 cents:

Ok, just 2 comments.. rich(EST) and precisely what is it you are doing to solve these problems? ok three...I will soften that second remark,

What do you think we can do to curb this new world order?

What happens when they all die?...

it still amazes me that people think life is fair and that all humans are created equal.

the world has always been like this. There will always be powerful people and the rest will have nothing.

Hahaha... don't throw them a curve ball. They still can't accept that money is circulating in the economy and funding construction, funding their home loans and their car loans, creating businesses and funding business development, funding charities and paying billions in taxes in addition to everything else that money does.

lol, yep. Everything they buy goes back in circulation, unlike welfare and everyone trying to be "fair"...

Hoarding is a problem, though..

So you don't find it interesting taht out of 7 BILLION individuals, 85 individuals own HALF of the entire wealth of those 7 BILLION?

That means 0.00000121428% of the worlds population own 50% of the wealth... That is mind boggling.

Forget all the hatred towards rich, that is just a staggering figure to wrap your head around.

There are dozens of things we could and should do. Most of which would only be effective if we took a serious attempt at many of the items simultaneously. Here are 10 off the top of my head...

1 - Immediately pass legislation to overturn Citizens United and move to a system of publicly funded low cost campaigns with a definite start date.

2 - Much stricter regulation against consolidation of media interests

3 - Term limits on all elected officials

4 - International treaties and taxation requirements to prevent games like Apple borrowing 17 Billion for little interest and avoiding repatriation of assets overseas.

5 - National sales tax and reduced income tax

6 - Real single payer basic healthcare and supplemental private insurance

7 - A 10 cent tax on each share of stock traded, to end all high frequency trading

8 - Enact the buffet rule and eliminate the loophole mess

9 - Put very strict regulations in place to ensure the cost of higher education is tied to the expense per student, and use public colleges to further undercut price gouging

10 - Simplify the tax code and end the kind of generational tax loopholes now common in the Dakotas.


Will that immediately solve the problem? No. Will it do more than waiting for Soylent Green to become a reality... yes, yes it would.

Sam Walton died. Notice the last name on 4 of the top 14?

http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2014-01-17/cya

Any idea how they managed to get on that list as 4 of the wealthiest 14 people on Earth? Did they study hard, were they geniuses, did they work diligently, were they supernatural talents? Nope. There aren't a whole lot of middle class people from the Rockefeller or Kennedy lineage these days either. The notion that 'it all goes back into the pot' is true when you are talking about millions... it loses its veracity when you are talking about tens of billions. :2 cents:

As previously shown in this thread, it's the financial equivalent of them being roughly 31,000 Miles Tall. We aren't talking about someone who is tall. We aren't talking about NBA tall. We aren't talking about Andre The Giant tall... we are talking 31,000 MILES tall.... EACH. The moon is 238,900 miles away. 85 of these people standing on each other's shoulders would be 2,635,000 Miles tall.

I find it far more interesting that you and many others are completely ignoring the FACT that the U.S. Govt. DWARFS all 85 of those people in wealth.

It wasn't that many decades ago (the 1970's) that Howard Hughes was able to get nuclear testing STOPPED in the desert out here by writing Richard Nixon a letter threatening to cut off his money from funding projects for the U.S.

Now? The govt. spends more in one day than Hughes' total wealth over his lifetime.

Nope, I admire the people who have been fast and smart enough to actually accumulate wealth in this day and age.

But if you add them all together they aren't as big as the U.S. Govt.

And THAT my friend, is a bad thing.

The govt. was meant to be a servant to the people. Now it's more powerful and wealthy than ANYBODY.
I think Thomas Jefferson would be more in agreement with me than with your position. And I'm happy for that.

Too bad that those numbers are including ALL the people on Earth.
That would include tribes in Africa. It would include every baby, infant, pre-teen, and teenager on Earth. It would include every retired senior citizen on Earth.

This whole discussion is ridiculous.

Those numbers include millions of people in Syria and other nations that are in the throes of civil war.
It includes the millions of people around the world who are in mental homes and even more who are in prison.

Those numbers are SKEWED big time.

I think it would be a bit different if you took numbers from civilized nations and ONLY made the comparison with employed people in the work force.

And again... If these "rich" people are 31,000 miles tall, then the U.S. Govt. is 310,000,0000 miles tall.
Why doesn't the U.S. govt. do SOMETHING instead of continuing to build a giant military in case the "Soviet Union" attacks us in 1957?

Am not one of 85 for sure:)

even if the top 85 gave away all their wealth equally to everybody it would not amount to much considering there's 7+billion people alive...would amount to 1000$ per person...

That would change thousands of poor peoples lives. Please do it ASAP.

so you are saying you have nothing? I am far from being a rich man myself and would never consider thinking something like that.

that would only water down any currency they use so not sure anyone is suggesting that here either...

for a few weeks...then its back to square 1...

1) It's not about fairness - life is not fair. That's never been a problem.
2) It's not about jealousy - it's about power and influence.

Arguing that life isn't fair or that people are just jealous is missing the point entirely.

The issue is concentration of power and influence. How few people do you want to have how much power? Would it be a bad thing if one person had a trillion dollars? Would that person be able to exert too much control over the lives of others (including your own)? What if it was 2 people with 500B each? How much influence and power does 1B buy you?

Try and focus on the actual issue. ;)

There's nothing to focus on, it's a bullshit issue that you are making up, as I keep pointing out. Concentration of power amongst people spread out across the globe who don't/can't/won't come together is a false issue.

You already said it's a what-if scenario.

People like them have never come together. not once.

Actually..... concentrated wealth is the final outcome of most economic systems that have been in play since the very begining of the use of money. People tend to hoard stuff. Think of what has happened in every society once the wealth is too concentrated. Revolution!!!!

Yes, revolution is stealing stuff from the people who stole it. en' mass!!! (Even if the laws in place made the stealing possible. Raping the environment etc.....)

The problem is..... Revolution however difficult has always been possible. ('till now) With technolgy and modern propaganda, weapons, spy technology, money systems, and the weak minded people of today revolution becomes difficult. Revolution is a cycle of human exsistance.

Also, if anti-trust laws were not used against the barrons of the early 20th century, the hand full of uber rich that ran the world would still be running it. Unfortunately we no longer have leaders in society who care to make changes in the system, they are all in the pockets of the corporations. We do need change in the laws and fast!!!

The end result of capitolism is Imperialism. (I like capitolism, with working rules of play that prevent this)

If I sound like a socialist to you, then you are part of the problem. I think that the laws have been manipulated to allow the crushing of the everyman and need to be changed so the playing field is level once again. I believe in constitutional democracy. No two party system, corporations are not legally people etc....

Also, social programs funded by taxes are in place all over the US. Roads, Police Depts, Fire Depts, etc.... are all socially funded. AKA. Social programs. So none of the wealty made their money in a vacuum. We are all somewhat socialist in this regard. We use social programs.... like roads and bridges.

The rich upon dieing legally are supposed to pay the death tax and half of their wealth is supposed to go back into society. They have found ways around this.... legal and otherwise. So now the priviledged children are in charge of the money and power.

Also, look up how much tax these corporate giants pay per year. They pay next to zero!!!! If you and I pay 33% or whatever then the rich corporations shouls be paying the same. There is a very unfair playing field in place. If the big corps paid their fair share of taxes, there would be no deficit in the US.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. I have no problem with rich people being rich, I have no problem with working hard or smart and making a ton of money and living life large. (I'm trying to be more rich.) I do have a problem with the laws and law makers who have sold out and allow the laws to be twisted in favor of the uber rich at the expense of the everyman.


:2 cents:.

If by 'come together' you mean know each other and interact, of course they do. If by 'come together' you mean agree on a cause of action, that is changing rapidly. So far the best two examples are positive initiatives like http://givingpledge.org and http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org.

The ability to come together for less positive goals is exactly the same as the ability to come together for positive ones.... Take a look at some of the 'fundraising emails' the Koch's sent out last election season http://images2.americanprogressactio...ochmeeting.pdf and this event http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...onaires-caucus. The 'liberal oligarchs' are doing the same sorts of things... this is not a red shirt or blue shirt issue. It's a concentration of power issue and it is very real.

Wait, so your example of how this "concentration of power" is a problem is to link to a positive example and claim if they can get together for good, they can get together for evil?

:Oh crap

Link me to this story.

On this point I agree with you, and why I am for a flat tax and/or a national sales tax on everything that would replace current tax codes and all the loopholes associated with them.

Make a billion dollars in profit, pay 250 million of it into the community pot as the price of doing business and living in a civilized country.

But the vast majority of the poor aren't poor because 85 people have the wealth of 50% of the world's population or the hundreds of thousands of millionaires.

This is the other part of all of this that doesn't make sense. Far fewer than 1/2 of the 85 on that list are Americans, yet you keeping making it about american politics and even suggesting legislation re: American tax codes, term limits, etc, at al.

It seems to me you are arguing the wrong things, Robbie's comments re: the U.S. government are more in line with where you are coming from. Not 85 international billionaires.

My belief is that concentration of power is a very dangerous thing. You stated you do not believe there really is any because these people can't 'come together.' I showed you very clear examples of them coming together in the hope that you would understand that, yes, they can and in fact already do come together often.

The founders of this nation all knew each other. They all sat in a room together and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They knew who the leaders of the country were going to be, and actually knew all the leaders for the foreseeable future would come from a tiny group of aristocrats who all knew each other well. Given those facts they put more time into DIVIDING POWER than any other aspect of establishing a set of laws to govern society. Branches of government, checks and balances, constraints on military action... not because they didn't trust their friends who were running the country at the start but because they did not trust future generations of people who would be running it eventually.

We have a very long history of case law designed to break up monopolies in the private sector, to restrict mergers and regulate the way elections are held - specifically to prevent concentration of power.

The fact you like or trust these 85 particular people is not a reason to feel secure. It's not about these particular people. It's about their heirs, associates and a rapidly developing international ruling class with a level of power that is far greater than anything seen in modern history.

The United States could have gotten 'a lot more done' early on if they just named George Washington King of America. By all accounts he was as trustworthy a person as we ever could have had in that role... why did they choose not to? Because in and of itself, concentration of power is a very dangerous thing.

By the way... so is apathy. :2 cents:

those are not clear examples proving your contention that those 85 are working together at all. :1orglaugh

TheGiving Pledge: The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.

That's not any proof at all about some sort of concentrated power coming together, it's simply a list of wealthy people who have made a commitment to philanthropy.
Example Letters from the website:

http://givingpledge.org/images/pledg...o-Letter-1.jpg

http://givingpledge.org/images/pledg...o-Letter-1.jpg

Clinton's global Initiative? There is nothing on that site that names 1 single person from the list you have an issue with. IN fact, it doesn't mention any members.

It seems like you would be good at numbers -- but when you count up the number of people on the planet, there's no difference between 2 or 85 in comparison to billions of other people.

They saved 9B+ in taxes by borrowing 17B. I have no problem with what Apple did, the current rules allow it. Just as the NY Yankees can go out and buy championships under the MLB rules... until things like luxury taxes were implemented. As long as its allowed, good for them, I'd do it too... but should it be allowed? No, probably not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...debt-deal.html