@AverageJoe1 saidIt's a policy failure. Severe wealth inequality was the major factor that led to the great depression. We've spent almost a hundred years trying to build upward mobility for many, not just a select few. All politicians should be actively pursuing policy that will prevent wealth concentration moving forward. Create systems that prevent robber barons from hogging all the wealth.
Wildgrass… Considering what he has done, and what he is probably going to do, do you not think he has earned it.
This brings me to my constant question, what would you
Have the man do, like if you and Susie went up to see him in his office. What would you have the man do tell us you can tell us tell us.
What would you like to change. If he turns the corporation ...[text shortened]... ounding like Sunhouse who writes the most boring of all Post but you are getting close..
Tell us.
That is not a liberal idea or a progressive idea, by the way. That is a capitalist ideal. The world's first trillionaire should be a huuuge wakeup call that capitalism is failing.
@wildgrass saidThen you will not answer about what to do about Musk and his wealth??
It's a policy failure. Severe wealth inequality was the major factor that led to the great depression. We've spent almost a hundred years trying to build upward mobility for many, not just a select few. All politicians should be actively pursuing policy that will prevent wealth concentration moving forward. Create systems that prevent robber barons from hogging all the weal ...[text shortened]... ist ideal. The world's first trillionaire should be a huuuge wakeup call that capitalism is failing.
Instead, you make a philosophical point.
So I respond,, if , on the one hand you and Marauder believe people should generally be left alone to live their lives, it’s fair to ask why that principle should not also apply to highly successful entrepreneurs….provided they obey the law and compete fairly. The focus should be on preventing fraud, monopoly abuses, or government favoritism, not on wealth itself.
If you want to talk about philosophical point of view, then have it. You now see mine. .
Later you can answer what you think should be done like tomorrow about musk who has so much money. Your philosophical post is no better than reading Sonhouse.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidI don't know if it's philosophy as much as practical considerations. We don't want another Great Depression, and the Great Depression was caused by wealth inequality, so we should enact government policies that prevent wealth inequality.
Then you will not answer about what to do about Musk and his wealth??
Instead, you make a philosophical point.
So I respond,, if , on the one hand you and Marauder believe people should generally be left alone to live their lives, it’s fair to ask why that principle should not also apply to highly successful entrepreneurs….provided they obey the law and compe ...[text shortened]... orrow about musk who has so much money. Your philosophical post is no better than reading Sonhouse.
If you have wealth, it grows all by itself, but if you don't have it then you're behind the eight ball. Obviously I'm in favor of a wealth tax to close the federal budget gap, unless and until the politicians there can figure out how to cut spending.
I'd also be in favor of limiting the support that massive companies get from the government in terms of handouts, subsidies and no interest loans. This would level the playing field and allow companies to compete against the likes of Amazon and Apple and Tesla. For example, I don't think Bezos should be allowed to pay his workers below poverty wages because it then forces the government to pay for their healthcare and food. Right now Musk gets all the government contracts because he built his company on the back of government, a self-fulfilling principle where government is picking winners and then continuing to reward them after they already won. Private investors got their paybacks but the taxpayers who aren't already wealthy (and invested in his companies) get nothing.
Government can and should invest in innovation and R&D. They should not be investing in Elon anymore. He's fine.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidPlease allow this reponse. I am of course, correct, but this post will be a waste and fall on deaf ears. What a waste of my time.
I don't know if it's philosophy as much as practical considerations. We don't want another Great Depression, and the Great Depression was caused by wealth inequality, so we should enact government policies that prevent wealth inequality.
If you have wealth, it grows all by itself, but if you don't have it then you're behind the eight ball. Obviously I'm in favor of a wea ...[text shortened]... an and should invest in innovation and R&D. They should not be investing in Elon anymore. He's fine.
I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. If Musk or Bezos are receiving special favors, subsidies, or unfair advantages, those should be scrutinized. Conservatives generally oppose corporate welfare two.
But I think you’re overlooking something important: wealth inequality did not by itself cause the Great Depression. Historians point to many causes, including loose monetary policy, bank failures, protectionism like the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, and Federal Reserve mistakes. I teach this stuff, Wildgrass. Geez
Inequalities existed before and after the Depression without causing economic collapse.
You sayy wealth grows by itself, but wealth doesn’t appear magically. People like Musk and Bezos built companies that millions voluntarily use. Amazon lowered prices and increased convenience. Tesla accelerated electric vehicles. SpaceX reduced launch costs dramatically. The fact that someone became rich by creating value is different from getting rich through government favoritism.
As for government contracts, NASA used to pay far more for launches before SpaceX. Taxpayers have actually saved money because of competition. If the govt stopped buying from the best provider simply because that provider became successful, we’d be punishing success rather than rewarding performance. Are you so daft!??!? Punish success?!?
You end by saying, “Don’t invest in Elon anymore. He’s fine.” But that’s not really the question. The question is whether taxpayers get the best value and innovation. If Musk’s companies provide it, why should government deliberately choose a worse option simply because the owner is wealthy?
Why wont you not respond to this like a man. I am correct, and that is why you will not respond, because you have nothing to say. Just pitiful.
I think they’re looking for you over the science or, maybe the religious for whatever forum Not this one
1 edit
@boonon saidWhat is wrong with WGrass? I can understand Suzanne or Sunhouse., they are a mess, I would like to ask them what the world would be like if Elon were an African? Would they be overtaking the United States of America.?
Good for him,
He has more get up and go than me.
hardly sleeps, big job creator.
I think space x is dumb but hey....I also am not a trillionaire.
Would he have been able to do all that he has done living in Africa? Would there be a Starlink? Do losers liberals even know what Starlink was and what he did to bring the world back from oblivion when the hurricane hit in the Carolinas? Starlink works in the deserts of Africa. Will Kamala run again? Sorry off subject.
Let’s ask them questions!!!!!They cannot answer them!!!!
@AverageJoe1
Like, is Platner a Nazi misogynist.???? They HATE nazi misogynists!!!
Please don’t take me personally, I am only here for the entertainment, and stir things up, which is not difficult.
@AverageJoe1 said
Please allow this reponse. I am of course, correct, but this post will be a waste and fall on deaf ears. What a waste of my time.
I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. If Musk or Bezos are receiving special favors, subsidies, or unfair advantages, those should be scrutinized. Conservatives generally oppose corporate welfare two.
But I ...[text shortened]... k they’re looking for you over the science or, maybe the religious for whatever forum Not this one
I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.
But then why do you support Musk and Bezos accumulating Jesus-level amounts of wealth after the government picked them specifically as the winners?
Our government has given both of those guys BILLIONS of dollars.
@wildgrass saidWhy play the fool, there are plenty of those on this forum.I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.
But then why do you support Musk and Bezos accumulating Jesus-level amounts of wealth after the government picked them specifically as the winners?
Our government has given both of those guys BILLIONS of dollars.
You’re acting as though the government handed Bezos and Musk a giant check and they became rich. That’s not what happened.
Amazon became enormous because hundreds of millions of people voluntarily chose to buy from Amazon. SpaceX became successful because it repeatedly delivered services that NASA and commercial customers wanted. Government contracts aren’t gifts; they’re agreements to provide goods or services. Why imply such crap???
If government contracts alone made people billionaires, every defense contractor CEO would be as wealthy as Musk and Bezos. They aren’t. Geez.
The reel question isn’t whether government money was involved. It’s whether taxpayers got value in return. NASA paid SpaceX to launch payloads. Amazon provided services people chose to buy. That’s very different from the government simply declaring someone rich.
This is all elementary, your postings are getting very boring. You write all this stuff which is meaningless and expect someone like me to respond. Well, I did the best I could, but it goes over your head …..not much fun for me.
@wildgrass saidLie.I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.
But then why do you support Musk and Bezos accumulating Jesus-level amounts of wealth after the government picked them specifically as the winners?
Our government has given both of those guys BILLIONS of dollars.
@wildgrass saidLemme ask you something, WG.
The IPO for SpaceX ($1.7 trillion) received a valuation 10 times more than any previous IPO ever.
I get that Elon Musk works hard but...
[quote]it would take the typical U.S. household, earning almost $84,000 a year, nearly 12 million years to accumulate that much wealth. Or, if you were fortunate enough to have and spend a million dollars a day, it would take 2,740 yea ...[text shortened]... ews.com/data-graphics/visualizing-trillion-charts-graphics-musk-nears-trillionaire-status-rcna349018
Does the fact that Elon Musk is worth a trillion dollars inherently mean that there are people with less access to resources than if Musk were worth, let's say, 100 billion?
3 edits
@wildgrass saidI don't support anyone accumulating that kind of wealth.I agreee with you that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.
But then why do you support Musk and Bezos accumulating Jesus-level amounts of wealth after the government picked them specifically as the winners?
Our government has given both of those guys BILLIONS of dollars.
I do support the system that allows them to do so.
That some people are worth insane amounts doesn't inherently cost anyone anything. I get that this is a concept that people without understanding of economics can't possibly wrap their minds around, but the fact remains.
Do they "deserve" that kind of wealth?
Well, as the great Snoop Pearson said on The Wire (albeit in a different context), "deserve" ain't got nothin' to do wit' it.
Edit: To elaborate a bit, the money supply is infinite. It's resources that are finite. If Musk were taking all the eggs from the supermarket so that nobody else had any eggs left, that would be one thing. But he's not. His "wealth" isn't taken from anyone. It's simply the value of the companies he built. The people who are propping up Musk's net worth are those who are investing their own money for their own (perceived) benefit. Musk's trillion didn't have to make any one individual less wealthy (though it may have, of course).
1 edit
@sh76 saidsh76 - Your rating would suggest you're a strong player. Perhaps we both should be competitive players here, and not just posters. I plan to soon. How about you?
Lemme ask you something, WG.
Does the fact that Elon Musk is worth a trillion dollars inherently mean that there are people with less access to resources than if Musk were worth, let's say, 100 billion?
1 edit
@sh76 saidYes. On the front end, for sure.
Lemme ask you something, WG.
Does the fact that Elon Musk is worth a trillion dollars inherently mean that there are people with less access to resources than if Musk were worth, let's say, 100 billion?
He's been a huge beneficiary of (mostly Democrat) policies in making large investments in private industry. Basically all of what he's built was initially staked by the government, with private investments coming later. I've seen the number $38 billion thrown around, which is the dollar amount that our government has given to Elon Musk to build his empire. This money could have been given to other people instead, to build their empires, or it could not have been given to anyone. But he's the only one who could access these resources. On the front end, there are people with less access to the government resources that Elon used to accumulate his wealth.
Ultimately, this amount of wealth accumulated by a single individual could not have happened without infusions of federal dollars at crucial moments. Tesla, SpaceX are actually good companies that benefit America, but let's not call it capitalism that led to the world's first trillionaire.
My problem with it is that it represents a broken economic system.
2 edits
@paradox4 saidI've kind of lost interest in chess, for now at least.
sh76 - Your rating would suggest you're a strong player. Perhaps we both should be competitive players here, and not just posters. I plan to soon. How about you?
I still love the game, don't get me wrong. But at some point when you reach a certain level, you realize that you're just never going to get any better unless you really put in a lot of effort and study.
I got to be a good enough player that I could easily beat most of my friends and associates and could at least give good players a game, but I'm never going to reach that next level of serious player, as I don't have the time or energy to really train and study.
As such, while I still play casually and family and friends as a social sport, playing online stopped becoming fun for me. I imagine at some point I'll pick it back up, but not for now.