He’s a bitter old man who hates everyone becuse he failed in life.
He could have been a contender.
Your children only need two dolls!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
He could have been a contender.
In the FLY weight division.
Are you supposing they are wealthy because they work much harder than people who are poor...that they contribute more to the whole of what we have than the poor?
Is that what you are supposing?
What is YOUR answer to your question?
The poor will always be with you…because, for the most part, they are lazy…Indolent, and want someone else to feed, house and clothe them.
A survey found that 11% of millionaires say they inherited their wealth, while 78% consider themselves self-made.
Most of the wealthy worked hard to accumulate their wealth.
This is anathema to most of the poor.
A survey found that 11% of millionaires say they inherited their wealth, while 78% consider themselves self-made.
Most of the wealthy worked hard to accumulate their wealth.
This is anathema to most of the poor.
I already answered. They have bigger balls and are generally smarter. They take chances and work smarter. And yes in the majority of cases they work longer and harder at least for a couple or three decades. Not the filthy rich 1% who inherited wealth but the majority of the top 10% below them.
That's how capitalism works. If you have a better system let's hear about it.
Yakuda
Verified User
And the whine fest continues ^^^^^^
The top 1% own almost 30% of all this nation's wealth. The top 10% own about 60% of its wealth.
If this is the way "capitalism" works...then any system you can imagine works better.
Just so that I understand your position completely, I ask these questions in return:
How extreme would the the disparity get before you realize that "the way capitalism works" sucks. (Keep in mind that I am a capitalist...and may well be the only person here in this forum who has actually worked on Wall Street in brokerage.)
Would the top 1% owning 90% of the nation's wealth do the job?
Would the top 10% owning 90% of the nation's wealth do it?
Would it take 100 individuals owning 90% of the nation's wealth do it?
Do you have anyone in your family or among your close friends who you know to be an extraordinarily hard, competent worker who is not wealthy? Is that because of....what?
It's not a negative sum game. No one has to give up their wealth for the rest of us to thrive. Life isn't fair. Never has been. You think socialism is the way to go let's get a couple dozen of the parasites here and you to pool their net worths and divide it up equally. You likely will not be happy with the outcome.
No it is not...and I have never said, or suggested, that it is.
No one has suggested that one should give up their wealth...or that the rest of us would thrive if they wee to.
Strike two.
No one has suggested that it is.
Strike three.
Correct. And no one has suggested that it has.
Strike four.
I specifically mentioned that I am a capitalist. Why not get your shit together before posting bullshit like this.
Please re-read the response sentence above.
Now...let me try this again, just in case you missed it. And I will make it bolder and larger so that you don't once again.
Just so that I understand your position completely, I ask these questions in return:
How extreme would the the disparity get before you realize that "the way capitalism works" sucks. (Keep in mind that I am a capitalist...and may well be the only person here in this forum who has actually worked on Wall Street in brokerage.)
Would the top 1% owning 90% of the nation's wealth do the job?
Would the top 10% owning 90% of the nation's wealth do it?
Would it take 100 individuals owning 90% of the nation's wealth do it?
Do you have anyone in your family or among your close friends who you know to be an extraordinarily hard, competent worker who is not wealthy? Is that because of....what?