Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (176622)	12/1/2005 1:45:22 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah, I see what you mean now. You don't mean the government is taxing the poor and giving the money to the ultrarich, which they aren't doing, you mean the government isn't taking such a ridiculously huge amount of money from the wealthy and ultrarich, and giving it to the poor. <They are using the power of the federal government to transfer wealth from the middle and even the upper middle class to the ultrarich either directly or indirectly through megacorporations. > Also, the gap between the rich and poor should increase and that's a good thing. The poor will always be at zero because zero is by definition where the poor are. There's no minus wealth because that's bankruptcy and bankruptcy is the end of debt and people won't give negative value people credit [not much anyway]. Since there is no upper bound to wealth, and the lower bound is always zero and because people who select zero as a way of life will continue to do that, the gap should be increasing between rich and poor and that's a good thing. But maybe you have a different definition of "poor". I have been poor and [relatively] wealthy. Yet I'm the same person and at no time did I think the gap between how I was then and how I am now [or more accurately 4 years ago] was a problem. My happiness hasn't depended on my net asset value, though of course I far prefer to have more than less. It's more convenient to have more money, but strangely not very important in happiness. When I was poor, I thought I would get work, save my money, invest it, spend what I had very frugally [and I mean VERY frugally] and enjoy life, all of which I did. Pretty soon one becomes a capitalist and life gets much easier, and if not careful, fatter and unfitter. Robbing the wealthy to give their money to me never seemed a good idea. Mqurice