War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[jillian]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Communists Retards and their parasitic supporters are always using neologisms as a subterfuge to steal from "A" to give to "B".

In the "Communists Manifesto "Their leader Karl Marx described the strategy as follows

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

you should probably study up on what communism is.

 

[jillian]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

 

[Judicial review]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

 

[Contumacious]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Communists Retards and their parasitic supporters are always using neologisms as a subterfuge to steal from "A" to give to "B".

In the "Communists Manifesto "Their leader Karl Marx described the strategy as follows

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

you should probably study up on what communism is.

 

[Contumacious]

Once again, if the distribution of wealth is not a zero sum game, why do businesses fight so hard against raising the minimum wage, I mean,

according to you people, it's not going to come of their pockets!

Once again tell me how someone else's net worth affects your net worth.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Communists Retards and their parasitic supporters are always using neologisms as a subterfuge to steal from "A" to give to "B".

In the "Communists Manifesto "Their leader Karl Marx described the strategy as follows

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

you should probably study up on what communism is.

I have and so have you.

The ONLY difference is that you know that if you call yourself a communist the great majority of people will reject you. But if you use neologisms such as "zero-sum game" , progressive, "compassionate conservatism" as subterfuges the masses will not understand what they are buying. Its a confidence scam.

.

 

[Boss]

Ignorance
The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You don't know what income is going to be before you pay the workers, nor do you know what the profit will be. The workers have to be paid before a dime of income is realized or profit made. As much as you wish to turn this into a simple math problem, that's not how capitalist business works. There are many unknown variables and the formula for profit doesn't always work out in favor of the capitalist. It is a risk that is taken and many capitalists boldly take that risk, nothing is guaranteed in capitalism.

You want to fool stupid people into believing your lies about capitalism because that's what Marxists do. They want to convince people that Marxism (or their current form of it) is the best idea man has ever devised and nothing is further from the truth. Marxism DESTROYS the best idea man has ever devised, free market capitalism.

 

[jillian]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

if you come up with idiocy, it doesn't matter how many different ways you say it.

as for not having a business, i'm pretty sure i pay more in taxes than you earn a year. now quiet, troll, or i'll tell your mommy you're using the computer in the basement again.

 

[Judicial review]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

if you come up with idiocy, it doesn't matter how many different ways you say it.

as for not having a business, i'm pretty sure i pay more in taxes than you earn a year. now quiet, troll, or i'll tell your mommy you're using the computer in the basement again.

You pay over a million a year in taxes? No Way! It's already been establishedthat I've been a successfulll business owner since age 18. I'm 28 and could retire. the top 1% that you just LOVE. Keep reaching. You pay taxes on welfare?

 

[jillian]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

if you come up with idiocy, it doesn't matter how many different ways you say it.

as for not having a business, i'm pretty sure i pay more in taxes than you earn a year. now quiet, troll, or i'll tell your mommy you're using the computer in the basement again.

You pay over a million a year in taxes? No Way! It's already been establishedthat I've been a successfulll business owner since age 18. I'm 28 and could retire. the top 1% that you just LOVE. Keep reaching. You pay taxes on welfare?

lol... surrrree.... you can pretend.

i don't believe you . but that's ok. you carry on, trolling.

 

[Judicial review]

Don't you have anything better to post? Same old bullshit.

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

if you come up with idiocy, it doesn't matter how many different ways you say it.

as for not having a business, i'm pretty sure i pay more in taxes than you earn a year. now quiet, troll, or i'll tell your mommy you're using the computer in the basement again.

You pay over a million a year in taxes? No Way! It's already been establishedthat I've been a successfulll business owner since age 18. I'm 28 and could retire. the top 1% that you just LOVE. Keep reaching. You pay taxes on welfare?

lol... surrrree.... you can pretend.

i don't believe you . but that's ok. you carry on, trolling.

Funny, you just keep on thinking that.

 

[jillian]

you should probably ask yourself the same question.

typical winger thinking anyone who isn't as intellectually limited as you are should be run off the board.

I come up with new stuff every day or every hour. this guy posts the same article every hour of every day. Nice try. Now mind your own business or I forgot you don't have one.

if you come up with idiocy, it doesn't matter how many different ways you say it.

as for not having a business, i'm pretty sure i pay more in taxes than you earn a year. now quiet, troll, or i'll tell your mommy you're using the computer in the basement again.

You pay over a million a year in taxes? No Way! It's already been establishedthat I've been a successfulll business owner since age 18. I'm 28 and could retire. the top 1% that you just LOVE. Keep reaching. You pay taxes on welfare?

lol... surrrree.... you can pretend.

i don't believe you . but that's ok. you carry on, trolling.

Funny, you just keep on thinking that.

what? that you're a troll? i will.

as for the rest, you're the one who opened your yap and spewed about things you know nothing about.

a "successful businessman" would get the lay of the land first.

dismissed.

 

[The Rabbi]

What? So according to you resource depletion is not a limit to wealth since a country can always outsource their industrial base instead.
Right?

I'm pretty sure that we've utilized all of the third world shit holes that the Earth has to offer. What next?

So we've exhausted all the world's resources at this point? Is that really your claim?

You can't be this stupid. I'll credit you with being disingenuous.

I,m not the one claiming that
-resources determine wealth
-the US has become more wealthy despiute using up those resources because we outsourced our industrial base
-no one else can do that because we've exhausted all the earths resources.
That's you.

Bottom line, resources do determine wealth. Just because we've been exploiting people and regions that were late coming to the industrial/capitalist table doesn't mean that we can continue to do that indefinitely.

Energy is the most likely and pressing limited resource. The oceans are being depleted faster than the rate of reproduction. Water is becoming an issue in the west as we speak. What do you think will happen when these limits are global?

OK so you're back to resources equals wealth. Never mind that Japan is a very wealthy country with almost no natural resources and Argentina is a poor country with an abundance of them. Never mind I already pointed out the fallacy that the US is wealthier now than 40 years ago even though we've used up a number of resources, on your view.
The oceans are not being depleted. That's absurd. The Earth is mostly water.

 

[The Rabbi]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

Wow, did you come up with that brilliant insight all on your own?

no. he relied on people who actually understand the subject.

unlike you.

Oh look. It's the faux attorney troll posting to make herself feel better in her miserable little life.
Hey, bish. You have something to contribute here? No, of course not. Never have.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

Opportunity is finite? That might be the dumbest statement on this topic to date. Opportunity is the one thing that is definitely not finite. Of course wealth is not finite either. That's why we're much wealthier as a country today than we were even 20 years ago.

 

[Skylar]

What 'war on the rich'?

 

[jillian]

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

So you think wealth is finite, then?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Yeah that works if you only live for one year but most people live a lot longer than that.

There is no limit to how high your net worth can be and no one is stopping you from increasing yours.

You people are song and dancing around semantics because you can't cope with the core argument.

The distribution of a nation's produced wealth determines who is Rich, who is Poor, and who is in between.

Wow, did you come up with that brilliant insight all on your own?

no. he relied on people who actually understand the subject.

unlike you.

Oh look. It's the faux attorney troll posting to make herself feel better in her miserable little life.
Hey, bish. You have something to contribute here? No, of course not. Never have.

you keep telling yourself that. maybe if you weren't such a loser you wouldn't be so bitter.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

Opportunity is finite? That might be the dumbest statement on this topic to date. Opportunity is the one thing that is definitely not finite. Of course wealth is not finite either. That's why we're much wealthier as a country today than we were even 20 years ago.

if you disagree, i'm on the right track.

thanks for playing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

Opportunity is finite? That might be the dumbest statement on this topic to date. Opportunity is the one thing that is definitely not finite. Of course wealth is not finite either. That's why we're much wealthier as a country today than we were even 20 years ago.

if you disagree, i'm on the right track.

thanks for playing.

Did you just fart?

 

[The Rabbi]

What 'war on the rich'?

Hey, pick up some news source beyond Bon Jovi fan magazines before you post, mkay?

 

[Dr Grump]

The rich are doing just fine....