Chinese billionaire and Alibaba founder Jack Ma believes that improper distribution of funds and hyper inflated US military spending, not globalization or other countries “stealing” US jobs, is behind the economic decline in America. (RT: Nobody ‘stealing’ your jobs, you spend too much on wars, Alibaba founder tells US)
That sounds kind of clever and it's amusing to hear him but I see it as simplistic. The obvious point of America wasting half the tax gold on war is plain for anyone to see, however. It's long been the Rockhouse contention America could be turned into a garden if the Pentagon were not so determinedly sending all those dollars down the toilet.
Note: in fact, all the bullshit about the matter from pundits has inspired Yevette to get a new toilet. The story of the Toilet Crisis is more than that but there ain't no news in a toilet crisis.
We do not accept globalization would have no consequence if not for the war since it's been breaking US labor unions any time it shows. When we hear billionaire CEOs saying the workers are paid too much it only makes us want to chuck them on the barbie and then eat them.
There's really not much mileage in this one toward starting any dogfights since I seriously doubt Trump wants to get tagged with the increase to the national debt Obama now owns. When it stands at twenty trillion now, it's been described as an eighty-six percent increase. I don't have the immediate citation but you know the fact of it already.
We want the tax on the rich, as in filthy rich, to pay for it since it should be obvious to everyone that no-one else can; the filthy rich have all the money. Some of the readers here are, relatively-speaking, rich but they aren't the audience for this one. I mean the ones who are richer than the Vatican Bank and you likely know the stats on how few comprise the group which owns most of the wealth in the world.
That ain't fair and it ain't good business. In effect, they're just financial hoarders with some kind of twisted disease.
Maybe the question you like is what comes when the national debt really does go down. What happens if the tax on the filthy rich goes to, say, the WWII rate which was far higher than it is today because, wtf, they had to pay for the war and they did.
You may enjoy tangling with 'leveling mechanisms' in which cultural traditions, the church, etc effectively found ways to redistribute wealth without undue hardship on anyone; the rich stayed rich and the poor stayed poor but it doesn't go to the extremes we see today.
We saw the one-day-old baby who froze to death about a week ago in Oregon because he committed the vast crime of being born to a homeless mother. There's no need to go on with that since the point is to illustrate unacceptable extremes but I believe they can be fixed if America has the heart to do it.
There is specifically not the point the rich must abandon all their money for the good of goodness by giving it all away to the poor but rather there needs to be better distribution of wealth if only for the sake of the economy. When we poor have money, we will spend it because we're not in any kind of position to be saving anything.
That spending increases circulation, increases production, and all the good things. You know the game.
I emphasize again it is not our purpose to take the money of the rich and just give it away. There just needs to be better management of a whole lot of things (e.g. education).
That sounds kind of clever and it's amusing to hear him but I see it as simplistic. The obvious point of America wasting half the tax gold on war is plain for anyone to see, however. It's long been the Rockhouse contention America could be turned into a garden if the Pentagon were not so determinedly sending all those dollars down the toilet.
Note: in fact, all the bullshit about the matter from pundits has inspired Yevette to get a new toilet. The story of the Toilet Crisis is more than that but there ain't no news in a toilet crisis.
We do not accept globalization would have no consequence if not for the war since it's been breaking US labor unions any time it shows. When we hear billionaire CEOs saying the workers are paid too much it only makes us want to chuck them on the barbie and then eat them.
There's really not much mileage in this one toward starting any dogfights since I seriously doubt Trump wants to get tagged with the increase to the national debt Obama now owns. When it stands at twenty trillion now, it's been described as an eighty-six percent increase. I don't have the immediate citation but you know the fact of it already.
We want the tax on the rich, as in filthy rich, to pay for it since it should be obvious to everyone that no-one else can; the filthy rich have all the money. Some of the readers here are, relatively-speaking, rich but they aren't the audience for this one. I mean the ones who are richer than the Vatican Bank and you likely know the stats on how few comprise the group which owns most of the wealth in the world.
That ain't fair and it ain't good business. In effect, they're just financial hoarders with some kind of twisted disease.
Maybe the question you like is what comes when the national debt really does go down. What happens if the tax on the filthy rich goes to, say, the WWII rate which was far higher than it is today because, wtf, they had to pay for the war and they did.
You may enjoy tangling with 'leveling mechanisms' in which cultural traditions, the church, etc effectively found ways to redistribute wealth without undue hardship on anyone; the rich stayed rich and the poor stayed poor but it doesn't go to the extremes we see today.
We saw the one-day-old baby who froze to death about a week ago in Oregon because he committed the vast crime of being born to a homeless mother. There's no need to go on with that since the point is to illustrate unacceptable extremes but I believe they can be fixed if America has the heart to do it.
There is specifically not the point the rich must abandon all their money for the good of goodness by giving it all away to the poor but rather there needs to be better distribution of wealth if only for the sake of the economy. When we poor have money, we will spend it because we're not in any kind of position to be saving anything.
That spending increases circulation, increases production, and all the good things. You know the game.
I emphasize again it is not our purpose to take the money of the rich and just give it away. There just needs to be better management of a whole lot of things (e.g. education).
No comments:
Post a Comment