well written commentary

[callmeslick]

....no, I'm not referring to any words from Pud, Slappy, Nic or even myself. A friend of mine wrote the following on a CNN discussion forum, and it is spot on:



The problem is, once a certain level of wealth is achieved, it means people can gain more wealth simply for being wealthy. They no longer have to work for it. They're in a position to siphon off some of the fruits of the labor of many, many other people. Interest, rent, virtual monopolies, control of necessities, and similar. Speculation in the necessities of life for millions, that benefits the speculators by raising prices for the rest of us. I've heard the term "rent seeking" used to refer to that.

Then, they have enough wealth to influence the political system. They fund candidates who will pass laws and regulations that benefit themselves, at a cost to the rest of us. They fund politicians who will choose judges to return a ruling that benefits corporations and wealthy people in Citizens United vs.the FEC, for instance. That allows them even more freedom to influence elections, and the laws and policies that our government pursues.

And, they pursue policies that benefit themselves, to the detriment of the rest of us. They pursue policies that have us use our military might - which they also work to make effective enough to achieve their ends - to force open other markets. They fund disinformation about global warming. They fund disinformation about social policies, to keep us divided and polarized. They propagandize us with information about how the poor are merely lazy, uneducated, stupid, and immoral, about how the size of government is the enemy. The government is the only tool to fight the power and wealth of the elite, but they don't want us to realize that. They DO own the government, at this point, but they don't want us to realize that we really can make it do the bidding of the majority of us, instead of the bidding of the elite few. That's why polarization and disinformation are so useful to them.

As very wise people have said, you can have either great wealth disparity OR democracy - but not both. So, we have great wealth disparity. It becomes a great problem for the great majority of us, when too much wealth is concentrated into the hands of too few of us. No matter how unfair progressive taxation seems to people who work hard for what they earn, we either have that, or we have plutocracy. Now, we have plutocracy, and many, many more people are suffering because of that than are benefiting from it.

Most of the people here are doing ok, and it serves them to believe that the problems that so many people are facing are their own doing. The current policies are benefiting them, but those policies exist because they REALLY benefit the elite.

[Pudfark]

Your buddie must have been the kid who got the "ant farm" for xmas....

[HappyHappy]

Well written? Laughable confused rambling.
HH

[Barfly]

What load of BS.... I can see how you have an afinity for that person Slick.

[callmeslick]

Your buddie must have been the kid who got the "ant farm" for xmas....

critique? counterpoints? Nah.

[callmeslick]

Well written? Laughable confused rambling.
HH

critiques, counterpoints? Nope, not here either.

[callmeslick]

What load of BS.... I can see how you have an afinity for that person Slick.

reasons why it is wrong? Alternate point of view? Nope, just a personal attack on me. Wow, what a trio of great thinkers.....sort of like Moe, Larry and Curley.
Shemp looks like a rocket scientist next to you three. Thanks for proving a point, boys.....now, feel free to resume your regularly scheduled circle jerk.

[Barfly]

Well I could be generous and identify it as a Progressive fluff piece; there's nothing in there but conjecture. The weatlth disparity vs democracy comment was ragingly ingnorant.

As for you, countering name calling with name calling, participating in the 'circle jerk' as you call it while pretending to be an putside observer... Funny stuff.

[callmeslick]

nah, Barfly, you all just proved a point for me, thanks. Oh, and here's a hint, you never really did respond with substance or reasons why it was wrong. Further, you never even came up with calling it a fluff piece(oh, and the writer is hardly a flaming liberal) until after I mocked you all. And the point proven? That this is just not a place to even try to debate real issues. The contrast? On CUDAs home board, there have been several responses by folks who disagreed with the piece, but every one detailed the objection, and a couple even went into the details of agreeing with some aspects and disagreeing with others. That is discussion, that is political discourse. What the 'conservatives' do here is circle-jerk, nothing more.

[Dawg]

Really, some of the most painful reading I've had in a few weeks...does he have a point, or simply trying to sound smart?