This subject is really stupid and should insult the intelligence of most folks. It is put forth in the interests of the concept of being fair and balanced. Now, i really do not think most people are stupid enough to hate someone based upon how much money they command or do not command BUT there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence i have observed that indicates that rich folks are not real fond of associating with po folk. For example:
*They tend to live behind walls and fences in special areas that are specifically zoned to prevent poor people from congregating.
*They prefer to associate only with others who have attained their level of wealth at members only type clubs.
*They employ armed guards who will use force to keep po folk at a safe distance.
*Wall street bank presidents will go to great lengths to not have to even be seen by po folk. A bullet proof limo ride up to a private entrance followed by a swift ride to the penthouse on a private elevator will eliminate all contact with the "little people" save for a brisk walk from the limo to the door.
*They will purchase and, essentially, own congressmen, senators and presidents to advance their economic interests while at the same time, degrade the economic condition of the majority (po folk).
*They have been known to take over businesses, lay off workers, pay themselves obscene bonuses and,then, declare the business bankrupt.
*They will enslave millions of po folk with mountains of debt, toss them onto the street and hound them into, and beyond, the grave with a well oiled "collection" industry.
*They will initiate wars to advance their profits and send thousands of po folk into battle while avoiding the front lines themselves saying, for example, that they had "other priorities".
"When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money." H.L.Mencken
Poor people are statistically far, far more likely to commit violent crime. Their culture also tends to be negative, so it makes sense to attempt to segregate your children from their influence.
This is pretty typical behavior of any group, though - we prefer to be around people similar to us. How many of your friends are wildly different from you? Most of my friends are college-educated yuppies with moderete-to-high earning potential. We have similar interests, so it makes sense that we'd hang out. I'm not going to go to bars with elderly women, and they don't want to go to bars with me.
I'm not sure how common this is, but see the first answer anyway. Poor people are too-frequently dangerous.
Wall Street executives aren't really popular at the moment, so they have good reason to avoid the general public (not just poor people, either).
Also, it depends on the firm, but many executives don't even mingle with their employees, so it's not just poor people. Millionaire traders never see their CEO some places, as they're constantly in meetings and have private elevators. It varies, though, at the last bank I worked for I've ridden in the elevator with the CEO multiple times in the morning.
This is just political rhetoric. You know who has the biggest lobby in Washington? Old people - the AARP absolutely dominates. Why do you think a clearly bankrupt policy like social security is impossible to even tweak, let alone remove or reform.
Corporate raiding like this is a thing of the past, for the most part. You've been watching Wall Street recently...
Regardless, identifying companies that are cheaper than book value and rectifying that inefficiency should be applauded.
I dislike uppity poor people that think the world owes them something just by virtue of drawing breath. But a poor person that just goes about their life, minding their own business? Nothing wrong with that.
Quote:Dammit, those cocksuckers! Using violence instead of lawyers...
Quote:How could they!? After all that was done to them...
Quote:Um... All of them, though to be fair, I am unique. Too bad you were store bought NYYS.
Quote:I do exactly that whenever I have beer money. Karaoke nights. Me and my neighbor.
Quote:I mean who needs it though when you have fractional reserve lending.. lol They put one trick down and picked up another.
You get the picture I guess.
Wild geese flying over a lake don't intend to cast a reflection
and the water has no mind to retain their image
I was going to avoid this thread a lot, but I'll make one point...
There are far more poor people, and they commit crimes that are far more investigated. You do specify "violent" crime, but white collar crime, while certainly not violent, is not potentially less devastating. One Bernie Madoff can wreck a lot of lives.
uh yeah, exactly. There is a civilized way to settle disagreements, but poor people routinely choose the violent way.
what was "done" to them? They were born less intelligent and their parents didn't raise them well. There's no conspiracy to make that the case, it's just a natural result of divergent outcomes.
That's unique, then. Most people hang out with others of similar class, race, gender, view, income, senses of humor etc. Not carbon copies, obviously (because we're all special snowflakes!) but people with a decent amount in common.
Fractional reserve lending is something banks do. Banks are typically not involved in corporate raiding, and never were (except as financing for stuff like leveraged buyouts, but that's indirect involvement that still exists. People still buy firms, just buying and blowing up is pretty much resigned to awesome 80's movies).
Corporate raiding is not a behavior of banks, it's something hedge funds/private equity groups/general buysiders do/did. So whatever "trick" was put down by investment types wasn't just replaced by something entirely different (which existed before, anyway, for the record) by the banks. Finance is not a monolithic entity where everyone is a bank that does everything. Your post makes no sense, it sounds like you just tossed around a bunch of buzzwords.
That's fine, but you can't really protect yourself from white collar crime in any physical way. Obviously if people could, they would (they try to, with compliance offices and background checks and stuff, obviously). You can, however, protect yourself from violent crime. It makes perfect sense for those with means to protect themselves from both, it's just that one type of protection is behind-the-scenes and the other type is physical relocation.
Yeah, when there is no hope in life, everything would go negative. And negative lifestyle is easy to lead to twisted view of the world.
Warum Weint Mein Herz
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44
Well, not with a glock, but you can with proper regulations at the SEC.
Quote:You are too funny sometimes. Being poor does have the advantage of not having to talk to lawyers though, even when you're on trial.
Quote:I like to call my people "good" I like to hang out with good people. I don't much care for superficiality unless there's a sexual potential.
Quote:I like my buzzword salads. I think possibly the evil spirits could have passed from corporate execs to bank execs if you really want to push this distinction of yours, because banks are not corporations and they have nothing to do with financial services that everyone uses and cannot collude... Oh fuck it
Wild geese flying over a lake don't intend to cast a reflection
and the water has no mind to retain their image
To a large extent you are correct, but the term you are looking for I think is 'stand in solidarity with' and not 'associate with'.
The issue is because they pursue policies that are antagonistic toward the basic needs of the working class, because either they don't care what is going on in the country where they are living, or because they don't understand that that their country is stronger when everyone supports each other.
Allow me to clarify: rich people are generally better-educated, and certainly have a better grasp of how to manage money than poor people do. As a result, they support economic policies that favor superior long-term results for everyone at the cost of increased temporary hardship on the poor, instead of supporting policies that favor short-term gains for the poor at the expense of all long-term gains for everyone.
As for the banks that engage in fractional reserve banking... fuck those assholes. Really.
In their 'private' lives they are very good at managing it, yes. And they certainly are well-educated too.
This part is incorrect though. Seriously, do you mill around with the upper-middle class? The ones who support the policies that wreck the working class are not supporting it out of some enlightened view of delayed gratification, it's out of a desire for getting reduced tax rates or whatever, as fast as they possibly can, with no thought of the social consequences.
They are not all as intelligent as you think that they are. The ones that I've been close with have been fairly decent by my standards, but a sizeable number of them are actually pretty apathetic about public policy.
Potemkin probably knows them even better since he's rubbed up on them more than I have and for much much longer, so you can ask him to come into this thread since I'm sure he has some hair-raising stories about them and that he'll be nowhere near as lenient in his description of them as I tend to be.
The rich commit a lot of crimes of all types. The difference is that few are charged and even less convicted because as they say money talks and bullshit walks. The ability of the rich to instantly 'Lawyer Up' as the cops say is a powerful deterrent to arrest and prosecution. I also reject your elitist notion that the larger an individuals bank account is the more honest and positive he she or it will be. Wow! Grace goodness and honesty is a function of financial security how utterly absurd.
Sure an individual that can't supply for his/her self the most basic necessities of life is more likely to commit a property crime that may also involve the use of force. I agree, hunger want and lack of opportunity are powerful forces. This is also the reason that gormless blood sucking liberals tend to desire to disarm the poor. Check the party affiliation of the city governments around the country that desire to create gun free zones. Of course the goal isn't really public safety for those that live in the cities, the goal is the safety of the pud knockers that feed off of their misery financially and live elsewhere behind the walls of those gated communities. Its really quite simple, if violence could be contained within 'poverty zones' you wouldn't find liberals giving a flying fuck about gun control legislation.
And lastly never underestimate the power that greed and avarice has on the rich. The list of rich criminals that have not and will not be brought to justice is endless. Think Enron, the Melt Down and then reference that with the fact that a kid from the inner city will do more time for swiping a canned ham from a market than a mega thief that has deprived thousands of individuals of their financial security. I didn't mention Bernie Madoff because his crimes were perpetrated against the VERY Rich and not Joe-Shit-The-Rag-Man types and because of that he was serviced rather expeditiously by the powers that be.
But have no fear, violence is a commodity that can be exported to any location in a mobile society hence the desire of the rich to insulate themselves from the great unwashed by cowering behind the walls of gated communities with the protection of a few brain dead ten to fifteen dollar an hour puss gut security guards is not going to prevent them from being serviced when the time comes.
Because they feel threatened by poor people...
(> < )
This is Bunny. Why don't you kiss his fuzzy ass?
I know you're half joking, Jimjam, but still . . .
Conquerors (and would-be conquerors) always vilify the people they plan to plunder. And why not? If you can somehow prove that your victims actually "deserve it," then you're pretty much off the hook, right?
What puzzles me much more is why the failed conqueror - the Redneck "Libertarian" working for minimum wage, for instance - shares this sentiment. There's bound to be an element of self-loathing involved in this, and that seems terribly sad, don't you think?
Lawyers aren't the only way to settle disagreements, you can, you know, actually talk it out or just shrug it off. Your two options aren't lawsuit or assault and battery.
That's true, but at a far, far, far lower rate than the poor, even if you do include white collar crime. How many accounting scandals have we seen in the last ten years? A handful, and a few high profile ones. How many murders, robberies, assaults, rapes, etc. have we seen? Too many to count.
This idea that rich people are constantly committing crimes is just statistically false. I know you need to point out that they do commit some crimes (or your entire premise here collapses), but the numbers just don't favor the poor. You act like there are hordes of rich people out there holding up convenience stores but getting away with it because they have lawyers.
Please, quote where I said wealth equals honesty or positiveness.
In this case, I have no interest in the moral fiber of a person. If you're a lying, two-faced prick that can support himself that's far preferable to society than a decent, honest guy that needs expensive social programs and contributes nothing. Wealthy people simply know how to get wealthy (obviously), so they are able to raise their children in a way that is conducive toward not needing social programs - I would describe that as a positive influence. In contrast, poor people don't know how to get wealthy (again, obviously) so their negative influence is something a good parent should shield their child from.
Violence is mostly contained within "poverty zones." Not by any official policy, but simply because poor people commit all kinds of crimes against each other. There aren't murders and rapes and robberies in the suburbs, at least not nearly at the rate of poor inner cities.
yeah ok let's see that list of rich criminals walking free. Note that I want to see a list of actual crimes committed, not nonsense like "oppressed the proletariat."
oh good, another Junior Revolutionary
Red Barn wrote:
That has to do with distrust of government. Southerners aren't particularly fond of the federal government anyway, it's not unbelievable that they'd be libertarians and prefer their state or local government takes care of them, rather than Washington.
Why are so many of the ultra-wealthy Democrats? There's bound to be an element of self-loathing involved in this, and that seems terribly sad, don't you think?
To justify their own obscene wealth, even for the most cold blooded and obnoxious tory it must be unsettling on occasion thinking that they live with wealth which could give thousands a decent standard of living, and still live in splendour. They justify it by making out that all poor people are 'workshy' 'lazy' 'benefit frauds' etc etc.
No, not at all. Democrats aren't anti-capitalist in any way - and besides, all those lattes eventually add up.
I'm afraid I don't understand whatever point it is you're trying to make, Comrade Conqueror.
People that go against your beliefs aren't necessarily self-loathing.
The biggest crimes are committed by rich people, since only they have the means necessary to commit them, and they routinely get away with it.
again: like what? You all have this general assertion that rich people are committing all these crimes, but I can't get any specifics other than "well they get away with it because they have so much money."