Donald Trump running for president

[Aleksandar37]

I don't understand why seeing someone espouse a portion of an ideology, identifying it and then discussing my problems with the overall ideology is so outrageous.

With people that can actually think for themselves, it's not. When somebody is just parroting ideas, they can't actually debate them because it wasn't their original idea.

 

[Aleksandar37]

A political atheist would refute the existence of politics... Also, even there you're categorizing yourself.

You seem to be amalgamating a new religion, so to speak, from pieces of the old ones. Which is cool but when you're pushed on how these pieces fit together in a different way than they fit into their current ideologies you, complain about labels, say you're striving towards something much better than what we have now without defining what that is and instead occasionally point to the constitution and one or two libertarians.

If you're in a new camp, define it but I don't understand how you can so vehemently tell people where you're not without defining where you are.

I think a lot of the labels used today are far from their original meaning or have been twisted into slurs. Even Democrats and Republicans don't seem to be what they were when they began, so if we're going to use labels, they should be more specific. Or how somebody can be liberal on social issues and conservative on financial issues. It's just not as black and white anymore.

 

[nostrum420]

I think a lot of the labels used today are far from their original meaning or have been twisted into slurs. Even Democrats and Republicans don't seem to be what they were when they began, so if we're going to use labels, they should be more specific. Or how somebody can be liberal on social issues and conservative on financial issues. It's just not as black and white anymore.

That's totally fine because you're still defining your stance even if it takes a sentence with a comma to do it instead of just one to three-ish words.

 

[ax1]

A political atheist would refute the existence of politics... Also, even there you're categorizing yourself.

That would be up to the individual, political atheism as defined here in my post is only true to me and no particular group. You may or may not be an anarchist thats up to the individual. Personally, I do not support anarchism, I just dont want to be dogmatic and cling to any particular group or system of political belief. I am categorizing myself, sure, and its only myself there is only 1 me and my ideology comes from me. Not to say that I cant listen to others and have people influence my opinions but nobody truly represents me and I represent no one. There are people's ideas I like, and people that like my ideas, its all good. By ideas I mean actual ideas, not slogans, labels or names of groups. Republicrat, Demican, Liberal or Conservative, they all have points I like and dislike. Im not into isolationism but I do not need to adhere to any of them dogmatically.

Im not sure that makes sense but I dont normally walk around thinking about it like I do above.

You seem to be amalgamating a new religion, so to speak, from pieces of the old ones. Which is cool but when you're pushed on how these pieces fit together in a different way than they fit into their current ideologies you, complain about labels, say you're striving towards something much better than what we have now without defining what that is and instead occasionally point to the constitution and one or two libertarians.

Im not trying to create anything other than staying away from clinging to group think tank mentalities. Political Athiesm to me is as Libertarianism is to Larry Sharpe. You can be as liberal or conservative as you wanna be as long as you dont force yourself on me. But I dont want to be labeled as a Libertarian, it means different things to different people based of their personal understanding of it just like Dems, Repubs, and Socialists, etc....people have their own understanding of them, and each understanding of it is easily twisted around and infiltrated by opposition ideologies such as Communism twists and redefines Capitalism as an extreme easy example.

It regards to striving for something much better, we can implement and discuss policies without having to attach a ideology to it. Its far more scientific to me to simply stick to actual specific policies. Do I throw labels on other groups myself? Sure I have fun with it, and people prefer to be identified as that so I dunno, I dont do everything by the book here, lol

If you're in a new camp, define it but I don't understand how you can so vehemently tell people where you're not without defining where you are.

I can vehemently tell people what policies may make a world a better place without defining it with a label. Policies = science, labels = whatever people make it out to be.

 

[justhere4comm]

Maybe you’re right. My wife is a political analyst.

... she’s been brainwashing me to care about people other than the rich and privileged.

She likes Bernie... and Warren.

Thank you for opening my eyes.
It may be citizens divorce time.

 

[nostrum420]

Maybe you’re right. My wife is a political analyst.

... she’s been brainwashing me to care about people other than the rich and privileged.

She likes Bernie... and Warren.

Thank you for opening my eyes.
It may be citizens divorce time.

Thank you for keeping an open mind.

 

[ax1]

Gerald Celente who is a local guy here in upstate NY is my main influence and the primary reason I have molded myself into political atheism. https://trendsresearch.com/

He has an incredible weekly update to his Trends Research Journal on youtube. He is a master at following global social and political trends and incorporating it into economic forecasting. Very unique individual. Also my main influence to nicknaming everybody, Im not completely original here, lol

 

[ax1]

Maybe you’re right. My wife is a political analyst.

... she’s been brainwashing me to care about people other than the rich and privileged.

She likes Bernie... and Warren.

Thank you for opening my eyes.
It may be citizens divorce time.

But by voting for Burn-knee or Pokihontis your handing the government which happens to be primarily the rich and privileged and giving them the power over humanity to care about people. Usually it doesnt work out well in the long haul. It then becomes about dependency and staying in power rather than actually helping people and its massive bureaucracy makes it inefficient financially. And you may like and trust your Burn-knee or Poki today, but they are here then gone tomorrow and if you dont like the next guy in (Dump Jr??) its too late.

 

[nostrum420]

But by voting for Burn-knee or Pokihontis your handing the government which happens to be primarily the rich and privileged and giving them the power over humanity to care about people. Usually it doesnt work out well in the long haul. It then becomes about dependency and staying in power rather than actually helping people and its massive bureaucracy makes it inefficient financially. And you may like and trust your Burn-knee or Poki today, but they are here then gone tomorrow and if you dont like the next guy in (Dump Jr??) its too late.

So, not to say you're a libertarian but these talking points are and the problem is you're always going to have people who have some degree of power over others. If it's not a government it's the Mafia or corporations or whatever else. There will always be things we have to band together to do and we have to entrust the coordinators of those efforts with some measure of power and that will always open the door to corruption and that is in no exclusive to "governments."

 

[ax1]

So, not to say you're a libertarian but these talking points are and the problem is you're always going to have people who have some degree of power over others. If it's not a government it's the Mafia or corporations or whatever else. There will always be things we have to band together to do and we have to entrust the coordinators of those efforts with some measure of power and that will always open the door to corruption and that is in no exclusive to "governments."

You empower the government to protect our rights and freedoms. You empower government to enforce public security when the Mafia or Corporations step out of their line and infringe the rights and freedoms of others.

People can band together and voluntarily entrust and coordinate with those of their choosing without government interference unless there is a complaint of corruption and you can take it up with the government to assist with the suspected crime.

That being said thats not how it works these days and Im sure willing to work within the system and wish for it to succeed while simultaneously educating the public to the alternatives and hoping to evolve out of big government dependence down the road.

 

[nostrum420]

You empower the government to protect our rights and freedoms. You empower government to enforce public security when the Mafia or Corporations step out of their line and infringe the rights and freedoms of others.

People can band together and voluntarily entrust and coordinate with those of their choosing without government interference unless there is a complaint of corruption and you can take it up with the government to assist with the suspected crime.

That being said thats not how it works these days and Im sure willing to work within the system and wish for it to succeed while simultaneously educating the public to the alternatives and hoping to evolve out of big government dependence down the road.

This doesn't solve the problem of the government having power over others which is still an avenue to corruption.

Would your system have public fire insurance as well? I assume we have roads under your theoretical government?

 

[ax1]

This doesn't solve the problem of the government having power over others which is still an avenue to corruption.

Would your system have public fire insurance as well? I assume we have roads under your theoretical government?

Your not going to get rid of corruption, at least not permanently. You will especially never get rid of government increasingly wanting to expand its powers and people falling for it to prop it up. This is why Im a 2nd Amendment supporter, and I hate and dont even own guns....but I sure hell want it to be easy for me to get them if poopy really hits the fan hard.

Public fire insurance? Insurance is a service, a company measures risk and puts a market value on that risk. Governments role would be to insure that contracts are somewhat regulated in a consumer protection role. It should be private only.

We would absolutely have roads. Im not a huge fan of the term "private property." Renting the land from the government and having private property rights seems more accurate. So property tax on a local/state level and fees for driving a car. Tax on gasoline, after all you put gas in your car you are using the roads directly charging the consumer using the roads. If you dont drive you still contribute to the cost as would be reflected on consumer goods as trucks depend on roads to deliver goods and they would be paying fees. Road tolls can be implemented via wireless technology. Also, Id be for sponsorship of roads and bridges to help offset costs. Lets say Pepsi wants to spend millions of dollars to name a bridge after them and/or contract to finance to maintain the bridge thats great, then it offsets some of the costs to the consumer.

Things can be done for sure especially without implementing the most intrusive and demeaning of all taxes which is the income tax. And I wouldnt be so pissed if there was a low flat tax across the board (help the poor by having the first 20-30k exempt or so) as to not punish productivity and success. Not my preference but in the real world Id compromise.

 

[nostrum420]

Your not going to get rid of corruption, at least not permanently. You will especially never get rid of government increasingly wanting to expand its powers and people falling for it to prop it up. This is why Im a 2nd Amendment supporter, and I hate and dont even own guns....but I sure hell want it to be easy for me to get them if poopy really hits the fan hard.

Public fire insurance? Insurance is a service, a company measures risk and puts a market value on that risk. Governments role would be to insure that contracts are somewhat regulated in a consumer protection role. It should be private only.

We would absolutely have roads. Im not a huge fan of the term "private property." Renting the land from the government and having private property rights seems more accurate. So property tax on a local/state level and fees for driving a car. Tax on gasoline, after all you put gas in your car you are using the roads directly charging the consumer using the roads. If you dont drive you still contribute to the cost as would be reflected on consumer goods as trucks depend on roads to deliver goods and they would be paying fees. Road tolls can be implemented via wireless technology. Also, Id be for sponsorship of roads and bridges to help offset costs. Lets say Pepsi wants to spend millions of dollars to name a bridge after them and/or contract to finance to maintain the bridge thats great, then it offsets some of the costs to the consumer.

Things can be done for sure especially without implementing the most intrusive and demeaning of all taxes which is the income tax. And I wouldnt be so pissed if there was a low flat tax across the board (help the poor by having the first 20-30k exempt or so) as to not punish productivity and success. Not my preference but in the real world Id compromise.

Public fire insurance is, in part, the fire department. They used to be private and entire neighborhoods burned to the point where even people who had the insurance for the private fire dept still burned.

If you're exempting a bracket, it's not a flat tax. Flat taxes disproportionately burden the lower and middle classes and more importantly it undermines the trickle down economics system.

 

[ax1]

Public fire insurance is, in part, the fire department. They used to be private and entire neighborhoods burned to the point where even people who had the insurance for the private fire dept still burned.

If you're exempting a bracket, it's not a flat tax. Flat taxes disproportionately burden the lower and middle classes and more importantly it undermines the trickle down economics system.

Ok, we can certainly have a public fire department paid for with property taxes. Thats should be easy.

Im not into this trickle down, nothing should be trickled. You earn what you earn and your success shouldnt be penalized at a greater rate than anyone else. Your already contributing more the more you make at the flat rate if there was an income tax. Rich people infinitely will pay more taxes the more they earn.

What your talking about with having richer people to pay lower/middle class to me is forced charity. This charity is enforced with a man with a gun. And if you dont help people against your will (doesnt that sound strange) the man with the gun will knock on your door. And if you dont comply they will shoot and kill you and destroy your entire families livelihoods. Doesnt sound moral to me. There has gotta be other options to help lower/middle class and Id rather be propping up a better environment for people to succeed rather than stealing it with force.

 

[nostrum420]

Ok, we can certainly have a public fire department paid for with property taxes. Thats should be easy.

Im not into this trickle down, nothing should be trickled. You earn what you earn and your success shouldnt be penalized at a greater rate than anyone else. Your already contributing more the more you make at the flat rate if there was an income tax. Rich people infinitely will pay more taxes the more they earn.

What your talking about with having richer people to pay lower/middle class to me is forced charity. This charity is enforced with a man with a gun. And if you dont help people against your will (doesnt that sound strange) the man with the gun will knock on your door. And if you dont comply they will shoot and kill you and destroy your entire families livelihoods. Doesnt sound moral to me. There has gotta be other options to help lower/middle class and Id rather be propping up a better environment for people to succeed rather than stealing it with force.

It's not forced charity, people who make more generally do so by coordinating the labor of others. If you've done well under that system, you can give back a little more to the workers that made your success possible. No man is an island.

All law is enforced under threat of state violence, the only other answer is lawlessness.

 

[ax1]

It's not forced charity, people who make more generally do so by coordinating the labor of others. If you've done well under that system, you can give back a little more to the workers that made your success possible. No man is an island.

All law is enforced under threat of state violence, the only other answer is lawlessness.

You can say it was made by coordinating the labor of others, but you can also say the contribution was giving people jobs and careers to live a more prosperous life.

There is a line to be drawn as to where there are diminished returns in society by increasingly putting the burden on others. This is a complex question to be answered for sure.

I’ve always gotten ahead in life by pushing my own weight, I went from homeless to owning my own home and all this was due to rich people providing opportunities to the poor which I took advantage of and put countless hours into making something of it. In my case I thank “public enemy #1” Jeff Bezos for changing my life, and now government is punishing me more for my success and hard work every year trying to regulate me from being successful which I have to fight harder to not fall back.

I want nothing from Jeff other than helping me get the government out of both our ways.

 

[nostrum420]

You can say it was made by coordinating the labor of others, but you can also say the contribution was giving people jobs and careers to live a more prosperous life.

There is a line to be drawn as to where there are diminished returns in society by increasingly putting the burden on others. This is a complex question to be answered for sure.

I’ve always gotten ahead in life by pushing my own weight, I went from homeless to owning my own home and all this was due to rich people providing opportunities to the poor which I took advantage of and put countless hours into making something of it. In my case I thank “public enemy #1” Jeff Bezos for changing my life, and now government is punishing me more for my success and hard work every year trying to regulate me from being successful which I have to fight harder to not fall back.

I want nothing from Jeff other than helping me get the government out of both our ways.

OMG, Bezos is a POS and the perfect example of why there need to be top marginal tax rates near 100%

Honestly, setting aside the morality of it, it's a macroeconomic necessity, IMO.

 

[ax1]

OMG, Bezos is a POS and the perfect example of why there need to be top marginal tax rates near 100%

Honestly, setting aside the morality of it, it's a macroeconomic necessity, IMO.

He isnt a POS for using the system as it is, its not his fault. Plus, your not accounting for all the jobs he has created, not just the slavlandia warehouse jobs but tech jobs and 300,000+ independent businesses who have taken advantage of the opprotunity and platform that Amazon has provided (ANYBODY can do it!)

Every employee on Amazon pays income taxes by jobs supplied by Amazon. Everything sold on Amazon is taxed in most states now. Every 3rd party seller on Amazon has to collect and pay the government sales taxes on all their products sold on Amazon....and then every 3rd party seller has to hand over their own income taxes back. These 3rd party sellers are buying products that are often taxed. Many 3rd party sellers are hiring employees who are also taxed on their own wages.

So much money is generated by Amazon for the country its incredible but most people dont account for any of it. They just see Bezos and taking advantage of his loopholes. All the increasing online marketplace regulations are going to make it impossible for another Amazon to ever exist, at least not anytime in the near future on this level.

I just dont get it, prosperity is created and then penalized and what is meant to help people hurts alot of others but people put blindfolds on to the latter. Its just not right, people would rather steal it than create it. Government then uses the stolen money to create generations of dependents and keep more people poor.

 

[ax1]

OMG, Bezos is a POS and the perfect example of why there need to be top marginal tax rates near 100%

Honestly, setting aside the morality of it, it's a macroeconomic necessity, IMO.

But....have a flat tax, get rid of all writeoffs including charity and exempt the first so and so (yeah its not technically "flat tax" now by standard definition) to help lower/middle class people and problem of loopholes solved. Bezos would be paying the most taxes in the country.

 

[Aleksandar37]

OMG, Bezos is a POS and the perfect example of why there need to be top marginal tax rates near 100%

Honestly, setting aside the morality of it, it's a macroeconomic necessity, IMO.

What's the morality of punishing somebody for being successful? And the economy has withstood innovators and insanely rich before, so why is he all of the sudden a macroeconomic risk?

 

[nostrum420]

He isnt a POS for using the system as it is, its not his fault. Plus, your not accounting for all the jobs he has created, not just the slavlandia warehouse jobs but tech jobs and 300,000+ independent businesses who have taken advantage of the opprotunity and platform that Amazon has provided (ANYBODY can do it!)

Every employee on Amazon pays income taxes by jobs supplied by Amazon. Everything sold on Amazon is taxed in most states now. Every 3rd party seller on Amazon has to collect and pay the government sales taxes on all their products sold on Amazon....and then every 3rd party seller has to hand over their own income taxes back. These 3rd party sellers are buying products that are often taxed. Many 3rd party sellers are hiring employees who are also taxed on their own wages.

So much money is generated by Amazon for the country its incredible but most people dont account for any of it. They just see Bezos and taking advantage of his loopholes. All the increasing online marketplace regulations are going to make it impossible for another Amazon to ever exist, at least not anytime in the near future on this level.

I just dont get it, prosperity is created and then penalized and what is meant to help people hurts alot of others but people put blindfolds on to the latter. Its just not right, people would rather steal it than create it. Government then uses the stolen money to create generations of dependents and keep more people poor.

He operated at a loss and undercut mom and pop shops until they were out of business and then jacked up prices. Its capitalism at its worst and just because its within the system doesn't mean it isn't shitty af.

 

[nostrum420]

But....have a flat tax, get rid of all writeoffs including charity and exempt the first so and so (yeah its not technically "flat tax" now by standard definition) to help lower/middle class people and problem of loopholes solved. Bezos would be paying the most taxes in the country.

Pick a percentage, the middle class is always gonna be hit harder because they don't have as much surplus income (income beyond the cost of living) as a percentage of their total income.

 

[nostrum420]

What's the morality of punishing somebody for being successful? And the economy has withstood innovators and insanely rich before, so why is he all of the sudden a macroeconomic risk?

The super rich have always had macroeconomic consequences and often cause total market collapses in a number of ways. We saw this recently when a whale sold off a crap ton of BTC in order to lower the value of it, then bought it all back at the reduced price he single handedly created which then single handedly caused it to go back up in value netting this already rich guy a fortune and destabilizing the market for the rest of us. We've seen this historically many times "let them eat cake." The ruling class losing their heads couldn't have been good for the markets.

It's not a punishment. He still gets all the luxuries and finery he could ever wish for. Didn't he chuck a car into space because he felt like it? I'm not seeing the punishment here.

 

[ax1]

He operated at a loss and undercut mom and pop shops until they were out of business and then jacked up prices. Its capitalism at its worst and just because its within the system doesn't mean it isn't shitty af.

Your only seeing a part of the story, mom and pop shops went away and then hundreds of thousands mom and pops shops popped up because of Amazon. Many of the older brick and mortar type mom and pop shops have been able to take their shops to a new level because of the internet marketplace especially amazon on top of the hundreds of thousands of new independent mom and pop shops workout from home, out of their garages, etc...

Do you know anything about FBA? Do you know that many mom and pop shops have been able to use this to make their business to heights they never imagined 10 years ago and make their little income stores grow nation and worldwide?

The problem is when people stay comfortable and refuse to keep up to date with changing times. Those that put the effort into evolving into the future can prosper and those who choose to be stubborn are at risk of falling behind.

There has never been a greater time in the history of this country to make it on your own.

We dont live in a capitalist system today by definition. We really live in a socialist, capitalist, fascist big government communist sespool.

Did you know almost 24,000,000 people in America has a government job? You call this system capitalism? I wish we had a capitalist system, it simply doesnt exist LOL
(government job source: https://usdebtclock.org/)

 

[Aleksandar37]

The super rich have always had macroeconomic consequences and often cause total market collapses in a number of ways. We saw this recently when a whale sold off a crap ton of BTC in order to lower the value of it, then bought it all back at the reduced price he single handedly created which then single handedly caused it to go back up in value netting this already rich guy a fortune and destabilizing the market for the rest of us. We've seen this historically many times "let them eat cake." The ruling class losing their heads couldn't have been good for the markets.

It's not a punishment. He still gets all the luxuries and finery he could ever wish for. Didn't he chuck a car into space because he felt like it? I'm not seeing the punishment here.

First off, bitcoin itself is a cancer to any existing macroeconomic model. That's not a fair comparison in how Bezos made his money. Stock market crashes are usually due to speculation, not one person having a ton of cash. Was there a crash because of Ford? Rockefeller?

It is punishment because you're treating him unfairly simply for making more money. If mom and pop shops want to survive, they need to evolve or get out of the way. There is obviously a demand for online convenience and Bezos was one of the first to see that. Who are you or anybody else, especially the government, to question what he wishes for? We're supposed to limit one person because another person doesn't want learn a new trade or evolve with the rest of the world. I make this same argument for assembly line workers who get replaced by a machine. Rather than them complaining about a machine or an "illegal" stealing their job, they can get off their ass and learn a new skill, rather than expecting the world to pause and wait for them to catch up.

"Let them eat cake" doesn't even pertain to the US, although I understand the meaning. But again, here's how much cake he has donated to charities https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-amazon-how-much-donations-charity-2019-5

And I think you might be thinking of Elon Musk with the car in space thing, unless Bezos was involved in funding somehow.

 

[nostrum420]

Your only seeing a part of the story, mom and pop shops went away and then hundreds of thousands mom and pops shops popped up because of Amazon. Many of the older brick and mortar type mom and pop shops have been able to take their shops to a new level because of the internet marketplace especially amazon on top of the hundreds of thousands of new independent mom and pop shops workout from home, out of their garages, etc...

Do you know anything about FBA? Do you know that many mom and pop shops have been able to use this to make their business to heights they never imagined 10 years ago and make their little income stores grow nation and worldwide?

The problem is when people stay comfortable and refuse to keep up to date with changing times. Those that put the effort into evolving into the future can prosper and those who choose to be stubborn are at risk of falling behind.

There has never been a greater time in the history of this country to make it on your own.

We dont live in a capitalist system today by definition. We really live in a socialist, capitalist, fascist big government communist sespool.

Did you know almost 24,000,000 people in America is a government job? You call this system capitalism? I wish we had a capitalist system, it simply doesnt exist LOL
(government job source: https://usdebtclock.org/)

And those new businesses have to pay homage to lord Bezos for the privilege of being in business and if they do too well, Amazon rips off their product and makes their own version. What an age we live in.

 

[nostrum420]

First off, bitcoin itself is a cancer to any existing macroeconomic model. That's not a fair comparison in how Bezos made his money. Stock market crashes are usually due to speculation, not one person having a ton of cash. Was there a crash because of Ford? Rockefeller?

It is punishment because you're treating him unfairly simply for making more money. If mom and pop shops want to survive, they need to evolve or get out of the way. There is obviously a demand for online convenience and Bezos was one of the first to see that. Who are you or anybody else, especially the government, to question what he wishes for? We're supposed to limit one person because another person doesn't want learn a new trade or evolve with the rest of the world. I make this same argument for assembly line workers who get replaced by a machine. Rather than them complaining about a machine or an "illegal" stealing their job, they can get off their ass and learn a new skill, rather than expecting the world to pause and wait for them to catch up.

"Let them eat cake" doesn't even pertain to the US, although I understand the meaning. But again, here's how much cake he has donated to charities https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-amazon-how-much-donations-charity-2019-5

And I think you might be thinking of Elon Musk with the car in space thing, unless Bezos was involved in funding somehow.

But Bezos didn't build a better mousetrap, at least not at the start, he used a dirty trick to run his competition out of town. How could you expect small book stores to evolve to compete with someone that can sustain operating at a loss for years on end in order to undercut you and run you out of town?

It's not about questioning what he wishes for, he can still have it all. Name any luxury, anything, he can still buy it with the top marginal rates I advocate for. He'd literally still be able to do anything he ever wanted. There is no punishment here just an acknowledgment that he did well through collectivising the efforts of countless others and he therefore owes a debt of gratitude to that collective.

Ford and Rockefeller were nowhere near as wealthy as Bezos or Musk even when you adjust their wealth to today's dollars. AFAIK, the only other time there was even close to this level of wealth disparity was prior to the French revolution, which is why I brought it up.

Charity isn't charity if you get a tax break for it, it's a reallocation of government funds.

 

[nostrum420]

We actually saw a similar market destabilization when Bloomberg bought up so much as space and single handedly drove the price up. One person shouldn't be able to destabilize an entire market on a whim.

 

[Aleksandar37]

But Bezos didn't build a better mousetrap, at least not at the start, he used a dirty trick to run his competition out of town. How could you expect small book stores to evolve to compete with someone that can sustain operating at a loss for years on end in order to undercut you and run you out of town?

It's not about questioning what he wishes for, he can still have it all. Name any luxury, anything, he can still buy it with the top marginal rates I advocate for. He'd literally still be able to do anything he ever wanted. There is no punishment here just an acknowledgment that he did well through collectivising the efforts of countless others and he therefore owes a debt of gratitude to that collective.

Ford and Rockefeller were nowhere near as wealthy as Bezos or Musk even when you adjust their wealth to today's dollars. AFAIK, the only other time there was even close to this level of wealth disparity was prior to the French revolution, which is why I brought it up.

Charity isn't charity if you get a tax break for it, it's a reallocation of government funds.

No, he built a better bookstore right from the start. He saw a demand and created a supply. I still visit small book stores as they have their place, but companies like Borders and Barnes and Noble didn't see the demand. They thought they could build more stores and serve coffee and that would be enough to compete with a store that can find any edition of any book and deliver it to your front door.

So if not Ford or Rockefeller, who are these rich people that you're saying "often cause total market collapses in a number of ways?" Has there been one in the US? The whole converting money into today's value is far from exact, but this Forbes article puts Rockefeller at about three times of what Bezos is worth https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/#4da0a7cb3c26 and this list from USA Today puts Rockefeller and two others in front of Bezos https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/16/30-richest-americans-of-all-time/39338941/

But if you're not seeing taking money away from somebody to artificially prop up somebody else as punishment due to exceeding an arbitrary level of success, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm personally not for welfare of any kind and don't believe in any kind of restriction on how much money somebody can make. If Bezos wants to build a room and swim through his money like Scrooge McDuck, then I think it's his right to do so.

Now we will probably agree on tax breaks or other incentives for corporations because to me that falls under welfare.

 

[Aleksandar37]

We actually saw a similar market destabilization when Bloomberg bought up so much as space and single handedly drove the price up. One person shouldn't be able to destabilize an entire market on a whim.

Did he break the law? If not, then see if there is a need to change the law. Otherwise all of this is like when I see a high school team getting shamed for beating another team by "too much."

 

[ax1]

But Bezos didn't build a better mousetrap, at least not at the start, he used a dirty trick to run his competition out of town. How could you expect small book stores to evolve to compete with someone that can sustain operating at a loss for years on end in order to undercut you and run you out of town?

Simultaneously, small mom and pop bookstores who chose to study and evolve into the future and use that platform to their advantage never had it easier to go global and turn their little penny bookshop into gold.

Its not Amazon that took them out of business, but those who chose not to evolve into the future.

 

[ax1]

And those new businesses have to pay homage to lord Bezos for the privilege of being in business and if they do too well, Amazon rips off their product and makes their own version. What an age we live in.

Yeah sure, Ive heard of stories of Amazon copying the products. Its not a big deal if you handle this well. You have to think a few (or many many many) more products ahead of time and also have several other sources and work on being dependent rather than clinging to 1 or 2 products which will probably not be sustainable in the long run. This problem is easily solved by not getting comftable in the marketplace and always evolving in the system. Ive had hundreds of arrows shot at me and always been able to find another way to come back on there and around the internet. Im not a "business" guy, I studied psychology and world religions in community college. Its not rocket science to succeed these days, its never been easier its all in front of us and everybody can make money online. Im not just talking about Amazon, that is another mistake. Spreading out platforms such as eBay, Mercari, Poshmart, creating your own brand making yourself present and marketable on Amazon and increasing independence using Shopify or other private marketplace websites....etc....There is a services sect you can jump on and completely other niches, the possibilites are endless and also exciting.

Anyways, Im not ranting about how great I am, Im not....the difference here is Im not sticking to shortcomings and blaming so much how unfair life is, or Bezos, Musk or other wealthy people. Im constantly looking for solutions to problems and also finding solutions to problems before they happen. This is my life every day. Am I pissed off government steals the fruits of my income? Absolutely, thats not fair but I still try to succeed in the system. 10 years ago the internet was wild west and people didnt pay income taxes with online transactions, but things changed and you have to evolve.

The workforce in the real world is the same thing too. Like the ticket guy at the highway, he will be replaced by automation and technology, they will all be gone. He needs not cry and wine but instead get online or to the local public library and prepare for the next chapter in life before shyt hits the fan on him. This goes for any job. Im even learning a new skill, just in case, last year I became a certified personal trainer, this year Im studying to be a corrective exercise specialist and I will keep going for there. No because I want to do it but because I need various things to fall back on. I dont know if Ill ever be outregulated out of the internet, I dont know but

 

[ax1]

In addition, Amazon made it possible for anyone and everybody to open up a bookstore. I even have a small one, impossible for me without Amazon.

 

[ax1]

We actually saw a similar market destabilization when Bloomberg bought up so much as space and single handedly drove the price up. One person shouldn't be able to destabilize an entire market on a whim.

If there is a money heist its the private Federal Reserve and policies of the US government of quantitative easing. They steal money at will from everybody in the country with a shadow tax to prop up wallstreet devaluing all our life's savings and purchasing power. Federal Reserve operates in secret and are unauditable by our elected officials and steal trillions and trillions of dollars. Actual, a partial audit that Ron Paul pushed for back in '09 revealed some 16 trillion in secret bailouts unaccounted for and we will never know how our money was spent or given to...but thats the only audit we have, just a small one after the crisis those days.

This where Burn-knee gets some bonus points although he did gut and water down the audit to begin with.

Fed Stonewalling - Bernanke Flatly Refuse to Say Which Banks Took Trillions in Taxpayer Loans

Mind-Blowing Fed Secrecy

Ron Paul Comments on Bernie Sanders' Gutting Of Audit The Fed Bill

 

[nostrum420]

No, he built a better bookstore right from the start. He saw a demand and created a supply. I still visit small book stores as they have their place, but companies like Borders and Barnes and Noble didn't see the demand. They thought they could build more stores and serve coffee and that would be enough to compete with a store that can find any edition of any book and deliver it to your front door.

So if not Ford or Rockefeller, who are these rich people that you're saying "often cause total market collapses in a number of ways?" Has there been one in the US? The whole converting money into today's value is far from exact, but this Forbes article puts Rockefeller at about three times of what Bezos is worth https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-rockefellers-the-legacy-of-historys-richest-man/#4da0a7cb3c26 and this list from USA Today puts Rockefeller and two others in front of Bezos https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/16/30-richest-americans-of-all-time/39338941/

But if you're not seeing taking money away from somebody to artificially prop up somebody else as punishment due to exceeding an arbitrary level of success, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm personally not for welfare of any kind and don't believe in any kind of restriction on how much money somebody can make. If Bezos wants to build a room and swim through his money like Scrooge McDuck, then I think it's his right to do so.

Now we will probably agree on tax breaks or other incentives for corporations because to me that falls under welfare.

There were other websites selling just about every book before 1995, they just didn't have the financial backing to sell at a loss for years.

Again Bezos would still be able to Scrooge Mcduck it all day with the top marginal tax rates I propose. These are not a punishment but an acknowledgement that a modern civil society was the environment in which you flourished and you could not have done so without said civil society so you have an obligation to do the most for that society because it has done the most for you. It is a bill for services rendered.

 

[nostrum420]

Yeah sure, Ive heard of stories of Amazon copying the products. Its not a big deal if you handle this well. You have to think a few (or many many many) more products ahead of time and also have several other sources and work on being dependent rather than clinging to 1 or 2 products which will probably not be sustainable in the long run. This problem is easily solved by not getting comftable in the marketplace and always evolving in the system. Ive had hundreds of arrows shot at me and always been able to find another way to come back on there and around the internet. Im not a "business" guy, I studied psychology and world religions in community college. Its not rocket science to succeed these days, its never been easier its all in front of us and everybody can make money online. Im not just talking about Amazon, that is another mistake. Spreading out platforms such as eBay, Mercari, Poshmart, creating your own brand making yourself present and marketable on Amazon and increasing independence using Shopify or other private marketplace websites....etc....There is a services sect you can jump on and completely other niches, the possibilites are endless and also exciting.

Anyways, Im not ranting about how great I am, Im not....the difference here is Im not sticking to shortcomings and blaming so much how unfair life is, or Bezos, Musk or other wealthy people. Im constantly looking for solutions to problems and also finding solutions to problems before they happen. This is my life every day. Am I pissed off government steals the fruits of my income? Absolutely, thats not fair but I still try to succeed in the system. 10 years ago the internet was wild west and people didnt pay income taxes with online transactions, but things changed and you have to evolve.

The workforce in the real world is the same thing too. Like the ticket guy at the highway, he will be replaced by automation and technology, they will all be gone. He needs not cry and wine but instead get online or to the local public library and prepare for the next chapter in life before shyt hits the fan on him. This goes for any job. Im even learning a new skill, just in case, last year I became a certified personal trainer, this year Im studying to be a corrective exercise specialist and I will keep going for there. No because I want to do it but because I need various things to fall back on. I dont know if Ill ever be outregulated out of the internet, I dont know but

Wow. Your answer to Amazon stealing intellectual property is to tell innovators to innovate more. As someone in product development, this is just offensive. What's to stop them from just continuing to steal the new ones?

 

[nostrum420]

Did he break the law? If not, then see if there is a need to change the law. Otherwise all of this is like when I see a high school team getting shamed for beating another team by "too much."

I'm sure he broke plenty of laws in amassing his fortune in order to be able to do this in the first place and I've been advocating for changes in some if those laws all evening.

 

[nostrum420]

Simultaneously, small mom and pop bookstores who chose to study and evolve into the future and use that platform to their advantage never had it easier to go global and turn their little penny bookshop into gold.

Its not Amazon that took them out of business, but those who chose not to evolve into the future.

You don't think these small businesses would've loved to have done that if they had the access to the capital to do it?

 

[ax1]

Wow. Your answer to Amazon stealing intellectual property is to tell innovators to innovate more. As someone in product development, this is just offensive. What's to stop them from just continuing to steal the new ones?

Get patents and trademarks...is there evidence Amazon is stealing people's inventions or trademarks?

I know there is a problem with Chinese copycats just like any other product in existence and there is a process of protections available on the Amazon platform that will protect you and help take down the copycats.

 

[nostrum420]

Get patents and trademarks...is there evidence Amazon is stealing people's inventions or trademarks?

I know there is a problem with Chinese copycats just like any other product in existence and there is a process of protections available on the Amazon platform that will protect you and help take down the copycats.

Another problem with access to capital. Do you know how long and expensive the patent process is?

 

[nostrum420]

Another problem with access to capital. Do you know how long and expensive the patent process is?

And then the expense to try to enforce your patent if it does get ripped off? Meanwhile Bezos has the money for the best lawyers to fight you on it.

 

[ax1]

You don't think these small businesses would've loved to have done that if they had the access to the capital to do it?

Well, everybody wants access to capital. If you want capital work on your credit and take out a loan. If I need 200k tomorrow it wont be a problem for me, and I came from someone who was in financial catastrophe and poverty and was homeless and built my life from the ground up without ever asking for a hand out, not even foodstamps.

If you were a small business struggling you could have moved onto the Amazon platform and made your business far more profitable and efficient than the pre-historic brick and mortsr store that has expensive overhead costs.

 

[nostrum420]

Get patents and trademarks...is there evidence Amazon is stealing people's inventions or trademarks?

I know there is a problem with Chinese copycats just like any other product in existence and there is a process of protections available on the Amazon platform that will protect you and help take down the copycats.

Amazon

 

[ax1]

Another problem with access to capital. Do you know how long and expensive the patent process is?

Its not that hard based off my research. At least there are patents to protect you in the first place. If you want to reform the patent process and make it better, stronger, more efficient and cost effective, why not? Ill be down for that.

 

[nostrum420]

Well, everybody wants access to capital. If you want capital work on your credit and take out a loan. If I need 200k tomorrow it wont be a problem for me, and I came from someone who was in financial catastrophe and poverty and was homeless and built my life from the ground up without ever asking for a hand out, not even foodstamps.

If you were a small business struggling you could have moved onto the Amazon platform and made your business far more profitable and efficient than the pre-historic brick and mortsr store that has expensive overhead costs.

You think that even comes into the same ballpark of the capital that Bezos was able to access? You're taking the bootstraps mentality a little far here.

 

[nostrum420]

Its not that hard based off my research. At least there are patents to protect you in the first place. If you want to reform the patent process and make it better, stronger, more efficient and cost effective, why not? Ill be down for that.

Will you be upset when we need tax revenue to do this?

 

[nostrum420]

Its not that hard based off my research. At least there are patents to protect you in the first place. If you want to reform the patent process and make it better, stronger, more efficient and cost effective, why not? Ill be down for that.

What research? I'm sorry but, again as a product developer, I can tell you, you're just wrong.

 

[ax1]

Amazon

I go on those forums and read time to time. Did that guy have a brand registry, trademark and patent? Probably not.

You dont need to have your own product or brand name to run a successful business anyways, from my experience the more common path to success is simply getting product and flipping, its as easy as microwavable pancakes...well it takes time and effort but there are many ways to succeed in the system.

 

[nostrum420]

Its not that hard based off my research. At least there are patents to protect you in the first place. If you want to reform the patent process and make it better, stronger, more efficient and cost effective, why not? Ill be down for that.

And again, do you really think the average patent holder could take Amazon to court and win?

 

[ax1]

Will you be upset when we need tax revenue to do this?

You dont need income tax revenue to run a patent office. It can be funded with fees or maybe even privatize it.