What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The pitchforks are coming (1 Viewer)

That guy gets it.

The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
Click to expand...
No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None.
Click to expand...
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.
Click to expand...
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn’t a risky untried policy for us. It’s doubling down on the strategy that’s already allowing our city to kick your city’s ###.
Click to expand...
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?

My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows. They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, “There but for the grace of Jeff go I.” Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances, are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made us, rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The middle class protected the rich.

The poor always want to revolt but the middle class was happy with what they had so sat around content. Now they made the middle class poor so even the poor no longer have the hope of moving up in class.

The tiers of wealth protected the poor from the downtrodden, but the super rich needed to to take the remaining billions to stack on their already huge stacks of billions. When they make all of the 99% poor who will protect them? Their money will be worthless.

The rich arent as smart as they seem. You dont have to be smart to be rich, you just need to be a greedy cutthoat willing to step on anyone so they can sip champagne and eat caviar.

 
Champagne and caviar suck. Give me a porterhouse and a single malt.

If this guy is correct he ought to be investing in a pitch fork factory.

Sounds like the rich are going to experience an analog of a zombie apocalypse. They will be the living constantly outnumbered and hunted by swarms.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Champagne and caviar suck. Give me a porterhouse and a single malt.

If this guy is correct he ought to be investing in a pitch fork factory.

Sounds like the rich are going to experience an analog of a zombie apocalypse. They will be the living constantly outnumbered and hunted by swarms.
Click to expand...
Swarms that are fully mobile and have the capacity for abstract thought and tactics.

 
MC Gas Money said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Champagne and caviar suck. Give me a porterhouse and a single malt.

If this guy is correct he ought to be investing in a pitch fork factory.

Sounds like the rich are going to experience an analog of a zombie apocalypse. They will be the living constantly outnumbered and hunted by swarms.
Click to expand...
Swarms that are fully mobile and have the capacity for abstract thought and tactics.
Click to expand...
Should be interesting.

I am going to have to rethink my ZARP. I had formulated it with the unquestioned premise that I would be on the side of the living. Now I see the possibility that I will be part of the swarm looking to feed off of those who are living it up. Before the plan was primarily defensive with some evade and survive elements. Now I see I may want some more offensive capability.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
MC Gas Money said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Champagne and caviar suck. Give me a porterhouse and a single malt.

If this guy is correct he ought to be investing in a pitch fork factory.

Sounds like the rich are going to experience an analog of a zombie apocalypse. They will be the living constantly outnumbered and hunted by swarms.
Click to expand...
Swarms that are fully mobile and have the capacity for abstract thought and tactics.
Click to expand...
Should be interesting. I am going to have to rethink my ZARP. I had formulated it with the unquestioned premise that I would be on the side of the living. Now I see the possibility that I will be part of the swarm looking to feed off of those who are living it up. Before the plan was primarily defensive with some evade and survive elements. Now I see I may want some more offensive capability.
Click to expand...
What is a ZARP?

 
MC Gas Money said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
MC Gas Money said:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Champagne and caviar suck. Give me a porterhouse and a single malt.

If this guy is correct he ought to be investing in a pitch fork factory.

Sounds like the rich are going to experience an analog of a zombie apocalypse. They will be the living constantly outnumbered and hunted by swarms.
Click to expand...
Swarms that are fully mobile and have the capacity for abstract thought and tactics.
Click to expand...
Should be interesting. I am going to have to rethink my ZARP. I had formulated it with the unquestioned premise that I would be on the side of the living. Now I see the possibility that I will be part of the swarm looking to feed off of those who are living it up. Before the plan was primarily defensive with some evade and survive elements. Now I see I may want some more offensive capability.
Click to expand...
What is a ZARP?
Click to expand...
Zombie Attack Response Plan

 
Hey! Is this today's OFFICIAL liberal circle-jerk thread?

And who is this MC Gas Money dude? He joins a week ago and is already filling up the forums with this crap. Is this a Mad Sweeney alias?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Hey! Is this today's OFFICIAL liberal circle-jerk thread?

And who is this MC Gas Money dude? He joins

a week ago and is already filling up the forums with this crap.
Click to expand...
He joined years ago and flamed out hard with his previous screen names, this will be no different. He was Blue Onion or something and then DSP. He is an addict that lives in a halfway house and enjoys sipping Bud Light Lime while singing death metal. In other words, nothing to see here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baloney Sandwich said:
MaxThreshold said:
Hey! Is this today's OFFICIAL liberal circle-jerk thread?

And who is this MC Gas Money dude? He joins

a week ago and is already filling up the forums with this crap.
Click to expand...
He joined years ago and flamed out hard with his previous screen names, this will be more different. He was Blue Onion or something and then DSP. He is an addict that lives in a halfway house and enjoys sipping Bud Light Lime while singing death metal. In other words, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

 
I know most progressives (and even some conservatives) don't like to hear this, but the only way to have prosperity, long term, is to increase free trade. Guys like the one quoted in the OP are under the false assumption that our economics are dictated by what happens in the USA, but the truth is that the global marketplace decides everything. But the good news is there are untapped markets all over the world, and we have lots of stuff to sell. But that means accepting cheaper goods as well, which in the short term involves lowering wages rather than raising them. Can't be helped.

 
Also the problem with forcibly raising the minimum wage is that it creates inflation, and in the end you're right back where you started. Except that those of us in the middle class are forced to pay more for stuff without seeing any Increase to our income.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
MaxThreshold said:
Hey! Is this today's OFFICIAL liberal circle-jerk thread?

And who is this MC Gas Money dude? He joins

a week ago and is already filling up the forums with this crap.
Click to expand...
He joined years ago and flamed out hard with his previous screen names, this will be no different. He was Blue Onion or something andthen DSP. He is an addict that lives in a halfway house and enjoys sipping Bud Light Lime while singing death metal. In other words, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
Blue Onion is dead, dawg.

 
timschochet said:
I know most progressives (and even some conservatives) don't like to hear this, but the only way to have prosperity, long term, is to increase free trade. Guys like the one quoted in the OP are under the false assumption that our economics are dictated by what happens in the USA, but the truth is that the global marketplace decides everything. But the good news is there are untapped markets all over the world, and we have lots of stuff to sell. But that means accepting cheaper goods as well, which in the short term involves lowering wages rather than raising them. Can't be helped.
Click to expand...
Free trade doesn't mean lower wages in general. It typically means higher real wages on the whole. It means lower wages in industries in which we're net importers, like textiles, but higher wages in industries in which we're net exporters, like software design or death metal singing.

The transition is obviously difficult on textile workers, but it provides the right incentives to get people to switch industries. It doesn't make sense for us to all be farmers like we were three-hundred years ago. Economies change over time to become more productive as technological innovations are incorporated and comparative advantages evolve. Protectionism gets in the way of that, while free trade encourages it.

We are much better off, on the whole, embracing free trade. But one of the reasons we're better off is that free trade enhances our purchasing power (i.e., our real wages). If it actually reduced wages overall, that would be a pretty good reason to oppose free trade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Also the problem with forcibly raising the minimum wage is that it creates inflation, and in the end you're right back where you started. Except that those of us in the middle class are forced to pay more for stuff without seeing any Increase to our income.
Click to expand...
There are a number of good arguments against increasing the minimum wage. Inflation does not appear to be one of them, as the inflationary effect appears to be quite tiny. (By one estimate I've seen, a 10% increase in the minimum wage will result in something like a 0.4% increase in prices generally. That doesn't leave minimum-wage earners right back where they started.)

 
He's right historically (that the poor masses revolt) and I guess it's conceivable, but there's one distinction in America he's missing - upward mobility didn't exist in those other examples. There was no other path but revolt. We have a long way to go to get there.

ETA - Also, plenty of the ultra rich in this country actively work on projects to improve the lower classes. Gates invests heavily in education for example. Many of the rich are liberal and at least pay lip service to a stronger redistribution of wealth. In those other examples it was very different.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem for the upper and elite will be when the lower and middle classes finally get away from even trying to keep up in terms of expenditures/purchase of new goods/frivolous things etc. etc. What would harm the nouveau riche and upper class almost as much as a "revolution" would be the middle class not agreeing to participate in the "keeping up with the Joneses" rat race.

 
Thunderlips said:
The problem for the upper and elite will be when the lower and middle classes finally get away from even trying to keep up in terms of expenditures/purchase of new goods/frivolous things etc. etc. What would harm the nouveau riche and upper class almost as much as a "revolution" would be the middle class not agreeing to participate in the "keeping up with the Joneses" rat race.
Click to expand...
Yes, starting a recession will really show those rich SOBs!

 
jon_mx said:
Thunderlips said:
The problem for the upper and elite will be when the lower and middle classes finally get away from even trying to keep up in terms of expenditures/purchase of new goods/frivolous things etc. etc. What would harm the nouveau riche and upper class almost as much as a "revolution" would be the middle class not agreeing to participate in the "keeping up with the Joneses" rat race.
Click to expand...
Yes, starting a recession will really show those rich SOBs!
Click to expand...
So the answer is for the middle class to continually spend money they don't have or that could be allocated elsewhere just to keep the economy going? If there was reciprication, some sharing of that cheddar...that's a bit understandable. People in this thread have already showcased that there were movers and shakers who understood that by giving the working class an extra dollar...that mover and shaker would eventually see three more dollars in his pocket......the problem is..is that the working class isn't getting that dollar anymore.

 
lod01 said:
FlapJacks said:
Times are changing, now the poor get fat
Click to expand...
This guy has it figured out. This won't happen in our lifetimes. Not as long as the fat and dumb are allowed to breed uncontrolled. All you have to do is reference the fat lazy POS that pumps out kids & laughs at the saps that work for a living.http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/04/39793-welfare-queen-explains-how-shes-ripping-off-the-taxpayers/

And there are tons of these losers sucking the system dry.
Click to expand...
A lot of people just lump all the poor in to the same catagory as these people, which they shouldnt

 
Thunderlips said:
The problem for the upper and elite will be when the lower and middle classes finally get away from even trying to keep up in terms of expenditures/purchase of new goods/frivolous things etc. etc. What would harm the nouveau riche and upper class almost as much as a "revolution" would be the middle class not agreeing to participate in the "keeping up with the Joneses" rat race.
Click to expand...
Globalization has a solution to this. America isn't the only place to sell goods.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Free trade doesn't mean lower wages in general. It typically means higher real wages on the whole.
Click to expand...
Video explanation (albeit oversimplified).
Click to expand...
The video ignores the Wall Street influence.

Investors don't like "one trick pony" investments. In other words, they don't like to invest in companies that specialize. They want companies that have multiple streams of revenue, so that when econimic conditions negatively affect one stream of revenue, the stock value can still stay strong due to the other streams.

As such, over the past few decades we've seen a move away from specialization. For example, McDonald's is no longer a hamburger and fries company. Their workers have to learn a ####load of different foods to prepare. Ace Hardware, Radio Shack, etc,... are being replaced with big box stores so now instead of having employees knowldegeable on hardware and electronics, they also have to know about lawn furniture, appliances, etc... Grocery stores are now clothing and office supply stores, etc....

The only companies staying in the specializtion described in the video are non-publically traded companies, and too many of them have dreams of going public, so it's just a matter of time before they move away from specialization.

It's this Wall Street affect that I see as the problem the guy in the OP is describing. I'd be a lot less concerned if Wall Street wasn't doing this to America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Investors don't like "one trick pony" investments. In other words, they don't like to invest in companies that specialize. They want companies that have multiple streams of revenue, so that when econimic conditions negatively affect one stream of revenue, the stock value can still stay strong due to the other streams.
Click to expand...
There's no inherent difference between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $100 in a company that operates both a burger stand and a banana stand.

If the trend is toward the latter arrangement, I don't think it has anything to do with diversifying investment portfolios, because it doesn't accomplish that. It probably has more to do with either (a) realizing synergies or other efficiencies that please customers, or (b) making a company bigger despite inefficiencies to please managers.

As such, over the past few decades we've seen a move away from specialization. For example, McDonald's is no longer a hamburger and fries company. Their workers have to learn a ####load of different foods to prepare. Ace Hardware, Radio Shack, etc,... are being replaced with big box stores so now instead of having employees knowldegeable on hardware and electronics, they also have to know about lawn furniture, appliances, etc... Grocery stores are now clothing and office supply stores, etc....
Click to expand...
These trends strike me as examples of efficiencies that please customers (but some could be inefficiencies that please managers).

The only companies staying in the specializtion described in the video are non-publically traded companies, and too many of them have dreams of going public, so it's just a matter of time before they move away from specialization.
Click to expand...
And this is probably because in closely held companies, the managers are also typically the biggest shareholders, so they don't expand for expansion's sake even where it's inefficient to do so. In publicly traded companies, however, the managers' and the shareholders' interests are not perfectly aligned. For managers, bigger is better; for shareholders, that's not necessarily so.

It's this Wall Street affect that I see as the problem the guy in the OP is describing. I'd be a lot less concerned if Wall Street wasn't doing this to America.
Click to expand...
I suspect that Wall Street likes businesses that un-specialize if doing so is efficient (and therefore increases ROI), but dislikes businesses that un-specialize when doing so is inefficient. Wall Street should not care about specialization in itself, because it can diversify (and reduce variance) by investing in multiple companies instead of just one. It can invest in both the burger stand and the banana stand even if they are separate companies.

But managers don't always do what Wall Street wants. Sometimes they un-specialize because they care more about growth and total revenues than ROI (to overgeneralize just a bit).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Politician Spock said:
Investors don't like "one trick pony" investments. In other words, they don't like to invest in companies that specialize. They want companies that have multiple streams of revenue, so that when econimic conditions negatively affect one stream of revenue, the stock value can still stay strong due to the other streams.
Click to expand...
There's no difference between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $100 in a company that operates both a burger stand and a banana stand.
Click to expand...
There's is a difference though between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $50 in a stand that sells both burgers and bananas. The later is more appealing to an investor. Yet it produces the opposite economic influence discussed in the video.

If the trend is toward the latter arrangement, I don't think it has anything to do with diversifying investment portfolios, because it doesn't accomplish that. It probably has more to do with either (a) realizing synergies or other efficiencies that please customers, or (b) making a company bigger despite inefficiencies to please managers.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons for it. Investors not liking "one trick ponies" is just one reason. There are others, as you point out. A mom and pop hamburger and fries business only does lunch and dinner because they don't want to work 18 hours a day. But when owned by Wall Street investors, that business opens for breakfast to increase the revenue, just like they add chicken and salads to the lunch and dinner menu. Again, Wall Street wants to see growth, and that growth comes from diversity, not specialization.

As such, over the past few decades we've seen a move away from specialization. For example, McDonald's is no longer a hamburger and fries company. Their workers have to learn a ####load of different foods to prepare. Ace Hardware, Radio Shack, etc,... are being replaced with big box stores so now instead of having employees knowldegeable on hardware and electronics, they also have to know about lawn furniture, appliances, etc... Grocery stores are now clothing and office supply stores, etc....
Click to expand...
These trends strike me as examples of efficiencies that please customers.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt it pleases customers. That's because a $50 burger/banana stand sells bananas cheaper than a $50 banana stand and burgers cheaper than a $50 burger stand, because there is only overhead passed on in the price of goods for one store operation, not two stores operating.

The only companies staying in the specializtion described in the video are non-publically traded companies, and too many of them have dreams of going public, so it's just a matter of time before they move away from specialization.
Click to expand...
And this is probably because in closely held companies, the managers are also typically the biggest shareholders, so they don't expand for expansion's sake even where it's inefficient to do so. In publicly traded companies, however, the managers' and the shareholders' interests are not perfectly aligned. For managers, bigger is better; for shareholders, that's not necessarily so.
Click to expand...
It's the fiduciary responsibility officers have to the shareholders that drives corporations away from specialization. You're right that in closely held companies, you don't see it occur as much. That's my point. The more you get into the Wall Street model, where shareholders are the public, the more you see corporations move away from specialization.

It's this Wall Street affect that I see as the problem the guy in the OP is describing. I'd be a lot less concerned if Wall Street wasn't doing this to America.
Click to expand...
I suspect that Wall Street likes businesses that un-specialize if doing so is efficient (and therefore increases ROI), but dislikes businesses that un-specialize when doing so is inefficient. Wall Street should not care about specialization in itself, because it can diversify (and reduce variance) by investing in multiple companies instead of just one. It can invest in both the burger stand and the banana stand even if they are separate companies.

But managers don't always do what Wall Street wants. Sometimes they un-specialize because they care more about growth and total revenues than ROI (to overgeneralize just a bit).
Click to expand...
The question of why Wall Street has this effect is interesting. Discussing the question assumes however that you agree that the premise I'm stating is real.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Politician Spock said:
Investors don't like "one trick pony" investments. In other words, they don't like to invest in companies that specialize. They want companies that have multiple streams of revenue, so that when econimic conditions negatively affect one stream of revenue, the stock value can still stay strong due to the other streams.
Click to expand...
There's no difference between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $100 in a company that operates both a burger stand and a banana stand.
Click to expand...
There's is a difference though between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $50 in a stand that sells both burgers and bananas. The later is more appealing to an investor. Yet it produces the opposite economic influence discussed in the video.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about a stand that sells both burgers and bananas. I was talking about two stands in either case, one that sells bananas and one that sells burgers. The only difference was whether both stands were operated by a single company, or by two separate companies.

In that situation, there's no inherent difference (in terms of diversification or variance) between investing all your money in the single two-stand business, or investing half your money in each of the two one-stand businesses.

As for whether a single stand should sell just burgers, just bananas, or both, that's a different question from the one I'd proposed. That depends entirely on the extra costs (inventory, training, etc.) versus the extra sales. One thing I'm fairly sure of, though, is that investors will judge the outcome based on ROI rather than based on stability or variance. Once again, if they want to increase stability or reduce variance, they can do so by investing in multiple companies. They don't need each company they invest in to individually be stable; they just need their overall portfolio to be stable. So if there is a trend toward companies diversifying in order to promote stability, I do not think it's coming from Wall Street investors. It's more likely coming from managers, who cannot diversify by managing multiple companies the way that investors can diversify by investing in different companies. If a manager wants stability, he's got to create it in just his own company, and diversified revenue streams can help with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.
Click to expand...
Uh, 20th and 19th century Britain?

Literally ruled the world and created industry itself, they kept on keeping on just fine. Well until WW2, but that was Germany's fault.

Marx and Engel did live and write in London but hey they lived comfortably and they never led a revolution in the UK.

And of course there's the US where we have always been fine with income inequality to the extent there has never been a police state or an "uprising" since 1776.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Politician Spock said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Politician Spock said:
Investors don't like "one trick pony" investments. In other words, they don't like to invest in companies that specialize. They want companies that have multiple streams of revenue, so that when econimic conditions negatively affect one stream of revenue, the stock value can still stay strong due to the other streams.
Click to expand...
There's no difference between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $100 in a company that operates both a burger stand and a banana stand.
Click to expand...
There's is a difference though between investing $50 in a hamburger stand and $50 in a banana stand, and investing $50 in a stand that sells both burgers and bananas. The later is more appealing to an investor. Yet it produces the opposite economic influence discussed in the video.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about a stand that sells both burgers and bananas. I was talking about two stands in either case, one that sells bananas and one that sells burgers. The only difference was whether both stands were operated by a single company, or by two separate companies.

In that situation, there's no inherent difference (in terms of diversification or variance) between investing all your money in the single two-stand business, or investing half your money in each of the two one-stand businesses.
Click to expand...
Having worked for two companies that went public, I whole heartedly disagree. Both companies I went through this with entered into additional revenue streams in the 12 months prior to going public, and during the second one I learned why. Goldman Sachs was our investment firm and dictated to us to enter into additional streams of revnue prior to going public BECAUSE it makes the IPO more appealing. The market of buyers who invest in specialized companies is smaller than the market of buyers who invest in diversified companies. So I agree with you in principle that it shouldn't matter, but I'm speaking in market dynamics of the Wall Street market here, and though you're right that it shouldn't matter, Goldman Sachs told us it does.

As for whether a single stand should sell just burgers, just bananas, or both, that's a different question from the one I'd proposed. That depends entirely on the extra costs (inventory, training, etc.) versus the extra sales. One thing I'm fairly sure of, though, is that investors will judge the outcome based on ROI rather than based on stability or variance. Once again, if they want to increase stability or reduce variance, they can do so by investing in multiple companies. They don't need each company they invest in to individually be stable; they just need their overall portfolio to be stable. So if there is a trend toward companies diversifying in order to promote stability, I do not think it's coming from Wall Street investors. It's more likely coming from managers, who cannot diversify by managing multiple companies the way that investors can diversify by investing in different companies. If a manager wants stability, he's got to create it in just his own company, and diversified revenue streams can help with that.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Could we just close all the tax loopholes that allow the .01% to make billions of untaxed income? Maybe that would be a good place to start.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
CV-19/Delta Reality: Son's unvaccinated grandparents are in the emergency room and fighting for their lives.
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
The Z Machine
The Z Machine
BroncoFreak_2K3
University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel fired by board after investigation
Replies
11
Views
931
Judge Smails
Judge Smails
Pip's Invitation
The THIRD 100 from 1971. #1: Echoes
5 6 7
Replies
310
Views
16K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top