I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Confiscate all the wealth of those evil rich people, and the longest you'll last is 12 years before the money runs out.
This optimistically assumes the rich can liquidate their wealth immediately, turning it into cash to pay the parasitic classes. It also assumes there are enough buyers willing to part with roughly $50 trillion immediately to purchase said assets. It also optimistically assumes prices would maintain themselves in such a sell-off and INSANELY assumes some idiots would want to buy such assets when it's obvious the US no longer desires to protect property rights.
It's because of this simple math and economic logic, I love it when somebody further eviscerates the whiny, sniveling, and lazy classes who think they are somehow "oppressed" and therefore "entitled" to other people's lives in the form of their money. Not because the man points out reality, but because it's just further proof that no matter how far socialism succeeds in this country, in the end, they simply can't win. There's too many lazy people and not enough rich people's money to even boost them above $50,000 per year in GDP per capita. Socialists, liberal arts students, democrats, and other assorted delusionals think there's a vat of $200 trillion dollars that would result in everybody making $670,000 per year...if we only just spread it around.
Sorry people. There isn't enough money. It's going to boil down to you to help yourself...that is unless you're OK with just $50,000 per year...but oh, that's right. You're entitled to more I bet.
How dare you, sir.
ReplyDeleteYour next-to-last sentence contained those terrible, evil, racist, classist, mysogynist and something else'ist words.
"Help yourself."
My goodness, it's almost like you're saying that we're SUPPOSED to do that. That's just crazy talk.
Be careful, Capt. The peasants, especially the funny-colored ones, must never be allowed to believe they're equal to everyone else if we're to achieve progressive nirvana.
Aaron I think the socialist mentality has a basis in the brain. I have old HS whom to this day are still socialists. There has to be something biological here what do you think?
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with the "analysis" of the top 1% by (practically) everyone is that they all seem to misunderstand who the top 1% are ...
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the bottom 20% of income earners over time you will find that over 80% of them will eventually move out of the bottom 20%. The reason for this is that an honest analysis of the bottom 20% of income earners will demonstrate that they're mostly young people who are just starting out; and the people in the bottom 20% who will remain in the bottom 20% mostly have some "problem" that prevents them from earning more (single mothers, drug addicts, criminals, high-school drop-outs).
At the same time, the vast majority of the top 1% of income earners are people who are nearing the end of their career and (mostly) made really good career choices. The individual who was making a (very) good living in their 30s may move into the top 1% in their 40s as they become managers; and they may earn far more in their 50s as they enter into upper management.
In a similar fashion, most people don't really start building significant wealth until later in their life. Until their children are out of the house most people's expenses are too high and/or their income is too low to save/invest much. In the last 15 years of their career most people are earning (just about) as much as they ever will, their house is mostly paid off and their mortgage is tiny because of 15+ years of inflation, and their kids are out of the house. In this age group, if you avoid keeping up with your neighbors, you will probably be in the top 1%.
I laughed and laughed when I read about the kid complaining that he actually has to DRIVE his car all by himself. I am not guiltless - Ever since "Star Trek" I've been waiting for my Replicator so that I don't have to cook!
ReplyDeleteBill Whittle did the math and said that if you liquidated the eeevil rich - converted all their assets to dollars - you could pay the nations bills for something like 10 months.
ReplyDeleteI saw a rough calculation that indicated that all of the more or less liquid assets of the rich wouldn't cover this year's deficit.
ReplyDeleteI teach astronomy on the side. To say that the national debt is "astronomical" is no joke; if every star in the local group of galaxies sent us a buck, it wouldn't cover this year's budget.
"...the whiny, sniveling, and lazy classes who think they are somehow "oppressed" and therefore "entitled" to other people's lives in the form of their money."
ReplyDeleteReading this caused me to automatically think of feminism, feminists, and the 'helpless, oppressed' privileged princesses who have these same beliefs and (like vermin) infest society today. Coincidence, Captain?