Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Thanks for the Colbert DFT bump!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Fight the power, Rachel!

There are two halves to the assertion. Firstly that people who are currently not wealthy would not in fact become wealthy with an injection of cash... now although as far as I know nobody has done the experiment that @quantumushroom suggests, winning the lotto seems to me to be a reasonable proxy for it and there have been studies of lotto winners, nicely referenced here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=141224

The relevant part is that it really doesn't change people to have a bit more money, one study found that after 5 years on average they had spent 44% of the money, and another found that after 5 years a third had gone bankrupt.

For the second half of the assertion, that the people who are currently wealthy would (in the absence of regulations to prevent it) get wealthy again... well, I can't back up that half of the assertion. I have heard anecdotes of people who have lost everything and then bounced back, but am not aware of any studies.

I think 3 years is too soon. I think it would take 10 years.

>> ^Trancecoach:

>> ^quantumushroom:
<ad hominem deleted>. Divide up all the wealth in America and in 3 years or less, it would look close to the way it does today.

prove it. or at least provide evidence to back it up.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Uhhh, so what as the idea? I was interested, but there wasn't anything here to see. I am all for new ways of doing business, but we didn't get that here. I am a technical person by nature, so perhaps I am just being nit picky, but was there anything here beyond just "all banks should be credit unions."?


Nope...there was no real "idea" there. Just expressing the thought that there must be a better way, probably involving non-profits and increased transparency. Perhaps there are such ideas in his book(s)...but he really missed the boat by not trumpeting that fact, if it is indeed the case.

I do have to agree with the sentiment; there doesn't seem to be anything inherently -requiring- business to ignore social values. Therefore, we should be able to find something that serves more equitably than our current "by the wealthy, for the wealthy" system.

Sadly, I haven't yet seen any concrete plans for that "better way", even in the rough.

>> ^quantumushroom:

<ad hominem deleted>. Divide up all the wealth in America and in 3 years or less, it would look close to the way it does today.


prove it. or at least provide evidence to back it up.

What is your idea of a tax system?


>> ^Ryjkyj:

Are you ... answering me with your sock-puppet account?
>> ^bobknight33:
Yes as per the constitution. no more no less.

Are you ... answering me with your sock-puppet account?

>> ^bobknight33:

Yes as per the constitution. no more no less.

Yes as per the constitution. no more no less.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Question QM. In your opinion, IF America had your ideal government, would anybody pay any taxes at all?