Do fools like maddow (who likely makes more per year any 60 random sifters) know why the Waltons have all that money?

Because their pops, Sam Walton, figured out a way to sell stuff better, faster, cheaper. He helps 'the poor' SAVE money on most everything.

Things are the way they are for a reason. Divide up all the wealth in America and in 3 years or less, it would look close to the way it does today.

So why the upvote? Because capitalism rewards the better way. Ross has his work cut out for him, just culling the freeloaders and anti-capitalists from the Occupooper herd will be plenty difficult.

Prove there's a Better Way, Señor Ross.

If he's at all profitable, rest assured government will be waiting in the alley with a loaded pistol to "help" the people.

Capitalism rewards the sociopath who values only his own desires, who fucks over everyone he deals with in the search to squeeze out one more penny of gain. Especially when said sociopath has inherited BILLIONS with which to buy legislators to slant things even more in his favor.

Nobody objected to Sam's Walmart...because he -didn't- fuck over everyone else. The same cannot be said for his kids, who outsource their employees healthcare to the rest of us, for no other purpose than to pocket a few more dollars they have no use for. There was a time when Walmart was proud to feature products "Made in America" (in Sam's day). It didn't take his kids long after he died to start buying from China in order to raise their profit margin by a percent or two. Who cares if it put a few million back into poverty...it was yet another way to increase their "high score" in Forbes.

Fuck them...it's time to bring back the guillotine.

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."?

how can an entire third of the country think that income is distributed fairly?

>> ^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.

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.