I read Mr. Stern article, "To get rich, Just follow instructions." I found it interesting that he stated that 130,000 people control 80%
of the wealth and that 20% for the remaining 250,000,000 of us.
Then he goes on to tell a quaint little story about how his friend was able grab his portion of that 20% simply by following instructions. My question is this: Wouldn't it be easier to eat the rich, rather than continue to kill ourselves fighting for that paltry 20%?
2007-02-21 03:17:43 · 4 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
so Ph_Yo, don't you think that maybe 130,000 controlling 80% is just a little bit too exclusive?
2007-02-21 03:26:22 · update #1
I heay ya bulabate. Money buys political favoritism. So who do think is electing all the DC politicians from the President on down? I think 130,000 controlling 80% would meet anyone's definition of an aristrocracy. Or would Plutocracy better describe the situation?
2007-02-21 03:29:53 · update #2
Want to know illegal immigration isn't being dealt with? Because 130,000 control 80% of the wealth and they have decided that they want cheap labor. That's it. That's all. Simple
2007-02-21 03:31:26 · update #3
Drew, I have no problem with the pursuit of that golden ring, that's why I have a problem with 130,000 controlling 80% of it.
Wouldn't it be sufficient motivation for us peons if those 130,000 controlled 20% and 80% was left for the rest of us? Wouldn't that make the dream just a little more realistic and obtainable? If people don't change their attitude about this desparity of wealth situation, pretty soon it's gonna be more like 90/10 split. C'mon man! Are people getting so greedy that they're greed is being used against them?
2007-02-21 03:49:08 · update #4
ph_yo, So when they tell their politicians not to do anything about the cheap labor coming across the border, I suppose you can't see that as stealing from the paltry 20% that remains for the rest of us? Good luck being 130,001 pal.
2007-02-21 03:51:26 · update #5
Yes it would! Get your terminology correct though its the Wealthy elite & only certain ones are the true puppet masters or the enemy keeping the majority in check! Rich is someone well off not functioning as a ruler/conquer! The 130,000 should be eliminated if thats the true number of puppet masters. If there is going to be puppet masters then it should be the Legal Citizen Majority with ultimate rule & control! You can stick any name you want its the same worldwide the few wealthy elite rule & control, i want to end that in this country USA!
2007-02-21 03:21:40 · answer #1 · answered by bulabate 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People act as if getting "rich" means be initiated into a special club or something that nobody is allowed to join. Funny, if you look at those who make six figures a year or more you'll find that a vast majority of them achieved success through hard work and continuing education, followed again by hard work. Why people who barely graduated high school, who had 2-3 kids by the time they were 25, and who have limited job skills think they're ENTITELED to large houses on the golf course, BMW's, swimming pools, lobster dinners, and bling bling, is beyond me.
2007-02-21 11:32:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Eat the rich? They would taste like vicadin, brandy, and cigars. How about we stop shopping at WalMart and support local businesses.
2007-02-21 11:23:09 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Socialism/Communism wont work. As long as there is a "rich" club, then people will strive to be in it. If everyone is in the "poor" club and the rules state you can't start a "rich" club, then no one would want to make a difference for themselves.
No, I do not think its excessive. They made their fortunes. It's not our right to take it from them.
2007-02-21 11:22:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋