The Walton Family has as much wealth as lower 40% of Americans

Ok, so you think that this is a smaller issue and it doesn't really matter to you, but could you answer the questions I've posed. Do you feel that at some point the increasing inequality, the increasing concentration of wealth, and the decreasing upward mobility that has occurred in your life time is a problem? If it isn't currently, is there some point where you would think it would be?

 

So what do you suggest be done? Take their money and distribute it amongst the masses? As someone already mentioned, this is not the USSR.

And screw the estate tax. Maybe Uncle Sam should be held accountable on how our tax dollars are spent as opposed to just finding new and more ways to collect taxes.

 

That's a more reasonable standard.

But that's not the standard you used - you compared their current wealth to determine that the Waltons contributed more than 40% of Americans. I'm pretty sure the bottom 40% of Americans have earned far more money over their lifetimes than the Waltons. Simple math of 100 million people making just $100,000 over a lifetime would be $10 trillion. I'm pretty sure the Waltons do not total anywhere close to that over their combined lifetimes.

 

So, the wealth someone has cumulatively earned in their lifetime is your measure of the amount of value someone has added to society? This is still preposterous. So a tort lawyer who has 100 million in cumulative assets has provided 10 times as much value to society as Doctor who has 10 million in cumulative assets. And that Tort Lawyer has provided 100 times as much value to society as the house-wife who has worked for free but would have been paid 1 million over the course of her 25 years of providing child care. You must have a vastly different definition of value added than the rest of us.

What do you think would have more an effect on the American economy and society, the Waltons disappearing, or the bottom 40% of Americans disappearing?

 

Bernie Madoff was providing quite a bit of value to society as well for a while there.

 

This is a BS line.
1) They don't put ALL the local shops out of business. Local shops have been going out of business a long time ago. Walmart is not the only company who has been doing this. I would argue the Dollar Store has done more damage. Either way, the lack of selection in the "local" stores has allowed nation chains to move in to offer lower prices and better selection. Walmart isn't the beast. This is a case of natural selection. Times change, so you either adapt or die.

2) I agree with this statement somewhat. I don't agree with the "small and local manufacturing being put out of business" tirade. Its actually a whole lot worse than you realize. Walmart is brutal to their distribution chain. They have more of a mob approach than a capitalist approach.

3) This is where you get ridiculously ignorant. Do you REALLY think local shops pay their employees well? Thats laughable. A single supercenter probably has at least half a dozen managers making 100k a year. Do you think mom and pop shops make that in one year? And if you know ANYTHING about benefits, you will clearly understand that when you have a million employees, its a lot easier to offer benefits than when you have 5 or 6? Mom and Pop shops usually don't offer benefits. The only advantage local shops offer is a more enjoyable work environment.

There are many reasons to hate on walmart, but none of your examples are valid.

 

Bernie Madoff was a saint and added quite a bit more than 100 house wives. But still, he has likely only ever added 1/10 of what Chapo Guzman has added. That guy is a rugged entrepreneur whose value added to society can clearly be seen in his 1 estimated 1 Billion dollar fortune. As Commodore said:

 

Doesn't matter how much, it only matters if they earned it. I don't believe they earned it.

 

Incessantly complaining about the success or luck of others in a free market economy then wanting to leech off their wealth is the trait of a weak minded person.

That's what makes people poor - not the size of their wallets. Wealth is a mentality, Thadeus... one that you're light years away from understanding.

 

Yes, it's mentality that keeps people in Darfur poor, and it's mentality that keeps Abu Dhabi citizens wealthy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WbS9jZOlQjc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

And like a middle aged stepford wife at her latest charity gala, mathloom prances into the room begging us to think about the children in Darfur.

No context, no relevance to the income inequality in America... Just another desperate cry for victimization by the faux journalist looking for a voice.

Woe is them!

 

I am amazing.

I got no debt, and a $1 in my pocket.

I have more wealth than the bottom 24.8% of the US households combined.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/14/six-waltons-have-more-wealth-than-the-bottom-30-of-americans/

 

Commodore - this last series of posts of you abandoning the ol' "link to vid nobody will watch and run" strategy, and venturing out from your shell, only to be caught intellectually fumbling your way around a problem and demonstrating your true...capacity...have provided a milding level of bemusement to me this morning.

Thanks retroactively.

SF

 

I agree. We need a return to the "Golden Age of Capitalism." We just need to start World War III to get things going.