new.morning wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> That's why NO ONE should be allowed to have an estate worth more than >> twelve million in today's dollars. >> > > > >> Do you think that Murdoch is smarter >> or superior to anyone here? >> > > Smarter? Sure. Quite a bit smarter than many here. Harvard did a study a few years back on what made people wealthy. They determined it was luck. It is was smarts a lot of my peers who graduated at the top of their classes would be wealthy, right? Or the Brahmin caste would be the wealthiest, right? Not so. > > > >> Nope he's just a greed SOB plain and >> simple. >> > > An interesting view -- as are your apparent intrinsic observations, > logic and world view. > > Is your premise and observation is that greed is sole thing that one > needs to become a billionaire? Thats clearly different than what I > have observed. > > Is greed even a necessary requirement to be a billionaire (or 100 Mil > player)? Are the Google guys "greedy"? is Steve Jobs? Is Bill Clinton, > Is Oprah? U2, John Lennon -- in his day, Sean Penn? Angelina Jole? > Dereck Jeeter?Maria Sharapova (who will soon, based on signe > contracts, become the highet paid athelete in the world (male/female, > all sports) -- 100 Million / yr. > Some of the people you mention would agree with the $12 million limit. What we need is the tax structure that was in place before Reagan messed it up. > > >> The root of all problems >> > > Sort like watering the root? Fix / do that and EVERYTHING will be > good. No problems anywhere if you limit assets per person? > > >> We need to relieve them of the burden of their >> wealth and return the planet to the people to whom it belongs! >> > > > Well relieveing them of their wealth clearly seem sis a great burden > an sacrifice for you. You truly are a selfless saint. > > So are you saying that part of Murdoch's assets belong directly to > you? What portion? What portion of the Google guys forntune belongs > directly to you. > > Oh come on now. You're trying to make me look ridiculous instead of discussing the concept. I'm not saying I want any part of their wealth. But doesn't logic say that fewer billionaires would allow for more millionaires? That might mean you might still have a chance in this life. Just look at the wealthy messing with the politics in this world. Murdoch is a great example.
Some of the greedy bastards own the Fed. That indeed should be nationalized. Those people have a history of waging war upon the masses. > Greed is not a virtue. Neither is confiscation. Do you advocate a > direct confiscation of all individual asses over 12 mil? If so, how > would that be done exactly? > > A major revolution would do it. :) > At this point, some might throw out a large leap of illogic wrapped in > a large red herring along the lines of: "you disagree with me, thus > you must agree with everything Murdoch does and stands for. Its a > black and white world. You are for us or against us." I assume, your > being as smart as Murdoch, are beyond such muddled thinking. Or I might say you display a business caste logic. So you must be a businessman right? A registered Republican? But then I have seen you write things that display some humanitarianism so you couldn't be that unless you are going to take Curtis up on his offer. :D :D :D
