400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let's out them.

[Taverner]

Seriously

I'm not sure where to look first but we should have a website, a post, anything...

That lists who those 400 people are, where they live, the amount of wealth they have, their phone numbers, their emails. etc.

Let's make life hell for them

Over and out

[HEyHEY]

1. TBF is one

He eats the children of people who dare ask questions

[Horse with no Name]

2. Good place to start.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400

[TalkingDog]

5. the list beyond the top 10

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list

[pnwmom]

19. So all those people have 1 billion or more.

That seems to be the new mark of super-wealth.

[Xenotime]

87. Weath that high should be illegal.

[pnwmom]

114. It should certainly be taxed a lot more than it is. n/t

[otohara]

130. I Know One of Them

He's a Democrat

[drokhole]

3. There should be a profile on one of them, every single day...

...detailing their amount of wealth, properties, political ties/donations, business practices (like outsourcing and worker-exploitation...for example, starting wage at Wal-Mart, Apple factories overseas...) etc... Make it a slow release, Wikileaks style - so it can be turned into somewhat of an event, and each can have the amount of attention needed.

[rdking647]

62. i dont think they would care

somehow I dont thing a billionaire is going to care about a bunch of internet cowboys protesting them. what could you do to them.. they live in gated estates,with bodyguards. im sure they dont answer their own phone calls. For anyone who owns a private company there isnt much info you can gather about them

also being rich doesnt necessarily make one veil..

[Xenotime]

90. Excellent idea. Anything to expose their greed.

[socialist_n_TN]

138. And they need to be put on decks of playing cards.........

like the Baathists in Iraq were. Just a subtle nudge.

[dkf]

4. Praise Facebook and twitter with one side of our mouths and curse them with the other.

Laud Apple over how our iPhones have changed our lives, condemn Steve Jobs over his getting a liver ahead of some more deserving poor person.

Now we want to take these guys down right? Maybe wish they had never been born?

[Taverner]

6. Let their works be known

Say Steve Jobs - if his contributions are listed alongside his flaws, I am certain he'll be seen as one of the 'good ones'

Steve Forbes, however....

[Luminous Animal]

10. Are you talking about how much a person gives to a good cause? Charity?

I don't think amassing a fortune on the backs of labor is obviated by charitable giving.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. To list is not to condemn.

Let the truth out.

[TalkingDog]

8. According to the logic of your argument, we aren't

allowed to suggest that other people had a hand in the making of the top 400's billions.

There is a difference between inventing a useful tool and making obscene profits off the backs of the lower classes working in the factories that produce the useful too.

Should they get more money than the line worker who puts widget A in to slot B? Yes.
Should they be able to "outsource" production thereby skirting child labor laws, environmental laws and wage laws so they can put a few more bucks in their pockets? NO.

Stop throwing up emotional straw man arguments and stick to the original discussion.

[socialist_n_TN]

139. The word is EXPLOIT. They shouldn't be allowed to .......

EXPLOIT the working class.

[leftstreet]

13. Maybe users should have been charging them to post on TwitFace

:shrug:

[bluestate10]

40. The internal conflicts of progressives.

Moan about off-shoring of jobs one minute, hop in their foreign built car and drive to Macy's to buy foreign made clothing the next. Criticize the Koch brothers for being bastards, but pound business people like Jobs that are nominally on their side. Decry their having to send out resume after resume without getting replies, but pant wet when the idea of using their skills to start alternative businesses is broached. Chain themselves to fences during street protests, but fail to see that at the end of it all, they have not accomplished a fucking thing other than pay fines and overtax many already deeply in debt city and county budgets.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Take it.

Leave 'em $100 million each. Problems... all of 'em... solved.

And yes. We can.

[leftstreet]

12. +1

[SDuderstadt]

14. That is totally unrealistic...

and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone not wanting to turn sentiment in their favor.

We have got to address the root causes of income and wealth distribution disparity in this country because it threatens democracy. This is not the way to do it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. It's unrealistic because they have the wealth to control public opinion.

Which in itself is a good reason to follow my advice.

The fact that 400 people have most of the wealth IS the root cause of every other problem.

[SDuderstadt]

16. WTF?

Do you understand that correlation is not causality?

Beyond that, do you understand that most American's desire to also be rich is part of what contributes to the dynamic? Simple solutions to complex problems is a lazy approach.

[Xenotime]

94. Do you not understand that at some point these people started making too much?

Enough is enough. We want our money back. Put it into action not to go to some trust fund baby.

[socialist_n_TN]

140. WTF.............

The guy said leave them $100 MILLION! That's not rich?????

[SDuderstadt]

144. Another stupid strawman argument...

however, if the 400th person on the Forbes list has a net worth of $1 B, do you think the 401st person magically drops below $100 M? How far down the list are we going to go down exiling people and confiscation their wealth?

It's a stupid and unworkable idea.

[socialist_n_TN]

153. A "stupid" idea= your opinion...........

"unworkable"= we'll never know unless we try it.

I'd say $100 MILLION is still wealthy. Bring 'em all down to that.

[SDuderstadt]

155. Okay....

and you will do that, how?

You might have just a few legal obstacles, dude.

It's a stupid and unworkable idea.

[melm00se]

159. ok

you seize that wealth.

that's a one time tax fix (and will run the government for less than a year BTW) and what happens next year?

[Taverner]

168. How will making the rich pay their fair share turn us into a third world country?

Oh wait, WE ALREADY ARE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY

[Raksha]

38. Well, maybe--just maybe!--the people are in the process of taking BACK public opinion.

And that would be the greatest victory of all, if we come from behind to win the propaganda war. After that, the rest of the revolution is relatively easy.

[bluestate10]

48. That is an easy enough answer. But totally fucking wrong and simplistic. nt.

[bluestate10]

46. My method involves progressives and moderates taking control

of the nation's business landscape by starting up and growing companies that place worker safety, worker pay, product quality and corporate citizenship on the same level with profits. There are business owners in the country that care more about the financial lives and well being of their employees than they do about having a mansion or fancy car. Growing and sustaining ethical, worker, environment and customer centered businesses is important to society, I am fucking sick and tired of seeing some on DU treat that as doing evil acts.

[SDuderstadt]

49. I couldn't agree more

What you are describing is democratic capitalism.

[Hannah Bell]

79. capitalism never has been & cannot ever be democratic.

that's simply a fact.

capitalism is about increasing capital pools.

increased capital pools = concentrated economic power.

concentrated economic power = concentrated political power.

concentrated political power = non-democratic.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Thanks for your caricature of capitalism, but...

you have no idea WTF democratic capitalism even is. Educate yourself.

http://www.kellysite.net/

http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

[Hannah Bell]

89. i have no idea what it is because there's no such animal. you, on the other hand,

don't really understand capitalism.

it forces certain behaviors, regardless of the "heart" of the players.

grow or be killed is one; expand capital or be destroyed is another.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Oh, bullshit...

you don't think that small and medium sized businesses are examples of capitalism?

[Hannah Bell]

97. the fraction of profit taken by "small & medium-sized" businesses has

also declined steadily throughout us history, as has the fraction of economic activity that sector accounts for.

you can verify by studying irs data.

this is the completely predictable & desired outcome of capitalism, & if you don't understand why that would be, you don't understand capitalism.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Why don't you...

provide that data? It's your claim, not mine.

[Hannah Bell]

it's not something that can be proved in a pithy post. go look at the data yourself,

or give it two moments' thought.

[SDuderstadt]

105. I did give it...

two moment's thought.

In other words, you cannot prove your silly claim.

[Hannah Bell]

126. i just did.

[SDuderstadt]

127. No, you...

didn't.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneGrassRoot]

52. Hear, hear! :) Community-owned ventures. Yep. n/t

[Xenotime]

99. There you go! The local communities decide what to do with the profits.

[Horse with no Name]

18. Even better. Take it BACK! Give it back to the people it was stolen from. n/t

[Taverner]

20. +1000000

[nashville_brook]

21. take it back.

[BobbyBoring]

26. in some cases

That would be appropriate. There are however a few on the list that actually earned their money. Charles Dolan # 141 on the list is one of them. He started Cable Vision in NY and with that created MANY jobs. That kind of wealth is OK with me and BTW, one of the nicest, most down to earth guys you could meet.

OTOH, quite a few on the list are from financial sector are just absolute crooks. Anyone than was instrumental in encouraging their worker bees to write mortgages with no income check, bogus income, etc should not only be stripped of every dime but they should also be throw in jail.

[lumberjack_jeff]

131. So? His heirs won't be. n/t

[Xenotime]

92. Agreed. It's time to take back what they stole from us.

[Rex]

11. But that is okay, they earned every penny and all us poor workers

obviously deserve to eat a shit sandwich everyday - otherwise capitalism dies on the vine. :sarcasm:

[jody]

17. Understand your point but I believe the facts are that 1/2 to 1% of citizens own about 50% of our

financial wealth.

They control every major multinational corporation which is even worse.

They finance campaigns for both Democratic and Republican candidates as well as fund special interest groups that keep voters polarized over a few divisive issues.

[OneGrassRoot]

22. Those are the facts as I understand them as well, and they're appalling. n/t

[TicketyBoo]

23. Why would we want to

"make life hell for them"?

That's just nuts.

Some of these people deserve that, yes, but you know that the top two ARE giving back. And you want to make life hell for them?

Nope. Count me out.

Pick the ones who deserve it because of their actions, yes. But to condemn someone just because they're rich? No.

A big bank account doesn't necessarily reflect a small heart.

[Taverner]

25. If they really want to help, then a 90% tax rate would help a lot

[TicketyBoo]

129. So take that up

with your Congressmen.

And lotsa luck.

I'm all for it, personally.

Some of them are, too, by the way.

[high density]

27. So that leaves the remaining 99.5% which are mostly hoarders

I am glad Gates and Buffett have seen the light, but few other people on that list have.

[bluestate10]

50. Count me out too. Some on DU despise wealth, I just can't understand why.

Wealth in the hands of a sharing, caring person could not be more positive for society. Not all rich people are glad that their taxes were not raised in December, to through those people under that same bus that the Koch brothers deserve to be under is fucking insane.

[Hannah Bell]

82. one's heart has nothing to do with it. concentrated economic power =

concentrated political power.

the fact that some billionaire puts some money into a charitable org of his own devising or choosing is immaterial. *he* chooses what suits him, not what suits others. and he never destroys the basis of his own wealth, which in all cases comes from taking power from others.

[TicketyBoo]

112. I used to have you on "Ignore"

but I didn't come here to ignore people.

But you are wrong.

If you had money to give wouldn't you give it in the ways that suited you? Of course you would.

And if you were spending in ways you thought gave the most benefit to others, wouldn't you want to make sure that you didn't destroy the basis of that wealth so you could keep on giving?

Unless you were stupid or uncaring, of course you would.

What power has Warren Buffett taken from others? He's a genial old man who is a wizard at investing in the stock market. He's not on a power trip.

[Hannah Bell]

136. yes, i would. however, my charitable giving doesn't have the power to corrupt

or steer policy for entire countries. or even entire cities.

that's the difference.

sorry, big philanthropy is the shit. corrupt as all-get-out too.

it is anti-democratic in the extreme, and it's not philanthropic either.

there's always a return to the donor. just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it's not there.

[TicketyBoo]

157. So you think

that these billionaires should just stop their charitable giving, then, since it is so "corrupt"?

If there is a return to the donor, so what? In the meantime, tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people are being helped.

Have you seen Melinda Gates in India and Africa bringing resources (her own as well as local resources) together to combat early childhood mortality? Tell those children's parents that the Gates Foundation is "anti-democratic" and "not philanthropic" and see how far you get with that line of reasoning. She isn't just throwing money at a problem; she's out there actually tackling it.

Whatever "return to the donor" happens is not very important if it's your child who was saved.

I would hate to live with that cynical and pessimistic mindset of yours. I would think it would make for some miserable days in your life.

[Taverner]

163. What she said!

Keep this in mind: Enron never paid a dime in taxes. In fact, they ended up getting money from the US Government.

Lots of large multinationals NEVER pay taxes. Usually the local pols are so desperate to bring 'jobs' to their constituents they set up these sweetheart deals where the company doesn't have to pay taxes, doesn't have to enforce labor laws, and to top this off, the city or state will build the infrastructure for that multinational to build glass towers on.

Case in point: San Jose's Coyote Valley and Cisco Systems

BTW...SJ built the infrastructure, but Cisco never moved there.

[Xenotime]

102. big bank accounts = greed That tells us all we need to know about their heart.

[TicketyBoo]

115. Nope. You're wrong.

You don't have to be greedy to have a big bank account.

You can be smart. You can work hard. You can be lucky.

I guess you think that people who are smart, work hard, and/or are lucky don't deserve what they have?

They should give it all away? How much is too much?

Anybody who has more than you have has too much, maybe? They should give their money away so they don't have any more than you have?

Well, if you feel that way, that is a form of greed, too.

[Xenotime]

120. So you are saying...

that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is greedy too?

[TicketyBoo]

128. I am saying

that there are quite a few very wealthy people who petitioned the government to INCREASE their taxes, to let those Bush tax cuts expire.

They are NOT the greedy so-and-so's about whom this thread was initiated to "make life hell for them." They don't deserve any such treatment.

To paint the Forbes 400 with one broad brush stroke isn't fair.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not the panacea Marx idealized, and, yes, it can create greed, and has, since all human beings are not angelic in nature.

[baldguy]

24. And a 90% tax rate would hurt them one bit.

[1776Forever]

28. Forbes richest 400 people in U.S.A.2010 list link:

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400

Top 10:

1 Bill Gates $54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett $45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Larry Ellison $27 B 66 Woodside, CA Oracle
4 Christy Walton $24 B 55 Jackson, WY Walmart
5 Charles Koch $21.5 B 75 Wichita, KS manufacturing, energy
5 David Koch $21.5 B 70 New York , NY manufacturing, energy
7 Jim Walton $20.1 B 62 Bentonville, AR Walmart
8 Alice Walton $20 B 61 Fort Worth, TX Walmart
9 S. Robson Walton $19.7 B 66 Bentonville, AR Walmart
10 Michael Bloomberg $18 B 68 New York , NY Bloomberg

(more at link)

[OneGrassRoot]

29. Notice that 6 out of 10 inherited their wealth. Also, about "taking it back"....

How?

That's always my question. Exactly how do people propose this happens QUICKLY in order to alleviate suffering?

Legislative remedies take forever. Often traditional philanthropic measures take forever and, of course, don't solve the underlying disease that creates the inequality in the first place.

I'm all for balancing things out, but I don't hear many reasonable responses as to HOW.

I hear a lot of torch and pitchfork talk, but I don't even know exactly what that means anymore. It's not like these people have all their wealth inside their homes that people could violently storm their homes and get money to disperse amongst those in need.

Sure, they need to pay their fair share (plus, IMHO) in taxes, but then what? How can we ensure those tax dollars go where they are needed? We're dealing with so many corrupt systems, how can we implement change quickly in order to alleviate suffering now?

I can see long-term results via tax remedies, not short term.

:shrug:



edit for typo

[SDuderstadt]

33. Excellent post

It's going to take a multi-pronged approach that not only contemplates reform to our tax system (for example, why should hedge fund managers pay less than half of what others pay on wage income?) and we not only need a broader prosperity (for example, a greater degree of stock ownership among all Americans), we need to reorder our whole concept of just compensation. Why are CEO's, sports stars and entertainers (Judge Judy makes $45 M per year) paid totally out of proportion to 1st responders, nurses and teachers, just to name few?

[1776Forever]

39. This is an assault on our quality of life in this country. I think the rich would have no issues

with us becoming a 3rd rate nation and it is happening before are very eyes! When they don't have the Police or Fire Dept. come when they call maybe some who think they are rich will wake up. I never thought this country would be this way in 2011 as a lot of people do. We might just have to band together to take our country back and let the Repub's know we are not going quietly which is of course at the ballot box! But I think not enough middle-class people have woken up to this yet and it might take a few more years until they get it!

[jody]

45. "How can we ensure those tax dollars go where they are needed?" My question also. nt

[Taverner]

55. Make everyone go on a 'public campaign funds only' for a while

That would straighten this out

Oh and BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[jody]

60. IMO putting the SSN of each voter in a hat & drawing for congressperson can be no worse than present

And one term in office!

[SDuderstadt]

65. Fucking unbelievable...

so the entire House of Representatives would turn over every two years.

Do you seriously think about the nonsense you post?

[Taverner]

68. Considered how easily our current Constitution allows no more than a Corporatocracy...

We just might need a new Constitutional Convention. One for the people.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Really?

How, specifically, does the Constitution do that, dude?

[Taverner]

74. Well, explain where we are now

And how the Constitution didn't prevent it from happening. Something along the way happened where Corpoations are considered people, and a huge monopolies formed, and the middle class got screwed - we need a new congress made up of truly democratic means to redesign the Constitution. Remember, at the time it was written, Slavery was legal, you had to have land to vote, and the majority of people in the country couldn't vote.

Work bakcwards, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

76. I asked you...

dude.

Support your claim with specifics.

[Taverner]

81. Claim of what?

What claim did I make?

I made a suggestion, not a claim

I suggested we target the Uber Rich who are working to destroy us. Out the list of where they live, what they do and how they travel. Remind them of who we are.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Yeah...

that'll work miracles, dude

[Xenotime]

106. Excellent idea. No more stolen elections by the neocons that way.

[Taverner]

53. Squeeze the rock if you have to nt

[SoCalDem]

30. Exile them and take their money

and divvie it up:evilgrin:

[SDuderstadt]

31. This is the...

dumbest suggestion yet.

[Taverner]

59. It's called "Wealth Redistribution"

And in certain cases, it works.

It can be abused pretty easily however.

As the primary solution, it sucks.

But as a long term goal (see = Great Society) it can and will work

[SDuderstadt]

63. LBJ's Great Society was not about...

exiling people and confiscating their wealth, dude.

[Taverner]

67. Point 1: Them leaving the country because the taxes are so high is not exiling

Although the Stones did do this and called the process "Exile on Main St"

And considering We had the 90% tax on the uber wealthy for a reason - we wee in an economic emergency.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

read the post I actually replied to initially.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Taverner]

72. Here is all I am saying: Make the richest 2% or so visible

List their addresses, their homes, their influence, their schedule as to the best that you can ascertain, and make it public.

If some of these folks have cash stashed away in the Cayman Islands, list it. Make it public.

And of course, a lot of this depends on news orgs getting off their butts and doing something for a change

[SDuderstadt]

73. In other words...

stalk them.

I think there are laws (thankfully so) against that kind of thing.

[Taverner]

75. If Code Pink does that, its OK

But if the harass those poor Billionaires, that's wrong?

Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

77. You're both wrong...

dude.

[Taverner]

80. How about the air-horning of Pinochet

That wasn't right either?

Wow - if we just stuck by these rules we'd be invisible and ignored.

Thanks Dude!

[SDuderstadt]

88. Dude...

let us know how the stalking of rich people with air horns is working, while the rest of us work on concrete methods.

[Xenotime]

108. Then why are you on this progressive board if you don't like progressive ideas?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

113. How is confiscating someone's wealth and...

exiling them a "progressive value"?

[Xenotime]

118. How is it not?

Wealth redistribution is the cornerstone of our beliefs.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Wealth redistribution is not...

confiscation and exiling someone is certainly not a progressive idea. Duh.

[50000feet]

135. How is wealth distribution

not confiscation? What is confiscation in your pretty world of language?

[Taverner]

169. So you are saying taxation is theft?

Lemme guess, The South Park Libertarians Club got out early...

[Hannah Bell]

141. the us government exists to redistribute wealth, mostly from the bottom to the top.

[NRaleighLiberal]

32. Hey all....the mods are watching this thread - just a reminder...

This is the guideline that could trigger a lock if the discussions go over the top...

"Harassment, threats, or advocating harm/violence.

The following are not permitted: Any type of threat against any person, either explicit or implied. Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise. A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person. Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere. Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums. Advocating harm toward any public figure. Advocating violent overthrow of government or violent social change."

So vent all you want - but please watch the rules so we can keep it open. Thanks.

[bluestate10]

34. What good is outing them going to do? I will answer, NADA, not one FT.

Instead of outing rich people, start up a company or coop that values public service, product quality and worker rights and well being as much as profits.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Let me just put in a plug for...

restoring democratic capitalism.

[inna]

42. "democratic capitalism" is an oxymoron

clearly

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

57. Absolutely not. It is alive and well among those that have the guts to make a

difference and realize that pissing and moaning won't accomplish shit. Zuckerberg and Jobs put their asses on the line, Jobs in particular started in a garage with little money. Some business critics on DU should start a business and see what meeting a payroll feels like, and more importantly, understanding that if you do not work your ass off to meet that payroll, the lives of honest, hardworking people will be damaged. Capitalism is not evil, capitalists that don't give a shit about their fellow human beings are. There are ethical, community oriented capitalists making a real difference in the lives of many people daily, I for one salute them.

[Hannah Bell]

85. the fact that it is difficult to start up a business is irrelevant to the issue of the economic

concentration of power, which is also the political concentration of power.

and indeed, one of the reasons it's hard to start a business is the existing concentration of economic & political power.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Except thousands of businesses are started...

every year.

[Hannah Bell]

95. and most of them fail in the same year. there are fewer independent businesses

as a percent of the population than ever before in us history.

the fraction of the population providing their own living through their own business has declined steadily throughout us history.

if you understand how capitalism works, you understand why.

capitalism concentrates capital & turns most people into its paid wage laborers.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Please prove that...

ridiculous claim.

[Hannah Bell]

100. go look at historical irs data. i've done the exercise, do it yourself.

look at percents of population & where their income comes from, and how much of their income comes from which activities.

[SDuderstadt]

103. It's YOUR claim.

All you are doing is trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Hannah Bell]

104. it's a claim that requires more than a link, it requires a study of the data.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Then link me to...

the study.

[Hannah Bell]

123. i didn't get the information by looking at a "study" but by studying the irs & labor data for myself

but here's a link for percent self-employed:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/07/art2full.pdf

1948: 18.5% of the population was self-employed
1950: 17.6%
1960: 13.8%
1970: 8.9%
1980: 8.7%
1990: 8.5%
2000: 7.5%


you can see the same trends in independent proprietorship & other categories.

you can see the same trend by comparing the world of your childhood to the present.

and if you understand the logic of capitalism this result is exactly what you'd expect.

only the brainwashed would think that capitalism tends to *increase* the percentage of independent businesses.

[SDuderstadt]

125. That doesn't remotely support the claim...

you made.

[Hannah Bell]

132. it doesn't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=571284&mesg_id=573584

there are fewer independent businesses as a percent of the population than ever before in us history.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Ummm, no...

The question wasn't what percentage of the population is self-employed. Duh.

[Hannah Bell]

137. the percent of the population that's self-employed (working for self & not for another)

is a direct reflection of the percent of independent businesses as a fraction of the population. duh.

In 2002:

891 firms with revenues >2.5 billion took 42.2% of all business revenues. These firms constituted .016 of all firms.

3589 firms with revenues >1 billion (.035% of all firms) took 50% of all revenues.

60% of all US business revenues go to less than 1/2 of 1% of firms.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html.

duderstadt, you're one of those people who wouldn't stop spouting the party line no matter what evidence was offered.

however, it's self-evident that capitalism & capital doesn't grow by increasing the fraction of the population that owns its own business. it grows by turning a larger fraction of the population into wage laborers & concentrating independent businesses into larger entities.

it's self-evident in the workings of capital, and your denial doesn't mean shit.

i did some rather serious research to verify these trends in the us. there is no way to "link" it, i did it for myself because such things aren't typically studied in our system: the conclusions of such research don't benefit capital.

the evidence is there if people look for it. i'm not going to spend another week on analyzing the data to provide you with evidence you'll ignore regardless.

[SDuderstadt]

142. I give up...

you sound like the WSW website exploded inside your head.

If you don't think small and medium-sized businesses are examples of capitalism, I'm not sure where this "debate" is going.

[Hannah Bell]

143. sba defines "small" business as 500 to 1500 employees, receipts up to 21.5 million.

i wonder what a "medium-sized" business is.

just saying those words is meaningless.

as are your posts.

1/10th of 1% of businesses take 60% of all business income in the US.

Corporate power has grown all through the history of the US, leaving most people as wage laborers totally dependent on the whims of the big business class for their survival.

Everyone knows it but you.

[SDuderstadt]

145. Yeah, yeah, yeah...

you are such a hoot.

[SDuderstadt]

146. Do you realize that your posts conflict with

each other?

[Hannah Bell]

151. your definition of "contradict" doesn't interest me.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Of course it doesn't n/t

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Only to people who don't have...

the slightest idea what democratic capitalism actually is.

[socialist_n_TN]

147. Oh inna, you've kicked the anthill now...............

Prepare for the lecture (with no backing documentation BTW) about how democratic capitalism is the bees knees and the pane ca for ALL the ills of the world. And how, a priori, NO OTHER SYSTEM WILL WORK BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM.

[SDuderstadt]

149. Why don't you educate yourself about...

democratic capitalism and tell me what you object to.

Be specific.

[socialist_n_TN]

154. Sweetie, your little "democratic capitalism" works GREAT............

in theory. The only problem is that in PRACTICE, it's run by CAPITALISTS.

[SDuderstadt]

156. So, tell me what you don't like about it

Be specific.

[Taverner]

162. LOL true that

Suspension of Disbelief so so strong to buy "Democratic Capitalism" that it mirrors other crazy suspensions...like Ayn Rand's Objectivism, Stalin's take on Communism, and North Korea's take on Confucianism.

[socialist_n_TN]

164. Suspension of Disbelief, good call..........

As I said above, the problem with "democratic capitalism" is that it's run by capitalists. And you've got to believe that they will be OK with something other than as much profit as the market will bear. How many capitalists do you know who will do that?

[SDuderstadt]

166. Dude....

Begging the question isn't debate.

Simply repeating over and over that it won't work is silly, especially when you don't even understand what it is and keep clinging to some sort of delusion that the country wil become socialist.

[Taverner]

167. A quick read of "Atlas Shrugged" reveals the capitalist mindset perfectly

They really do think they are the titans of industry, the gods among men - and goddamn it, if they want everyone to pay attention to a speech contained in 49 pages of how wonderful of a guy they are, so be it!

[SDuderstadt]

165. Dude...

you don't even know what democratic capitalism is, let alone offer a substantive critique of it.

[rdking647]

64. rich people

bill gates.. one of the richest people in the world.. Somehow I dont think microsoft made its money exploiting its employees.. and gates has donated massive amounts to charites to help mankind
Warren Buffet.. has donated billions to bill gates charities.

broadbush painting of all the rich as evil is just plain stupid..

[Taverner]

78. Partially yes

And there are better targets to go after.

How about the Koch Brothers for one?

Start with them, make THEIR lives a living hell

Randomly shoot off air horns in the middle of the night outside the windows of their location proper.

Picket their very existence.

Force them to be on the defensive for once

[Taverner]

83. Thing is, that would be an illegal company

Because all companies are required by law, to serve their stockholders only.

[SDuderstadt]

96. That is bullshit...

dude and a really stupid either/or argument.

[Taverner]

109. (1) How is that bullshit? That is law - as is the Citizens United case.

(2) If true, how is that a stupid argument?

[SDuderstadt]

111. Then cite the...

law, dude.

[Taverner]

116. Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

"Corporations." Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps. Gale Cengage, 2003. eNotes.com. 2006. 6 Mar, 2011 <http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/
corporations> law-encyclopedia/fiduciary

A corporation is governed by a board of individuals known as directors who are elected by the shareholders. Directors may directly manage the corporation's affairs when the corporation is small, but when the corporation is large, directors primarily oversee the corporation's affairs and delegate the management activities to corporate officers. Directors usually receive a salary for their work on the corporate board, and directors have a FIDUCIARY duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. These fiduciary duties require the directors to act with care toward the corporation, to act with loyalty toward the corporation, and to act within the confines of the law. A director who breaches this fiduciary duty may be sued by the shareholders and held personally liable for damages to the corporation.

Emphasis mine

[SDuderstadt]

119. Dude...

that means the directors aren't supposed to defraud the corporation they work for.

That does not mean what you claim it means. You're in way over your head here.

[Taverner]

121. I am? Wow, I would say it looked like quite the opposite

But I'm done measuring dicks. Welcome to ignoreland, El Duderino

[SDuderstadt]

124. Dude...

Please read your source again and show me a company that has not been allowed to act in the best interests of the community, as well. Your argument is stupid.

And, of course, you put me on ignore because your debate ability is so lacking.

[pinto]

35. The DU moderators want to add a comment here about "Let's make life hell for them"

It comes real close to advocating harassment, not protest. It's a line we draw fairly often and feel strongly about. We don't support harassment or the advocacy of it. Just a heads up.

Thanks all. for the moderators ~ pinto

[OneGrassRoot]

36. Thank you guys. :) n/t

[Taverner]

44. To the mods: I apologize

I apologize for anything you've had to deal with over this post.

Honestly - My intent isn't to pull A Randall Terry.

But if we can find out where they live, then maybe instead of protesting our own in this manner, we can protest where they sleep at night (Think Pinochet in the UK) and remind them as they come and go why we are mad at them.

I abhor violence. Homo Sapiens is not a very good species to be when there are acts of violence done in its name.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NRaleighLiberal]

51. So far, so good!

:hi:

[Taverner]

170. Very Good Point

One of the most noticed protests was 'Camp Casey,' right out of Bush's "farm" with scary horses

Something like that on a bigger scale might be fun

[Raksha]

41. High percentage of "Ignored" posts on this thread.

That's always a good barometer as to whether or not someone is proposing an effective tactic.

[OneGrassRoot]

54. I understand you're focused on individuals who are wealthy...

for good reason.

:)

But this organization -- http://usuncut.org/ -- is taking it directly to the corporate tax dodgers and protesting at the places of business around the country.

:thumbsup:

This is another avenue.

:)

[Rex]

56. Wow.

Thanks for the link!

[OneGrassRoot]

58. You're welcome! :) n/t

[bluestate10]

61. A more effective and thought out avenue at that. nt.

[Taverner]

70. I love this

:)

[NuttyFluffers]

158. why that's so beautiful it deserves its own sticky post.

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

161. I'm a huge fan of usuncut.org. Started in the UK...

just getting a foothold here.

:hi:

[Canuckistanian]

117. Oprah is sure to be on that list

But let's leave her alone. She gives cars away.

[pecwae]

160. WTF

Did she give cars to everyone? Are you making a special class of the uber rich, of which Oprah is, that are branded as 'good'? What bullshit.

[FreeJoe]

134. BS

I was going to call BS, but now I'm not so sure.

I couldn't find the stat on the net worth of the poorer half of Americans is. The closest I could find was a Census Bureau report titled "Table 720. Family Net Worth -- Mean and Median Net Worth in Constant (2007) Dollars by Selected Characteristics of Families". According to that report, the mean net worth for families in the bottom quartile is -2,300 and for families in the second quartile is 57,900. Adding the two together, I get $55,600. According to the Population Reference Bureau, there were about 300 million Americans. I don't have data showing the average family size. I'm going to be conservative and guess it is 4 people. That would mean that we have 75 million families and the poorer 37.5 million have a total net worth of around 2.2 trillion dollars.

Taking a quick glance at the Forbes 400 Richest, I didn't see a total or average, so I'm going to guesstimate. It looks like about 1.5 trillion. The 2.2 trillion dollar number was from 2007 and has probably declined significantly since then. My guess is that the net worth of the poorer half is still a bit higher than the top 400, but close enough for the comparison to be valid.

Carry on.