Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:22 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
Why would you continue to work hard if the state is going to take "part of it away from you"?


Because there's still room for growth. Putting an limit on it does not allow for growth.

Quote:
I get that caps Not Equal taxes, but that's also the state taking "part of it away from you", and it's not stopping you from doing your best at what you're doing.


So? I'm not arguing against taxes, I'm arguing against interfering in private compensation contracts. There's a big difference. On one hand, you are taxing my income but not limiting it, on the other you are limiting it without potential for growth.

Quote:
The same as the way CEOs of the past kept working hard even though the state took 80% of their income away. Bottom line: because it would still pay a whole lot more than jobs you need less ambition for, and probably also just because you take pride and satisfaction out of achievement. The same motivations that have driven ambitious people to success for decades.


You keep bringing up examples that have nothing at all to do with what I was talking about nimh. Taxing, even at ridiculous rates, does not interfere with the right of two private citizens to make a compensation agreement. It doesn't put a limit on anyone's earnings.

It's just not the same thing in any fundamental way except that it's motivated by the same kind of classism. That doesn't make it the same beast, it just means they both tend to have the same type of owner.

Quote:
The idea that after the top-of-the-top wages have ballooned for a decade or two into a veritable multiple of what they used to be, capping some of that amount now will suddenly take away their working drive seems just silly.


No it isn't. And bringing up historic "examples" that contain no such cap doesn't make your case any stronger.

Quote:
Didnt they work just as hard when those top-of-the-top wages had not ballooned to current levels yet?


There was no cap, they had the sky to shoot for. So why are you trying to compare no cap to no cap while arguing for a cap? That's just plain stupid.

Quote:
Why "arbitrarily"?


Because it ignores the basic concept of value. Value is what people are willing to pay, not what you decide should be the most they should pay.

Quote:
And how are the current CEO rewards not arbitrary?


See above.

Quote:
There's been a veritable explosion of CEO pay and bonuses etc this past decade or two. Which has stood in no relation whatsoever to actual improvement of their businesses' performance. How is that any less arbitrary?


Because their companies were free to try to pay them as little as minimum wage if they wanted to or as high as they wanted to and that's where they put their value at.

You can argue that they have it wrong, and in most cases I'd agree but you've not even tried to make the case that you should be able to decide for them what it should be.

Quote:
Michael Jordan earns, what, ten, twenty, thirty times as much, in real income, as his predecessors a generation ago. How has that got anything to do with questions or criteria of worth, or what he deserves, or hard work? Does he work ten times as much as the top sportsmen twenty years ago?


He has more measurable value to the business than anyone has ever had in basketball . He increased the whole businesses' revenue. Everyone in the NBA after Jordan is making a bit more money partly because of him. When he says "I'm back" the stock for the companies who pay to endorse him rises.

Quote:
Sure you can decry the disputability of any limits set by government. But you can't pretend that the naturally centrifugal forces of the market economy result in wages that are any less arbitrary.


Nonsense. You need to study fundamental economics, in particular the theory of subjective value (which I'd compare to the theory of evolution in acceptance rate among modern economists).

Water is more intrinsically useful than diamonds, but there is a clear difference in exchange value for a reason. Here is Adam Smith on the paradox:

"The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."

Salaries are prices, and prices are driven by exchange value. The people exchanging are in a better position to access value than you are from the sidelines when you say it's too much.

Quote:
So how is limiting that escalating disparity a question of taking away what the guy is "worth" and just "deserves"?


By doing exactly that. You decide what other people are worth without participating in the exchange arbitrarily. They "deserve" the exchange value that others are willing to pay.

You keep harping on taxation, but that has nothing at all to do with what I have been talking about. Taxing someone exorbitantly does not put an arbitrary value on their labor, it just takes an arbitrary value out of their income. Individuals are still free to determine their own exchange value.

Capping compensation is to arbitrarily declare exchange value and has nothing at all to do with taxation rates.

Quote:

here's post one (after Chai's quote);
here's post two (after the second quote of JP);
and finally, at length, post three (up till JP's point 3).


I'm not going into all of this unless you at least assure me that it is about what I have been arguing.

And once again, to clarify:

I am arguing against limiting labor compensation. If you want to argue with me about your insane taxation preferences I'd be happy to do so, but I'm not going to let you use my arguments against the interference with private contracts, and the basic functions of determining exchange value as the argument for them.

If you want me to argue your taxation preferences (which I consider to be fundamentally injust and bad enough in their own right) then at least allow me to formulate arguments against that and stop pretending that arguments against imposing compensation limits are the same thing.

They are not the same in any fundamental way except that both are ugly classism.

BTW, I asked you to provide your argument for your position and you haven't offered a single one yet. What are your arguments for imposing compensation caps in private contracts?
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:45 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
But your allegation that Congress doesn't have the power to retroactively modify a contract is wholly without merit.


I never once made this allegation Debra. I said that the constitution prohibits passing of laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts". Congress has the power to change the Constitution so they clearly have the "power" to do anything we are discussing. I've never argued that they don't.

Please argue against what I say and not what you are able to make up about what I say.

Quote:
Congress has the power to retroactively modify contracts. If you can't pay your obligations, your creditors may force you into bankruptcy. Congress may pass laws that impair contractual obligations under its Bankruptcy Powers.


If the main idea is preventing these companies from going bankrupt, then the Federal government's bankruptcy powers are pointless. As I said to Cyclo, the only way to punish these guys and take away their compensation is to allow the very thing everyone is trying to avoid. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face to insist on it.

Quote:
Thus, if Congress has the power to completely wipe away contractual obligations, it has the power to take less drastic steps to help a financially strapped or potentially bankrupt company avoid bankruptcy.


It doesn't currently have the power to modify these contracts outside of their bankrupcy power, and Ogden v. Saunders established that they don't have the power to pass laws that retroactively apply to contracts already signed.

Quote:
Through the power of the purse, Congress may offer a monetary bailout to a failing corporation and Congress may do so on the conditions that Congress establishes. Take it or leave it.


Anyone can do this. Watch:

I offer $10 to the first ailing financial company to accept this deal with the condition that the CEO of the company moon the public (in "press" not "hang" form) at precisely midnight tonight and post photo evidence on this thread.

But like I already said to Cyclo, we can prevent the funds from being used for golden parachutes but that is contingent on them accepting the terms unless they go bankrupt, and one of the general ideas behind these bailouts is to prevent that.

So once again, argue against what I actually say, not straw men that you can more easily knock down.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:57 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

RG said: "Let's say I start a private one man business. And I reach the maximum compensation you think I should be allowed. Why should I grow my business? Why should I hire other folk, and try to innovate if nimh and cyclo decide my effort is not worth any more money?"

You can pay yourself as much as you can afford. However, if you run your business into the ground and ask for a taxpayer handout to keep your business afloat, the taxpayer has every right to refuse to provide that handout unless you tighten your own belt.


I agree 100%. But once again that's not what we are arguing about. Cyclo, and now nimh, have been arguing about the government regulating and limiting compensation in general.

The golden parachute clauses in the bailout bill are perfectly legal, I just think they are a dangerous distraction that is being used for populism in campaigning. But putting a ceiling on what anyone can earn is what I'm arguing against with them.

Why right do they have to decide on ceilings for everyone?
Steve 41oo
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 04:30 am
@Robert Gentel,
The person who starts a business, creates wealth and employs people has the right to pay himself whatever the business can afford. He will pay more tax the more he earns. And if he is interested in the long term future of his business he'll wont kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

But what we are talking about here is a bunch of spivs on Wall St and in the City who have never made anything nor employed anyone. All they do with unimaginable amounts of other people's money is gamble with it, and take a cut themselves. They are not interested in the long term because for them life is too short to spend all the golden eggs they already have. This is the system we have somehow created, and I for one am not sorry to see it crashing down.



Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 04:32 am
@Robert Gentel,
edit ...double post ...NOT MY FAULT Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 07:05 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
You keep bringing up examples that have nothing at all to do with what I was talking about nimh. Taxing, even at ridiculous rates, does not interfere with the right of two private citizens to make a compensation agreement. It doesn't put a limit on anyone's earnings.

It's just not the same thing in any fundamental way except that it's motivated by the same kind of classism. That doesn't make it the same beast

If you argue that someone would not continue to work hard if the state takes part of their income away from him, that's an argument that's fundamentally the same as for high taxes, and invalid for the same reasons. When you argue that the state does not have the "right to limit the success of others", and has no business "deciding what other people are worth" or determining that "Michael Jordan is not worth his salary", those are broader arguments that, if they were valid, would apply against the government increasing high top tax rates as well. Hence using the historical examples of high tax rates as illustration how it doesnt work that way.

You keep switching back and forth from insisting I am transgressing the subject when I mention taxation as alternate example, to using very broad, value-laden arguments yourself about how, basically, the government has no business to intervene in the supply/demand market mechanism of establishing someone's financial worth. Describing doing so as the government wrongfully determining someone's worth, and defining the market mechanism as the natural and right way to determine incomes.

Well, the excesses of CEO pay, in which even failing CEOs of failing companies are royally rewarded, show that this mechanism is not self-correcting or self-perfecting as free market ideologues would have it. The
mechanisms in which the incomes of the very top have hurtled forward while the lower half of the income pyramid has stagnated, without any proportionality to the actual performance of those elites in improving profitability or productivity, show that the mechanism in which these inequalities are escalating is tethered as much to processes of elites promoting their own financial interests as to anything to do with economic performance.

Despite what the models would have it be, CEO pay etc is not, in practice, anymore based on pure market mechanisms automatically determining the optimum level for getting the best performance in the best place. In case after case, it is more a question of the corporate elites giving themselves ever bigger rises and bonuses even when companies are failing, regardless of whether gains or losses are being made, even when it means production capacities have to be cut instead. The purported self-correcting mechanisms of the market just dont always work when everyone at the top has a shared interest in propping up each others salaries, bonuses etc up even in the absence of corresponding improvements in performance.

Moreover, you have injected value-laden concepts like whether someone is worth his salary, whether someone deserves his income. The reasoning basically being that, if the current market pricing for someone's job is x, then x is what he deserves, and capping or overly taxing that is basically taking away from what he's worth.

Thats something I've just never philosophically understood: how the vagaries of how the market mechanisms hurtle certain incomes up- or forward have become translated into judgements of what someone just deserves. Someone doing the same work and now earning double what he would have earned working just as hard in the same position ten years ago; and yet tax or cap his new, doubled wage and there's howls of how they are taking away the rightful fruits of his labour. No awareness that the current worth attached to his work is itself arbitrary.

No, it's not arbitrary in the economic sense that it is the end product of a global price bargaining for his services at that point in time in this place. But it's arbitrary in the sense that there's no necessary connection to how hard you work, what you've done to get there, or even your intelligence. I earn five times as much as a garbage man, and God knows that I dont work five times as hard, and havent worked five times as much even taking into account doing my education etc. either. And yet I'm getting five times the pay. OK, I'm not complaining, I'm no saint. But I'm well aware of how arbitrary it all is. And though I'm egoistic enough not to volunteer, if someone said look, this is ridiculous, that's just not right, I'm not going to protest against a tax increase. Because there's no way I "deserve" to earn five times more than that guy in the first place.

No, no no, I hear you protest impatiently -- didnt you read my Adam Smith quote? You should study economics if you dont understand how it works! You "deserve" the exchange value that others are willing to pay. But you're missing my point. You're looking at the theory of subjective value, confirm that everyone agrees that this is how it works economically: salaries are prices, and prices are driven by exchange value. And you see that as the end of the story: the lesson being that we should just leave it all up to the market place, because "the people exchanging are in a better position to access value" than any second-guessing would be.

Right. And then I look around me and see what has happened in terms of galloping income inequities, in terms of excesses in pay at the top that have lost the connection with performance. I hear conservatives and libertarians lecture about how higher taxing and other regulation that limits top income disparities will stymy people's incentive and ambition, and then I look around and see that in this age of tax cuts and deregulation and increased wage gaps, social mobility is actually lower than it was a generation ago. And I remember that people's incentive and ambition wasnt lacking back when there were such more extended government interventions. And I think - well, maybe that's how the system works economically if left to itself, uncapped untaxed and unregulated, but maybe we're now seeing that this doesnt mean it should be left to itself.



And yeah, I realised that once again I've "transgressed" the limits of what you think we should be talking about. Tant pis - we see what this discussion is really about differently.

Not, mind you, that there is much to add still, I suppose. We're really just talking past each other... the chasm between our world views is too big.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 08:54 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

RG said: "Let's say I start a private one man business. And I reach the maximum compensation you think I should be allowed. Why should I grow my business? Why should I hire other folk, and try to innovate if nimh and cyclo decide my effort is not worth any more money?"

You can pay yourself as much as you can afford. However, if you run your business into the ground and ask for a taxpayer handout to keep your business afloat, the taxpayer has every right to refuse to provide that handout unless you tighten your own belt.


I agree 100%. But once again that's not what we are arguing about. Cyclo, and now nimh, have been arguing about the government regulating and limiting compensation in general.

The golden parachute clauses in the bailout bill are perfectly legal, I just think they are a dangerous distraction that is being used for populism in campaigning. But putting a ceiling on what anyone can earn is what I'm arguing against with them.

Why right do they have to decide on ceilings for everyone?


Well, it's just my personal opinion; but I believe that in a world of limited resources, there's nothing wrong with limiting resources available to be owned by any one person. Sorry if that butts up against your ambition.

The ceilings we are talking about are still so high, that the worker can achieve a level of sloth and luxury afterwards not known by 99% of our population. It isn't as if we are limiting people to some poorhouse. I think it's just the idea of limitation that sticks in your craw; but that's a psychological problem, not a societal problem. I do not agree that all those who seek unlimited ambition will go elsewhere. I think that this is a threat used by the rich to cow the poor into keeping their taxes down, and nothing more Laughing

You state,

Quote:


If the main idea is preventing these companies from going bankrupt, then the Federal government's bankruptcy powers are pointless. As I said to Cyclo, the only way to punish these guys and take away their compensation is to allow the very thing everyone is trying to avoid. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face to insist on it.


Really? We're trying to avoid these businesses going bankrupt? I thought the whole point was to get the credit moving again so that loans could be made, etc. It seems to me that this can be accomplished even if the companies go into bankruptcy; and if they are going to be begging for public money, their boards SHOULD be replaced, all of them. Though you like to assign them no blame, they are to blame. They failed their investors and ought to go, and if they are to take public money, they need to go.

I made a little mention earlier - about letting shareholders vote on executive pay. Would you be for or against such a policy? This would truly remove the onus of paying executives exorbitant amounts, from investors who don't want to....

Cycloptichorn
hamburger
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:23 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote :

Quote:
Well, the excesses of CEO pay, in which even failing CEOs of failing companies are royally rewarded, show that this mechanism is not self-correcting or self-perfecting as free market ideologues would have it. The
mechanisms in which the incomes of the very top have hurtled forward while the lower half of the income pyramid has stagnated, without any proportionality to the actual performance of those elites in improving profitability or productivity, show that the mechanism in which these inequalities are escalating is tethered as much to processes of elites promoting their own financial interests as to anything to do with economic performance.


looking at the list of directors - particularly large corporations - show how overlapping directorships play a large role in determining executive pay .
add to that the club-memberships of CEOS and directors and it gives us a good idea why "friends" will do all to secure top pay for their buddies .

i think it's human nature that we all want to help our friends to succeed . it's no different at the top than at the bottom .
criminals try to help out each other if it is also to their own advantage , friends try to help each other . we can't really expect it to be differnt in the top ranks of business , can we ?

one simple saying i learned early when coming to canada : "you scratch my back , i scratch your back ! " .
i don't think that's a very difficult concept to understand .
looking back over my own working life , it has often helped me to find a good job by " knowing someone who knew someone else " .

sure , i had to find my first two jobs in canada on my own , but thereafter i had started to develop some friendships that were beneficial for me .
didn't make me a millionaire , but secured a good career .

in canda we have the "directory of directorships" (now on cd)

http://www.owen-media-store.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,shop.flypage/product_id,44/category_id,16/manufacturer_id,0/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,1/

that gives you all the information on canada's director . the last one i had at the office was still in book format .
it's actually interesting reading .
hbg
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:38 am
For those who have gotten all huffy about Pelosi's speech - a ridiculous position, and really people ought to be ashamed of themselves for falling for what was obviously Republican spin all along - I present the RNC's latest ad -



This is not only an ad contradicting McCain's message, it's whipping up support against the bail-out. And this was sent to TV stations yesterday morning, before the vote was taken.

But, damn that Pelosi and her speech! Democrats clogging up the works again...

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 09:42 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, You bring up an important point that many people fail to realize; this planet has limited resources, and the world's population cannot be sustained with "middle class" lifestyles. This world will always have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The ratio between all three economic classes have different values, benefits, and potential depending on the countries development.

All cannot continue to expand its use of the world's resources; we're already harming our environment by the 6. billion humans. This cannot continue indefinitely while the populations increase.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 10:32 am
@cicerone imposter,
And here's Shaddegg, once again blowing up the stupid idea that Pelosi's speech had anything to do with the bill failing:



Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:04 am
@hamburger,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The ceilings we are talking about are still so high, that the worker can achieve a level of sloth and luxury afterwards not known by 99% of our population. It isn't as if we are limiting people to some poorhouse. I think it's just the idea of limitation that sticks in your craw; but that's a psychological problem, not a societal problem. I do not agree that all those who seek unlimited ambition will go elsewhere. I think that this is a threat used by the rich to cow the poor into keeping their taxes down, and nothing more Laughing

Echo that.

hamburger wrote:
looking at the list of directors - particularly large corporations - show how overlapping directorships play a large role in determining executive pay. add to that the club-memberships of CEOS and directors and it gives us a good idea why "friends" will do all to secure top pay for their buddies . [..]

one simple saying i learned early when coming to canada : "you scratch my back , i scratch your back ! ". i don't think that's a very difficult concept to understand. looking back over my own working life , it has often helped me to find a good job by " knowing someone who knew someone else " .

That too...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:06 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

For those who have gotten all huffy about Pelosi's speech - a ridiculous position, and really people ought to be ashamed of themselves for falling for what was obviously Republican spin all along - I present the RNC's latest ad -

I see your Shadegg and raise you a Bachmann:

Quote:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) threw cold water on a key rationale House Republican leaders have been employing this afternoon to explain why they couldn’t deliver more GOP votes for the Wall Street bailout package.

At a Monday afternoon press conference, GOP leaders argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) cost the measure a dozen Republican votes by delivering an overly partisan floor speech in support of it.

But Bachmann, speaking at a Republican Study Committee press conference, told reporters, “I want to assure you that was not the case. We are not babies who suck our thumbs. We have very principled reasons for voting no.”

link
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, You bring up an important point that many people fail to realize; this planet has limited resources, and the world's population cannot be sustained with "middle class" lifestyles. This world will always have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The ratio between all three economic classes have different values, benefits, and potential depending on the countries development.

All cannot continue to expand its use of the world's resources; we're already harming our environment by the 6. billion humans. This cannot continue indefinitely while the populations increase.
This is an argument to keep people poor, so they don't use resources? I don't think the majority of the world would appreciate that take. Limiting one man's ability to use resources, on the other hand, is pretty silly... because he's probably not eating and drinking that much more than his fair share.

I think what Cyclo meant by resources is wealth. And he didn't raise an important point; he made no point at all... beyond demonstrating with his opinion that he lacks a fundamental understanding of wealth dynamics. He still seems to believe that global wealth is one big pie; and there's only so much to go around. This fundamental misunderstanding has plagued mankind for centuries... but it isn't true... has never been true, really, and is not even close to true today.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, You bring up an important point that many people fail to realize; this planet has limited resources, and the world's population cannot be sustained with "middle class" lifestyles. This world will always have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The ratio between all three economic classes have different values, benefits, and potential depending on the countries development.

All cannot continue to expand its use of the world's resources; we're already harming our environment by the 6. billion humans. This cannot continue indefinitely while the populations increase.
This is an argument to keep people poor, so they don't use resources? I don't think the majority of the world would appreciate that take. Limiting one man's ability to use resources, on the other hand, is pretty silly... because he's probably not eating and drinking that much more than his fair share.

I think what Cyclo meant by resources is wealth. And he didn't raise an important point; he made no point at all... beyond demonstrating with his opinion that he lacks a fundamental understanding of wealth dynamics. He still seems to believe that global wealth is one big pie; and there's only so much to go around. This fundamental misunderstanding has plagued mankind for centuries... but it isn't true... has never been true, really, and is not even close to true today.



Bill, if I meant 'wealth,' I assure you, I would have written wealth. I meant resources and wrote resources. Please stop trying to change my argument into one you would like to argue against.

Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bill, if I meant 'wealth,' I assure you, I would have written wealth. I meant resources and wrote resources. Please stop trying to change my argument into one you would like to argue against.
Well that's just silly, Cyclo. Advocating salary limits because you fear he with the greater salary will use more resources is beyond absurd.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:44 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bill, if I meant 'wealth,' I assure you, I would have written wealth. I meant resources and wrote resources. Please stop trying to change my argument into one you would like to argue against.
Well that's just silly, Cyclo. Advocating salary limits because you fear he with the greater salary will use more resources is beyond absurd.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. However, this does not change the fact that the rich DO use much greater levels of resources than the middle class, and those resources are in most cases limited. There is no reason why one group of people should be entitled to an unlimited amount of resources, or control over an unlimited amount, in a limited situation.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:47 am
@Steve 41oo,
Steve 41oo wrote:

The person who starts a business, creates wealth and employs people has the right to pay himself whatever the business can afford. He will pay more tax the more he earns. And if he is interested in the long term future of his business he'll wont kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

But what we are talking about here is a bunch of spivs on Wall St and in the City who have never made anything nor employed anyone.


Nimh is talking about limiting anyone's compensation.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I suppose we could all go back to a 19th-century level of technology.

When are you planting your field, Cyclo? Have you bought your mules yet?
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:50 am
@DrewDad,
I will add, that IMO the solution to disproportionate levels of wealth is not to make everyone poor, but to make everyone rich.

Cheap, renewable energy is the ticket.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » bailout dead
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 10/21/2021 at 09:26:03