Ya Know... I'm Just Not Sure What To Think of This...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I am NOT a COMMIE, and I'm not a SOCIALIST, but DAMN... I read an article like this and I'm just left thinking... WTF...

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are richer than poorest half of US

Institute for Policy Studies warns of a ‘moral crisis’ and says Trump tax change proposals will exacerbate disparities.

The three richest people in the US – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, or 160 million people.

Analysis of the wealth of America’s richest people found that Gates, Bezos and Buffett were sitting on a combined $248.5bn (£190bn) fortune. The Institute for Policy Studies said the growing gap between rich and poor had created a “moral crisis”.
In a report, the Billionaire Bonanza, the thinktank said Donald Trump’s tax change proposals would “exacerbate existing wealth disparities” as 80% of tax benefits would end up going to the wealthiest 1% of households.
“Wealth inequality is on the rise,” said Chuck Collins, an economist and co-author of the report. “Now is the time for actions that reduce inequality, not tax cuts for the very wealthy.”
The study found that the billionaires included in Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people in the US were worth a combined $2.68tn – more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK.
“Our wealthiest 400 now have more wealth combined than the bottom 64% of the US population, an estimated 80m households or 204 million people,” the report says. “That’s more people than the population of Canada and Mexico combined.”
The report says the “billionaire class” continues to “pull apart from the rest of us” at the fastest rate ever recorded. “We have not witnessed such extreme levels of concentrated wealth and power since the first gilded age a century ago.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business...est-half-of-us

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's late right now so I don't want to look, but I know there's a passage in the Bible somewhere that eludes to...

... "the richer you are on earth, the poorer you'll be in heaven"... and vice versa... I'll be in the frickin' top 1%...

[LongTermGuy]

Nothing to think about...Its how one tinkers here on Earth `to make things happen` in their given years of life and staying clean and out of jail by using Gods gift...the human mind. In the end... `what one does with that Gift`.. here on Earth will be the key to ones spirit getting into heaven or Hell....

We are all different from one another here on Earth....what I mean...it depends on how one applies one self here on Earth....All things are possible.

[SassyLady]

Doesn't bother me.

[Abbey Marie]

Doesn't bother me.

Me neither.
And just think of all the jobs these guys have created.

[darin]

and they got their money because the other half of the country kept buying whatever those men were selling. Free exchange of goods and services.

[Kathianne]

I'm in agreement with SL, Abbey, and Darin. What other people have or don't, doesn't change my positions one way or another. Coming up with a new idea or product; working 2 or 3 jobs to get ahead; starting up a business and doing everything required to be a success, those are things to be proud of, for those that accomplish them. Truth is, for one reason or another most of us don't want to sacrifice as much as these folks. Choices.

[PostmodernProphet]

It's late right now so I don't want to look, but I know there's a passage in the Bible somewhere that eludes to...

... "the richer you are on earth, the poorer you'll be in heaven"... and vice versa... I'll be in the frickin' top 1%...

sorry to disappoint you, but nowhere in the Bible is heaven connected with material wealth......

[High_Plains_Drifter]

sorry to disappoint you, but nowhere in the Bible is heaven connected with material wealth......

Well, it kinda does. This is what I was referring to...

Luke 6:24 ESV / 9 helpful votes <button name="vote_u_42006024" type="submit" id="vote_u_42006024" value="1" style="margin-bottom: 3px;">Helpful</button> <button name="vote_d_42006024" type="submit" id="vote_d_42006024" value="-1" style="margin-bottom: 3px;">Not Helpful</button>

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/being_rich

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't really have a problem with these men having so much money, they built it, they earned it. What it does make me think about is the power they wield. They're greasing palms left and right by lobbying powerful people, and the more money they have the more people they can influence. Is that right?

There was a time when if one company appeared to have a monopoly, our government would bust them up. Personally, if this large company is benefiting the general public, as in a large selection and low prices, that's what America is all about, competition, that's capitalism, and I'm all for it.

I guess I had a moment of envy when I read the article. After contemplating it overnight, I've never been driven to become that rich. I never wanted to work weekends, and I liked to have quiet time to myself to just enjoy being alive, happy and in good health.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

What it does make me think about is the power they wield. They're greasing palms left and right by lobbying powerful people, and the more money they have the more people they can influence. Is that right?

There was a time when if one company appeared to have a monopoly, our government would bust them up.

As if on cue, this story appears on Drudge...

Monopoly critics decry ‘Amazon amendment'

Law makers put the finishing touches this week on military funding legislation that contains a provision that stands to significantly benefit Amazon.

<article class="node-359514 node node-article view-mode-full clearfix" about="/policy/cybersecurity/359514-monopoly-critics-decry-amazon-amendment" typeof="sioc:Item foaf

The amendment, Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would help Amazon establish a tight grip on the lucrative, $53 billion government acquisitions market, experts say.

The provision, dubbed the “Amazon amendment” by experts, according to an article in The Intercept, would allow for the creation of an online portal that government employees could use to purchase everyday items such as office supplies or furniture.
This government-only version of Amazon, which could potentially include a few other websites, would give participating companies direct access to the $53 billion market for government acquisitions of commercial products.

“It hands an enormous amount of power over to Amazon,” said Stacy Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a research group that advocates for local businesses.

Mitchell said that the provision could allow Amazon to gain a monopoly or duopoly on the profitable world of commercial government purchases, leaving smaller businesses behind and further consolidating the behemoth tech firm’s power.
Amazon declined to comment to The Hill on Section 801.

The Seattle-based tech giant has spent the last two quarters of 2018 lobbying on the NDAA and “government procurement,” according to disclosures that the company filed this year.

Amazon has also recruited outside firms to help it influence policymakers on the matter. Disclosure filings made by lobbying firm TwinLogic Strategies, made on behalf of Amazon as its client, do not specify the exact legislation that they tried to influence, but note that they focused on the “modernization of the procurement process.”

The Internet Association (IA), a trade group representing the political interests of major tech firms like Amazon, Google and Facebook, also pushed lawmakers on the matter.

“Dozens of acquisition reform proposals over the years have highlighted the need to inject greater innovation and disruption into federal procurement,” IA President Michael Beckerman wrote in an Oct. 12 letter addressed to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain(R-Ariz.) and ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

In his letter, Beckerman wrote that a government purchasing portal offers “just that opportunity.”
Despite the size of the potential windfall for Amazon, Section 801 has gone unnoticed by some lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which are responsible for drafting and finalizing the NDAA.

Many legislators in the House and Senate whom The Hill asked about the bill were not immediately familiar with the provision, though some expressed interest and commented later after reviewing Section 801.

Those who were familiar with the provision had mixed opinions, but many lawmakers leaned toward supporting it.
“I’m going to seriously scrutinize it and see if we’ll want to revise it in some way,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
The Connecticut senator said that he was skeptical of criticisms that the provision would allow Amazon to dominate the government procurement market.
“My concern is that every company have a chance to participate in the procurement process — both online and traditional,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley, told The Hill when questioned about the amendment.

Khanna said that it was essential that the final version of the bill ensured “transparency in input pricing and also to make sure they have multiple bids from competitors.”

Another member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rick Larsen(D-Wash.), offered a more pointed defense of Section 801.
“This isn’t about Amazon, although Amazon lobbied for it. It’s about trying to create online space for purchasing so that [the Department of Defense] can get something for value,” Larsen argued.

He explained that the provision was born out of trying to create a specific provision for Defense Department procurement only. But the committee realized that, to do that, “we’d have to set up a mini-[General Services Administration] inside the Defense Department.”
“So then it became more broad,” Larsen said.

In a briefing on Wednesday before the bill’s release, senior House and Senate Armed Services Committee staffers explained that, in addition to Amazon and Walmart, Staples and industrial supply company Grainger would be eligible to also provide commercial items.

But Mitchell is skeptical, pointing to language in the current version of the bill that would appear to exclude Staples and Grainger.
“The way the language reads to me, it’s hard to imagine that there are any other companies who would fit the bill besides Amazon and perhaps Walmart,” she said. “Those are the only retailers who are operating online marketplaces who seem to be in a situation to create a government marketplace portal that this provision envisions.”

The House Armed Services Committee contests the idea that Section 801 will only benefit one or two companies, saying that multiple companies will have access to the government procurement market in the final version of the NDAA.

“[Amazon’s dominance of government procurement] is a myth that opponents of the provision have been shopping for a while, that we wrote the language in such a way as to exclude more specialized marketplaces,” a representative from the House Armed Services Committee told The Hill over email, adding that some of Section 801’s language had been changed in the latest version of the provision.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) has made a strong push for online marketplace reform. In addition to advocating for the amendment, he also introduced a standalone bill in May that shares similar goals with Section 801.

Mitchell and other experts believe that Section 801 could have harmful impacts.

“It’s incredibly dangerous,” said Matt Stoller, an economist at the Open Markets Institute, a think tank critical of Amazon’s growing power. “What it’s doing is concentrating the buying power of the country into the hands of Jeff Bezos.”

Rebecca Kheel contributed.
<a href="http://thehill.com/people/rick-larsen" target="_blank">
<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/359514-monopoly-critics-decry-amazon-amendment" target="_blank"><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/359514-monopoly-critics-decry-amazon-amendment" target="_blank"><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/359514-monopoly-critics-decry-amazon-amendment" target="_blank"><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/359514-monopoly-critics-decry-amazon-amendment" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...azon-amendment
</article>

[LongTermGuy]

Me neither.
And just think of all the jobs these guys have created.

"Exactly Abbey...."

[jimnyc]

Unless someone is doing something illegal to get their profits, I have no issues at all. In fact, I admire them.

"greed is good"

The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated. In the last seven deals that I’ve been involved with, there were 2.5 million stockholders who have made a pretax profit of 12 billion dollars. Thank you. I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good.

Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Quote from Michael Douglas aka Gordon Gecko in the movie "Wall Street"

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, it kinda does. This is what I was referring to...

uh, dude.....he wasn't talking about heaven.....

24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.25 “Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
26 “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

uh, dude.....he wasn't talking about heaven.....

Well... then what does it mean?