Tag Archives: rich

Workers of the World, Let’s Exploit the Rich!

Blaine Dabbley, Emerson College branch of the Private College Socialists of America, as recorded in the 31st Internationale’s weekly minutes.

While greedy corporatists count their record-breaking profits, we proletarian have been scheming in the shadows, trying to devise a way to exploit the oligarchs who rule this fascist hellhole.

And the answer is going to shock and surprise you: we are going to work for personal profit!

Sounds too crazy to work? Runs contrary to every Marxist principle that we hold dear? Wait, dear comrades, before you turn me in to the internal thought police.

As we sit in the drudgery of our parents’ basements, racking up tokens on World of Warcraft, the thought suddenly arises — what are we getting out of this tremendous expenditure of energy?

Hours of amusement in our whitey tighties, to be sure. But what about the big picture? When do we get ours?

The answer is stark and beautiful in its social justice: We exploit the rich.

How you say? Let me explain my scheme in full detail.

We are currently whiling away the hours wasting our effort on fruitless endeavors, such as slaying orcs in the mystical land of Azeroth. What if we took those hours of living in fantasy land, and employ our labor in reality?

This is the good part: We can take rich people’s money by offering them the hours we would otherwise spend pointlessly spending video games, and in the process, we learn a trade or a craft in real life!

Sure, we would start out like noobs. I mean, what should a Level 1 cashier with 5 dexterity make in dollar tokens, compared to a Level 3 Assistant Manager who can actually delete a can of corn from the receipt without starting the checkout line procedure over again?

(That reminds me, I need some choom and Spicy Doritos. I’ll have my mom pick some up nachos later and float me a twenty until my plot comes to fruition.)

Anyway, so I was saying, we would totally exploit these rich bastards by getting them to trade us cash for time we would otherwise spend doing nothing. Okay, not nothing. Conquering a Level 27 Wyvern together did have its merits.

But didn’t you guys see that the new Call of Duty is coming out? My mom says she’s not going to entertain my socialist ramblings anymore and that I’m going to have to pay for it myself. I know, I know. She’s totally on the rag.

That got me to thinking. Just six hours spent at the local Supermart bagging groceries instead of playing Wow would totally cover my Call of Duty price. And then I wouldn’t have to beg my mom to drop me a fifty. We’re having hard enough time making bills as it is – the capitalist system being so heartless and corrupt.

Think of it this way: We would be profiting with our labor, and taking money out of the pockets of fat cats to boot! Sweet revenge!

So who’s with me? Who is up for exploiting the rich? When do we begin this revolution of returning money back to its rightful owners?

World of Warcraft players of the world unite!

Mitt Romney (Really) Doesn’t Have That Much Money

Romney’s “2 Cadillacs” and “my friends own NASCAR teams” stories might seem like old news now, but if he gets the GOP’s nod, you can bet that stories about his wealth will begin to circulate again in preparation for this fall’s election.  Since 80% of Conservatives seem to think he’s going to win the nomination (and he has the largest amount of delegates), this piece will focus on some the criticisms about Romney’s wealth.

Romney Doesn’t really have that much money.

As unbelievable as that statement sounds, it’s very much true.  Mitt Romney is said to be worth anywhere between $190-$250 Million.  And as hard as it is to believe, that’s just not very much dough.

To put it in perspective, let’s look at how much money some other famous people happen to be worth.

1.  Peyton Manning has a net worth of $115 Million (about half of what Romney is said to be worth)

2.  Justin Bieber has made $105 Million in just about the same amount of  time it takes to complete high school.

3.  Gossip blogger, Perez Hilton is worth $30 Million.  Let that sink in for a minute…  And if you don’t know who Perez Hilton is, consider yourself blessed.

4.  Michael Bloomberg, a lowly mayor (even if he is mayor of the USA’s largest city), is worth $19 Billion (with a “B”).  So if politicians aren’t supposed to be wealthy, somebody should let him know.

5.  But to put things into even better perspective, Allen Iverson has made (and spent) about $200 Million between his NBA salary and his Reebok endorsements.  So, if a basketball player is allowed to earn, in fourteen years, what Mitt Romney has earned over the course of his 65 year lifetime, then there seems to be little reason to begrudge the former governor for buying a couple of Cadillacs.  And if it makes you feel any better, you should know that Allen Iverson’s $400,000 Lamborghini is worth about 8 of what Mrs. Romney’s Cadillac’s are believed to have cost.

And this is just “classic Democrats”.  Remember when Barack Obama was a candidate for the highest office in the land?  As a candidate, he considered George W. Bush’s debt of $4 Trillion to be “unpatriotic”, a debt that was amassed over 8 years.  But when President Obama racked up $4 Trillion of debt in only three years, he decided to have Tom Hanks narrate a documentary talking about how heroic our current president is.  Democrats will hammer Republicans for their sins, then commit the SAME sin, only twice as worse, and then applaud themselves.  And on top of that, they get the media to tell everybody that they’re doing a good job.  …for doing the SAME thing they just hammered Republicans for.

This is the same party who ran the richest president of all time, John F. Kennedy.  JFK was said to be worth $1 Billion (again, with a “B”), and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, was also said to be worth $98 Million.  These figures were published on MSNBC’s website, of all places, and they were adjusted for 2010 dollars.  But again, they’ll have you believe that Mitt Romney, and by extension, the Republican Party are both out of touch.  Furthermore, did you know that  William Jefferson Clinton is said to be worth $38 Million?  And last but not least, Jane Harman, a Democrat congresswoman from California who recently resigned, is said be worth between $150 Million and $430 Million.  From the looks of things, Democrats only think that being a rich politician is bad if it’s a REPUBLICAN who is the rich politician.

The hypocrisy is not only staggering, but it needs to be pointed out on a daily basis, if Republicans ever want to dispel the meme that they are all out-of-touch and 1 percenters.

So in a world where basketball players and teenage kids have earned as much (or half as much) as Mitt Romney has, and in a world where Liberal politicians can easily outspend him, it’s hard to see the outrage over Romney’s wealth as being anything genuine.  Romney’s real crime isn’t that he’s amassed money, it’s that he’s been unable to control the narrative.

Ninety-Nine. The New 51%?

OK, so I was educated in the public schools, but there is some math that just doesn’t add up.  So, I did a little research.


If you listen to the main stream media…. STOP!!  But I digress.  Listening to the main stream media for any period of time would have you concluding that the Republicans are the party of the “rich” and the Democrats are the party of the “little guy.”  You can’t hang around Nancy Pelosi for five minutes (why would you want to anyway) without her spewing something about the Republican protecting the rich…. Tax breaks for the rich….. the rich don’t pay their fair share thanks to the Republicans… blah, blah, blah…


And of course, as pure as the wind-driven snow (stay away from the yellow stuff) are the Democrats – the defenders of the weak and helpless, standing up for unions, deadbeats and anyone we can quickly label a minority of some kind.


So I figure, if this is true, AND what Obama says that the rich (he’s singles out the top 2%, or if you are OWS, 1%) don’t pay enough, AND the Republicans only represent the rich, AND democrats represent the other 98-99% then….


How come we don’t have a 430-5 majority of Democrats in the house and a 99-1 majority in the Senate?!! Hmmmm???!!!  AND, since this had been the case since time immemorial, surely these ratios have been like this since the inception of the nation, right!  So what’s the problem?  Why the protesters? Why are there still rich people?  Where’s the beef?


Well, it must be one of two things:


  1. Either some 50% of the electorate are dumber than a box of hammers and vote for the party of the rich who turns around and screws them at every opportunity      OR…..
  2. This party of the rich stuff is a load of crap!!



Not a trick question, folks. I did some research.


Since 1912, one hundred years of popular voting data for the presidential elections of the past century reveals that, when added up and averaged, 50.5% of the voters cast a ballot for the Republican nominee and 49.5% for the Democrat.  In other words, even!


Think about it.  If it really was 1% versus 99% – IN A DEMOCRACY – would the “rich” really have all the power?  Shouldn’t have there been a HUGE majority of Democrats in both houses and the White House for decades?


If we really have lived in an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ society, where we can freely pick our legislators every two years, then why hasn’t the problem been solved?  Where is the party of the “little guy?”


Maybe there is a third alternative.  Maybe the party of the “little guy” doesn’t REALLY want the little guy’s problems to be solved.  Think about it.  If their problems are solved by the party that advocates big government intrusion into everything, then big government would be out of a job!


Maybe it’s the “little guy” who continually votes for a party that WANTS to perpetuate their problems so they can perpetuate their careers, who are the ignorant ones.


The bottom line is this.  The 48% of “non-rich” electorate that, for over a century, has voted Republican do so, not because they are rich, but because they want to promise of the opportunity to become rich (however that may be defined) WITHOUT the government swooping in and telling them they don’t deserve it!


So to you passionate, yet misinformed individuals with the hand-made 99% signs, go back to math class and bring your friend, Mr. Logic with you.  Protesting is fine, objecting to the status quo is fine. But if your passion outlasts your purpose, your cause will eventually die.

The Benefits of Income Inequality

A favorite talking points of the liberal left is how “the gap between the top 1% of earners and the middle class is…”. Or how “the incomes of the top 1% are growing by x% compared to the working class”. As if the top 1% doesn’t work. These citations are laughable. Not because the person spewing them is ignorant of economics, or because the successful like to see people supposedly left behind by our economic system. No, the reason these sorts of statistics make are ridiculous is because they indicate that it is still possible to get rich in this country despite starting out, well, not rich.

When someone points out that incomes for the top 1% have increased, they want their audience to assume that over time, it is the same individuals occupying the positions that make up the top 1%. “The rich get richer” is a phrase most know and even take for granted, without ever asking what it means. For example, IRS data show that by 2005, most of those who were in the top 1% of wage earners in 1996 had been replaced. This doesn’t sound like a rigid class system the left wants us to believe is in place.

Another conclusion the liberal commentator is taking for granted is that viewers/readers think that income gaps are a bad thing. The fact that conservative politicians never defend income gaps lead me to believe liberals are winning this PR battle. But let me attempt to at least begin a discussion on the matter. First, if people earn higher incomes or hold more wealth, then in a free market this is a signal to anyone else that it is achievable for them too. I think it would be much more depressing to be the richest man in the world and living in a cave than an average wage earner living in an air conditioned house with a car and a refrigerator. For the guy in the cave there isn’t anywhere else to go. For me, well, I’ve met people who live well beyond any means by which I am currently capable. This is also not a permanent condition. If I work hard enough and want that lifestyle, I can have it.

A second reason income inequality, specifically expansion at the top, is a good thing, is that overall wealth is continuing to grow at a high rate. Wealth expansion, over time, benefits everyone. If wealth were expanding faster at the bottom of the income spectrum, it would mean a devastating lack of investment opportunities. Capital doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and those who possess it generally do not hoard it. Instead, they look to place it in the hands of the capable, who will, in turn, create future income streams. These are the entrepreneurs looking to create the next big idea that we will all wait in line overnight to have. And since they force nothing on no one, without them, we all lose. Without them, quality of life stagnates. There would be no iPad, iPhone, or even rotary phone. Innovation requires capital and carries risk, but this seems lost on our liberal commentator.

Finally, an assumption that those bemoaning the gap between rich and poor want us to make is that wealth is like a pie – the more you have, the less I have. While at any given time, in a momentary snapshot, it is true that wealth is fixed. But next year, next month, or even in the next second, total wealth in the world can expand or contract. Throughout history, it has expanded, with most all of it happening since the Enlightenment. Instead of a pie, it is more accurate to think of wealth as the number system. Any number you can imagine, no matter how large, there exists an infinite amount higher. It is the same with an economy. While all of the assets in the world are finite, there is always room to expand. We can all get richer, and despite efforts to convince you otherwise, we have all gotten richer. Life expectancy and quality are at all time highs. It can keep moving upward, although much more easily if people are encouraged to create, rather than made to feel jealous of those who have.