Mandela Barnes: ‘Foolish to Assume the Wealth of America Was Earned Justly

Breitbart ^ | 09/19/2022 | WENDELL HUSEBØ

[Chewbarkah]

How much wealth has Mandela Barnes created?

[Chickensoup]

Commie wants your stuff and gaining the power to make that happen

[robowombat]

Wealth generation has been the true miracle of the market economy and private property rights. Certainly chattel slavery had nothing to do with the economic development of Wisconsin. The Indian tribes such as the Chippewa were dispossed of their tribal lands and their culture was destroyed. That had nothing much to do with capitalistic economic development. Forty years or so ago a heavily illustrated social history book about 19th century Wisconsin was published with the stupid culturally leftist title of ‘Wisconsin Death Trip’. What was interesting were the many pictures of towns and villages in Wisconsin in the 19th century. While adequate and functional the difference between towns in 1880 and the same places (Wausau, for instance) in 1970 was stunning. The incredible growth of wealth, comfort and affluence enjoyed by normal middle class Winsconsonians was, to me, the real success story of the Badger State and America as a whole. Even then the left was full of blabber about injustice and inequality. Today the volume has been increased incredibly. Also, today, we can view the destruction of Milwaukee from what was judged around 1970 as the most livable American big city to a sad parody of what was. The fate of Milwaukee is a living example of what people such as this woke communist will do to the whole state and country if they can.

[rrrod]

Probably. Sad.

[RedMonqey]

It wouldn’t matter if there was no slaves in America.

This communist would say that this country’s wealth was built on the backs of the poor and the solution would still be the same.

And we’d get the same results of every other country that tried socialism.

Death.

[Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi]

How did this racist moron earn his wealth?

Someone needs to be asking some hard questions.

[immadashell]

Betcha 75%+ of college age youth would agree with him

A lot of these kids don’t agree with him but know that they have to say they agree with him if they want to get laid.

[montag813]

A lot of these kids don’t agree with him but know that they have to say they agree with him if they want to get laid.

LOL. That's what my (sophomore) son said to a woke kid in class the other day who was virtue signaling: "Hey bro, save some chicks for the rest of us." They guy went white faced and didn't do it again. The backlash is starting, me thinks (hopes)

[joethedrummer]

If you’re talking about all the wealth in Washington DC, yes - absolutely.

Why we have a government of millionaires is really a sketchy thing. Especially when a LOT of them didn’t make their millions until they got there.

[markman46]

wisconsin home of the prograssive has been for a long time

[higgmeister]

Mandela Barnes: ‘Foolish to Assume the Wealth of America Was Earned Justly

A fool who has no idea how wealth is earned.

Individuals participating in Companies, Consortiums, Corporations are brought together to create wealth greater than each individual could create alone.

The pampered prince, Mandela Barnes fed on Socialist pablum couldn't have a clue about just wealth.   A leftist in a nonessential government job is a theft of taxes stolen from the rest of us.

[BroJoeK]

mountainlion: "Study the robber barons of 100 years ago and see the morality of the rich.
Look at the the world banking system."

DiogenesLamp: "I agree, but you need to move the time period back to 170 years.
The Northeastern "robber barons" were robber baronning since the early 1800s."

Well, no, not really.
First of all, what was a "robber baron"?

"The term robber baron derives from the Raubritter (robber knights), the medieval German lords who charged nominally illegal tolls (unauthorized by the Holy Roman Emperor) on the primitive roads crossing their lands[4] or larger tolls along the Rhine River.

The metaphor appeared as early as February 9, 1859, when The New York Times used it to characterize the business practices of Cornelius Vanderbilt...

"The first such usage was against Vanderbilt, for taking money from high-priced, government-subsidized shippers, in order to not compete on their routes.
Political cronies had been granted special shipping routes by the state but told legislators their costs were so high that they needed to charge high prices and still receive extra money from the taxpayers as funding.
Vanderbilt's private shipping company began running the same routes, charging a fraction of the price, making a large profit without taxpayer subsidy.
The state-funded shippers then began paying Vanderbilt money to not ship on their route.
A critic of this tactic drew a political comic depicting Vanderbilt as a feudal robber baron extracting a toll."

Did you follow what was going on here?
In the 1850s, under Democrat administrations, corrupt crony-capitalists shippers collected both huge government subsidies and exorbitant rates from passengers & freight shippers.
Were they called "robber barons"? Nooooo... how could they be, they were Democrats and for Democrats it was just "business as usual."

Along comes Cornelius Vanderbilt, who sees an opportunity to make money by charging fair prices for transportation, without taking government subsidies.
Did that make Vanderbilt a "robber baron"? Nooooo... that was just capitalist competition at work, nobody would mock him for that, right?

But now comes the tricky part -- the crony-capitalists made Vanderbilt an offer he couldn't refuse: they offered to pay him if he'd stop competing against them, and he said OK.
That's what made Vanderbilt a "robber baron" -- not for charging high prices because his prices were lower, but for taking payments to stop competing against higher-cost crony capitalists.

Today such behavior is illegal and would lead to prosecutions, but it's not clear if it was illegal back then, or why only Vanderbilt is called a "robber baron", and not the true robbers, the high-cost crony-capitalists.

Today a list of historical robber barons has dozens of famous names, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, but NOT equally famous names like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Elison, Warren Buffet, Michael Blumberg or the Waltons.
What's the difference? Are some known to behave more illegally than others?
No, not at all -- they're all assumed to behave legally, but some find ways to use the laws to their advantage, perhaps unfairly, but not necessarily illegally.

It's that sense of "unfairness" which drives the charge of "robber baron", but sometimes unfairness is specifically authorized by Congress in order to encourage certain kinds of investments & businesses.
Protected by laws, certain companies are allowed to grow rapidly while others are discouraged from competing, hence, "robber barons".

In times past Congress eventually changed laws to prevent the worst "robber baron" excesses, while innovative crony-capitalists found ever new ways to feather their nests at taxpayer expense. So, what, exactly, separates "robber barons" from more legitimate "captains of industry" or "business magnates", "investment capitalists", "entrepreneurs" or other less pejorative terms?

Maybe, like beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholders?

[mountainlion]

I was limiting my comment to the wealthy Americans in recent history. The FED bank is the most recent get quick fraud in our lifetimes. I do not go for long posts which going back to Babylon would entail. The Egyptians/Phoenicians would take too long also. The crusades and British empire are too involved also. Some Americans got their wealth for Germany after WWII. It would be foolish to try to tie these all together

[DiogenesLamp]

But now comes the tricky part -- the crony-capitalists made Vanderbilt an offer he couldn't refuse: they offered to pay him if he'd stop competing against them, and he said OK. That's what made Vanderbilt a "robber baron" -- not for charging high prices because his prices were lower, but for taking payments to stop competing against higher-cost crony capitalists.

Market price fixing is clearly one standard that would suggest "robber baron" type behavior.

The term has evolved beyond it's origins.

No, not at all -- they're all assumed to behave legally, but some find ways to use the laws to their advantage, perhaps unfairly, but not necessarily illegally.

It's not illegal when you have crooks creating the laws. I think it should be much harder to pass laws. That way only those agreed upon by a supermajority can go into effect. Corruption might get you to 50%, but it likely won't get you to 2/3rds majority.

Maybe, like beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholders?

Or "necessity", which we've discussed many times before as being in the "eye of the beholder." :)

[DiogenesLamp]

If you’re talking about all the wealth in Washington DC, yes - absolutely. Why we have a government of millionaires is really a sketchy thing. Especially when a LOT of them didn’t make their millions until they got there.

The other day I suggested an idea for a law to a friend of mine.

"Congressman shall not receive *ANY* income beyond their salary. They are forbidden from any additional income for the duration of their term of office. All their investments will be held by a trust until *AFTER* they leave office."

It would weed out a lot of corruption and insider trading.

[nascarnation]

Would that also apply to spouses and children?

[DiogenesLamp]

Hmm... That’s a loop hole that would need to be closed.

[Zathras]

We have another communist looking to join The Squat.

[hinckley buzzard]

Your history is a little fractured. The onset of the industrial revolution in the 1700s’ especially including the invention of the cotton gin in 1794, is what made slavery profitable. Before that invention, slavery was on track to die out because cotton was so labor intensive nobody could make any money at it.

Free enterprise yes, but don’t artificially compare that to the institution of slavery. For a time they coexisted quite favorably.

[joethedrummer]

Brilliant!!