Oxfam says the Richest 1% Control More Than Half The World's Wealth

American Thinker ^ | 01/19/2015 | Pedro Gonzales

[EQAndyBuzz]

“If you redistributed all their wealth, in about a decade they would have it all back.”

I have these discussions with my buds all the time. The conclusion? If everyone started at zero, within 20 years the same people will be exactly where they were before.

[Steely Tom]

Oxfam is just another hard-left-wing anticapitalist group masquerading as something else. It’s an anti-hunger mask in the case of Oxfam.

[NCLaw441]

Brav-freaking-o to the writer of this article.

[Bryanw92]

>>If you redistributed all their wealth, in about a decade they would have it all back.

Unless the rules of the game changed. People are conditioned to believe that they should work for another person to make a good living. They know they won’t get rich, but they will have security.

Over the last couple of decades, that security has been taken away. People do not trust the “job-creators” as much as they used to when a factory job was a career. But, most people lack the resources and initiative to step out of their role as employee to become an entrepreneur.

But, imagine the impact on that 1% if everyone suddenly woke up one day and decided that their work had value and, thanks to some magic redistribution, they found themselves with a chunk of money to really pursue a dream.

Note that I am NOT saying that redistribution is a good idea. It is a ridiculous idea! In fact, any redistribution would just transfer the wealth from the job-creators to the political hacks in the real-world.

Also, most people would spend that chunk of redistributed wealth on bling and hold out their hands for more the next day.

But I think that the worst nightmare for the wealthy is a world where everyone is an entrepreneur and values their own labor more than they value their job security.

And that is why most of the 1% are Progressives. They need people to stay locked in the job security paradigm, and when those people lose their job, they want them to become dependent on the government instead of waking up to the reality that they need to find their own value now that they aren’t working for a paycheck anymore.

[Reeses]

Not to mention the Gorebull warming scam

The surest way people get rich is by figuring out how to do something at a lower cost than others. Cost is ultimately a reflection of how much energy was consumed and pollution created. People earn green by being green. Consumers and governments on the other hand are very hard on Earth's resources, consuming wealth with nothing to show for it but a pile of trash. Governments confiscating wealth from investors and giving half to consumers while consuming half itself is an environmental disaster. If envi-mentalists really were concerned about CO2 (they're not) they'd reduce the size of government and leave wealth in the hands of people that make everyone else's lives greener.

[mad_as_he$$]

So what was it in the days of JD, Carnige, Vanderbilt and the other “robber barons”?

[Vaduz]

The so called robber barons did two things created jobs and got rich and the problem is?.

[The Great RJ]

Oxfam should look at the kind of government in the poorest countries in the world. They would find that people are far worse off in countries with totalitarian states (Cuba and N. Korea), Islamic theocracies (Iran) or kleptocracies (Zimbabwe, Haiti) and are better off in capitalist democracies.

[mad_as_he$$]

No problem. I just wondered how much of the wealth was controlled by them then.

[Vaduz]

As long as the smart ones control it it’s all ok.

[mad_as_he$$]

So do you consider Gates and Buffet to be smart?

[Vaduz]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ YES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$