Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.[/quote]I think the point here is there is that eventual breaking point when the populace would take the poison pill. Question is when is that breaking point.
Now if you have a policy of subsidized grain that makes $1 burgers possible for all, I suppose that that breaking point may never come.[/quote]
That’s my point exactly. The breaking point is not relative (income gap between the rich and the poor). The breaking point is nominal (how poor you really are, regardless of how rich other people are). If you’re fed, have clothes on the back (and extra ones in your closets), a home (rent or own), and an education (a path to escape poverty), why would you want to risk all of that and be part of a rebellion? Keep in mind, all the stuff I just listed above are available to most of the poor in America (except for homeless of course). So, I don’t see the populace taking the poison pill, as long as they have all of those things.Participant[quote=davelj]I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).
Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.[/quote]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. They see (what most people don’t) the problem that many people have and they set out to find the solution to the problem. Sometimes, their first solution fail, but they’re the type that try and try again. I would put guys like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. in the same categories as well. The see the problem at the time and they set out to solve the problem. That made them Millions (adjusted for inflation, it’s probably Billions). This is why I say even if there’s no interest, some of the internet billionaires will still be at least millionaires. They might not invent Facebook or Google, because the internet doesn’t exist. However, they’ll see the problem we would have (whatever it may be, and there are many problems) and find solutions to the problem. Some of those solutions will make them a lot of money.Then there are the many many entrepreneurs. Although they are not as successful, they’re not that much different. They see problems people have and they want to come up with solutions that will help fix the problem and make them a lot of money. Many times, they don’t succeed the first or the second time. However, they try and try again until the succeed. The point is, even without the internet, there are still many problems people have and these entrepreneurs will try to find solutions to them. Maybe, one of them will try and start a company that will come up with the internet.
Participant[quote=davelj]One wistfully wonders where Mark Zuckerberg and most of the other internet billionaires would be if the government – and our tax dollars – hadn’t developed the internet…][/quote]
They’ll probably be right about where they are. These are truly brilliant guys and if there’s no internet, they’ll just invent something else. After all, Bill Gates got his Billions from Windows, not MSN/Bing.Participant[quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.Participant[quote=flu]Our extreme wealth distribution is no where near the extreme wealth distribution in asia.
And if you want an example of forcefully trying to redistribute wealth and allowing a bloated government pig, look no further than…Greece..[/quote]
Totally agree. Also keep in mind that a lot of countries in Asia don’t really have a social safety net like we do. So, the poor over there area really poor. The poor over here are living much better than middle class people in Vietnam and Cambodia. While the rich over there have Billions in their Swiss account.Participant[quote=ocrenter]hey, that pretty much happened in China too.
the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.[/quote]
Yes, the people will make a choice and if they make the wrong choice, look at what happened? The rich people either get killed or fled the country. They’re not going to stay and put up with the crap. There are plenty of other countries that are much more willing to welcome them and their wealth with open arms. This also is not new. It happened before. That’s why there are plenty of Chinese in Cambodia and Vietnam. This also is why there was a big migration of North Vietnamese to South Vietnam in 1945. This is also why there’s a big exodus of all those who can out of Vietnam between 1975-1985 (at any cost, including many death).ParticipantA few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.[/quote]
Except for these: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017706-5912_Shaw_Lopez_Rd_San_Diego_CA_92121
[/quote]YIKES, AN! That’s rather “industrial-looking.” The landscaping is nice but the interior appears to be rather stark. The block looks like “lizardland” but has no MR. Is 92121 part of MM? I was referring to 92126 when I stated it was “entirely on tract.”
Questions: It states it was built in 2010. Do you know if it has ever been occupied? If not, why has it only been listed for 105 days? Has it been listed before? And the 1995 previous “sale” for $1M … was this a bulk land sale (which was later subdivided? There is little there on the street and this property sits on a lot < 1/4 AC.[/quote] Yes, MM encompass east of the 805 and west of the 15. So part of 92121 belongs to MM. 92121 West of the 805 is not Mira Mesa. You're right, all of 92126 are entire on tract and nothing in 92126 is current above $600k. I think you're right about bulk land sale in 1995. They tried to build a few custom homes designed by some famous designer. But, AFAIK, they were never sold and has always been vacant since 2010. There's still many more lots on this street. However, none of the other lots are for sale. Just these few custom homes.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.[/quote]
Except for these: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017706-5912_Shaw_Lopez_Rd_San_Diego_CA_92121Participant[quote=flu]Yes, but does SEJ have bonds for the local schools and MR for the local schools at the same time?[/quote]
I think so…1% TAX ON NET VALUE NET 1.00000 5,748.54
VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-SFID, 6/04/96, 2004-1 REF NET 0.01436 82.54
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-PROP K 11/02/10 SER 2010A NET 0.04400 252.93
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006A NET 0.00959 55.12
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006B NET 0.00425 24.43
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 21.26
TOTAL ON NET VALUE 1.07590 6184.82
FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
CFD 98-01 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 279.18
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 2.28
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
CFD 98-02 IA #F-9 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 108.68
CFD 99-01 IA #A1 760-744-1050 Ext. 3133 2193.84
CFD 98-02 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 214.72
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86
TOTAL AMOUNT 9010.90Participant[quote=moneymaker]AN there may already be 10 nuclear plants there. The east coast has way more nuclear plants than the west coast, about 10 times more.[/quote]
I said build ten, not have ten. Actually, let’s go big and build one hundred.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Romney should really shake things up and nominate Bill Clinton. It would be completely unexpected, and it would change the voting calculus overnight.
You know Bubba would go for it: He just wants to be back in the public eye and relevant again, and Romney could claim he’s totally committed to “bi-partisan” and “post-partisan” solutions.
I probably picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue…[/quote]
I totally agree. That would definitely shake things up. I would totally be voting for him and try to get everybody I know to vote for him if he does that.Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Ponies for everyone to solve our reliance on foreign oil.
Vermin Supreme for President![/quote]
I’d say, build 10 nuclear power plan in DC area and our foreign oil problem is solved. It’s also much cheaper than all of those green energy as well.Participantdup
-
AuthorPosts
