It is NOT about wealth-envy!!!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

It is about not letting them have exclusive control to the levers of power.

It's really all that simple.

[DCKit]

1. If anything, it's exactly opposite... our horror at their spending, at our expense.

I just got an email from a $6K/month sister who called me every name in the book, told me I was mentally ill, then went on to make some really disparaging remarks.

I'm not going to answer with an email, I'm going to use a lawyer.

[badtoworse]

2. Sue her for being an asshole?

That's a new one on me. What's a $6K / month sister?

[lunatica]

5. Perhaps there's more to this story than you thing.

[randome]

8. Obviously.

Then what's the point of telling the story?

[DCKit]

10. They committed fraud to gain $65. That's sixty five bucks.

Don't tell me I don't have a case.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. A case? Who knows? I have no idea at all what your posts

here mean. None. At all. Gibberish.

[lunatica]

3. wealth envy is what they have so naturally they're projecting it

on us. Because they want us to envy them their wealth which to them is god.

See, it's always about them.

[treestar]

4. This is true

They wish we envied them. That's why they "worked so hard." To be at the top. If that isn't acknowledged, what was the point?

[randome]

9. We DO envy them.

Most of us, anyways, I think. I wish I had more money. I wish I had more toys.

There is nothing wrong with that. It's part of what propelled us to walk on two legs in the first place.

I have nothing wrong with people owning multiple mansions if that's what they're into. The only thing I want to see is better regulations so we can jettison this foolish idea of a 'frictionless economy' that we've set up.

And so we can all aspire to be envious instead of worrying how we're going to pay next month's rent.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

12. It's not envy if all you want is for everyone to live a comfortable lifestyle.

I don't care if a few have mansions, either. But, if those mansions come at the expense of the rest of the problem, and if how they obtained those mansions were through the machinery of our supposed democracy, then that's where I have a huge problem.

It's the fusion of capital and government (and its associated socialization of costs and privatization of profits) that I have a huge problem with.

Finance thieves destroyed the economy with their exotic financial instruments (which robbed the lower classes of some of their wealth).
Then the rest of the population is forced to bail them out with more money because our fate was tied to theirs.
Then they ask us to sacrifice what little else we have because *we* all have to be "responsible" with fiscal issues (nevermind the irony in that).
Then they reinvent history to say that it was the lower classes that were responsible for the destruction of the economy.
And they do this all precisely because either they are in power, or they have exclusive access to those in power.

Whoever doesn't see anything wrong with the above picture is intellectually lazy, at best, or needs immediate access to a mental health professional, at worst.

[randome]

13. I see the same problems with our government as you.

But I put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of our legislators, who let the regulatory environment wither on the vine.

Republicans want cushy congressional positions so they can do as little as possible to earn their salaries.

There are no 'finance thieves' when the regulatory environment says, 'Go ahead, take what you want.'

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. I put the responsibility on both the Financial Elites and the Government.

And today, it's hard to really tell the difference.

I also don't just blame the Republicans. The Democrats have been just as bad.

[DCKit]

15. I'll assume that you secretly abhor them, as I do.

Anyone who "needs" more than $6K per month to survive is a parasite on all of us.

[randome]

16. Depends on where you live.

New York is more expensive than St. Louis.

[Llewlladdwr]

17. You know what? I make more than $6K a month.

I use that money to support myself, my wife, three children and a grandchild. It allows us to have a safe place to live, food, clothing, transportation and education. So take your talk about parasites and put it somewhere uncomfortable.

[treestar]

30. You could still do all that on far less

Most people do.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

28. It's not about that. It's about access to power. n/t

[treestar]

29. I don't really envy them their mansions

And personal possessions and toys. There's a point after which it is just acquisitive in a pathetic sort of way.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

7. "If you're poor, it's your own damn fault." ~ Herman "Munster" Cain

Yet, they don't realize that while they're busy stealing the nation's resources and wealth, that by itself makes some people poor. They don't realize when they take, someone has to give.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. "They don't realize when they take, someone has to give," Oh I do think they realize that.

They know exactly who they are taking from. "Shared" sacrifice proves that they know.

[uponit7771]

23. +1

[treestar]

6. I agree

They can have all the money they think they need; just quit running my life. Which is what they really want - it is why they want the money. When they have enough, they could just stop and take a trip around the world - enjoy it - but they don't.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. As GuilderGuider noted below ...

... more money means more power ... over you.

[Bigmack]

19. Why would I envy a money-hoarder...

any more than I envy the old lady with the 137 cats, or the old fart who has 350 wrecked cars in his pasture?

Hoarding is an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Couple of million...? ... 10 cats... No problem.

Couple of Billion.... ? .... 137 cats....Problem.

The county can... and does... limit the number of cats you can have beyond reasonable norms.

The government should limit the amount of money you have beyond reasonable norms.

[randome]

20. Unfortunately, that sounds like 'socialism' or even 'communism' to most people.

I can't say I'd have a problem with certain features of your idea, though.

Say, any amount of money over a certain limit would need to be invested in creating a company (jobs) or in donations to a cause of your choice. Otherwise, it simply reverts to the government to do what it wants.

On the other hand, most people would never aspire to taking in more money than they need to avoid this limit and progress (from private enterprise) would grind to a halt and we would be left to the government to decide more than they do now.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. Why not have co-ops where Labor owns their own product ...

... and where each person receives their share of the profit. Everyone prospers.

[randome]

22. I can't see that happening across the board.

But I would not have a problem with implementing it for certain industries that don't depend on a lot of constant innovation and growth. For instance, Microsoft and Apple would not have occurred if they were co-ops. (Not with my admittedly limited understanding of such things.)

On the other hand, maybe that would have been a good thing!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

24. I disagree ...

More input, more chances for ideas.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's Mutualism influenced the ideas of Participatory Economics (PARECON or economic democracy).

[GliderGuider]

25. Wealth is just the transfiguration of power, and the power-envy is all theirs.

This whole shitstorm is about power-consolidation by the elite. Thanks to the reification and fetishizing of money, the accumulation of money has become identical with the accumulation of power, so (richer == more powerful) and (more powerful == richer).

That's why I like gift economies so much: shit like this is almost impossible in a gift economy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

26. I quite agree. They're two peas and a pod.

But the point is that when they take, most of the rest of us loses something (wealth, power, or wealth=power). Regardless, the purpose is to make the rules so they can attain more wealth/power. They're the proverbial hamster on the wheel; attain more money to attain more power to attain more money to attain more power - ad nauseaum.

[itsallhappening]

31. Sure it is.

That's why some people are talking about a "maximum wage."

That's why some people are asking, "Who needs THAT much money?"

You can try all the nuance you want, but this current movement is about attacking a class that has something you don't.

That's not even traditional Democratic politics.

Class and wealth envy is precisely why all those people marched under this banner the other day:

[Kingofalldems]

32. Why don't you quit this charade

Seriously.