As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Lol @ the 1%ers actually afraid of revolution.

Or maybe they just bought an exotic vacation home...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lol @ the 1%ers actually afraid of revolution.

Or maybe they just bought an exotic vacation home...

The super-rich can afford to take what for them is low cost insurance for unlikely events.

[Cory]

Wonderful news!

[Adam Griffin]

You never know when the murder-fetishists will have a few lucky days. Sure, they usually wind up killing a lot of people, running the country into the ground, and ending with everyone equally miserable, but they get their bread and circuses first. So good for these people planning for the eventuality and having an escape route to make sure their children don't get shot in their beds one night.

Don't worry: the Koch Brothers alone will be spending nearly $1 billion in the upcoming election; I think you can stop clutching your pearls.

[Simfan34]

What is this thread?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

What is this thread?

Primarily armchair communists fantasizing about violent purges that will likely wind up sweeping them up as well in the end, plus a few sane people and a few trying to oddly thread the needle.

[politicus]

They can run, but they can't hide. They'll get theirs just like every other parasitic class has in the past.

How naively optimistic of you. If history teaches us something, it's that most parasites get away with their misdeeds and live happily ever after. A few chopped heads might make you feel better, but doesn't change the big picture.

Last I checked feudalism is more or less nonexistent in 2015, as is slavery and other classical forms of exploitative class society, so I'd argue that history teaches us otherwise.

Most of the heirs of feudal lords and slaveowners are now part of the "capitalist class", you know? The system did change, but the people who benefited from it didn't suffer that heavily.

Old upper class families only last for so long. Most of the nobility are ordinary middle class today.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

They can run, but they can't hide. They'll get theirs just like every other parasitic class has in the past.

How naively optimistic of you. If history teaches us something, it's that most parasites get away with their misdeeds and live happily ever after. A few chopped heads might make you feel better, but doesn't change the big picture.

Last I checked feudalism is more or less nonexistent in 2015, as is slavery and other classical forms of exploitative class society, so I'd argue that history teaches us otherwise.

Most of the heirs of feudal lords and slaveowners are now part of the "capitalist class", you know? The system did change, but the people who benefited from it didn't suffer that heavily.

Old upper class families only last for so long. Most of the nobility are ordinary middle class today.

However- rather disturbingly - in England studies show that the rich today are much more likely to be descended from the Norman elite of The Doomsday Book than the peasantry. Despite nearly a millennium of social change, unrest and widespread education, you still are far likelier to go to Oxbridge and be in the Civil Service if your family has Normam heritage.

William the Conquerer has a lot to answer for.

[The_Doctor]

The rich have always governed human society, since the first cavemen organized themselves. Pretty much, there will always be rich people. They will always have proximity to the levers of power, as opposed to the middle class and working class. That's how human nature was set up; if you have a beef with it, take it up with evolution and how our psychology works. We're not a species conditioned for economic egalitarianism in governing our society.

What's missing from this analysis is a number of things. Wealth is being increasingly made, not from inheritances, but from reaping the rewards of investment in the new fields - technology, green energy, and the like. I should point out that the innovators in these areas are the sorts of rich people we should be encouraging, rather than plundering their manors and burning them at the stake. About only a fifth of wealthy families succeed in staying rich past 3-4 generations, anyway. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies are vastly more rare than you think. Arguably, the rich people we're seeing today are more the Gateses, the Jobs, and the like. They're not old money, they're new money taking advantage of the new economy.

The standard of living - well, everyone on this board is probably among the top 10% in living standards in this world, if not 5%. Really, that's one way to measure wealth, and the United States and Europe have it in spades. Perhaps members of this board should start looking to avoid the pitchforks themselves, rather than dreaming about administering the pitchforks to the bodies of others. I imagine the people of Africa, Asia, and other nations have the same violent fantasies against you people as some of you do about the United States' 1%.

This is not to dismiss income inequality as a problem although I might have more tolerance for it than some of you. This is to dismiss the idea that violent economic revolution solves anything, and that most of the Americans and Europeans on this board are anything but well off relative to the vast majority of the globe.

The notion of everyone being materially equal and the idea of us violently killing and restricting the rich to feed the poor usually ends in miserable disaster and failure for all involved. You can try it again; but the economic literature of such an attempt has usually shown that the "populists" become even worse than the formerly powerful "economic royalists," when handed political power.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Id rather take it up with the rich people than 'evolution'...what a weird, offensive argument.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The rich have always governed human society, since the first cavemen organized themselves. Pretty much, there will always be rich people. They will always have proximity to the levers of power, as opposed to the middle class and working class. That's how human nature was set up; if you have a beef with it, take it up with evolution and how our psychology works. We're not a species conditioned for economic egalitarianism in governing our society.

What's missing from this analysis is a number of things. Wealth is being increasingly made, not from inheritances, but from reaping the rewards of investment in the new fields - technology, green energy, and the like. I should point out that the innovators in these areas are the sorts of rich people we should be encouraging, rather than plundering their manors and burning them at the stake. About only a fifth of wealthy families succeed in staying rich past 3-4 generations, anyway. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies are vastly more rare than you think. Arguably, the rich people we're seeing today are more the Gateses, the Jobs, and the like. They're not old money, they're new money taking advantage of the new economy.

The standard of living - well, everyone on this board is probably among the top 10% in living standards in this world, if not 5%. Really, that's one way to measure wealth, and the United States and Europe have it in spades. Perhaps members of this board should start looking to avoid the pitchforks themselves, rather than dreaming about administering the pitchforks to the bodies of others. I imagine the people of Africa, Asia, and other nations have the same violent fantasies against you people as some of you do about the United States' 1%.

This is not to dismiss income inequality as a problem although I might have more tolerance for it than some of you. This is to dismiss the idea that violent economic revolution solves anything, and that most of the Americans and Europeans on this board are anything but well off relative to the vast majority of the globe.

The notion of everyone being materially equal and the idea of us violently killing and restricting the rich to feed the poor usually ends in miserable disaster and failure for all involved. You can try it again; but the economic literature of such an attempt has usually shown that the "populists" become even worse than the formerly powerful "economic royalists," when handed political power.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Like...why are we wasting pages of text on an argument that boils down to "Murdering people because we want their stuff is wrong"?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I imagine the people of Africa, Asia, and other nations have the same violent fantasies against you people as some of you do about the United States' 1%. 

They mostly have more good sense than that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Note sure what thread the rightists here are responding to with these deranged and laughable screeds, but it sure isn't the thread I'm reading.

[Cassius]

Note sure what thread the rightists here are responding to with these deranged and laughable screeds, but it sure isn't the thread I'm reading.

Then what thread are you reading? To me it just seems to be a clickbaity type thread, the sole-purpose of which is to allow the forum to engage in one of its favourite pastimes, bashing rich and powerful people and fantasising about making them pay for the supposed wrongs done by them. Nothing more and nothing less. I think a little defending of the rich and powerful is a perfectly reasonable response.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think a little defending of the rich and powerful is a perfectly reasonable response.

Because if anyone needs defending, it's the rich and powerful. Sound logic there!

[Murica!]

The rich have always governed human society, since the first cavemen organized themselves. Pretty much, there will always be rich people. They will always have proximity to the levers of power, as opposed to the middle class and working class. That's how human nature was set up; if you have a beef with it, take it up with evolution and how our psychology works. We're not a species conditioned for economic egalitarianism in governing our society.

What's missing from this analysis is a number of things. Wealth is being increasingly made, not from inheritances, but from reaping the rewards of investment in the new fields - technology, green energy, and the like. I should point out that the innovators in these areas are the sorts of rich people we should be encouraging, rather than plundering their manors and burning them at the stake. About only a fifth of wealthy families succeed in staying rich past 3-4 generations, anyway. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies are vastly more rare than you think. Arguably, the rich people we're seeing today are more the Gateses, the Jobs, and the like. They're not old money, they're new money taking advantage of the new economy.

The standard of living - well, everyone on this board is probably among the top 10% in living standards in this world, if not 5%. Really, that's one way to measure wealth, and the United States and Europe have it in spades. Perhaps members of this board should start looking to avoid the pitchforks themselves, rather than dreaming about administering the pitchforks to the bodies of others. I imagine the people of Africa, Asia, and other nations have the same violent fantasies against you people as some of you do about the United States' 1%.

This is not to dismiss income inequality as a problem although I might have more tolerance for it than some of you. This is to dismiss the idea that violent economic revolution solves anything, and that most of the Americans and Europeans on this board are anything but well off relative to the vast majority of the globe.

The notion of everyone being materially equal and the idea of us violently killing and restricting the rich to feed the poor usually ends in miserable disaster and failure for all involved. You can try it again; but the economic literature of such an attempt has usually shown that the "populists" become even worse than the formerly powerful "economic royalists," when handed political power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrograd_Soviet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
This  is only three examples but there were many more.

[pbrower2a]

They can run, but they can't hide. They'll get theirs just like every other parasitic class has in the past.

How naively optimistic of you. If history teaches us something, it's that most parasites get away with their misdeeds and live happily ever after. A few chopped heads might make you feel better, but doesn't change the big picture.

Last I checked feudalism is more or less nonexistent in 2015, as is slavery and other classical forms of exploitative class society, so I'd argue that history teaches us otherwise.

Most of the heirs of feudal lords and slaveowners are now part of the "capitalist class", you know? The system did change, but the people who benefited from it didn't suffer that heavily.

Old upper class families only last for so long. Most of the nobility are ordinary middle class today.

However- rather disturbingly - in England studies show that the rich today are much more likely to be descended from the Norman elite of The Doomsday Book than the peasantry. Despite nearly a millennium of social change, unrest and widespread education, you still are far likelier to go to Oxbridge and be in the Civil Service if your family has Normam heritage.

William the Conquerer has a lot to answer for.

I can't say that descent from William the Conqueror is rare in the UK or in descendants of the early English settlers of the Colonies. Most of the unrest in Britain has been wars between factions of the aristocracy.

Descendants of English peasantry are probably descended from William the Conqueror without knowing it... how much truth there is to the concept of jus primae noctis is a matter of dispute.  

Even this fellow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pollitt

likely has some aristocratic origin.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think a little defending of the rich and powerful is a perfectly reasonable response.

Because if anyone needs defending, it's the rich and powerful. Sound logic there!

That's Cassius for you.

[politicus]

They can run, but they can't hide. They'll get theirs just like every other parasitic class has in the past.

How naively optimistic of you. If history teaches us something, it's that most parasites get away with their misdeeds and live happily ever after. A few chopped heads might make you feel better, but doesn't change the big picture.

Last I checked feudalism is more or less nonexistent in 2015, as is slavery and other classical forms of exploitative class society, so I'd argue that history teaches us otherwise.

Most of the heirs of feudal lords and slaveowners are now part of the "capitalist class", you know? The system did change, but the people who benefited from it didn't suffer that heavily.

Old upper class families only last for so long. Most of the nobility are ordinary middle class today.

However- rather disturbingly - in England studies show that the rich today are much more likely to be descended from the Norman elite of The Doomsday Book than the peasantry. Despite nearly a millennium of social change, unrest and widespread education, you still are far likelier to go to Oxbridge and be in the Civil Service if your family has Normam heritage.

William the Conquerer has a lot to answer for.

Oxbridge and Civil Service only makes you upper middle class, not upper class.

[Insula Dei]

They can run, but they can't hide. They'll get theirs just like every other parasitic class has in the past.

How naively optimistic of you. If history teaches us something, it's that most parasites get away with their misdeeds and live happily ever after. A few chopped heads might make you feel better, but doesn't change the big picture.

Last I checked feudalism is more or less nonexistent in 2015, as is slavery and other classical forms of exploitative class society, so I'd argue that history teaches us otherwise.

Most of the heirs of feudal lords and slaveowners are now part of the "capitalist class", you know? The system did change, but the people who benefited from it didn't suffer that heavily.

Old upper class families only last for so long. Most of the nobility are ordinary middle class today.

However- rather disturbingly - in England studies show that the rich today are much more likely to be descended from the Norman elite of The Doomsday Book than the peasantry. Despite nearly a millennium of social change, unrest and widespread education, you still are far likelier to go to Oxbridge and be in the Civil Service if your family has Normam heritage.

William the Conquerer has a lot to answer for.

Oxbridge and Civil Service only makes you upper middle class, not upper class.

Oxbridge + Civil Service + Norman roots would certainly make you upper class by whatever definition you'd care to use, though.

[pbrower2a]

Oxbridge + Civil Service + Norman roots would certainly make you upper class by whatever definition you'd care to use, though.

It's the British "public" schools that begin the class divide. Those elite schools inculcate archaism in personal life (the kids may play soccer, but they don't get to watch it on TV at night as would British proles, because the "public" schools have no televisions in the dormitories). 

Money-grubbing that the Old Rich disdains is for the middle class and the nouveaux-riches... the Old Rich are satisfied with what they have. The late Paul Fussell made clear that the purchase of high-priced toys (as in Chris-Craft, Mercedes-Benz, fake-Tudor mansions, and just about anything at Neiman-Marcus) indicates that one is not in the true Upper Class.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think a little defending of the rich and powerful is a perfectly reasonable response.

Because if anyone needs defending, it's the rich and powerful. Sound logic there!

Logic doesn't have time for nonsensical condemnations of people, no matter what position they are in.