Of course not, but I'm pushing for a real answer. If all billionaires are evil then tell me what Khan is guilty of. Some are evil, but being one doesn't mean you are imo.

I know nothing about Khan except he made some part that made him rich. I don't think there's such a thing as a good billionaire, though. He might not do anything wrong, but he almost certainly doesn't need or deserve what he has. That's said with zero hate or jealousy.

---

Of course not, but I'm pushing for a real answer. If all billionaires are evil then tell me what Khan is guilty of. Some are evil, but being one doesn't mean you are imo.

I know nothing about Khan except he made some part that made him rich. I don't think there's such a thing as a good billionaire, though. He might not do anything wrong, but he almost certainly doesn't need or deserve what he has. That's said with zero hate or jealousy.

It was a truck part.  It simplified the tailgate assembly so it could be assembled much more quickly and cheaply than before.  4 million trucks are sold per year.  If car makers buy your part for $250 each, that's $1 billion in annual revenue.  Depending on what your cost of goods is, you could be a billionaire in maybe two years or maybe ten.  If you hold key patents on your process, and the previous competing process has, say, double your cost of goods, your margin could be well over 50% and stay that way for 20 years.

Which part of that story was unethical?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Of course not, but I'm pushing for a real answer. If all billionaires are evil then tell me what Khan is guilty of. Some are evil, but being one doesn't mean you are imo.

I know nothing about Khan except he made some part that made him rich. I don't think there's such a thing as a good billionaire, though. He might not do anything wrong, but he almost certainly doesn't need or deserve what he has. That's said with zero hate or jealousy.

Who are you to determine what someone else needs or deserves?  Given your posting history (a lot of which I agree with) this is an odd comment to me for you to make.  Very left wing authoritarian sounding.  I'm not over here running the cheering section for billionaires to continue making money.  I'm indifferent to them because their situation is really none of my business unless they are venturing into the realm of policy and pushing political agendas or overtly trying to affect my life in some negative way.  They deserve what the free market affords them.  I'll judge them on their actions separately from the wealth accumulation is all (unless they've done something illegal or grossly immoral to obtain their wealth).

---

Ah, struck that good ol' conservative funny bone. "Why is the world changing around us," they lament. "Look at all these lefty politicians using corporate dollars to take our rights and steal our voice," they cry. "I wonder how they are getting so much power... why don't they respect my individualism!" Lol.

Idealistic gobbledygook.

You guys will die on your stupid right to take everything from another human being and are too "principled" to admit that political capital is the single most important tool we have to prevent corruption. That gets stolen from us by billionaires, whether they are well meaning or not.

---

Ah, struck that good ol' conservative funny bone. "Why is the world changing around us," they lament.  "Look at all these lefty politicians using corporate dollars to take our rights and steal our voice," they cry. "I wonder how they are getting so much power... why don't they respect my individualism!" Lol.

Idealistic gobbledygook.

You guys will die on your stupid right to take everything from another human being and are too "principled" to admit that political capital is the single most important tool we have to prevent corruption. That gets stolen from us by billionaires, whether they are well meaning or not.

Political capital has almost always been entirely held by the ridiculously rich people.  It was never not them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Huh.... Mikey siding with the establishment. Who knew?

That's the way it's always been, folks... yuk, yuk.

---

Ah, struck that good ol' conservative funny bone. "Why is the world changing around us," they lament.  "Look at all these lefty politicians using corporate dollars to take our rights and steal our voice," they cry. "I wonder how they are getting so much power... why don't they respect my individualism!" Lol.

Idealistic gobbledygook.

You guys will die on your stupid right to take everything from another human being and are too "principled" to admit that political capital is the single most important tool we have to prevent corruption. That gets stolen from us by billionaires, whether they are well meaning or not.

Political capital has almost always been entirely held by the ridiculously rich people.  It was never not them.

That's the way it has been since the beginning of time.

---

You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

---

You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

So what is the line for Shad Khan to no longer profit from his invention?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

I'm all ears regarding how Congress needs to reclaim more of its power from the executive.  There are a few reasons I want that to happen.  The Supreme Court also wants that to happen.

Make no mistake though, the rich have the greatest say about who controls Congress, just like they have the greatest say about who becomes President.  Your narrative about billionaires doesn't really factor into most of what you wrote here.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

I'm all ears regarding how Congress needs to reclaim more of its power from the executive.  There are a few reasons I want that to happen.  The Supreme Court also wants that to happen.

Make no mistake though, the rich have the greatest say about who controls Congress, just like they have the greatest say about who becomes President.  Your narrative about billionaires doesn't really factor into most of what you wrote here.

Absolutely it does, but you have to be able to connect dots, and I get tired of wasting energy on your lack of ability.

---

You two will bend over for anything.

No. It has not been this way since the beginning of time. There have been pockets of time where we have broken through, to varying degrees, from establishment control. America has been, at the very least, the best representation of that in modern history, at least up until the 80's. We were already starting to see expansive government control as a result of the cold war, but it was tempered by a mixed establishment that fought against the deep state. Reagan ceded power to the companies that increased their power like never before. Bush gained more executive control of wartime power. Clinton made America business global. GW enhanced the surveillance state, and Obama, once again, expanded executive power, and he also fundamentally changed the way government and corporations do business. Instead of regulation, we subsidize incentives.

Every single one of those policy shifts has affected our say in government. So, yes, while the rich have always had a greater say, we had measures in place to insulate ourselves. That's diminishing with the growing number of political cucks that don't have the balls to stand up for their rights.

So what is the line for Shad Khan to no longer profit from his invention?

I have told you what I think. I am for free market capitalism up to a certain point, then I think the highest earners need to be tethered to the lowest earners. I don't have a number for that. Any line you make is going to be arbitrary. I mean, it would be until you've collected data, which is impossible to do in our current state. 

We already have limitations on how much he can profit based on the current patent system, which I'm sure you're opposed to as well. 

Allowing people to become disproportionately rich will disproportionately tilt the balance of power in their favor. It has to be capped at some point or you cannot have a republic. Not a fair one, at least.

---

Of course not, but I'm pushing for a real answer. If all billionaires are evil then tell me what Khan is guilty of. Some are evil, but being one doesn't mean you are imo.

I know nothing about Khan except he made some part that made him rich. I don't think there's such a thing as a good billionaire, though. He might not do anything wrong, but he almost certainly doesn't need or deserve what he has. That's said with zero hate or jealousy.

Many billionaires contribute enormous amounts of $$ to their designated foundations (e.g., cancer research, etc.) so they actually make a much greater impact on society than we ever will.   That said, we probably question whether someone needs a yacht the way people in impoverished nations question why Americans need 3,000 square ft homes for 4 people.

.... on a side note, I never knew poverished was not a word.

---

I'm all ears regarding how Congress needs to reclaim more of its power from the executive.  There are a few reasons I want that to happen.  The Supreme Court also wants that to happen.

Make no mistake though, the rich have the greatest say about who controls Congress, just like they have the greatest say about who becomes President.  Your narrative about billionaires doesn't really factor into most of what you wrote here.

Absolutely it does, but you have to be able to connect dots, and I get tired of wasting energy on your lack of ability.

---

So what is the line for Shad Khan to no longer profit from his invention?

I have told you what I think. I am for free market capitalism up to a certain point, then I think the highest earners need to be tethered to the lowest earners. I don't have a number for that. Any line you make is going to be arbitrary. I mean, it would be until you've collected data, which is impossible to do in our current state. 

We already have limitations on how much he can profit based on the current patent system, which I'm sure you're opposed to as well. 

Allowing people to become disproportionately rich will disproportionately tilt the balance of power in their favor. It has to be capped at some point or you cannot have a republic. Not a fair one, at least.

In your effort to root out evil, you yourself have become the communist villain.  What a movie twist that would be. You can't put one foot on the slippery slope (actually it's probably both) and pretend everything is fine and will continue to be fine.  I've never seen someone post so much that is right and then get something this disastrously wrong but I guess that's what makes people interesting.  These little political stance deviations from expectations.  And no, I don't demand ideological purity because I understand that ideologies all have their faults, even the ones I subscribe to. 

Freedom has its negatives.  Your version of freedom could be perfect "if only we could cap incomes."  You are never going to get the Utopia you're chasing.  And even if you're not, you'd be handing true communists one of their most powerful tools of control because who decides what is too much wealth?  If it's any person or group of people other than the individual earner, wrong answer.  And I'll add, you can't say what you have said without some level of jealousy or hatred (or both) toward billionaires so I think your declaration that none of that is present in your stance is disingenuous.

---

"I'm a free market Capitalist except..." means you really aren't a free market Capitalist.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lol, you guys can't get out of black and white. There needs to be competition, and there needs to be classes. What doesn't need to exist is a ruling class. People with too much money become a ruling class. The system of government set up by our founders clearly didn't stop it. Our vote and voice clearly didn't stop it, and we're heading in the wrong direction. What's going to stop it? You guys get so caught up in economic capital that you neglect political capital.

---

Absolutely it does, but you have to be able to connect dots, and I get tired of wasting energy on your lack of ability.

---

I have told you what I think. I am for free market capitalism up to a certain point, then I think the highest earners need to be tethered to the lowest earners. I don't have a number for that. Any line you make is going to be arbitrary. I mean, it would be until you've collected data, which is impossible to do in our current state. 

We already have limitations on how much he can profit based on the current patent system, which I'm sure you're opposed to as well. 

Allowing people to become disproportionately rich will disproportionately tilt the balance of power in their favor. It has to be capped at some point or you cannot have a republic. Not a fair one, at least.

In your effort to root out evil, you yourself have become the communist villain.  What a movie twist that would be.  You can't put one foot on the slippery slope (actually it's probably both) and pretend everything is fine and will continue to be fine.  I've never seen someone post so much that is right and then get something this disastrously wrong but I guess that's what makes people interesting.  These little political stance deviations from expectations.  And no, I don't demand ideological purity because I understand that ideologies all have their faults, even the ones I subscribe to. 

Freedom has its negatives.  Your version of freedom could be perfect "if only we could cap incomes."  You are never going to get the Utopia you're chasing.  And even if you're not, you'd be handing true communists one of their most powerful tools of control because who decides what is too much wealth?  If it's any person or group of people other than the individual earner, wrong answer.  And I'll add, you can't say what you have said without some level of jealousy or hatred (or both) toward billionaires so I think your declaration that none of that is present in your stance is disingenuous.

I almost wasn't going to respond to this post, because you clearly don't understand either my position or communism. There is zero jealousy towards billionaires. My ideas are rooted in philosophy, as is every moral. You are diminishing my position to elevate your belief.

---

Since the beginning of time, rich people have had more power than poor people. There's no way around that.

---

Yes, so let's bend over and take it, Marty. You are comfortable, which undergirds your neglect of your fellow man. You can't logically follow that people who keep taking will keep taking,

---

Yes, so let's bend over and take it, Marty. You are comfortable, which undergirds your neglect of your fellow man. You can't logically follow that people who keep taking will keep taking,

There's no way to stop rich people from having more power than poor people unless you also do away with the right to private property and freedom of speech.

---

There are ways to limit it, though. It's heading in the wrong direction, but you don't care because "it's always been that way." Your passivity is astounding.

---

There are ways to limit it, though. It's heading in the wrong direction, but you don't care because "it's always been that way." Your passivity is astounding.

Absolutely.  The government can in theory take their excess wealth or their excess income.  Also wars tend to level the society out at the end, especially if you lose.  I don't wish for any of those things though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.