Give the richest power and the economy stabilizes. This is good.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You don't "give" the richest people power. Rich people(by rich, I don't mean like "celebrity rich") obtain power as a nice side effect of their efforts to maximize profits.

What the fuck are you talking about? We are "giving" rich people power. It was not always a nice side effect. The revolutionaries who founded this country were rich business people and, hold your breath, broke ass motherfuckers.

Samuel Adams managed to lose most of his family's assets by not collecting taxes for the British as the tax collector and was sued for it.

Flash forward, Abraham Lincoln, born broke, died nearly broke.

Move forward even further, William Jennings Bryan (dear old deluded, but generally good, great, great, great grandpa), not a big business man, almost became the President of the U.S. and was very much for keeping power in the hands of the little guy.

Keep going forward and . . . shit, we've got oil tycoons.

And well, our founders too were all broke people.
Now, it's the same with your country. It's not really something unique to your country. It's something that can be attributed to politicians.

[Shell B]

And well, our founders too were all broke people.
Now, it's the same with your country. It's not really something unique to your country. It's something that can be attributed to politicians.

I didn't say it was unique. I actually believe it can be attributed to gullible voters.

Revolution is not something unique to my country, either. You watch, kilic. Nearly everything that is strongly protested in this country changes, for better or worse. If this keeps going, something will change. This is a place where voices are eventually heard, even if it takes rioting to do it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

And well, our founders too were all broke people.
Now, it's the same with your country. It's not really something unique to your country. It's something that can be attributed to politicians.

I didn't say it was unique. I actually believe it can be attributed to gullible voters.

Revolution is not something unique to my country, either. You watch, kilic. Nearly everything that is strongly protested in this country changes, for better or worse. If this keeps going, something will change. This is a place where voices are eventually heard, even if it takes rioting to do it.

And what exactly are the protests aimed at? The banks, or the government?

[Shell B]

Both, kilic.

[Greatest I am]

Yes. by taking advantage of labor and markets.
hard to say though how much power they officially have in a shaky economy.

I say that we should stabilize the economy and give them real power. We would all profit from such in the long run.

Regards

And how do you propose you stabilize the economy?

There is only one way and that is with the consensus of the majority of the population.

It is quite easy to visualize the reforming of the demography to a better form and knowing that we would all profit.

It is quite hard to know how to get consensus when so many chiefs all want to keep their little thiefdoms and will not look at the bigger picture.

Regards
DL

---

So, you advocate creating a new level of enfranchised aristocracy?

Not at all.
I am suggesting that we recognize our economic masters and control them to do the right thing for all and not the few.

Better the devil you control as a nation than the devil that you let run rough shod within that nation.

Note AIG and their million $$$$ bonus'.
We saw and clawed it back.
What we do not see we cannot claw back.

No thanks. They've already showed how they do business.

Sure. In a chaotic system and demography. Never in a controlled one.

By the way, if you knock the top off of a pyramid, it isn't a pyramid and gets a hell of a lot less pointy.

Exactly. That point is what is slid down the pyramid to fill the unstable parts and give us all stability and prosperity.

Regards
DL

[theVOID]

Give the richest power and the economy stabilizes. This is good.

The stability and shape of the economic pyramid is determined by the top. The richest determine the standards of stability and wealth for all.

I think it fair that at this point in time, we ask the rich to do the right thing and stabilize the economy.

I hear that they can afford it.
In reality, they control it anyway.

Do not get me wrong. We will all need to adjust to a new way of thinking if the rich do the right thing and we are bright enough to force it. We all pay a price for the peace of stability. I do not target just the rich. I target the whole common. We are all in this together, alone.

Government can guarantee any and all forced investments. There can be no lose to the rich.

Should we legislate economic power, to the rich, force them, as well as all of us, to do the right thing ---- stabilize the economy ?

All economic systems have to be stabilized before they can be controlled.

Regards
DL

Good meth you just smoked?

[Greatest I am]

Good meth you just smoked?

Spoken like one who has no idea what a socio economic demographic pyramid is or how it looks. I recommend a dictionary.

Go use someone else to show your lack of intelligence to.

Regards
DL

P S. You chose the perfect name . It suits what you have between your ears.

[Shell B]

Spoken like one who has no idea what a socio economic

Socioeconomic is one word. I recommend Google.

Go use someone else to show your lack of intelligence to.

That sentence uses an end-of-sentence preposition, which is a grammatical error.

P S. You chose the perfect name . It suits what you have between your ears.

Proofread before you act like a douche next time. It's P.S. -- no space, little dot between p and s.

Disclaimer: I am aware that I make grammatical errors on a daily basis. However, I proofread insults on other people's intelligence carefully.

[Greatest I am]

Spoken like one who has no idea what a socio economic

Socioeconomic is one word. I recommend Google.

Pardoner moi ma belle. I do my best I is with my uneducated English.

Go use someone else to show your lack of intelligence to.

That sentence uses an end-of-sentence preposition, which is a grammatical error.

P S. You chose the perfect name . It suits what you have between your ears.

Proofread before you act like a douche next time. It's P.S. -- no space, little dot between p and s.

Disclaimer: I am aware that I make grammatical errors on a daily basis. However, I proofread insults on other people's intelligence carefully.

I may be too old to re-learn grammar and have little interest in doing so.
I could use a ghost writer though if you are volunteering.

It is said that those who know more than one language have a hard time being understood. For a guy who knows tree ( French accent on that) I do fairly well.

Regards
DL

P.S.
Let me see a sample of what you can do with this up-coming O P.

When God sin’s or causes sin, is he sinning?

In a number of instances, the bible shows God doing what some would call sins. Either directly by God, or by his ordering man to do them. Other times, the bible says that God lied to man. In fact, God does not follow his own 10 commandments nor the good advise of scriptures.

I have been told that God is allowed to do immoral things to man because he created us. These immoral things are pardonable in God’s case because of some mythical and mysterious plan written before man was. IOW, we eventually end doing God’s will and not our own.

To those people, who forgive God’s immorality, we are owned by God and have no freedom or free will and God does not have to wait for our death to punish us even as we are never given full disclosure of God‘s existence or wishes and have no way of knowing his true desires.

Scripture also tells us to be as God. To emulate him and use his example to base our live and morals on. If that is the case, then we too must give ourselves to sin and forgive ourselves for them.

If God sins with impunity and we are to follow his lead, then we to can sin with impunity. This is a strange conclusion but if we are to follow the bible and God, it is the only conclusion that can be drawn. He has set a precedent and it must be followed.

When God either sins himself or causes man to sin, does he have any culpability for that sin?

Is God innocent when he does immoral things, thanks to the fact that he made us and can do whatever he wants to us?

Is a law maker supposed to live by his own law or can he breach it with impunity whenever he chooses to?

Is, do as I say and not as I do, the sign of a good law maker?

Most men would say no to this last question above.
Is that why secular governments and most believers ignore God’s laws and follow secular laws?

[Shell B]

I get paid to ghostwrite.

Why would you put a French accent on tree? The French three is trois.

At any rate, my point is not that everyone should have perfect grammar. My point is that, if you are going to insult a person's intelligence, you damn well better have at least decent grammar/spelling. It looks silly to call someone stoopid.