FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Abby Martin comments on Kevin O'Leary's view of poverty

Abby Martin comments on Kevin O'Leary's view of poverty

(3:42) Oxfam released figures showing the richest 85 individuals in the world have the same wealth as the poorest half of the population, that's 3.5 billion people. Abby Martin comments on one-percenter Kevin O'Leary's celebration of the widening wealth gap and his view that poverty is a great motivator.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1380 days ago)

globel 2000 in action thats why he's happy for cary its not to do with company ratings LINK time to start to take the late bill coopers hour of the time in

ReplyVote up (494)down (388)
Original comment

globel 2000 in action thats why he's happy for cary its not to do with company ratings LINK time to start to take the late bill coopers hour of the time in

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just Guess (1378 days ago)

this pdf of an OECD report might help some people understad how the world spins LINK ; here's an extract from the report:

""Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high
inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even if
the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist, protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is getting richer and richer.
Reforming tax and benefit policies is the most direct and powerful instrument for increasing redistributive effects. Large and persistent losses in low-income groups following recessions underline the importance of well-targeted income-support policies.
Government transfers – both in cash and in-kind – have an important role to play in guaranteeing that low-income households do not fall further back in the income distribution. At the other end of the income spectrum, the relative stability of higher incomes – and
their longer-term trends – are important to bear in mind in planning broader reforms of redistribution policies. It may be necessary to review whether existing tax provisions are still optimal in light of equity considerations and current revenue requirements. This is
especially the case where the share of overall tax burdens borne by high-income groups has declined in recent years (e.g. where tax schedules became flatter and/or where tax expenditures mainly benefitted high-income groups). However, redistribution strategies based on government transfers and taxes alone would be neither effective nor financially sustainable. First, there may be counter-
productive disincentive effects if benefit and tax reforms are not well designed. Second, most OECD countries currently operate under a reduced fiscal space which exerts strong 40 DIVIDED WE STAND: WHY INEQUALITY KEEPS RISING © OECD 2011 AN OVERVIEW OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: MAIN FINDINGS
pressure to curb public social spending and raise taxes. Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that
offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under-represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a
concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality. The lessons from the Restated Jobs Strategy
(OECD, 2006), adapted to recent experience, provide important guidelines in this respect, e.g. with regard to more balanced policy measures between temporary and permanent employment contracts. Finally, policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training (OECD, 2006). To compensate for mobility (staff turnover), corporate tax policies that encourage employers to make additional investments in the human capital of their employees are warranted (e.g. deduction of training expenses as business costs).
The second strand is equal access to formal education over working life. Access to tertiary education is important for improving the prospects and living standards of lower-skilled people and giving individuals the opportunity to acquire the skills needed in the labour
market. Educational or learning accounts can be a means to help achieve this objective (OECD, 2005), but tax incentives need to be designed in such a way that they do not disproportionally benefit higher-wage earners in high marginal tax rates. The new OECD work presented in this report shows that there is nothing inevitable
about growing inequalities. Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies.""

This article on Thomas Piketty’s new book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," is also an interesting read, along with the book's summary mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5 2384/1/MPRA_paper_52384.p df

ReplyVote up (335)down (293)
Original comment

this pdf of an OECD report might help some people understad how the world spins LINK ; here's an extract from the report:

""Rising income inequality creates economic, social and political challenges. It can stifle upward social mobility, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Intergenerational earnings mobility is low in countries with high
inequality such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and much higher in the Nordic countries, where income is distributed more evenly (OECD, 2008). The resulting inequality of opportunity will inevitably impact economic performance as a whole, even if
the relationship is not straightforward. Inequality also raises political challenges because it breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It can also fuel populist, protectionist, and anti-globalisation sentiments. People will no longer support open trade and free markets if they feel that they are losing out while a small group of winners is getting richer and richer.
Reforming tax and benefit policies is the most direct and powerful instrument for increasing redistributive effects. Large and persistent losses in low-income groups following recessions underline the importance of well-targeted income-support policies.
Government transfers – both in cash and in-kind – have an important role to play in guaranteeing that low-income households do not fall further back in the income distribution. At the other end of the income spectrum, the relative stability of higher incomes – and
their longer-term trends – are important to bear in mind in planning broader reforms of redistribution policies. It may be necessary to review whether existing tax provisions are still optimal in light of equity considerations and current revenue requirements. This is
especially the case where the share of overall tax burdens borne by high-income groups has declined in recent years (e.g. where tax schedules became flatter and/or where tax expenditures mainly benefitted high-income groups). However, redistribution strategies based on government transfers and taxes alone would be neither effective nor financially sustainable. First, there may be counter-
productive disincentive effects if benefit and tax reforms are not well designed. Second, most OECD countries currently operate under a reduced fiscal space which exerts strong 40 DIVIDED WE STAND: WHY INEQUALITY KEEPS RISING © OECD 2011 AN OVERVIEW OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: MAIN FINDINGS
pressure to curb public social spending and raise taxes. Growing employment may contribute to sustainable cuts in income inequality, provided the employment gains occur in jobs that
offer career prospects. Policies for more and better jobs are more important than ever. A key challenge for policy, therefore, is to facilitate and encourage access to employment for under-represented groups, such as youths, older workers, women and migrants. This requires not only new jobs, but jobs that enable people to avoid and escape poverty. Recent trends towards higher rates of in-work poverty indicate that job quality has become a
concern for a growing number of workers. Policy reforms that tackle inequalities in the labour market, such as those between standard and non-standard forms of employment, are needed to reduce income inequality. The lessons from the Restated Jobs Strategy
(OECD, 2006), adapted to recent experience, provide important guidelines in this respect, e.g. with regard to more balanced policy measures between temporary and permanent employment contracts. Finally, policies that invest in the human capital of the workforce are key. Over the past two decades, the trend to higher educational attainment has been one of the most important elements in counteracting the underlying increase in earnings inequality in the long run. Policies that promote the up-skilling of the workforce are therefore key factors for reversing the trend towards further growth in inequality. Human capital policies comprise two main strands. First, better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity
potential and future earnings. This requires measures to ensure that training markets perform better, as well as ensuring sufficient incentives for both workers and firms to invest more in on-the-job training (OECD, 2006). To compensate for mobility (staff turnover), corporate tax policies that encourage employers to make additional investments in the human capital of their employees are warranted (e.g. deduction of training expenses as business costs).
The second strand is equal access to formal education over working life. Access to tertiary education is important for improving the prospects and living standards of lower-skilled people and giving individuals the opportunity to acquire the skills needed in the labour
market. Educational or learning accounts can be a means to help achieve this objective (OECD, 2005), but tax incentives need to be designed in such a way that they do not disproportionally benefit higher-wage earners in high marginal tax rates. The new OECD work presented in this report shows that there is nothing inevitable
about growing inequalities. Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies. Regulatory reforms can be designed in such a way that they make markets more efficient
and encourage employment while reducing inequalities at the same time. Labour market and social policies also need to be adapted to changing household structures. Policies for inclusive growth are required in the current situation. Any policy strategy to reduce the
growing divide between the rich and poor should rest on three main pillars: more intensive human capital investment; inclusive employment promotion; and well-designed tax/ transfer redistribution policies.""

This article on Thomas Piketty’s new book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," is also an interesting read, along with the book's summary mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5 2384/1/MPRA_paper_52384.p df

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just Guess (1378 days ago)

**This article on Thomas Piketty’s new book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," is also an interesting read, along with the book's summary LINK **

ReplyVote up (298)down (259)
Original comment

**This article on Thomas Piketty’s new book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," is also an interesting read, along with the book's summary LINK **

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1380 days ago)

Do not trust this video to give you accurate information. The most important piece mentioned is that the top 85 people control 110 trillion dollars. Absolutely incorrect. Doing some simple math, that would give them 1.3 trillion dollars each on average; however, the single most richest person in the world (Carlos Slim Helu & family) only has a net wealth of 73 billion. In case you didn't know, there is a huge difference between 1.3 trillion and 73 billion.

Even if all the top 85 people in the world had as much as Carlos, that would still only be 6.2 trillion total -- not 110 trillion. The bottom of those 85 people only has 11.7 billion in net worth.

In summary, the numbers they presented are highly inflated or made up. Take your pick. It appears this video is only intended to get the bottom people to hate the rich people.

ReplyVote up (335)down (307)
Original comment

Do not trust this video to give you accurate information. The most important piece mentioned is that the top 85 people control 110 trillion dollars. Absolutely incorrect. Doing some simple math, that would give them 1.3 trillion dollars each on average; however, the single most richest person in the world (Carlos Slim Helu & family) only has a net wealth of 73 billion. In case you didn't know, there is a huge difference between 1.3 trillion and 73 billion.

Even if all the top 85 people in the world had as much as Carlos, that would still only be 6.2 trillion total -- not 110 trillion. The bottom of those 85 people only has 11.7 billion in net worth.

In summary, the numbers they presented are highly inflated or made up. Take your pick. It appears this video is only intended to get the bottom people to hate the rich people.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1379 days ago)

Your last sentence: absolutely correct. And the more the better.

Your second sentence: the important word is 'control'.

And last of all, you dumb Merkin: the word you're looking for is 'maths', as in mathematics.

No, that wasn't the last thing, this is: don't you have anything better to do? Like educate yourself?

ReplyVote up (319)down (304)
Original comment

Your last sentence: absolutely correct. And the more the better.

Your second sentence: the important word is 'control'.

And last of all, you dumb Merkin: the word you're looking for is 'maths', as in mathematics.

No, that wasn't the last thing, this is: don't you have anything better to do? Like educate yourself?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Explain your comment about "control." Are you saying that these 85 people control more than their own net worth? If so, then so does the poor.

Do you think it's fair comparison to look at what money people control? My financial advisor controls billions of dollars but I probably earn more than he does. See a problem there?

ReplyVote up (330)down (290)
Original comment

Explain your comment about "control." Are you saying that these 85 people control more than their own net worth? If so, then so does the poor.

Do you think it's fair comparison to look at what money people control? My financial advisor controls billions of dollars but I probably earn more than he does. See a problem there?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

think of hedge fund managers, JP morgan CEO, bank of america CEO, etc. But i'll let Beau Guest elaborate on this, because i see he got the idea.

ReplyVote up (325)down (289)
Original comment

think of hedge fund managers, JP morgan CEO, bank of america CEO, etc. But i'll let Beau Guest elaborate on this, because i see he got the idea.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Exactly my point. People do not need to be rich to have control over billions. Therefore, I conclude this 110 trillion dollar figure is still a bogus number and does not represent the actual amount of money the top 85 people have.

In fact, the top person I mentioned is not a single person -- it's a whole family. Did they take that into consideration when adding up the top 85 people?

It is my opinion that the person that came up with this video and numbers did so only to establish a negative emotion in poor people. Perhaps it would be better for the public to tell the truth instead.

ReplyVote up (310)down (319)
Original comment

Exactly my point. People do not need to be rich to have control over billions. Therefore, I conclude this 110 trillion dollar figure is still a bogus number and does not represent the actual amount of money the top 85 people have.

In fact, the top person I mentioned is not a single person -- it's a whole family. Did they take that into consideration when adding up the top 85 people?

It is my opinion that the person that came up with this video and numbers did so only to establish a negative emotion in poor people. Perhaps it would be better for the public to tell the truth instead.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

nevermind this video, the original source is Oxfam, you can find the summary here LINK . Oxfam made that report after consulting the Forbes list LINK AND the Credit Suisse report LINK . Surely you're not doubting Credit suise, are you? Here's what CREDIT SUISE has to say about it: ""

Distribution of Wealth Across Individuals: Inequality Remains High

To determine how global wealth is distributed across households and individuals – rather than regions or countries – we combine our data on the level of household wealth across countries with information on the pattern of wealth distribution within countries. Our estimates for mid-2013 indicate that once debts have been subtracted, an adult requires just 4,000 US dollars in assets to be in the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, a person needs at least 75,000 US dollars to be a member of the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and 753,000 US dollars to belong to the top 1 percent. Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 percent of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest 10 percent hold 86 percent of the world’s wealth, and the top 1 percent alone account for 46 percent of global assets."" Also, Further information on the pattern of total wealth ownership across regions and countries during the year to mid-2013 can be found in the full publication: LINK . Don't know what Credit Suisse is?? no problem: LINK . Here's what the GUARDIAN has to say about it LINK . So why should i take you're interpretantion on the subject SERIOUSLY and discard what OXFAM, CREDIT SUISSE and THE GUARDIAN intepretation on the mattert?? you're opinion doesn't matter compared to the STUDIES/REPORTS of the VERY CREDIBLE institutions mentioned above, considering that you're credibility on ANYTHING is next to ZERO! the answer is : i shouldn't take you're opinion seriously, i should mock it and laugh at you instead. here i go: HA HA HA, AA HA HA HA! aaa HA HA HA HA HA! you're a right wing troll! hey everybody, cengland0 is a right wing troll!!!

ReplyVote up (292)down (298)
Original comment

nevermind this video, the original source is Oxfam, you can find the summary here LINK . Oxfam made that report after consulting the Forbes list LINK AND the Credit Suisse report LINK . Surely you're not doubting Credit suise, are you? Here's what CREDIT SUISE has to say about it: ""

Distribution of Wealth Across Individuals: Inequality Remains High

To determine how global wealth is distributed across households and individuals – rather than regions or countries – we combine our data on the level of household wealth across countries with information on the pattern of wealth distribution within countries. Our estimates for mid-2013 indicate that once debts have been subtracted, an adult requires just 4,000 US dollars in assets to be in the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, a person needs at least 75,000 US dollars to be a member of the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and 753,000 US dollars to belong to the top 1 percent. Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 percent of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest 10 percent hold 86 percent of the world’s wealth, and the top 1 percent alone account for 46 percent of global assets."" Also, Further information on the pattern of total wealth ownership across regions and countries during the year to mid-2013 can be found in the full publication: LINK . Don't know what Credit Suisse is?? no problem: LINK . Here's what the GUARDIAN has to say about it LINK . So why should i take you're interpretantion on the subject SERIOUSLY and discard what OXFAM, CREDIT SUISSE and THE GUARDIAN intepretation on the mattert?? you're opinion doesn't matter compared to the STUDIES/REPORTS of the VERY CREDIBLE institutions mentioned above, considering that you're credibility on ANYTHING is next to ZERO! the answer is : i shouldn't take you're opinion seriously, i should mock it and laugh at you instead. here i go: HA HA HA, AA HA HA HA! aaa HA HA HA HA HA! you're a right wing troll! hey everybody, cengland0 is a right wing troll!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

So I was right. You cannot trust this video. The people screwed up and thought the top 85 people represented the top 1%. That's a huge mistake to make. It was so easy for me to figure that out immediately so why couldn't anyone else? They were completely blind to it because they cannot understand such large numbers or they just blindly believe anything they see or hear in the media.

ReplyVote up (250)down (281)
Original comment

So I was right. You cannot trust this video. The people screwed up and thought the top 85 people represented the top 1%. That's a huge mistake to make. It was so easy for me to figure that out immediately so why couldn't anyone else? They were completely blind to it because they cannot understand such large numbers or they just blindly believe anything they see or hear in the media.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

you're full of sheit, you're a right wing troll and all you do is troll. here's the oxfam report LINK . Are you calling Oxfam liars?

ReplyVote up (279)down (312)
Original comment

you're full of sheit, you're a right wing troll and all you do is troll. here's the oxfam report LINK . Are you calling Oxfam liars?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

I wasn't referring to anything other than the video that was posted on Boreme. I don't know why you keep trying to get me on a tangent. My comment was that the information presented in this video was wrong and you proved me correct. Thanks.

ReplyVote up (325)down (304)
Original comment

I wasn't referring to anything other than the video that was posted on Boreme. I don't know why you keep trying to get me on a tangent. My comment was that the information presented in this video was wrong and you proved me correct. Thanks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

from the oxfam report summary LINK

""The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. "

i allready linked you twice to the report, the vide is just repeating what's WRITTEN in the oxfam report.

but keep on trolling, everybody allready knows you're a right wing troll.

ReplyVote up (313)down (297)
Original comment

from the oxfam report summary LINK

""The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. "

i allready linked you twice to the report, the vide is just repeating what's WRITTEN in the oxfam report.

but keep on trolling, everybody allready knows you're a right wing troll.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

I don't care about any Oxfam report that you linked. My initial comment was about the errors in this video. You then posted a link that confirms the video was wrong. So what is your problem here?

Let me make this very simple for you. If your Oxfam report is correct, then this video is wrong. Get it now?

ReplyVote up (277)down (310)
Original comment

I don't care about any Oxfam report that you linked. My initial comment was about the errors in this video. You then posted a link that confirms the video was wrong. So what is your problem here?

Let me make this very simple for you. If your Oxfam report is correct, then this video is wrong. Get it now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

the video is saying exactly what oxfam is saying. The "errors" are in the oxfam report, which was made with data from the credit suisse report. If the video is wrong then the oxfam report is wrong. stop trolling, or don't, whatever, everybody allready knows you're trolling and your opinion on this topic doesn't really matter because your credibility is down to zero.

ReplyVote up (312)down (299)
Original comment

the video is saying exactly what oxfam is saying. The "errors" are in the oxfam report, which was made with data from the credit suisse report. If the video is wrong then the oxfam report is wrong. stop trolling, or don't, whatever, everybody allready knows you're trolling and your opinion on this topic doesn't really matter because your credibility is down to zero.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Here is your challenge for today. The video at 1:45 says "85 people control $110 trillion". Show me where it says that in the Oxfam report.

The Oxfam report, on page 2, says "The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion".

Don't you see a difference between 85 people and 1% of the world's population? How can both of those be right? The census bureau estimates the world population at 7,146,440,204. 1% of that population is 71,464,402 people. That is a much larger number than 85 people.

You cannot understand the very basics of a simple conversation so I'm done here. I have better things to do than go around in circles with you.

ReplyVote up (297)down (289)
Original comment

Here is your challenge for today. The video at 1:45 says "85 people control $110 trillion". Show me where it says that in the Oxfam report.

The Oxfam report, on page 2, says "The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion".

Don't you see a difference between 85 people and 1% of the world's population? How can both of those be right? The census bureau estimates the world population at 7,146,440,204. 1% of that population is 71,464,402 people. That is a much larger number than 85 people.

You cannot understand the very basics of a simple conversation so I'm done here. I have better things to do than go around in circles with you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

they probabbly got this idea from Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international, who says that if you take all the wealth in the world and put it on a scale, 85 people OWN one half of it and the rest own the other half (which is pretty far fetched, so the boreme video probabbly decided to go with CONTROL, seeing that she changed the world OWN with CONTROL further in the interview ; mind you, she doesn't seem to be a native english speaker) nevertheles it's OXFAM who's saying it.start at 01:05 LINK . Your point is invalid, you're just trolling. So as i said before, are you saying OXFAM is wrong?? as if your opinion matters.

ReplyVote up (284)down (313)
Original comment

they probabbly got this idea from Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international, who says that if you take all the wealth in the world and put it on a scale, 85 people OWN one half of it and the rest own the other half (which is pretty far fetched, so the boreme video probabbly decided to go with CONTROL, seeing that she changed the world OWN with CONTROL further in the interview ; mind you, she doesn't seem to be a native english speaker) nevertheles it's OXFAM who's saying it.start at 01:05 LINK . Your point is invalid, you're just trolling. So as i said before, are you saying OXFAM is wrong?? as if your opinion matters.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

You and your Oxfam report and irrelevant links. Sheesh.

I'm talking about the video we are typing comments below. I'm not referring to any other pages or any other videos or that Oxfam report.

The video is wrong. Just accept it. I'm not saying the Oxfam report is wrong. I'm saying this video from Abby Martin is wrong. Try to follow along with the conversation.

What happened is that you were wrong by pointing out a report that confirms the data presented in this video. When I challenged you to show me in that Oxfam report where it claims 85 people control $110 trillion, you failed to do so and now you're trying to back track by linking to other videos and confuse the matter.

Admit you were wrong and that this video is wrong and I will keep the same respect for you that I had in the past (which is very litte). Refuse to admit you were wrong and the video is wrong will reduce you to nothing more than a blubbering idiot.

Anything other than your admission that you were wrong or providing proof from the original Oxfam report that 85 people control $110 trillion will be ignored. I'm tired of dealing with you. Have a good day.

ReplyVote up (308)down (304)
Original comment

You and your Oxfam report and irrelevant links. Sheesh.

I'm talking about the video we are typing comments below. I'm not referring to any other pages or any other videos or that Oxfam report.

The video is wrong. Just accept it. I'm not saying the Oxfam report is wrong. I'm saying this video from Abby Martin is wrong. Try to follow along with the conversation.

What happened is that you were wrong by pointing out a report that confirms the data presented in this video. When I challenged you to show me in that Oxfam report where it claims 85 people control $110 trillion, you failed to do so and now you're trying to back track by linking to other videos and confuse the matter.

Admit you were wrong and that this video is wrong and I will keep the same respect for you that I had in the past (which is very litte). Refuse to admit you were wrong and the video is wrong will reduce you to nothing more than a blubbering idiot.

Anything other than your admission that you were wrong or providing proof from the original Oxfam report that 85 people control $110 trillion will be ignored. I'm tired of dealing with you. Have a good day.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1379 days ago)

the claim that 85 people control 110 trillion is pretty far fetched and i admit that, but the fact that this statement is being made by an Oxfam Official like Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international, still makes it the official position of Oxfam on this topic (until they say otherwise), even though it's not in the report, which is a position that is worth 100 times more ( AT LEAST ) than the opinion of a right wing troll such as yourself. The things said and shown in the boreme video still represent OXFAM's stance on the topic and the video is not wrong at all. Notice that when they show those GRAPHICS, in the TOP RIGHT CORNER they specify the source which is OXFAM.ORG!!!! NOTICE THAT THEY DON'T SAY THE SOURCE IS THE REPORT. SO Who should i believe?should it be cengland0, the boreme rightwing troll, promoter of corporate greed, inequality, defender of the oligarchs, climate change denialist, manipulator???? or should it be Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international...???? hmmm, decisions decisions.... hmmmm... what should i choose....

As for this paragraph: ""Admit you were wrong and that this video is wrong and I will keep the same respect for you that I had in the past (which is very litte). Refuse to admit you were wrong and the video is wrong will reduce you to nothing more than a blubbering idiot. ""

... let me just say the following: BBBWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!!!! AAAAAAAAAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! as if i care if cengland0, the boreme rightwing troll, promoter of corporate greed, inequality, defender of the oligarchs, climate change denialist, manipulator holds his respect for me. BWWWAAAA HA HA HA HA!!! aha ha ha... aaa... you're killing me...you manipulative codger troll, do you expect me to believe you still hold ANY respect for me after all the abuse i've put you through?? AAAA, HA HA HA!! nobody believes that! and then you threaten to "lose the little respect", you shameless manipulative twat! it's what you do, you troll and you troll and you troll, no matter if you're right or wrong, all you do is troll. BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROLL AND YOUR OPINION IS WORTH SHEIT!!!

ReplyVote up (294)down (293)
Original comment

the claim that 85 people control 110 trillion is pretty far fetched and i admit that, but the fact that this statement is being made by an Oxfam Official like Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international, still makes it the official position of Oxfam on this topic (until they say otherwise), even though it's not in the report, which is a position that is worth 100 times more ( AT LEAST ) than the opinion of a right wing troll such as yourself. The things said and shown in the boreme video still represent OXFAM's stance on the topic and the video is not wrong at all. Notice that when they show those GRAPHICS, in the TOP RIGHT CORNER they specify the source which is OXFAM.ORG!!!! NOTICE THAT THEY DON'T SAY THE SOURCE IS THE REPORT. SO Who should i believe?should it be cengland0, the boreme rightwing troll, promoter of corporate greed, inequality, defender of the oligarchs, climate change denialist, manipulator???? or should it be Winnie Byanyima, the Executive director of Oxfam international...???? hmmm, decisions decisions.... hmmmm... what should i choose....

As for this paragraph: ""Admit you were wrong and that this video is wrong and I will keep the same respect for you that I had in the past (which is very litte). Refuse to admit you were wrong and the video is wrong will reduce you to nothing more than a blubbering idiot. ""

... let me just say the following: BBBWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!!!! AAAAAAAAAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! as if i care if cengland0, the boreme rightwing troll, promoter of corporate greed, inequality, defender of the oligarchs, climate change denialist, manipulator holds his respect for me. BWWWAAAA HA HA HA HA!!! aha ha ha... aaa... you're killing me...you manipulative codger troll, do you expect me to believe you still hold ANY respect for me after all the abuse i've put you through?? AAAA, HA HA HA!! nobody believes that! and then you threaten to "lose the little respect", you shameless manipulative twat! it's what you do, you troll and you troll and you troll, no matter if you're right or wrong, all you do is troll. BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROLL AND YOUR OPINION IS WORTH SHEIT!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: CoreyErman (1173 days ago)

You have no idea about who the richest people in the world are, do you? Carlos Slim is not the richest person on the planet worth about $85 Billion. That the face of the storyline pushed out by Forbes every year. It's a total lie designed to hide the truth. The actual people who are worth in the trillions are the banking families who are behind the scenes and in the shadows. The Rothchild banking families alone are worth about $50 Trillion. Who are the Rothchild's? The people who own the Private Federal Reserve and many of the other private central banks. Please do your research before you regurgitate the mainstream media propaganda line!

ReplyVote up (252)down (255)
Original comment

You have no idea about who the richest people in the world are, do you? Carlos Slim is not the richest person on the planet worth about $85 Billion. That the face of the storyline pushed out by Forbes every year. It's a total lie designed to hide the truth. The actual people who are worth in the trillions are the banking families who are behind the scenes and in the shadows. The Rothchild banking families alone are worth about $50 Trillion. Who are the Rothchild's? The people who own the Private Federal Reserve and many of the other private central banks. Please do your research before you regurgitate the mainstream media propaganda line!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1172 days ago)
Latest comment:

Please give us your sources when you make claims like that so we can confirm the accuracy of your statements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

ReplyVote up (245)down (251)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Please give us your sources when you make claims like that so we can confirm the accuracy of your statements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1379 days ago)

Has O'Leary grown a tail?? Oh no - it's Cengland0 hanging out of his arse.

Let's all be cheerleaders for the super-rich whilst they rig the game further to protect their wealth and lock out opportunity. I know - why don't we build some pyramids for them like last time? Remember that huge explosion in Pharoahs due to the fantastic opportunities for all? And remember all the wealth trickling down for slavery? I don't know what people complain about!

ReplyVote up (295)down (325)
Original comment

Has O'Leary grown a tail?? Oh no - it's Cengland0 hanging out of his arse.

Let's all be cheerleaders for the super-rich whilst they rig the game further to protect their wealth and lock out opportunity. I know - why don't we build some pyramids for them like last time? Remember that huge explosion in Pharoahs due to the fantastic opportunities for all? And remember all the wealth trickling down for slavery? I don't know what people complain about!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Why do you hate rich people so much? Is it that you don't believe they deserve to have what they earned? Is it that you are jealous? What is the root cause of your hatred?

Now that we know that there are some rich and there are some poor people, what do you propose we do about that? Kill all the rich people and give their property to the poor? In addition to having minimum wage laws, have a maximum wage law too?

Is it your belief that all the money people earn should be pooled and divided equally amongst the entire population of the world regardless of how hard or how little people work?

ReplyVote up (296)down (290)
Original comment

Why do you hate rich people so much? Is it that you don't believe they deserve to have what they earned? Is it that you are jealous? What is the root cause of your hatred?

Now that we know that there are some rich and there are some poor people, what do you propose we do about that? Kill all the rich people and give their property to the poor? In addition to having minimum wage laws, have a maximum wage law too?

Is it your belief that all the money people earn should be pooled and divided equally amongst the entire population of the world regardless of how hard or how little people work?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1379 days ago)

Really do NOT hate rich people - never have. To hate rich people would be to be ignorant of human nature - note the recent studies which show that when peoples financial circumstances improve they are much more likely gain conservative values, and are also more likely to attribute their getting more money to their own innate brilliance (the rigged Monopoly game was a great illustration of this condition), rather than other peoples hard work, or chance that got them there.

It seems that the way super rich act is a way we could all act given the conditions, which is why there should be controls to keep this in check. I am not averse to people making money - we all have different motivations - but this inequality is way off the scale of anything we've seen before.

Your end statement about equally distributing money - I am not sure why you are asking me this - this seems like a separate idealogy. I also do not like your implication that whatever I think is a "belief". I am not a religious person, and have a strong liking for evidence.

Your comment about killing people is worthy of a tabloid newspaper and not worth commenting on.

At the moment my view is that we as a race are dishonest about our nature. We have some serious flaws - witness the atrocities which are commonplace in times of war, the abdication of responsibility or payback with extreme wealth, the way we avoid unpleasant truths and believe in man-made myths in order to preserve the status quo. These are all things we all do, but unless we acknowledge them and realise they exist within all of us, our progress will be very slow at best.

Bit disapointed in you Cengland0 - you normally do a much better job than this knee-jerk emotional response.

ReplyVote up (294)down (292)
Original comment

Really do NOT hate rich people - never have. To hate rich people would be to be ignorant of human nature - note the recent studies which show that when peoples financial circumstances improve they are much more likely gain conservative values, and are also more likely to attribute their getting more money to their own innate brilliance (the rigged Monopoly game was a great illustration of this condition), rather than other peoples hard work, or chance that got them there.

It seems that the way super rich act is a way we could all act given the conditions, which is why there should be controls to keep this in check. I am not averse to people making money - we all have different motivations - but this inequality is way off the scale of anything we've seen before.

Your end statement about equally distributing money - I am not sure why you are asking me this - this seems like a separate idealogy. I also do not like your implication that whatever I think is a "belief". I am not a religious person, and have a strong liking for evidence.

Your comment about killing people is worthy of a tabloid newspaper and not worth commenting on.

At the moment my view is that we as a race are dishonest about our nature. We have some serious flaws - witness the atrocities which are commonplace in times of war, the abdication of responsibility or payback with extreme wealth, the way we avoid unpleasant truths and believe in man-made myths in order to preserve the status quo. These are all things we all do, but unless we acknowledge them and realise they exist within all of us, our progress will be very slow at best.

Bit disapointed in you Cengland0 - you normally do a much better job than this knee-jerk emotional response.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Sorry about my response having emotion in it. It's this Satan's Whatever person that is causing me stress and grief so I apologize if I took it out on you.

Quote: "It seems that the way super rich act is a way we could all act given the conditions, which is why there should be controls to keep this in check." Question: What controls should there be? We already have super rich people so what do you propose we do with the money they already have? If you plan on having controls, does that involve putting limits on earning potential?

Super rich people have always been around. You had the king of the castle and the peasants that did the king's bidding. You had the chief of the village. You had pharaohs, cesars, and other high ranking officials. So why should today be any different? I am not for equality in income because I firmly believe hard working people, innovative and creative people, highly educated people, and risk takers should have more rewards in society than the person that sits at home all day watching TV.

Kevin O'Leary came from Canada to America to start his business because of the capitalistic opportunities. He is worth $300 million today but it wasn't always like that. Shortly after college, he started his own software company in his basement with $10,000 from his mother. So now that he has earned his millions, do you think he doesn't deserve to keep it?

ReplyVote up (302)down (277)
Original comment

Sorry about my response having emotion in it. It's this Satan's Whatever person that is causing me stress and grief so I apologize if I took it out on you.

Quote: "It seems that the way super rich act is a way we could all act given the conditions, which is why there should be controls to keep this in check." Question: What controls should there be? We already have super rich people so what do you propose we do with the money they already have? If you plan on having controls, does that involve putting limits on earning potential?

Super rich people have always been around. You had the king of the castle and the peasants that did the king's bidding. You had the chief of the village. You had pharaohs, cesars, and other high ranking officials. So why should today be any different? I am not for equality in income because I firmly believe hard working people, innovative and creative people, highly educated people, and risk takers should have more rewards in society than the person that sits at home all day watching TV.

Kevin O'Leary came from Canada to America to start his business because of the capitalistic opportunities. He is worth $300 million today but it wasn't always like that. Shortly after college, he started his own software company in his basement with $10,000 from his mother. So now that he has earned his millions, do you think he doesn't deserve to keep it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: paulthew (1378 days ago)

"Super rich people have always been around"

So was polio before we eradicated it.

"So why should today be any different?"

Hmmm. Because we now have the power to remove injustice?

Also, who said we were against some people being paid more than others. i.e. those that do dangerous work, etc? Nope, Wo, why bring it up? To change the focus.

" you think he doesn't deserve to keep it?"

Note the change of focus - is anyone saying people should not keep any money the make? No. To bring it back on track, what many seems to be saying, including me, is to GIVE SOME OF IT BACK TO SOCIETY for use in things like hopsitals, education, welfare, etc.

ReplyVote up (268)down (280)
Original comment

"Super rich people have always been around"

So was polio before we eradicated it.

"So why should today be any different?"

Hmmm. Because we now have the power to remove injustice?

Also, who said we were against some people being paid more than others. i.e. those that do dangerous work, etc? Nope, Wo, why bring it up? To change the focus.

" you think he doesn't deserve to keep it?"

Note the change of focus - is anyone saying people should not keep any money the make? No. To bring it back on track, what many seems to be saying, including me, is to GIVE SOME OF IT BACK TO SOCIETY for use in things like hopsitals, education, welfare, etc.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1378 days ago)

"Give some of it back to society". Don't you think they already do that with the billions in charity donations, the massive amounts of taxes they pay, the people they hire, the products they purchase, etc?

Exactly what is your proposal? Tax the rich 90% so they can only keep 10%? Just curious what your idea of a fix to this perceived "problem" is. In my opinion, the rich have the right to spend their earnings however they want. Their net worth is calculated after they have already paid taxes so it's fair if they want to hoard the money, invest it, give it to charity, start a new business venture, etc. I don't believe it's fair for us to dictate what people do with their hard earned money.

Regarding Kevin O'Leary, he has 300 million already. He risks his hard earned cash in the show Shark Tank in an attempt to get a good return on his investments. If you've never seen that show, you should watch it once or twice so you can see how the rich decide what is a good business for them. Some of those is taking a risk and they can lose the entire investment and some of it will make him more millions. Don't be jealous of him because you didn't start your own software company like he did. You could have borrowed 10,000 and did the same thing.

ReplyVote up (266)down (273)
Original comment

"Give some of it back to society". Don't you think they already do that with the billions in charity donations, the massive amounts of taxes they pay, the people they hire, the products they purchase, etc?

Exactly what is your proposal? Tax the rich 90% so they can only keep 10%? Just curious what your idea of a fix to this perceived "problem" is. In my opinion, the rich have the right to spend their earnings however they want. Their net worth is calculated after they have already paid taxes so it's fair if they want to hoard the money, invest it, give it to charity, start a new business venture, etc. I don't believe it's fair for us to dictate what people do with their hard earned money.

Regarding Kevin O'Leary, he has 300 million already. He risks his hard earned cash in the show Shark Tank in an attempt to get a good return on his investments. If you've never seen that show, you should watch it once or twice so you can see how the rich decide what is a good business for them. Some of those is taking a risk and they can lose the entire investment and some of it will make him more millions. Don't be jealous of him because you didn't start your own software company like he did. You could have borrowed 10,000 and did the same thing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1379 days ago)

You ask: What controls should there be? I say "tax them, they don't need all of it."

You ask: We already have super rich people so what do you propose we do with the money they already have? I say "tax them and help broader society."

You ask: If you plan on having controls, does that involve putting limits on earning potential? I say "Yes. He's mainly motivated by having a bigger pile of beans than anyone else. Take some of his dollars away and encourage chest-beating in another way."

You say: Super rich people have always been around. I say "so has dysentery - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it."

He hasn't earned his money by working a trillion times harder than anyone else. He's had a lot of breaks that other people in the 3rd world haven't - but some work even harder than he does. By all means let him have more than me, but he doesn't need to spend $70,000 on himself every day for the next 40 years. I think more good can come from redistributing some of his wealth.

ReplyVote up (269)down (297)
Original comment

You ask: What controls should there be? I say "tax them, they don't need all of it."

You ask: We already have super rich people so what do you propose we do with the money they already have? I say "tax them and help broader society."

You ask: If you plan on having controls, does that involve putting limits on earning potential? I say "Yes. He's mainly motivated by having a bigger pile of beans than anyone else. Take some of his dollars away and encourage chest-beating in another way."

You say: Super rich people have always been around. I say "so has dysentery - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it."

He hasn't earned his money by working a trillion times harder than anyone else. He's had a lot of breaks that other people in the 3rd world haven't - but some work even harder than he does. By all means let him have more than me, but he doesn't need to spend $70,000 on himself every day for the next 40 years. I think more good can come from redistributing some of his wealth.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1379 days ago)

Your main theme seems to be "tax them." You do understand that the rich pay more dollars in taxes than anyone else, right? You want to tax them even more but a tax is just another way to redistribute wealth. Where do you draw that line, at taxing 100% of income and then giving everyone the basic necessities like a communist society?

You don't have to work harder to earn more. You can create or innovate. You can take risks. For example, he risked and could have lost that 10,000 he got from his mother but he was successful. What about all the other bad business ideas that failed? With risk comes the possibility of reward and some failure.

I took an investment risk and lost over $4k last month. Dissappointing but I'm hoping to make it up throughout the year. If I'm successful, you want the government to take my money away. That doesn't make sense because they are not going to reimburse me for my losses.

We should be celebrating success not preventing it. Take away incentives to be successful and more people will become couch potatoes.

ReplyVote up (243)down (247)
Original comment

Your main theme seems to be "tax them." You do understand that the rich pay more dollars in taxes than anyone else, right? You want to tax them even more but a tax is just another way to redistribute wealth. Where do you draw that line, at taxing 100% of income and then giving everyone the basic necessities like a communist society?

You don't have to work harder to earn more. You can create or innovate. You can take risks. For example, he risked and could have lost that 10,000 he got from his mother but he was successful. What about all the other bad business ideas that failed? With risk comes the possibility of reward and some failure.

I took an investment risk and lost over $4k last month. Dissappointing but I'm hoping to make it up throughout the year. If I'm successful, you want the government to take my money away. That doesn't make sense because they are not going to reimburse me for my losses.

We should be celebrating success not preventing it. Take away incentives to be successful and more people will become couch potatoes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest101 (1371 days ago)

@cengland0

I've not previously commented on any of your discourses. You are problematic, in the sense that, quite often, what you write makes some sense. However, you apparently persist in writing in a deliberately provocative and argumentative style, whatever the topic under discussion. Therefore, I have to agree that you ARE a troll and others have some justification in simply ignoring or ridiculing everything that you write. I feel sure that you have considered that you may gain more credence by abandoning your antagonistic style, but have decided against that because it just wouldn't be so much fun, would it? Troll.

ReplyVote up (232)down (261)
Original comment

@cengland0

I've not previously commented on any of your discourses. You are problematic, in the sense that, quite often, what you write makes some sense. However, you apparently persist in writing in a deliberately provocative and argumentative style, whatever the topic under discussion. Therefore, I have to agree that you ARE a troll and others have some justification in simply ignoring or ridiculing everything that you write. I feel sure that you have considered that you may gain more credence by abandoning your antagonistic style, but have decided against that because it just wouldn't be so much fun, would it? Troll.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1371 days ago)

Not a troll, just sarcastic in nature. I've always been that way and I probably will never change.

ReplyVote up (277)down (270)
Original comment

Not a troll, just sarcastic in nature. I've always been that way and I probably will never change.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
TYT - Trump personally under investigation by special counsel
TYT - Trump personally under investigation by special counsel
Abby Martin - Who is Steve Bannon?
Abby Martin - Who is Steve Bannon?
Paul Jay and Abby Martin discuss Trump and 'fake news'
Paul Jay and Abby Martin discuss Trump and 'fake news'
Abby Martin vs Paul Jay - What should Bernie do now?
Abby Martin vs Paul Jay - What should Bernie do now?
Chris Hedges attacks
Chris Hedges attacks "New Atheist" fundamentalists