Let's Eat The Rich

[bcglorf]

And I repeat, not that any of this is a good idea. I'm just sayin'...

So you see no problem with simply seizing $50 trillion or so worth of shares, selling them off and using the cash to pay off the national debt?

Not that I think this is a good idea!!!

Anyway, the video is disingenuous. It is trying to make the point that the rich don't have enough assets to cover even a year of our national budget. They do! The video is simply doing an accounting and ignoring 50 trillion of eatable rich people assets. None of Moore, the Video, or Me consider the logistics of actually doing the liquidation. Only Moore thinks its a good idea.

and yet before you said this:
The other point the video tries to make is that if we did this, then corporations etc. would not exist any more, so what would we do next year. Well, the corporations would still be there, we would simply be transferring ownership, so again the video is flawed.

You can't liquidate $50 trillion of assets from seized corporations, spend it on the national debt, and still expect the corporations to be there, just under new ownership.

What too many people like Moore's audience and apparently yourself fail to grasp is that the $50 trillion of assets held by the wealthy is NOT just sitting there in cash or gold doing nothing. The one thing the wealthy are good at is ensuring their wealth is never idle and instead is continually growing.

Like it or not, that growth benefits those employed by the wealthy. More importantly, annihilating that growth and replacing it with a $50 trillion loss WILL have dire consequences on not only the rich, but on those in any way shape or form working for them. Anyone working for companies from Shell to Microsoft to Walmart can all say hello to unemployment.

[hanelyp]

If we could repurpose even a fraction of our existing wealth toward productive development, and cease serving entrenched interests, we could make immense improvements in short order.

You clearly have no idea how the wealthy become wealthy. They do so, at least in a healthy market economy, by investing wealth towards productive development, the fruits of which can be sold. The redistribution pushed by leftists destroys the incentive for productive development.

[IntLibber]

Personally, I think that Moore is an IDIOT on many levels.
I also find it amusing for him to make the argument. How much is he worth these days? It would appear his net worth is directly proportional to his net mass.

Beyond being rich, while he claims to support unions, he has been rather vicious against attempts to organize in his own workplace.

[ladajo]

I am restraining myself from a string of invictives describing his hypocracy, greed, and self interest. It would not be appropriate, and frankly, he is not worth the effort.

[seedload]

So you see no problem with simply seizing $50 trillion or so worth of shares, selling them off and using the cash to pay off the national debt?

Not that I think this is a good idea!!!

Anyway, the video is disingenuous. It is trying to make the point that the rich don't have enough assets to cover even a year of our national budget. They do! The video is simply doing an accounting and ignoring 50 trillion of eatable rich people assets. None of Moore, the Video, or Me consider the logistics of actually doing the liquidation. Only Moore thinks its a good idea.

and yet before you said this:
The other point the video tries to make is that if we did this, then corporations etc. would not exist any more, so what would we do next year. Well, the corporations would still be there, we would simply be transferring ownership, so again the video is flawed.

You can't liquidate $50 trillion of assets from seized corporations, spend it on the national debt, and still expect the corporations to be there, just under new ownership.

A good bit of the 50 trillion is paper. Percentage ownerships of corporations. You don't have to liquidate the paper for cash and then give the cash, you simply steal the paper and give the paper.

Now, issues about whether doing this will so greatly reduce the security of owning the paper as to make the paper worthless are obviously not considered.

But, pretending that wealth will disappear if you "liquidate" it is also BS.

For example, we could trade GE for dept without eliminating GE. Sure, GE wouldn't do US much good anymore, but it could be done. So, if Moore can win his battle to steal rich peoples money, then there are paths to doing it and plenty of wealth to give away.

The outcome of this would be catastrophic surely, but the video is doing simple accounting to claim that the wealth doesn't exist. IT DOES! So the video is BS. Further, the video is saying things like liquidate businesses, etc. Well you don't need to do that to transfer the wealth. I am simply saying that the video is telling the wrong story and doing it with a lie!

[ladajo]

Is not the fundamental point here the modern wealth is really just an imaginary concept that we all buy into?

Massive forced re-allocations of "wealth" to pay "debt" is a sure fire way to destroy the "confidence" of the average person in any "value" they perceive to hold.

What makes something valuable is that someone else wants it. If no-one wants it, it has zero economic value. If you take an initiative in an economic system where you remove the mechanism that creates value (the perceived mutual value, and willingness to trade on it), by an eminant domain type action, you are directly destroying the fundamental mechanism of an economy. I see this as an un-recoverable failure.

This is one of many reasons that I think Moore is an idiot.
This is also one of the fundamental reasons that I believe causes large scale socialism to fail.

The magic of imaginary value is that occasionally reality intervenes and causes system adjustments (which are for the better). It sures does suck to be one of the "adjusted", but maybe you should have thought first before paying $15mil for a home that you subesequently sell for $6mil (Nicolas Cage...).

[bcglorf]

For example, we could trade GE for dept without eliminating GE. Sure, GE wouldn't do US much good anymore, but it could be done.

Care to explain exactly how it could be done. Presumably the government seizes all of GE's controlling shares and then asks those holding America's debt if they'd like some GE shares instead? Who wouldn't want GE shares that had just been stolen by fiat, and could be stolen by fiat again a day later to repeat the process?

As has been pointed out, you are talking about theft. The act of stealing $50 trillion from the rich devalues the wealth you are stealing automatically. Theft on that scales devalues things drastically. It's kind of like selling tv's out of the back of a van, you can't charge the same price as the place you stole them from, people won't pay it. With GE shares it's worse, as there is nothing stopping the seller from stealing the shares all over again.

[seedload]

For example, we could trade GE for dept without eliminating GE. Sure, GE wouldn't do US much good anymore, but it could be done.

Care to explain exactly how it could be done. Presumably the government seizes all of GE's controlling shares and then asks those holding America's debt if they'd like some GE shares instead? Who wouldn't want GE shares that had just been stolen by fiat, and could be stolen by fiat again a day later to repeat the process?

Chinese because they would then own it and we couldn't steal it again. I agree that it would be a harder sell to American bond holders. I think the government would need to make a strong assurance that they won't steal the stock again. Maybe a good speech would help with that.

As has been pointed out, you are talking about theft. The act of stealing $50 trillion from the rich devalues the wealth you are stealing automatically. Theft on that scales devalues things drastically. It's kind of like selling tv's out of the back of a van, you can't charge the same price as the place you stole them from, people won't pay it. With GE shares it's worse, as there is nothing stopping the seller from stealing the shares all over again.

Not a good comparison. Clearly, stolen TV's are cheap because they are hot and it is illegal to buy them, not because you are worried about the thief coming to your home and stealing them again.

But, your point about the shares being devalued due to the prospect of future theft has some merit. There are two reasons this won't happen. (1) The government will strongly assure us that it is a one time deal, and (2) The shares are only taken from the rich and given to the poor and middle class. There won't be any rich people left.

Clearly if money were stolen and re-distributed against the fifth amendment then the people of this country would revolt! Say you took it from secured bond holders and gave it all to the UAW for example! No one would stand for it! This could never happen in America! There could not be a possible justification!

[hanelyp]

But, your point about the shares being devalued due to the prospect of future theft has some merit. There are two reasons this won't happen. (1) The government will strongly assure us that it is a one time deal,

I, for one, would not believe them.

and (2) The shares are only taken from the rich and given to the poor and middle class. There won't be any rich people left.

Clearly if money were stolen and re-distributed against the fifth amendment then the people of this country would revolt! Say you took it from secured bond holders and gave it all to the UAW for example! No one would stand for it! This could never happen in America! There could not be a possible justification!

Exactly that theft has already happened, about 2 years ago. The first wave of revolt hit last November.

[seedload]

But, your point about the shares being devalued due to the prospect of future theft has some merit. There are two reasons this won't happen. (1) The government will strongly assure us that it is a one time deal,

I, for one, would not believe them.

Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: I got to ask you. If every time Snotboogie would grab the money and run away, why'd you even let him in the game?
Witness: What?
Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: If Snotboogie always stole the money, why'd you let him play?
Witness: You got to, this America, man.

[ladajo]

But, your point about the shares being devalued due to the prospect of future theft has some merit. There are two reasons this won't happen. (1) The government will strongly assure us that it is a one time deal, and (2) The shares are only taken from the rich and given to the poor and middle class. There won't be any rich people left.

Do something once, it becomes possible forever. Not to mention the removal of incentive for growth and competition.

[bcglorf]

Chinese because they would then own it and we couldn't steal it again.

The only way we can't steal it again is if it's moved off the American stock exchange and all it's assets are transferred over to China. That means so far as America is concerned $50 trillion worth of corporations no longer exist.

The Chinese aren't stupid. They are going to expect an enormous discount on the stolen goods, or guarantees in the form of moving the assets under their own control, removing those assets from the reach of America and it's economy.

[Diogenes]

The Government STEAL? Naw, couldn't happen.

[MSimon]

After all Michael Moore says they have all the money. That works for this year:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/20 ... -rich.html

After we do this and have in the process killed the economy and the rule of law, what then?

Bill Whittle turned it into a good video:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -rich.html

[MSimon]

Chinese because they would then own it and we couldn't steal it again.

The only way we can't steal it again is if it's moved off the American stock exchange and all it's assets are transferred over to China. That means so far as America is concerned $50 trillion worth of corporations no longer exist.

The Chinese aren't stupid. They are going to expect an enormous discount on the stolen goods, or guarantees in the form of moving the assets under their own control, removing those assets from the reach of America and it's economy.

The Chinese are no smarter than we are . Their bubble is collapsing. It will hurt bad.

Given the current situation the first economy to take its lumps will come out ahead. The Chinese have postponed that event as long as possible because their margin of error is much smaller than ours. The Middle East may be in worse shape. They make nothing but oil.