Comments on: 6 Ways the Rich Trick the Poor into Supporting Capitalism

By: john

john — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:13:49 +0000

Number 3 (fool the poor into thinking they can get rich too).

I believe this has more to do with who you know and being well connected.
That, when combined with lottery style luck, is more true.

There’s an enormous amount of brilliant artists (that can actually sing and play instruments) out there that will never even come close to the fame and/or mass appeal of rappers and pop stars.

I also agree this should be number 1 on the list as previously stated by another.
Overall, this list is DAMN accurate.

It’s frustrating as hell how few people can’t see how this actually works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCu-XnVxhfk

By: Alla

Alla — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:43:06 +0000

We have to remember one more thing. As soon as you annd I get rich we will act the same way. Its just human nature(majority).
Rich people most of the time have the resources , discipline and talent to keep thier money but the poor often dont.
It has been this way since time immemorial, I believe the coming centuries will see this erode little by little. As in China things dont get done in 20 years.

By: ross

ross — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:14:11 +0000

The problem with everyone saying that our founding fathers would not like the country we have today are incorrrect. They would love the fact that the rich have gotten richer as this is the way they where themselves (GW married into one of the largest land owing families, John Hancock was basically a wealthy glorified smuggler, on and on,) They were the elites of colonial America, and like the tea baggers of today did not want to pay their fair share of taxes. They got just enough support from the masses (who did most of the dying) through lies and the French Navy/Army to win the war. Most every American today does not realize that our founding fathers in no way wanted a democracy (they voted for a Republic-big differnce) and they only wanted land owning white men to vote. Plain and simple, that is their legacy. Today lobbyists buy the politicians for the wealthiest contributors? That was their idea of taxation with representation, the wealthiest decide who benefits and who pays. The only difference between them and the English King, is that the wealth is spread to a few very wealthy vs. one very wealthy person (The King). Yeah, we are so much better off…REALLY?

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:40:52 +0000

Friend, while I read through this post and agreed with it, that doesn’t come as any great surprise since I’m an ardent anti-capitalist anyway.
However, I feel sure that if I was an as yet uninformed moderate and I happened across this post (as I did, since it’s been Stumbled), I’d be put off by the introduction and it’d be extremely unlikely I’d ever read anything more. Using phrases such as “the United States of Torture” and foul language is a pretty poor way of winning converts to the opinions you’re expressing.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment, but the way the post is written is pretty much guaranteeing that you’ll only ever be preaching to the converted, and that’s no good when what’s needed is spreading these facts.

By: Petit discour sur le capitalism - danychouinard.net

Petit discour sur le capitalism - danychouinard.net — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:47:33 +0000

[...] 6 Ways the Rich Trick the Poor into Supporting Capitalism [...]

By: Borderboy

Borderboy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:41:56 +0000

Being rich is a relative term, being successful is more correct. Everyone is successful at something.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:21:07 +0000

@Kavan – LOL. Yeah, thanks for seeing past my math(or lack of):) I shouldn’t be posting in a hurry(like now):)

By: Kavan Wolfe

Kavan Wolfe — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:10:41 +0000

@Rick, 330 million people times $1 million is $330 trillion. The current bailout price tag is some in the neighborhood of $1 or 2 trillion. The total GDP of the U.S. is about $14 trillion. So no, that does not pale in comparison to government waste. However, The real number of people on welfare is far smaller (something like 5 million) and the amount they receive is much less than $1 million, so yes it does pale in comparison to the cost of, say, the Iraq clusterfuck.

@Zander, If you compare Canadian political rhetoric to U.S. political rhetoric, the Canadian politicians are less crazy, and our (Canada’s) economic policy is similarly less cowboy-ish. However, all the same rhetorical trickery is used. It’s just less effective because Canadians weren’t as brainwashed during the cold war.

By: Zander

Zander — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:12:25 +0000

I have more of a question than a comment.

How does this compare to our own country, Canada?

My self i think we are mid-way between the welfare states of Europe and the capitalist run USA.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:30:45 +0000

@H- LOL – Sorry, mutil-tasking. I meant 1 million and my point still the same. I think there is a limit on how long a person can be on welfare (please correct me if I’m wrong) and hopefully we’ll never have every person in the US on welfare (or even a 3rd). Either way , it’s going to pale in comparison to the money our government is wasting elsewhere. No matter how we spin it, it s still the least of my worries.