• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Romney rich friend says inequality good for U.S.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
5-5-2012

One percenter: Inequality good for U.S.
A rich investor and friend of Romney's says the superwealthy benefit all.

Edward Conard, just outside his office at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped build into a multibillion-dollar business by buying, fixing up and selling off companies at a profit.

Conard, who retired a few years ago at 51, is not merely a member of the 1 percent. He’s a member of the 0.1 percent. His wealth is most likely in the hundreds of millions; he lives in an Upper East Side town house just off Fifth Avenue; and he is one of the largest donors to his old boss and friend, Mitt Romney.

Unlike his former colleagues, Conard wants to have an open conversation about wealth. He has spent the last four years writing a book that he hopes will forever change the way we view the superrich’s role in our society. “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” to be published in hardcover next month by Portfolio, aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. This could be the most hated book of the year.
 
If everyone had the same of everything, there would be nothing to strive towards.

Extreme concentration of wealth is the polar opposite of everyone having the same of everything. All things in moderation though, one extreme is as bad as the other. There is a middle ground where things can be (and have in the past) be most beneficial.
 
Extreme concentration of wealth is the polar opposite of everyone having the same of everything. All things in moderation though, one extreme is as bad as the other. There is a middle ground where things can be (and have in the past) be most beneficial.

True, but just remember that to be in the 1%, you have to only earn around $340k a year (as a single earner).

EDIT: Also, without the uber rich, you cannot have things like The Bill and Melinda Foundation...which does wonderful things for the poor all over the planet.
 
True, but just remember that to be in the 1%, you have to only earn around $340k a year (as a single earner).

EDIT: Also, without the uber rich, you cannot have things like The Bill and Melinda Foundation...which does wonderful things for the poor all over the planet.

You mean foundations which take US wealth and send it to foreign countries to avoid taxation?
 
You mean foundations which take US wealth and send it to foreign countries to avoid taxation?

No, I do not.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated[4] private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[5] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
 
Yeah sure - but when you see mobility indexes e.g rich stay rich and poor stay poor it does same thing. Gotta have balance.

A wise man once said that we will always have the poor with us. He is right...there will always be poor people. Even if you took ALL the wealth of the rich and handed it out, you would still have hundreds of millions of poor people.

Taking the money of the rich is not the solution...but it can be part of the problem.
 
Romney's "friend"?

good god, I'd hate to be held responsible for everything ever said by anyone I've ever worked with.
 
A wise man once said that we will always have the poor with us. He is right...there will always be poor people. Even if you took ALL the wealth of the rich and handed it out, you would still have hundreds of millions of poor people.

Taking the money of the rich is not the solution...but it can be part of the problem.
Which has nothing whatsoever with maintaining moderation in wealth distribution, but by all means keep deflecting. We wouldn't want you to accidentally engage in honest discussion.
 
Romney's "friend"?

good god, I'd hate to be held responsible for everything ever said by anyone I've ever worked with.
Did you post the same sentiment in the Ayers thread, suggesting it's wrong to try to hold Obama responsible for everything done by anyone he's ever worked with?
 
Did you post the same sentiment in the Ayers thread, suggesting it's wrong to try to hold Obama responsible for everything done by anyone he's ever worked with?

you're welcome to post a link to the thread so I can check. I don't recall posting in the thread.

I don't really care about Obama and Ayers, but for the sake of argument, I would say there's a difference between a deliberate/social association with someone versus just happening to work for the same company.
 
No? Then how precisely are we talking about adjusting the wealth inequality that is equivalent to theft in your worldview?

By saying "people cannot have more than X dollars" and then taking the rest.

How precisely do you think they could ensure no one have more than X dollars?
 
No? Then how precisely are we talking about adjusting the wealth inequality that is equivalent to theft in your worldview?

Lets say I walked in wells fargo with my 8 year old brother and put a gun to his head and demanded the Tellers to hand over all the money to me.

This is basically how liberalism works.
 
Back
Top