-56 votes

Tax the Rich, End the Fed

Can anyone explain to me why they think a few people HOLDING MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS of dollars in their Personal bank accounts will create jobs and stimulate the economy?

People having a savings is great but when such a small amount of people are holding most of the US's wealth that is not helping the economy. They have more money then they know what to do with and having MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS sitting in a bank account is not going to create jobs and they won't use it to make risky investments which is something we need in today's world.

No amount of Tax incentives will inspire them to spend enough. Even with a 50% tax they still don't spend enough. Why do we have to have a total collapse, when the few people with the means could give more and avoid a crash completely.

Government sponsored enterprises are still owned by the Private sector.

End the Fed, Tax the Rich




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

2 things

I will say 2 things about your supposed self made millionaires.

(1) If you look at the age of these "Self made" Millionaires, their fortunes were made at the peek of the Fiat currency distribution.

(2) Obviously these people had access to again money or resources that are not available today

Yes regulations are stifling but choosing a businesses profitability over the well being of the people is unacceptable, and unchecked thats exactly what a business would do.

IE. Lead used in products and children choking on toy parts that should have been regulated to make sure the toy was suitable for a child.

Without regulation I could sell a product that hurts, makes you sick, causes blindness etc etc. Maybe your ok going to a doctor that sells you animal piss because its suppose to cure hair loss, but it may give you cancer.

Yes regulations have gotten out of control but that doesn't mean we should get rid of them completely.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

SteveMT's picture

There are many self made success stories throughout history,...

independent of the availability of either fiat-based currency or gold-based currency.

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/dropouts.html

I got that

You are a product of your environment. Some will rise above and get out of their bad situation. Most will not. We can change that, yet you all seem bent on repeating the exact outcome we have now.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

SteveMT's picture

You should like this quote:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.html#6...

Is this what you really want?

Equality

What equality, yes. Any other goal is selfish and you are all here in the end because a few selfish people think the Federal reserve is a good idea among other things.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

see the handbook link on the right?

go there please and educate yourself, and if you cannot understand those basic concepts of individualism vs. collectivism and how they relate to class divisions and group think, private property and tax collection, then please find a more appropriate forum for your particular form of socialism...thank you in advance.

I have

By being a part of this site and any others site that subscribes to your belief system is "COLLECTIVISM". The only true individual here is me because I don't subscribe to any one philosophy.

So Epic Fail on you all.

I have read about the libertarian views of individualism and its flawed philosophy. Collectivism is just individual's all agreeing on a common goal. Collectivism is not perfect but neither is 1 individual(ism) infringing of the right's of many individuals of a group (of again individuals).

Flawed Flawed Flawed Flawed

Both an individual and a group must be challenged. Sticking to one principle whether Individualism or Collectivism will only lead to further class division. You all need to stop being so absolute and hive minded. lol

Not sure what individualism had to do with my Taxing the very people have benefited from this failure Fiat system, to avoid a crash but ok.

Truthfully many of you here subscribe to "collectivism" yet you all claim to be individual but you all group together here to share group mentality.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Abolish Taxes, Abolish the Fed!

It's clear there needs to be a bit more fundamental econ research done, on your part, but allow me to at least correct you on your erroneous fundamental premise: poorly understood definitions of the terms you're deploying.

No, you're right: "collectivism" isn't necessarily 'wrong,' when it's a bunch of individuals who share similar ideas who want to accomplish that said 'collective' goal, voluntarily.

But, what makes us here at Daily Paul/RP R3VOLution as NOT a bunch of "collectivists?"

We DON'T go around demanding more 'rights' especially to be dictated via govt, purely based on the fact that because 'we consider ourselves different from rest of the population, just because we're r3volutionaries.'

Nor, do we assume our rights derive from the mere fact that we're 'r3volutionaries,' unlike how those who delude they're 'deserved' more rights based on their ethnic & cultural background/race/minority-status, sexual orientation, gender, age, profession, specific belief system, religion, etc.

Because if you did demand more 'rights' or thought you're 'deserved more rights' because you belong to a given group? Now, THAT, would qualify the definition of what a "collectivist" is.

So, if you're gonna challenge, malign, or dismiss a whole group of individuals as you seem to be accusing, at least demonstrate that you understand the definition of the term.

Frankly, that's why many here aren't even expending time to refute you, in earnest; it's too much bother to go through elemental 101's at this point.

And, this:

"By being a part of this site and any others site that subscribes to your belief system is "COLLECTIVISM"."

makes it rather self-evident that you 'doth protests too much,' and are in fact a "collectivist" yourself.

also, really?

"I have read about the libertarian views of individualism and its flawed philosophy."

No, chance are you haven't; reading a few books or blogs don't make you a 'master' on any subject matter, that would obviously apply to me and everyone here and elsewhere, not just you.

Now, your prefaced proclamation that you 'get' "libertarian views of individualism and its flawed philosophy" would mean something, if what you stated after that demonstrated that you can effectively rebut and know the definition of what the libertarian philosophy is, but you haven't.

The only premise for one to be a libertarian is that one believes and upholds the Non-Aggression Principle/Axiom, aka. the NAP/NAA, that all human interaction be done voluntarily, that one cannot initiate use of force to get one's way, and that the only legitimate use of force is for self-defens/defense of loved ones, and of private property.

Any other status quo MSM 'definition' of what a libertarian is, is complete bunk.

"The only true individual here is me because I don't subscribe to any one philosophy."

Good for you. Now, that statement would only be true, if you can read other people's minds to verify whether they hold other views not verbally expressed, or not.

But you can't, now can you?

Yeah, talk about "Flawed Flawed Flawed Flawed" Failed Failed Failed Failed arguments.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Samantics

Semantics, what your saying here has no real validity. Your basically saying "Not uh"

Your whole premiss is based on one Philosophy. A philosophy that many of you subscribe to here. And since you subscribe to it, you will refuse till your dieing breath to believe anything else as true.

I understand people like you all to well, I come to this page because there are a lot of lost young people looking for answers even if they are the wrong answers to find. Many of the people here will express their philosophy as fact when again it is just a philosophy. A philosophy shared by many libertarians.

And I have no problem being considered anything, some time's I'm with the group other times I am not. I am an individual but also happy to be considered part of a group.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

AHAHAHA! You say we're all

AHAHAHA! You say we're all basing everything on one philosophy. No shit Sherlock. What do you think you're doing. You're basing your beliefs on your philosophy, which isn't independent, there are many that subscribe to your beliefs. They are generally referred to as statists because they believe that a certain group of people can best choose everyone's lifestyles instead of allowing each individual decide what is best for themselves.

Except that fact that our philosophy has a record of increasing wealth in a nation, while statist's philosophy has a record of expanding money supply without a increase in wealth and more so with an actual decrease in overall wealth.

If the FED, the FDIC, and Government central planning is so wonderful, how is our standard of living decreasing as labor is actually much stronger then it was when we had increases in wealth?

Since you failed to get into the entire concept of interest rates I'll reiterate. Interest rates set the price of money. When interest rates are low people lend, when they are high people save because they get a large rate of return. However, now we have low rates artificially and the FED actually paying banks not to lend. If you were a bank would you lend and take risk when someone will pay you not to?

After reading your posts, you logic is faulty and is based on pure conjecture with no historical evidence to support it. Sucks to be you.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

You have me all wrong

Already VERY Wrong. I believe in the Republic and Democracy. I believe in the court system and individual freedom of choice, I believe that all of those things need to be challenged, even individual freedom.

All of those things aren't perfect relying to much on yourself only leads to decision that may affect others because of conflict of interest. Individual freedoms clashing with each other.

Your trying to put me in a box and I'm sorry, you can't. I believe that too much government is communism, not enough, anarchy. I understand the balance, yet many of you sound like Anarchist. Wanting to be totally left alone, when in reality the people here might be ready to be left alone but the majority is not.

Can you tell me where this philosophy has worked?

And I don't like the Fed, so I guess you missed the part where I said (End the Fed, Tax the Rich)

"how is our standard of living decreasing as labor is actually much stronger then it was when we had increases in wealth?" I don't understand the question

Not sure why you asked
"If you were a bank would you lend and take risk when someone will pay you not to?"

Most of the logic here period is very similar. The difference is, yours tries to fix on a broken system, mine is a new system completely.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

sorry, I forgot to mention consent

because I thought you would actually look through that material.

you have "studied" libertarianism you say? you are a liar, because I wouldn't have to explain the difference of one who consents to be a part of a group and those who are forced into a system.

=)

I understood, you assumed otherwise. And I also never specified.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Its a fair question. Why not just tax the rich? Cant hate for it

It's just going off the wrong paradigm. The idea that you can tax the rich and inject that money to stimulate an economy is a utopian economic theory that states that an economy is driven by aggregate consumer demand, and that demand can be stimulated by inflation to spur growth.

Over the better part of the last century these beliefs have been blown out of the water. This naive way of prescribing economic repair leaves out very key variables; most importantly is the inherent fallibility of the individuals which must be chosen to broker the distribution of wealth from the rich to the general economy. This position will, without fail, lead to corruption. Before allowing the assets of the wealthy to be siezed one must first ask precisely what it is that we are going to get as a result of the new capital being thrust into the market. There is unfortunately no way to stop politicians from funnelling the money to friends and campaign donors which means that the money that you have just stolen will be mismanaged and squandered with very little actual benefit, if any.The moral problem of stealing wealth from one to invest it unwisely in something which that individual would never invest in himself must also be addressed.

The other problem is that if velocity picks up too quickly, especially with the ammount of freshly printed bills that have not yet made it out into the market as a whole, it could cause a hyper-inflationary situation or at the very least cause a rise in an already way too high rate of inflation. So even if you were able to squeeze a few jobs out of the ridiculously mismanaged capital, you would still end up destroying more wealth (which also would be used more efficiently) than you would ever create with government programs.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest threat facing every American is the national debt and even if you siezed ALL of the income of every multi-billion dollar corporation in the US you still would not cover the yearly budget deficit so it would not even be feasible to think that any economic growth would be seen by taxing the rich more.

lol didn't mean to leave such a long reply man, but I made it as short as i possibly could

This is it right here. Thanks for summing it up ...

" ... the biggest threat facing every American is the national debt

And even if you siezed ALL of the income of every multi-billion dollar corporation in the US you still would not cover the yearly budget deficit

So it would not even be feasible to think that any economic growth would be seen by taxing the rich more."

--
Regardless of all the other arguments against further Federal taxation (immorality, corruption, the socialist Calculation Problem) ... this fact alone is enough to end the debate.

The numbers do not even remotely add up

There is no way to escape the largest debt in history without cutting the government.

No way. Even under the most optimistic, idealistic utopian scenarios of taxing just the right people, in just the right way, in just the right amounts will do it.

It's mathematically impossible.

I don't know if the OP is going to have the lightbulbs go off on that or not. It doesn't seem like very many people are capable of understanding that, even when it's obvious.

Its kind of like understanding that no modern concrete steel framed building has ever fallen from fire, and that three of them falling like that in one day is physically and scientifically impossible.

The same kinds of mental and emotional blocks are operating on these things.

I often wonder if enough people are going to catch on to the obvious before its too late...

Easy Math

Yearly GDP is 15 trillion, government spends about 5 Trillion a year, only taking in 4 Trillion in taxes. YES if taxes were higher on the top percent we could star working on our debt, as well as we need to cut military spending.

Do the math or Research how much we spend before you say its not possible.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

AHAHAHA! Nope, wrong stats

AHAHAHA! Nope, wrong stats again. We borrow $0.40 of every dollar we spend. We don't take in 4 out of the 5 we spend. We borrow about 2 trillion of it. Which is why we have close to a $2 trillion annual budget deficit.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Not 7

Not last time I checked. I'll check again and do the math, but pretty sure it was only 4 Trillion we were spending not 7...

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Um, it isn't 7, I never said

Um, it isn't 7, I never said 7. You said we spend 5 trillion, but 40% of what we spend is borrowed money, not tax revenue. So we would need over 2 trillion more in taxes just to cover what we borrow.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

We spend about 5 Trillion a

We spend about 5 Trillion a year and take in about 4 Trillion from taxes.

What do you believe we spend a year and what do you think we take in?

Not percent in trillions...

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Let's see according to your

Let's see according to your incorrect number of 5 trillion, you obviously forgot, or just didn't care to mention that we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. So we are not getting 4 trillion in revenue in taxation. 40% of that 5 trillion is borrowed money. So we would need over 2 trillion more in taxes just to break even. But your numbers are wrong, so let's look at it with correct numbers.

See www.usdebtclock.org for actual figures..which I detail below.

Our spending it approximately 3.585 trillion and out revenue is 2.371 trillion. The rest is funded by borrowed money. 1.2 trillion. We would need to raise taxes about 50% over all to cover just the spending alone, not including the debt we still will have having over us.

The rich pay the payroll tax and corporate taxes all by themselves to start off with. Which amounts to 1.047 trillion, pretty close to half of our current revenue now. They ALSO pay income taxes, since our income tax is a progressive tax, those making more money...pay more. So they are also paying the majority of the income tax as well(current highest rates are 35% for the highest wage earners).

So let's see. The rich pay almost half to start the taxes, then another 35% on top of that, even by the minimalist estimates they pay 10-15% after deductions. Is 60% not enough for you? Should they pay everything to taxes? Would you try to become rich if, when you became so, you actually made no money at all?

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Unlike Democrats I believe

Unlike Democrats I believe you can cut public departments. And unlike Republicans and Democrats, I believe we can have a much more modest foreign policy.

It's one of the reason's I support Ron Paul. I just think we can avoid a collapse and tax people with the means on top of cutting Military and Departments. So we can role back this debt.

Because if you just want to completely liquidate the debt, we don't have to cut any spending. The only reason to cut is to tackle the debt.

But from what I hear from many of the people here is let cut the departments, liquidate the debt, and move to a gold standard.

My problem with that is that people in control now, will still be in control, they will transfer there wealth to gold and nothing will change.

You have to redistribute the wealth to more people. Right now the wealthy families who's blood lines have been in the US believe they own the US cause their descendants were the first settlers.

They own the banks. They believe all of the US is there Private property.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Cyril's picture

Do you even understand how

Do you even understand how schemes based on debased currencies work ?

It is not even yesterday's news. It has been going on in various extents for 2000 years.

Here is a refresher, bouncing back on the point you keep trying to make about the fallacious need (to us, but not for you it seems) to redistribute wealth.

Why do you want to do so ? Because you think it is not fair that some get so rich and others don't. Ok, fair enough. But did you even ask yourself how come some super wealthy manage to rig the system and get so rich in seemingly unjustifiable means ?

Here is how IT WILL STILL going to work for them even if you tax them more, and redistributing health that way helps in no way to fix the injustice:

when you print money out of nothing, those who profit first are those who get their hands on the money first:

the money goes from the Federal Reserve to banks, no matter their performances are, then to the big corporations who make deals with the regulators; it is a top down scheme: at the end of the day, the working class is screwed because by the time the money that lost its value gets into our daily routine, those who printed the money in such absurd amounts have acquired TANGIBLE assets. Be it goods, estate, or companies, services, or contracts, you name.

The SCAM is designed TO DESTROY the currency. To need always more of it to buy less. It is designed to make MANY MORE of the total population POORER by MANIPULATING the face value of money.

Then, people like you demand for help to be provided BY THE SAME REGULATORS (administrations) that enabled this to be set up in the first place. Redistributing wealth is a strawman : you fix NOTHING of the initial problem which is a system completely RIGGED by regulators WHO DON'T care for a second about the laws of free market are:

you sell your labor, first cheap. By acquiring skills and experience over time, YOUR INTRINSIC value on the market RISES, so you can sell your labor for more. Doing so, you acquire assets by spending more of the money that YOU EARNED, reinjecting it in the market. It is no rocket science. This works as long as you have fair competition: no group or domain privileged over others by force of laws.

This is what has been DENIED in 1913 by the same who created the Federal Reserve AND the IRS, after the FALSE and IMMORAL and DESTRUCTIVE idea that government has a "right" over the internals of the market functioning.

This got out of hand, when, in addition to putting more and more into welfare schemes, they ALSO needed to fund wars in a Globalist, Corporate Imperialism agenda (selling weapons IS juicy).

Doing so they had the debt growing over the People explode EXPONENTIALLY, debasing always more what our labor can afford us to get honestly to sustain ourselves, MAKING us always more dependent on demagogue welfare and wealth redistribution schemes.

End The Fed. Free the market and make currencies compete, just as goods, services, and workers. Make the corporation boards accountable again: if they fail, screw them, no bailouts. Concerned about jobs ? In a free market, YOUR INTRINSIC value is UNRELATED and not dependent on the failures of your employer. You ll always find someone else to hire you AT YOUR VALUE and who play by the rules and is successful, with good services or products, and not a cheater.

On a free market, that is. Otherwise :

Bailouts ARE the ultimate injustice on RIGGED markets: your government corrupt and lobbyists are only willing to save their buddies' butts, or themselves, by stealing from the rest of the work force and companies WHO CREATE actual value and sustain families, instead of being parasites.

You are vastly ignorant about human nature and economics, and completely ignorant about history it seems.

It is never too late to do yourself a favor:

Open some books on these topics and READ THEM.

If you don't even bother making this simple effort and prefer stay in abstract schemes of thought that deny facts and history, then you are not just ignorant, but also arrogant and stupid. And indeed, your ideal place won't be based on free markets and fair reward of one's efforts, but based on THEFT and cronyism instead.

Just like today. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Cheers,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Which means you have a flawed

Which means you have a flawed understand of how money works. The only reason they can hold onto such wealth is because of the inflation and regulations on production. WIthout it we would see an increase in production again and that money would flow back toward the poor and middle class. Their standard of living would once again begin to rise. As you may remember it was before wealth redistribution when standards of living increased in the US. It was not government taking from some to give to others that created the most prosperous nation, it was a sound money and the ability to produce without regulation that hinder competition.

The rich people still need to buy things, and they do, they but a lot of things. Cars, planes, food, clothes, etc. The problem is the US can no longer produce products and a price that able to compete, so we don't produce. If we could companies would spring up people would have jobs and they'd get that money.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Nothing is perfect

I would never say that the government would be perfect at deciding how to spend that money. But in truth this is how it has happened in the past, I'll provide a link at the bottom.

I have to disagree that there is no way to stop congress from funneling money to their friends. They already have to divulge whats in their stock portfolio every month now. So if they allocate money to their friends and they get a cut of the stock, there portfolio will show it. And I think more people are aware of lobbyist then ever before. I for one am watching a little more closely. and with the Millennial being the biggest voting group in the next 4 years we are much more tech savvy and with the click of a mouse can find out whats going on.

And we are only over spending by 1 trillion a year. cut some military spending and a much higher tax rate on the top 10-5% and we can star reducing the debt.

Some tax History
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

The tax rates of the 50's and

The tax rates of the 50's and 60's were higher in name only. There were far more loopholes and the tax rates applied to (inflation-adjusted) much much higher incomes than the current top rate does. Also, I did some calculations a while ago, and tax revenue as a % of GDP was actually higher from 1980-2010 than it was from 1950-1980

Not to mention the global and national economy was entirely different back then. Correlation does not imply causation. Back then, the rest of the developed world had just been blown to smithereens and devastated by two world wars while we were relatively unscathed.

lol! quoting the Keynesian and convicted fraudster Henry

Blunkhead to bolster any argument is like listening to Krugman NOT be able to explain away why interest rate IS 'price of money.'

If you understand the reality of the Fed.Res./Treasury/Wall St., you do know that NONE of what they collect in income taxes pay for anything BUT interest on the debt that we DON'T owe to the globalist banskter cartel headquartered in NYC, City of London, and Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, right?

So, the question is why would you be calling to 'tax the rich' when those that they target are ALWAYS gonna be mom and pop small biz earning incomes of $250k and up, and will NEVER target the ones that you're talking about: the 0.001%-ers, as it is THEIR lackeys who're gonna be crafting the bill, anyway??

have you any clue the reason why the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are taxed only at the lowest income bracket? Because they OWN their own 'public' companies and list themselves as employees earning the lowest tax bracket income: around $35,000/yr, even though we all KNOW they earn over $300~500 MILLION/yr.

did you even know that?

once you get the reality of taxing structure in US and for the most part, rest of the Anglo-UCC business/banking modeled world, which frankly at this point is about 99% of it, you'd realize just how absurd what you're calling for, is.

it is precisely because 'the Rich' who founded the Fed. Res. at Jekyll Island, GA are the same ones who wrote in the distinction between "earned income" vs. "investments."

investments are NOT taxed like your personal income; their 'capital gains' are what's 'taxed.' and, capital gains tax can be almost infinitely delayed by tax shelters and trusts.

did you know that?

This is why the Ruling Class are laughing at all the liberals and RINOs who call to "tax the rich," because if you actually understood economics under the current fascist corporatist Fed fiat monetary system model, essentially what you're openly calling for is: 'please, rape us more.'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Do you know

Taking back the country means taking it back entirely, and if you think that we can't tax the top percent you will be surprised.

I'm sure you believe we can end their personal bank the Fed, yet you can't believe that we can tax them at a much higher percent. To me both have to go hand and hand.

They could leave and take their trillions of dollars with them but it would be worthless with out the US marketplace. Truth, I wish the rich would make bank runs and move. Then we could create new forms of currency.

But they will never let go of their power of the dollar unless you tax them.

We do know enough about what taxes these people are dodging and more and more every day. Romney was an idiot to put his ass out there. He's a poster boy on tax evasion.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

reedr3v's picture

Sir, you apparently stumbled into this site

with little or no prior knowledge of the concepts and principles that most of us here honor.

Yours is a totally materialistic viewpoint, an ancient one that miscasts rich against poor as if a static, common pool of wealth were shared among a citizenry, so that if one person has more somebody else must have less.

In actual freedom, there are no systemic blocks to success, but only those which nature has seen fit to distribute unequally, plus the differences of human choices. Most people do not choose to work their tails off to start and grow a company from scratch. Many are not equipped to do so intellectually or emotionally or even physically.

That is why charity has always been appreciated and honored. It is also why those who move an economy ahead by major leaps should be honored. Toil alone will not do so. It takes inspiration and risk and extraordinary creativity beyond the norm to create the first motor car, achieve flight, develop efficient solar power, discover the amazing potential of permaculture, pioneer seasteading projects, archive open access to the highest levels of knowledge, offer ever-improving gadgetry and faster, cheaper, more pervasive communications.

Abundance is a delicate dance of voluntary sharing and trading and commerce totally beyond the ken of government bureaucrats. That is why economies ruled by oligarchies fail. Government does not create or produce. It extracts from those who do by force and threat and violence toward any resistance.

Every redistributive, coercive scheme of the past and present has lowered the standard of living for the populace. The major economies still standing today that have embraced centralized coercion are teetering at the edge of bankruptcy, alive only through the power of their brainwasing of people such as yourself to accept lies and phony fiat currencies and staggering, unpayable debt.

Look at reality staring you in the face. The middle classes of centralized Western nations are declining into impoverished and oppressed serfs for a powerful elite and their vast armies of bureaucrat parasites and militarized enforcers.

I'm not lost

I don't know how you could write all you wrote and the closed with your last paragraph.

I'm sorry that you have so little faith in people's ambitions, but I have seen another side. Never before in our history have so many people have been able to share ideas and thoughts. The internet has brought a new level of awareness to the masses.

People are not naturally lazy or unmotivated. If you look throughout history most of the worlds creation have been the bi product of the wealthy. They invest then claim, I'm sure there were plenty of people with ideas of planes, if they didn't have the resources to make it they couldn't. Nickola Tesla created many things but because he was funded by JP Morgan. Nothing is created without people with the means approval or help.

I have a great idea for something, but I don't have access to the materials, or tools. Humans just need access to things and they will surprise you on what they will do.

And I'm a Paul supporter because he doesn't try and pander. I have respect for that and I have a lot of respect for him. But no, I don't agree with everything he says. As you shouldn't either.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco