« 445 | Main | Occupy Wall Street cleared out by police »

November 14, 2011

Comments

"rather than how psychopathic they are"

Cue Patrick Bateman scampering down a stairwell clad only in trainers, brandishing a buzzing chainsaw.

For me, the chief issue of economics isn't what's fair, but what most efficiently gets the greatest amount of things to the greatest number of people. I've read more than a few articles written by socialists, where the authors discuss how America had less income inequality in the 30s and 70s, and how that is better than the 20s and 80s where income levels diverged more and more. That may be true, but no one fondly remembers the 70s, much less the 30s, for flourishing economic growth and opportunity. There is less income inequality when there is less income altogether.

Really, if we lived in a society where even the poorest people were making $200,000 a year, and the goods they bought cost less than they do today, why would it be bad if the top 1% were making trillions per year? Sure, the poor would be envious of the wealthy, but don't call me concerned about people wanting more when they already have more than they could ever need.

"And of course, with respect to intelligence, so much of our modern social structures are built around HBD-denialism."

This underlines how inefficient are society has become, because too many people refuse to accept (in public) that intelligence can't be redistributed from the haves to the have nots. All that can be done is to make the two more equal, by depressing the virtues of the strong to make them equal to the weak, or by shaming them for having intelligence.

Now, I'm not against regulation or government involvement on principle, but the aims should be to make the economy has powerful and efficient as it can be, and for its strength and efficiency to serve even the poorest members. But income inequality, in of itself, is not a big deal except for how poorer people covet the wealth of the rich.

See Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. It's a short, but fun read.

"the wealthy don’t deserve their wealth"

Reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes desert, and reasonable people do. See Rawls, Nozick etc and most contemporary political philosophy on distributive justice.

If we're aiming for equality of wealth, why stop at the border? Shouldn't the U.S. be required to send its money to Mexico and other poor countries?

Quoting HS 'I think that everyone should get food stamps. Why should only poor welfare mothers benefit from them? If everyone was eligible, then this would remove bad incentives for poor people who otherwise would turn down jobs because they’d lose their food stamps.'

The current post is merely complementary to this old quote. You want to expand the state using any possible excuse until even wealthy people eat government cheese. All paid for by taxing the fuck out of anyone wealthier than you because since you are maximally virtuous, anyone with more must be cheating.

Then there are the delusional libertarians who believe everyone is capable of earning an income in the top 1 percent range if only they worked hard -- in spite of its statistically impossibility. The libertarian solution of 'work harder' is just hyperbole that's taken seriously by them. They'll say, "IF you can't earn enough money at working for someone else, create your own job. Wealth is infinite!" They fail to mention that most businesses fail and the capital needed to start a business is difficult for many lower IQ people to accumulate. They also fail to mention that many people can't repay their loans and the losses get socialized. Cold-hearted libertarians will say, let them starve to death while proclaiming DARWINISM! But cold-hearted libertarians also tend to be hard on crime and complain about their city becoming crime-infested holes. They fail to realize the wealth/income inequity contributes to higher crime rates. Compassionate libertarians will say charities will take care of those down and out or they'll use the circular argument, "the only reason why they are poor is because they didn't work hard enough. IF they worked hard enough, they could be a part of the 1%".

"Jewamongyou should at least be commended for owning up to the fact that the wealthy don’t deserve their wealth."

1) You don't think Steve Jobs deserved his fortune?

If Jobs didn't deserve his money, then who did? You? Juvenile black criminals?

2) To say the rich don't deserve all of their after tax income is a strawman.

Most Free marketers support capitalism not because capitalism is "perfect" but because the alternatives to capitalism lead to less satisfactory results.

"Many on the political right make the argument that the U.S. is a “free market,” and a free market perfectly distributes wealth according to how much value each person creates,"

Value is determined by how much the customer is willing to pay for a product or service, not by your fiat.

The reason the "value transfer industries" like Wall Street accumulate so much wealth is because they attract wealthy customers who choose to do business with Wall Street.

If one doesn't think Wall Street is giving them a good return on their investment, then can choose not to invest their money in Wall Street.

"If wealthy people don’t deserve their wealth, then I don’t see anything morally wrong with redistributing at least some of it."

The poor are already getting plenty from wallet.

If you think inner city blacks and useless government workers deserve more of my money then your are free to lead us all by example and hand over a higher % of your +$100K salary to inner city high schools where I'm sure those OWS public union workers you've been praising will be happy to have more wealth redistributed "fairly".

After all, you didn't earn your high income anymore than other wealthy person, right?

"I further would argue that not only is wealth distribution doable,"

You don't think the government has enough money already?

Libertarians like to use emotional-laden and subjective terms like "theft" or "stealing" to describe wealth re-distribution. Thing is, it's impossible to redistribute wealth 100% fairly. Some people get more benefit from roads than others for the amount they pay. Some get more out of military spending than others. To be as fair as possible, we basically have to live in minanarchy where anything gov't run is pay-as-you-go or live in a full corporatacracy where all negotiations between private parties are seen as the free-market in action no matter how highly leveraged one party is compared with another. Imagine if the mob took over an industry and your only option is to deal with them. That's free market man, even if it means getting murdered for not repaying high interest loans.

"I further would argue that not only is wealth distribution doable, a system that came closer to distributing wealth according to the value people created rather than how psychopathic they are would result in a huge improvement in everyone’s standard of living, because a system that rewarded value creation would result in more value being created."

I'd like to here how you propose to get liberals to take money out of the pockets of their nonproductive constituencies and both liberals and conservatives to take money from their rich constituents to give it to the middle class folks who rightfully created it.

Half, the trendlines suggest the status quo (essentially the reverse of what'd be most 'fair' by you) will continue, getting worse even. Collusion between the very rich, poor and powerful.

Stop a train in its tracks, that'd be a feat.

US is not free market country, it is fascistic country, try to understand that you dumb Americans. :-)

Read this for example:
http://dailyreckoning.com/everybody-hates-capitalism/
or this
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/magazine/why-americans-wont-do-dirty-jobs-11092011.html

not really following you here HS. Are you saying that if we never mentioned to people that they were poor it would be okay?
Myself I'm waiting for the beauty of some catwalk model to be redistributed to myself, in the most practical way possible...
I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to be a 'redistributist' you have to be one in all spheres of life, not just one. Most people are unashamedly free market in the market in which they excel and simultaneously socialist in the market(s) in which they do not.

" For example, telling someone he or she is ugly is acknowledged as one of the most evil things a person can do, and social mores dictate that we pretend there are no ugly people."

For a strange reason, it is evil to say to a girl she's ugly, but it is not evil to ignore her or refuse any sex with her on the basis she's ugly.

For the girl the consequence is pretty much the same.

The social taboo about ugliness and beauty is one of the reasons that led me to get an interest in HBD.

HS says:
"I further would argue that not only is wealth distribution doable..."

Putting aside the argument whether the rich deserve their wealth or not, why is it that those who advocate wealth redistribution ALWAYS fail. You can't say there's a lack of effort or lack of people who want it. There's literally half of society who subscribe to an ideology whose greatest central point is just that, wealth redistribution.

In America the top 10% own 70% of all the wealth. The closest thing to successful socialism that I know of would be the Nordic countries where the top 10% own 50% of the wealth.

I think race is an important factor. Considering the racial differences in IQ, a multi-racial nation like the USA with different groups such as blacks, whites, and jews can never become an egalitarian society.

Whether or not someone deserves their wealth doesn't matter. Infringement on personal property is still infringement. Whether or not done guised under fairness or how much value they created in getting their wealth. People have right to their own property.

"I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to be a 'redistributist' you have to be one in all spheres of life, not just one." - tspoon

Exactly so.

I'm all in for wealth to be redistributed, but on the condition beauty and health is also redistributed.

That's why I endorse genetic engineering and stem cells research.

The only objective system we have for determining who deserves their wealth is the market, and if you think that's doing a poor job, what is your alternative? And would it not make more sense to have laws preventing people from making "undeserved" money in the first place, rather than taxing them after they've already made it?

"Many on the political right make the argument that the U.S. is a “free market,” and a free market perfectly distributes wealth according to how much value each person creates, and therefore the wealthiest people are those who created the most value, so they deserve their wealth as a reward for creating so much value. This argument is completely wrong, but so many on the right buy into it either explicitly or implicitly."

You don't seem to comprehend that value is subjective. I could make a painting that is worthless to you, but if someone else wants to pay me a $1000 for it, who are you to decide that I have created no value and confiscate my earnings just because you're jealous that I've made more money than you? It was obviously valuable to the person purchasing the painting.

Now the only way you could argue my wealth is undeserved is if there are arbitrary laws that prevent competing painters from opening shop in my part of town or if there are intellectual property laws which keep the value of my paintings high by making it illegal for competitors to sell photo-copies of my work, but then you deal with those laws if you really believe they're unfair; you don't tax me more just because I've been winning the game by the rules that are currently in place.

"it’s doable, and it’s not as difficult as sending a man to the moon with 1960s technology." Rubbish: manning the moon was a matter of technology and the US's German rocket engineers proved up to the task.

Producing a tax system capable of intelligent thieving-and-handing-out of income (or, even more, wealth) that achieves its aim without making the country substantially poorer or more dishonest may well be beyond the wit of man. American man, anyhow.

"Libertarians like to use emotional-laden and subjective terms like "theft" or "stealing" to describe wealth re-distribution."

I know, right, it's dirty of them to describe actions as they are, not as we want them to be.

People do business with Wall St because they have a government guarantee and a government central bank.

Tom,

It doesn't violate you to be polite, but it does violate you to be forced to have sex with someone.

E,

'In America the top 10% own 70% of all the wealth. The closest thing to successful socialism that I know of would be the Nordic countries where the top 10% own 50% of the wealth.'

In many ways, those countries are more capitalistic than USA, home of the HSs.

http://m.thelocal.se/37276/20111110/

Compare to the Ricci insanity, etc. These countries spend a lot less energy and wealth on government AA than we do.

HS,

The idea that look and talent disparity deserves the gun therapy as much as wealth disparity was covered by the socialist Vonnegut rather well. Since you're stealing his ideas and becoming more commified every day, you should pay respect.

"I think race is an important factor. Considering the racial differences in IQ, a multi-racial nation like the USA with different groups such as blacks, whites, and jews can never become an egalitarian society."

Yes. It would be useful if someone would estimate income and wealth inequality by race within the US and compare to Europe, Africa, Asia. Also mobility.
Robert Hume

Undeserved wealth = an undeserved advantages
Undeserved IQ (who picks their parents) = undeserved advantages

So more money should be given to the stupid poor than the smart poor?

"It should also be noted that our social customs try to minimize the impact of unequal distribution of intelligence and beauty as much as possible."

Indeed. I have no idea, of course, but my guess is that in areas like NYC, Jews can create virtuous circles of intelligence.

But in flyover country, kids who are strapping gentiles on the outside and intellectual Jews on the inside are strongly encouraged to redistribute/hide/feel shame about their intelligence.

"You're so fortunate/you're so BLESSED, Jesus would want you to HELP OTHERS."

"You don't seem to comprehend that value is subjective. I could make a painting that is worthless to you, but if someone else wants to pay me a $1000 for it, who are you to decide that I have created no value and confiscate my earnings just because you're jealous that I've made more money than you? It was obviously valuable to the person purchasing the painting."

Okay, but what if the example is Goldman Sachs making money because:

1. Everyone knows they will receive another bailout if they fail.

2. They use their investment banking business to make money off of proprietary trading.

--

As someone who is considering a career in IBanking, I think that the government should actually step in and put a salary cap on the investment banks.

If bankers, traders, and consultants made less money, then more of our best students would enter science and engineering and create value for society.

If you are a young person today who is bright and socially passable, there are few reasons to choose engineering over business, given the tremendous gap in pay, prestige, and opportunity.

I get a kick that you seem aware of the symptoms inherent in a fiat based (the biggest is inequality caused by financial assets that allow the wealthy to benefit from most inflationary pressure) financial system, but refuse to accept that the solution is to cure the disease.

{ If wealthy people don’t deserve their wealth, then I don’t see anything morally wrong with redistributing at least some of it. }

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Let's assume the premise. Granted, capitalism rewards people for being the right person with the right goods and services at the right time at the right place. And, granted, a lot of this depends upon dumb luck.

However, just because this is up to chance doesn't imply a deliberate system will be more rational. Central planning by definition means more of us getting the wrong people with the wrong goods and services at the wrong time and the wrong place. While this isn't luck, "fairness" isn't necessarily good-in-itself. The USSR was a fair place, but it sucked ass. In highbrow terms, Half Sigma's argument ignores the *epistemological* nature of capitalism, that is, the price mechanism as a method of coping with human ignorance.

Conservatives like to say government shouldn't pick between winners and losers, which isn't strictly true. In most situations, government can only pick between losers and losers, for profitable enterprises will already attract investment dollars.

Also, the government rarely ever fairly redistributes wealth and income. It isn't like the government is going to loot the 1% and give JHB a check for $57,000.00 or whatever my "fair share" amounts to. I'll never see my so-called "fair share." The money will be funneled to pensions for union goons, crackpot environmentalist experiments, drugs for unproductive oldsters, wackademics in the educational-industrial complex, etc. etc. And the cost of lower investment is less economic opportunity for young people, and a stagnant if not declining standard of living.

You get more of what you subsidize. Conservatives believe this fervently with respect to the poor (i.e. food stamps, other social programs), but seem to ignore this with respect to the wealthy (Wall Street).

One problem is that certain industries, especially, finance, telecom, oil & gas, can lobby to write or re-write legislation or tax laws to their benefit. When you can change the law, which is the fundamental basis of what is permissible, you are doing nothing less than changing reality.

Does it not strike anyone as a bit unusual that presidential candidates have to raise $1B in a national campaign for president? How in the world do all those other primitive backwards countries like Germany, Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, etc. manage to even have functional societies without our election model?

The problem as I see it is not whether the rich deserve their wealth, but what bad things happen when you give poor people money they don't earn. Look at the oil-rich Arab countries full of idle crazies for one example.

It is commonly believed but never uttered that the number one problem with welfare and a giant welfare state is that it allows those who cannot even support themselves, to increase their numbers in a way that is hugely disgenic.

Consider that Mexicans in Mexico are economically limited to a replacement-level fertility rate of 2 but that Mexicans in America have an average fertility rate of 3, which would mean a 5x increase in a century (four generations for Mexicans), among a population that is already mostly dependent on food stamps to feed itself.

It is just a matter of time before there are more Mexicans in the US than in Mexico, so they can be plugged in to the welfare system.

One would have to think at the level of a first grader to think redistribution is a good idea, not considering secondary effects.

The problem with redistribution is that it creates incentives which basically ruin the world. One would think that the *entire 20th century* is historical proof that redistribution doesn't work, because everywhere it was tried, it basically ruined the country (including ever country that ever tried communism). The proof was recently completed in Europe, which supposedly had achieved a happy middle ground of capitalism and redistribution, but lo and behold, Europe was economically trashed too.

Half sigma, you seem to be bright in other areas. Are you joking about redistribution?

I'm generally against redistribution of anything because even things that can be redistributed generally go to favored parties. For example, you can't redistribute wealth backwards through time. We don't "deserve" the amenities of modern living any more than people from the bronze age but there is no way to change this inequality.

Actually this whole argument is null, since someone had to work and accumulate that vast wealth you're talking about by talent.

So in many cases, they do deserve the wealth since the individual decided to leave the wealth for the well being of the family and ancestors instead of donating it to a "worthier" cause like charity. Its their money and its their choice.

Redistribution of wealth is the first step to socialism and eventually communism.

Sasa -

That Businessweek article is beyond ridiculous. Apparently supply and demand are just and infallible masters... until they hurt the rich. Then, well, something must be done. Obviously, we can't raise wages just because nobody will take the job at the wages we're offering. It's unthinkable! Clearly we must be allowed to bring in as many third worlders as it takes to drag everybody down to minimum wage.

"...a system that came closer to distributing wealth according to the value people created rather than how psychopathic they are would result in a huge improvement... "

Improvement? Don't be so sure... you're simply trading one set of socipathic elite for another set of sociopathic elite. Either way ends badly.

Sure, we need a "reset" or something like it... but true economic freedom is the best solution. Not perfect, but best. And, no, I'm not talking about the economic system of the US for the past 100 years or so. Go back a little further, maybe...

"Sir, your levellers wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves." Sam johnson

Of course there is no objective way to determine how much of the wealth a person has is deserved. So how redistributive the tax system and social programs should be becomes entirely a matter of opinion.

When leftists succeed in aggressively pursuing distributive justice, see the results in Greece.

Aggressive policies seeking distributive justice don't make people happier. It makes them into greedy, don't-give-a-shit anarchists. They are always entitled to more. Thus it’s hard to get excited about how wonderful more redistribution would be.

"The USSR was a fair place, but it sucked ass."

It was not a fair place at all - most of its citizens did not view the system as "fair" which is why it fell apart. Most people in all cultures view "fair" as people being rewarded in proportion to their contribution. In both the the USSR and today's USA most ordinary people view the system as rigged - people born in the elite class get to stay in the elite class no matter how badly they perform at their jobs, elites are allowed to break laws with impunity, people who are honest and hard working will be used by the elites and spit out when the elites have sucked them dry, and the government bends over backwards to provide services and resources to minority populations in order to curry their favor at the expense of the majority populations, who are expected not to complain simply because they speak the same language and have the same skin color as the elites, while not sharing any of the privileges of the elite.

I'm in favor of inequality.

It's the natural order of things.

Unfortunately due to the welfare state too many of the stupid and poor reproduce which is dysgenic and will lead to Ideocrisy.

"One problem is that certain industries, especially, finance, telecom, oil & gas, can lobby to write or re-write legislation or tax laws to their benefit. When you can change the law, which is the fundamental basis of what is permissible, you are doing nothing less than changing reality."

Banking, insurance and health care have gotten so big that they regulate the government, not the other way around. Now they can pass laws which help them grab an even greater share of the economy. It's cancerous and I fear remission is not possible anymore.

"That may be true, but no one fondly remembers the 70s, much less the 30s, for flourishing economic growth and opportunity."

Only the elite and their media allies who drive the narrative loathed the 70's. The economic problems of the era are grossly exaggerated. There appears to be an effort to denigrate the 70's culturally, economically, and politically. This guy did a video on that topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QdsyC_vLo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLBD6E4263AAD3AD5B

"1) You don't think Steve Jobs deserved his fortune?"

What sort of lame logic is this? Just because SOME executives (e.g. Jobs) deserve their wealth, does it follow that ALL of them do?

To rephrease the question: Do you think Jon Corzine deserved his fortune?

What a dumb piece. My guess is that if tomorrow, all world wealth was distributed equally among everyone in the world, the overwhelming majority (not all) of the persons in the top 1% of wealth and earnings would, within ten years, be in the top 1% of both once again.

Communism and extreme socialism don't work folks. That's been conclusively proven over the last 100 years. Sweden dialed back it's amount of socialism in the 90s because it was really hurting Swedish economic growth. And they're all high IQ even for Euros very conscientious ex Lutherans.

Half, the problem is in designing a system where value-creators get to keep more of their money than value-transferrers. We had systems like that in the 50s and early 60s, and in the 80s and early 90s. It shouldn't be too hard to return to such a system, but it seems difficult to maintain it that way, since the people who set the rules are generally value-transferrers, who will usually succumb to the incentives to favor their own.

Short-run tax (or spending) gimmicks won't fix that. They may make the economy a little better for a little while, but unless the gimmicks are used as cover for deeper changes which make the value-transferrers more liable for the upkeep of value-destroyers, they'll ultimately bite back and make things worse.

I'm not sure there's much which can be done with the tax code to shift the balance; I think regulatory changes might help, but generally slowing the growth of government to less than the growth of the economy is necessary. We can start with cutting lots of corporate welfare, which will hurt Democrat politicians but will be generally cheered by Democrat voters if explained as "cutting corporate welfare" instead of "cutting the size of government".

"The reason why we don’t redistribute intelligence or beauty is because it’s impossible to do so."

HS, are you saying that if it was possible to redistribute intelligence or beauty, you would be in favor of it? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society like that.

Drudge Report has a story about Newt taking the lead.

"He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney."

I've never heard of Public Policy Polling, but these numbers sound unrealistic to me. I think Mr. Drudge has been reading your blog and he knows that if people think other people like Newt, they will start to like Newt. After all, people believe what they believe for emotional reasons.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/11/how-to-spread-the-truth-of-hbd.html

I think it's just to accept the economic realities of the US as something that's beyond our control and learn to adapt to it as best as we can.

"When leftists succeed in aggressively pursuing distributive justice, see the results in Greece." - Dan Morgan

Greece had a conservative government for most of the last decade. Oh wait they're probably "not real conservatives" like Bush.

Posted by: Peter A
"people born in the elite class get to stay in the elite class no matter how badly they perform at their jobs, elites are allowed to break laws with impunity, people who are honest and hard working will be used by the elites and spit out when the elites have sucked them dry"

boo hoo cry me a river.
Let me guess you believe you possess some type of superior knowledge base which more accurate explains how the world really works and if only more of society can wake up from their intellectual slumber and understand what you understand then society would rise up, toss out the elites, and create a new BETTER world.

Give it up, it's a hopeless cause. You are not the first person on this planet to hold such an opinion. If your goal is wealth redistribution then you will always fail at the task that you have assigned yourself just like ALL the other people who came before you and also failed.

Half,
You have assumed the narrow socialist mindset that says, "If everybody has the same income, there is no inequality."

The best way to stimulate the economy and create a more "equal" society would be to give tax cuts to the rich, and create a tax for businesses that outsource their factory work. This would encourage people to be wealthy, and thus create jobs. If we create the outsource tax, we would ensure said jobs would stay in the United States.

I posted about this a few days ago on my blog:
"A tax bracket would be good, because it encourages wealth, which stimulates job creation, and thus, increasing the nation's general welfare. Socialists lack the foresight to make the connection, and then Greece happens."

http://pharpend.blogspot.com/2011/11/runners.html

"Let me guess you believe you possess some type of superior knowledge base which more accurate explains how the world really works"

No, I didn't say they were my opinions. I am saying, and I think it is fairly generally true, that most people in the world feel that way. Libertarians are the ones who live in a dream world because they think their logic and carefully articulated economic theories will magically persuade ordinary human beings to stop using their lizard brains. Will never happen. Populist rabble rousing is always a better bet.

Thanks for playing though, but try reading people's posts next time instead of running to the soapbox.

http://milescorak.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/inequality-and-occupy-wall-street-4-daddy-put-you-in-the-top-1/

"40% of us have at some point worked for exactly the same firm that at some point also employed our fathers. But if dad’s earnings put him in the top 25% these chances are above average, they start taking off if dad was in the top 5%, and reach the stratosphere for top earners. Almost 7 out of 10 sons of top earning dads had a job with his employer."


Give it up, it's a hopeless cause. You are not the first person on this planet to hold such an opinion. If your goal is wealth redistribution then you will always fail at the task that you have assigned yourself just like ALL the other people who came before you and also failed.


That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

When the Roman Legions sides with Caesar against the corrupt Roman Senate slaveholders, the "redistribution" did, in fact, happen.

Later, when enough people decided they hated the Roman Empire, they hated it TO DEATH.


Communism and extreme socialism don't work folks. That's been conclusively proven over the last 100 years. Sweden dialed back it's amount of socialism in the 90s because it was really hurting Swedish economic growth. And they're all high IQ even for Euros very conscientious ex Lutherans.


"Growth" has helped the lower 90% of American's tremendously. Except, you know, that it hasn't.

Posted by: Peter A
"Thanks for playing though, but try reading people's posts next time instead of running to the soapbox."

Thank you for proving my point. You have decided to assign yourself a fool's errand, to redistribute the wealth. Today at least 80% of all the wealth is in the hands of the top 20%. hmmm now that's funny it seems this 80 20 rule hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.

Despite all the massive changes to society within the last 100 years: wars, cultural changes, new government programs...by hook or crook the 80 20 rule still applies. It looks like the people on your side have been doing a piss poor job for the past 100 years. Maybe if I give you another 100 years you might finally achieve your goal, or probably NOT.

"Thanks for playing though".

Posted by: PT Barnum
"That's the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

When the Roman Legions sides with Caesar against the corrupt Roman Senate slaveholders, the "redistribution" did, in fact, happen.

Later, when enough people decided they hated the Roman Empire, they hated it TO DEATH."

So basically what you're saying is by hook or crook by war or government policy when the dust finally settles, it is possible to bring the greatest empire down but it is not possible to bring the rich down and while lifting the poor up. It seems you are only proving my point.

The comments to this entry are closed.