‘morning Steelie,

If the opinion you expressed about << wealth concentration>> was indeed your own and resulted from original thought, critical thinking and analysis, you would be able to defend your case.

Since it was non of the above you are now left with trying to defend the opinion of Eric Zueese however, rather than defending it you ignore the challenge and throw in a bunch of hissy fit distractions.

Lets try again.

You and Zueese try to make the case that personal wealth has no other value than personal wealth hoarding. You chose to ignore the fact that it is investment of this wealth that powers our economy. Through investment in businesses that generate profit, jobs and infrastructure, all these activities generate exposure to a very broad range of taxes. This means that the wider community and the national economics benefit.

Likewise with corporate and institutional wealth, our economy is powered by public investors which includes trade unions through their superannuation funds.

Now you have left yourself having to explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

When you have done this we might well come back to the private miners you so hate, then compare these with the role and function of the corporate miners powered by public wealth.

Then we might explore your plan to apply the same criticisms of public investors as you seek to apply to private investors.

Since this is all your “own” construct I’m sure you will knock this on the head pretty quickly, especially since I’m just a “mug” talking “drivel”.

Boom, Boom, Boom, after that barrage of body blows from Spindoc -- poor old Steele might in need of another REDUX!

Dear SPQR,

Lol. Yup I don't know how I am still standing after such a barrage of lucid argument, such a keen grasp of the issue, and such display of sparklingly sharp logic. Now when the pugilist spindoc stops giving his straw man such a frightful hiding I think I could be in serious trouble!

Dear spindoc,

*Sigh*

Once again mate the snippet I included from Huffigton post was just a summary of the figures presented by the publication “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook”. It did not deliver any opinion.

Okay. I'm going to put this as simply as possible and the following are indeed my opinions.

That huge gaps in wealth distribution is undesirable for any country

That the wealth disparity in the US is not something we should wish for our country.

That the inequitable wealth distribution in the US is in part a result of a corrupt legal and political processes.

That the profits of the international mining industry operating in Australia should be exposed to a profits tax so that “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”.

Cont...

Cont...

That the actions of Gina and Clive in usurping our media and corrupting our own political process for their personal gain will serve to accelerate inequitable wealth distribution in this country. I will admit to having a bit more time for Twiggy than these two as he is doing some good things but the fact that his company as of last year had not handed the tax department one solitary dollar in company tax, ever, while he is worth 9 odd billion dollars, shows our system needs work.

That in a capitalist society a robust democracy, free press, and strong legal system are not by themselves enough to going to ensure that inequitable wealth distribution will not occur. It also needs the will of government and policy makers.

Now at the risk of having you start punching yourself in the face I will remind you that you claimed you thought the distribution of wealth in the US was not something you wanted for this country and you acknowledged that taxes are a vehicle for ensuring wealth is distributed so “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”.

It appears you are essentially agreeing with me but shouting 'Hands off our miners!'.

In my opinion it is evident the spindoc has been spun.

I must add this is good fun.

Hi Steelie,

I’m so glad you said << I must add this is good fun>>

Lets see if we can make this even more fun for you?

Your double post reply offered absolutely zero response to any of the points I raised with you. In order that the rest of OLO’ers can judge for themselves, I’ll post the bits you missed once again for your attention.

I’ll also do a separate post on the points you were not asked but in the interests of your diversions, you raised anyway. More on that later.

So lets try again.

You and Zueese try to make the case that personal wealth has no other value than personal wealth hoarding. You chose to ignore the fact that it is investment of this wealth that powers our economy. Through investment in businesses that generate profit, jobs and infrastructure, all these activities generate exposure to a very broad range of taxes. This means that the wider community and the national economics benefit.

Likewise with corporate and institutional wealth, our economy is powered by public investors which includes trade unions through their superannuation funds.

Now you have left yourself having to explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

When you have done this we might well come back to the private miners you so hate, then compare these with the role and function of the corporate miners powered by public wealth.

Then we might explore your plan to apply the same criticisms of public investors as you seek to apply to private investors.

How hard can it be to knock over a “mug” talking “drivel”.

Steely doesn't know how he is still standing after being shot down & destroyed by Spindoc.

Well we do. It is only because he/she/it is too stupid to know which way is up, or when his ideas are totally destroyed.

It must be hard to come up with any reasoned answer, when your whole being is dedicated to being objectionable, & offensive, rather than using any reasoned argument.

Perhaps you would be well advised to observe Foxy. She & I often disagree on things, but we can do it with respect & even admiration for the other. This on my part leads to considering her arguments seriously.

With you & a couple of your mates, with your posts filled with invective, I only bother to skim the stuff, rarely bothering to read them. If you want your opinions to be actually read, do try to do better.