California City Tries Universal Basic Income Programs -- Including One Targeting Potential Shooters (latimes.com) 271
An anonymous reader quotes the Los Angeles Times:
Mayor Michael Tubbs, a Stockton native and Stanford graduate who is all of 27 years old, wants to give at least $500 a month to a select group of residents. They'll be able to spend it as they wish, for 18 months, in a pilot program to test the impact of what's called guaranteed basic income... Workers in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco-Oakland area, driven out of the cuckoo housing markets in those communities, have snapped up cheaper properties in Stockton, accepting the bargain of killer commutes... But Stockton still suffers the crushing burdens of poverty, crime and now the rising rents and home prices that come with gentrification. For those who don't have the education or training to work 60 miles away on tech's front lines, Stockton still struggles to develop jobs that pay a living wage...
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Space X's Elon Musk have both pitched the idea in terms of inevitability, given the growing income gap and the threat of massive job losses because of automation... As small as the program will be, it's not going to dramatically affect many Stockton residents, but the goal is to get a sense of whether such an infusion on a broader scale can significantly alter lives and boost the economy.
The program will be funded by private and nonprofit sources, according to the article. And while it may not start until early next year, Stockton is already launching a similar program where the benefits are more targeted. Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody... The idea is that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of violence, and offering them an alternative path -- with counseling and case management over an 18-month period, along with a stipend if they stay the course -- can be a good investment all around.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Space X's Elon Musk have both pitched the idea in terms of inevitability, given the growing income gap and the threat of massive job losses because of automation... As small as the program will be, it's not going to dramatically affect many Stockton residents, but the goal is to get a sense of whether such an infusion on a broader scale can significantly alter lives and boost the economy.
The program will be funded by private and nonprofit sources, according to the article. And while it may not start until early next year, Stockton is already launching a similar program where the benefits are more targeted. Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody... The idea is that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of violence, and offering them an alternative path -- with counseling and case management over an 18-month period, along with a stipend if they stay the course -- can be a good investment all around.
Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
$500 UBI a month for a select group of individuals, and $1000 a month for an even more select group of individuals.
Hmmm
Re:Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You keep on using that word. I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
Re:Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
"Universal" "You keep on using that word. I do not think that word means what you think that word means.
It means more money for ammo, and more time for target practice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the people "most likely to shoot somebody" will stay home and be nice for $1000.
Much more likely they'll spend it all on drugs/hookers the first day the be angry for the rest of the month because they've got no money to go out partying.
Re: (Score:2)
It means more money for ammo, and more time for target practice.
The more "high profile" of these shooters often transform overnight from lonely losers with no firearms training into highly-skilled Rambo-types. They're seemingly able to send far more lead downrange - with incredible accuracy - than any experienced operative would ever be able to, under any conditions.
That's awful kind of Stockton to want to help them out and all but they're already being "helped."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One of those support programs however is tax-exemptions for low income workers. For example, instead of tax brackets you could have UBI plus a flat rate of 20% on all money earned up to 50K or something like that. Set it up so most people never have to submit a tax return and you get many more administration savings.
Re:Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:3)
Maybe so, but perhaps the $500 isn't there for them to sit on their ass but rather to make it so that a job that otherwise wouldn't pay rent will be sufficient.
No it won't. The reason the housing costs are high is simple supply and demand: They all want a place to live, so they have to outbid one another for the same limited number of housing available. Eventually you'll reach an equilibrium where the rent still remains above that of affordability. Inflation is what happens when you increase the money supply. And no, you don't need to print more money to achieve this effect, rather this is local inflation due to a local increase of the money supply.
Sure, in the sh
Re: (Score:2)
Giving them money is lunacy.
Much better to give them free fast food delivery and Internet. People who are stuffed with junk food are much more likely to stay home and not cause any trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess you haven't heard of the twinkie defense.
Re: (Score:3)
$500 is a little over $16/day. A frugal homeless person could live on $5/day and save $4000/year.
5 years of that and they could buy a house somewhere cheap.
Five years of living on the street, what a bargain.
many of these people can't even have bank accounts, how are they going to save money? In the mattress they don't have? In their pocket, so they can get rolled for it? Bury it under the light of the full moon where X marks the spot?/p?
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a welfare program. If everyone doesn't get it, and if it's not an unconditional right, it's not "universal".
However I suspect this is what some (not all) proponents of UBI really want. A nice little cash handout for the selected and compliant. A lever of money to influence the behavior of the lumpen masses.
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
A guaranteed minimum income to raise everyone to the poverty level makes more sense to me. It'd cost far less, for one thing, and if the assessment is done frequently enough it'd (quickly) cover people who had a well-paying job but became unemployed.
Of course the poverty level is far too low, so it'd have to raise people to like 150% of the poverty level.
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Replace a million by 10,000 and it's a great idea. Of course, the rich will tell you horror stories about inflation and jerbs, but you know why they don't want that...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Coast. Fix your sig...
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, because the 10K could be funded by things such as flattening the tax rates, which means more people just pay a set percentage of their income, which brings in more revenue, but also saves a ton on processing millions of tax returns.
Most people won't see a big change in their actual income from that, but the benefit is that if you lose your job, you have a safety net built-in rather than having to go through tons of paperwork and get shunted into a separate "unemployed" system. It's having a separate system for working vs non-working people that creates a big part of the welfare trap: often, actions designed to pull yourself out of the welfare trap end with them suddenly cancelling your full benefits for even trying to earn a *few* dollars more, so the carrot of greater earnings is outweighed by the stick of them cutting off the money you're getting that you need to make rent.
So, abolish progressive income tax while also bringing in UBI to replace the tax credits we're already paying out. It will mean more social mobility from the non-working to working world, and also give existing workers greater bargaining power. If you know that you can still make rent even if the boss sacks you, you have more power to stand up to abusive bosses. It's all inter-related.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so. However, it must be remembered that it replaces ALL the entitlements we currently have, at Federal & State levels.
Federal entitlements that would be replaced amount to around $2.8T, which cuts the net cost of such a program to around $700B per annum.
Not counting the costs saved at the State level. Which cuts another $200B
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, to influence mentally unstable people not to shoot up the local school/mall/religious institution.
So what's the downside?
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, to influence mentally unstable people to vote for the mayor who is giving them free money....
Re: (Score:3)
Well put (Score:2)
That is actually my entire response to the second part of this story. Thanks.
If you're claim to support UBI (Score:2)
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finland tried it and didn't expand it when they said they would, and instead ended it. There's probably a reason for that: it didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives threatened to slit their wrists with solid gold daggers?
Re: (Score:3)
Finland tried it and didn't expand it when they said they would, and instead ended it. There's probably a reason for that: it didn't work.
Finland's program was run by politicians, not economists or sociologists. The reason it was canceled was that it was unpopular, and the political balance of power shifted.
It was canceled before it was clear if it was "working" or not.
Re: Incentivizing what behavior exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
ALL social programs are run by politicians. You can't just screech "no true Scottsman" and pretend that this nonsense will magically sort it out if only you appoint the right "enlightened dictator" to run things.
The problem with do-gooders is that they always refuse to acknowledge the obvious and forseeable challenges. Once these things arise, they never take responsibility for their inability to think shit through. They may not even admit there's even a problem. If they do, they will just go back to scapegoating and avoiding ALL personal responsibility for the policies they implemented.
Anything you think up has to survive Republicans and Tories. Even a reasonably bright pre-teen can grok this.
Re: (Score:2)
"screech", "nonsense", "magically", "enlightened dictator", "do-gooders", "always", "never", "their inability", "think shit through", "avoiding ALL personal responsibility", "Even a reasonably bright pre-teen can crok this"
What's the point of your post? Instill hatred and disagreement? Listen to yourself! Regardless of topic and political orientation, is it too much to ask to at least try to use a vocabulary that makes you sound like a reasonable person who wants to discuss the topic?
Being an old Usenet
Re: (Score:2)
The finish program is still running ...
Re:Wait, what...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so crazy when you see NRA and so many others on the right repeatedly fight tooth and nail to ensure those who are likely to shoot someone are still able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Please provide just one link to any single thing the NRA has ever published that supports what you just said. Which you can't, because you're just plain lying. So the real question is, why are you lying? You know that what you're saying is child's play to fact check, and that it doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. So, you know you're lying, and you know that everyone else will know you're lying. So, really, is it just because you're a lazy troll?
I understand the aim is to increase firearm sales since, if and when they become the next school shooter, NRA's members share prices will spike.
Ah, I see. You're pretending that you're actually incapable of reading and learning things, or are hoping that everyone else is. But here's the thing: even the people who pretend to believe what you're saying know that the NRA's members are millions and millions of individuals. The vast majority of the funds that the NRA raises come from member fees and member donations (not corporate sponsors). And essentially ALL of the money they spend in political lobbying (which is handled by a completely separate legal entity with its own publicly viewable money trail) comes from small donations by millions of individuals. All of which you know, and you know that everyone else does, too. Which makes it so strange that you think you're fooling somebody with your absurd assertion. So, stop lying - you're not kidding anyone.
Statistically, most domestic terrorists have a right-wing ideology (e.g. smaller government, racial hatred, non-christian intolerance) and carry out their murderers usually for political reasons not because they don't have a livable income. They apparently had enough money to buy easily available firearms without respectable background checks, afterall.
This is incoherent, has no basis in fact, and is you - once again - spouting nonsense about something you know to be false, or about which you're so embarrassingly misinformed that it's a wonder you can even string together a meaningful sentence on the topic. Oh, right! You haven't actually done so.
I can understand their logic as more reasonable than I can relative to NRA's complicit encouragement in arming these unstable individuals to become the next mass killer headliners
Again, simply lying about it doesn't make it true. Your failure to show a single example of what you're lying about pretty much wraps it up. Though it is worth pointing out that the people who REALLY love mass killings are the liberals. Because it makes a great lever they can use to send out sock puppets like those kids from Florida, armed with money from people like Soros, to lie just like you, all in the name of regaining the political power the left has squandered for years. Please, keep it up! The more transparent BS-spouting you do, the more it helps people to understand why they should vote in exactly the opposite way you're trying to con them into in the first place. So, more, please! Every time people like you do, organizations like the NRA get record amounts of new members and individual donations. You're helping their cause when you lie. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait, what...? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama didn't legislate. He issued an executive order that included ZERO due process. It was so bad that even the ACLU objected to it.
You're just mindlessly repeating stupid propaganda.
You can't even get this simple set of facts right.
The measure in question only applied to old geezers on social security. It had no real standard for determining "mental illness".
It takes real talent to create an "anti-gun" measure that even the ACLU doesn't like.
It's not what you're trying to pretend it was.
Re:Wait, what...? (Score:5, Insightful)
able to conveniently buy military-grade assault weapons without any background checks.
Number of people killed in America last year by military-grade assault weapons purchased without background checks: 0.
Number of people killed in America last year by handguns: 25,227
Re: (Score:2)
The shooter in Las Vegas had more than "hand guns".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that he modified his cache of weapons to go above and beyond stock performance does not diminish that
Military-grade assault weapons don't need after-market "bump stocks".
Re:Wait, what...? (Score:5, Informative)
>"Number of people killed in America last year by handguns: 25,227"
Number of defensive gun uses that either stopped or prevented crime in America by non-police, with and without any shots fired: up to 3,000,000
Re: Wait, what...? (Score:2, Informative)
Australian here.
No it didn't. That's not to say that the increase in gun control wasn't a good thing, but please, if you are going to use us as an example then get your facts right.
Re: (Score:2)
If you used the term "assault weapon" in the actual military, you would likely get your entire platoon punished.
ROFL. Look up the definition. (Looks scary) (Score:3, Informative)
You guys make me literally laugh out loud every time you say "assault weapon". It's a joke on people who don't know anything at all about firearms.
The term does have a definition, defined by federal law. You can look it up if you want to. If you don't know what any of the words mean, what a "receiver" or "magazine" is, or "semiautomatic", here's a summary for you:
An assault weapon is one that looks scary.
It could be a plinker, a .22 like kids used to use to shoot cans in the backyard, if it's shaped like a
Universal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is a "select group" "universal"?
Is that because it is too expensive to be "universal"? If there are income criteria attached, there is already a name for such a program.... it is called "welfare".
Re:Universal? (Score:5, Informative)
How is a "select group" "universal"?
. . . when the all the receivers of the payola are universally supporters of the Mayor's political party.
"Pay me $1,000 a month, or I'll shoot somebody!"
This sounds like old-time mafia "protection" rackets . . .
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like old-time mafia "protection" rackets . . .
Far from it, the people posting in this thread have done zero research into whats coming down the pipe with the future of automation. Last time capitalism denied people some basic existence we had a cold war that forced into existence the welfare state. The welfare state was a response to rebellion from below. Like everyone in this thread is historically fucking illiterate. When mass unemployment occurs, the gears will start to turn, basic income is the sane thing to do with mass automation. The naive
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Socialism is about reducing the maximum number of people to dependence on the state.
So it kind of is - they are just quite specific about what 'equality' is, equality is total dependence on state control and funding - basically the reduction of everyone to the lowest point, so that no one will challenge those in control 'who are doing things for the good of everyone else'
Every socialist state so far has effectively proven this, without exception.
Socialism is a (one of many) Totalitarianist solution.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear socialism defined as "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs". That means the young, strong, and talented work to provide for the old, weak, and unskilled. This sounds fair enough to most, perhaps charitable even.
But then who collects the products of the labors? Well, the government of course. Who hands out the resources? The government. Who determines who is capable of what? The government. Who determines a persons needs? The government.
In other words
Re: (Score:2)
>" I'm hopeful this outbreak of progressivism has run its course and is about to go dormant for a few generations."
I think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg...
"Nice little school you have there..." (Score:2)
So those terrorist virgins who hate women and the men who date them would now be getting universal basic income? The $1000 a month would not fix their problem, which is that they desperately want sex with the same women they hate. And no, ordering up hookers is a proposal they have already rejected. They need a mental fix.
Who the stipend would actually help are scammers who falsely claim to be terrorist virgins.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist virgins? Uh oh, Slashdot is gonna get raided by the FBI any day now...
Re: (Score:2)
School shooters, specifically, a demographic that is in the news right now.
Criminals of the traditional kind are even less likely to be impressed by an offer of $1000 per month. You might even see an increase in crime on "welfare day" as they rip off each other.
PreCrime 2.0 (Score:2)
Instead of PreCrime sending you to jail, it sends you a check? I'm cool with that.
One day we'll accept that it's cheaper and better to send some people a kilo of weed and a $500 PSN giftcard than to deal with the consequences of what they're doing when they're NOT high and staying home being entertained.
It's unlikely many people will attempt to game the neural net by intentionally acting like a destitute person, if they're able to avoid it; and the neural net can distinguish those cases from those who reall
Universal? (Score:2)
Please stop using the term universal to describe a program that targets a relative handful of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, let's stop calling Slashdot news for nerds when so much garbage like the above article is posted daily.
Is it just me? (Score:3, Funny)
Or did i just read that they are gonna give a $1000 per month allowance to potential shooters for ammo and body armor? Novel.
Got a great name for the program (Score:2)
Given they are trying to send a bunch of money to people they think are going to shoot up someplace, I have the perfect name for the program...
"Ammo for Assholes"
More likely to shoot people (Score:5, Funny)
If I'm a peaceful guy not getting $1000, but the violent guy next door does, then I'm bound to become suddenly violent as well. Now hand me my $1000, bee!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Improving living conditions, yes. Improving living conditions of the violent people more than the non-violent... That's enabling. Give them $500 like to the others, but also make them attend mandatory counselling sessions and provide psychological treatment if necessary (spend the extra $500 on that).
needed for what? (Score:2, Redundant)
Between its numerous welfare programs, the US already effectively has a "UBI": [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Between its numerous welfare programs, the US already effectively has a "UBI":
No it doesn't, not even slightly.
What you quoted is literally the opposite of UBI and is in fact one of the things that UBI is hypothesised to fix. Under current systems if you start earning money you lose benefits (because they're not universal) so you end up worse off than if you didn't work.
The idea with UBI is you get it whether or not you work so working will always leave you better off.
Re: (Score:2)
As you can see from the CBO graph. [cbo.gov], when you earn no money, you receive about $16000 in benefits and you don't "lose benefits if you start earning money". There are some small discontinuities at higher incomes, but they are pretty easy to fix. Why do you feel compelled to chime in on US policies when you don't know how things work in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to pay for commute time. (Score:2)
It wouldn't count toward overtime. And it would probably only be a fraction of an equivalent hourly wage. This will encentivize large and affluent businesses to help develope and subsidize nice and affordable nearby housing or a train system to get to the housing quickly. More than an hour commute each way is rediculous.
How about taking care of the mentally ill instead? (Score:2)
Another nutty hyper-liberal idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Noteworthy (Score:2)
Unless I'm mistaken, the whole reason folks are blaming / going after the guns instead of the person behind it is due to the difficulty of predicting who is going to snap and go on a rampage.
Did California just magically fix that little problem and can now identify " potential shooters " ?
I also don't see where bribing folks to behave is going to end well. This is one of those things where throwing money at it isn't going to work.
Forgot something (Score:2)
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.
I know it's a pilot, but come on, this doesn't take a lot of braincells to figure out. The entire concept hinges on UNIVERSAL. You don't have to have any special need, in fact, the way it's supposed to work in theory, you can even have a job.
Bottom line, this pilot isn't going to tell you jack about how this is going to work cuz you're not doing it right. It's UNIVERSAL, everyone needs to get it, or your test is null and void.
I'd even go as far to say, your pilot is folly, you're g
Unfortunately, there's this Supreme Court decision (Score:2)
This can't possibly work, because of a Supreme Court decision back around the 1970's. Up until then local social support had been able to be limited to residents of the area, but the Supreme Court decided that this was forbidden. This instituted a race to the bottom, because any locale that decided to be generous to it's unfortunate residents had to be generous to the entire country.
So this, likewise, can't work. And for the same reason. You don't need to go into details of the plan, if it's more than a
Can we ... (Score:2)
Re:Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are so desperate for workers they're paying people through training.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Try getting a job that pays above minimum wage without going to university or vocational training.
All you have to do is bother to look.
Although getting through vocational school is not a high bar really. All you really need is a pulse and a willingness to bother.
The real problem is that a lot of people can't be bothered. They won't look past the Starbuck's or McDonald's on the corner. They don't want to actually work. They don't want to put any work into their future.
Meanwhile, the people that Trump wa
Re: Problem (Score:3)
Better idea, give them a two year education free of charge ( maintain a minimum gpa to qualify ) vs giving them cash that will be wasted on stupid shit that folks in the 18-21 range tend to buy with free money.
Also, noteworthy, give the Military a few years and they will train you with whatever skills you want. Choose a skill path which has a civilian counterpart and you're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
give the Military a few years and they will train you with whatever skills you want.
This is the first time I've heard of this. My impression was that you get assigned to some role, and you pick up whatever skills you use in that role.
Re: Problem (Score:3)
" This is the first time I've heard of this. My impression was that you get assigned to some role, and you pick up whatever skills you use in that role. "
Kindof. ( May also vary between Branch of service )
Recruiters are pressured to fill critical positions first and they will always try to steer you towards them if they can.
However, as long as you score well enough on the ASVAB test AND can meet the physical fitness and other requirements, AND you can be patient, you can pretty much choose whatever you wan
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
All poverty is caused and could be eliminated by eliminating irresponsible behavior.
Unfortunately, most of this behavior isn't by the poor people. Decisions spanning from local financing of schools to law enforcement behavior (ensuring poorer education and lack of respect for the system in poor neighborhoods) make it very difficult (and in some cases impossible) for a person from a poor background to succeed.
In fact, just an average level of irresponsibility from a poor person will make sure they sta
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then we could reduce spending in the form of the DEA! AND on jails and prisons!
We'd need a good name for it, though. We could call it "freedom"?
Re: (Score:2)
Then we could reduce spending in the form of the DEA! AND on jails and prisons!
We'd need a good name for it, though. We could call it "freedom"?
Sorry, no.
"Freedom" would cost far too many union jobs in law enforcement and the private prison industry. That's not even considering the loss of those sweet drug-smuggling cartel kick-backs for keeping illegal drug prices high. Sadly, it's also mostly bi-partisan so there's no easy solution of simply choosing the right Party as both have contributed to the problems.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make it conditional on then not being convicted of another crime and require them to attend university or other professional training programs and maintain good standing.
You can force people to attend these programs.
You can't force them to listen and learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The ones most likely to shoot someone are also the ones most likely to make $1000 in one night selling drugs. Do you really think they are going to care about this stipend?
Re: (Score:2)
Maintain good standing -- if they flunk out, they lose the stipend.
A good idea . . . but unfortunately exactly the opposite of what Mayor Michael Tubbs is proposing. He wants to give away stipends with no strings attached.
Michael Tubbs has faith that the poor folks receiving the money will know how to spend it best. It could be for child care, so a single mother can work. Or it could be for education and training, to improve employment prospects. The hallmark of UBI is that the total welfare bureaucracy is reduced because you don't have multiple folks tracking multipl
Re: (Score:2)
> This explains a lot of attitudes of the rich people towards poor people.
This is a rich person that used to be poor. You need to stop listening to clueless rich spoiled morons that think they know squat about anything.
It doesn't matter what kind of title (TED) you want to hand the "authority" you want to appeal to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're confused, we've had a war and poor people for many decades, not a war on poverty. And compared to what it was like 75 years ago, we're significantly better off. We don't have people starving to death any longer.
We are, however, giving up the progress that we had made because the lion's share of the government aid goes to corporations and people who have incredibly large amounts of wealth rather than being allowed to go to people who actually need it.
In the long term, the choice is a UBI or some sort
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worth $200 to prevent or carry out?
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, they just cancelled early because of politics.
Re:It does not work (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes no sense to take from someone who earns the money and give it to someone who has done nothing to earn the money.
Now show us some evidence that the people who are getting the most money in our society are actually earning any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So no cop has earned any money? No fireman? How voluntary does it have to be? Does the CEO of a hospital earn any money in your estimation? After all, very few CHOOSE to go to the hospital, but when they need one, they;re over a barrel (literally agree or die).
Does it count when a group of CEOs sit on each other's boards and grant each other huge raises (paid with other people's money)?
How about the money a professional grifter brings in? Does it matter if the grifter is Goldman Sachs?
Um... (Score:2)
I robbed banks specifically because I couldn't escape poverty. I'm not saying I'm the best guy ever to live, but let's not pretend that poverty doesn't cause crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Believe it or not, natural selection doesn't favor those who can make the most money. It favors those who do what needs to be done, regardless legal or moral boundaries. Robbing the capitalists is just fine according to its rules.