B-Large Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 How many people here have actually read this book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Also on the non-fiction list, ahead of #16 were; #2 FACE THE MUSIC, by Paul Stanley. (HarperOne.) A memoir by the Kiss rhythm guitarist. #9 * LOVE LIFE, by Rob Lowe. (Simon & Schuster.) The actor's second book of stories and observations I predict that the influence of these "best sellers" will still be felt in a hundred years............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yet you get your ass handed to you whenever you post here. Where does that leave you? i'd say that's an extremely biased viewpoint but totally expected. i feel on balance i give better than i get here..but let's get back to the facts, things that are so often ignored in favor of opinion here: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/21/news/companies/piketty-best-seller/index.html. this looks like a bit more than a fringe following just like the book on wall street skimming. the thread was about mass appeal and none have you have written anything that disputes the premise that it's growing for such subjects. but don't let facts get in the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 How many people here have actually read this book? How smug of you Also on the non-fiction list, ahead of #16 were; #2 FACE THE MUSIC, by Paul Stanley. (HarperOne.) A memoir by the Kiss rhythm guitarist. #9 * LOVE LIFE, by Rob Lowe. (Simon & Schuster.) The actor's second book of stories and observations I predict that the influence of these "best sellers" will still be felt in a hundred years............... Oh, is that a shot at me, little guy? How cute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 How smug of you Oh, is that a shot at me, little guy? How cute Its seems if were going to debate content, reading it might be appropriate... lol... I heard it was 700 pages... I should be done with it by 2017 at the latest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Its seems if were going to debate content, reading it might be appropriate... lol... I heard it was 700 pages... I should be done with it by 2017 at the latest.... i've read reviews and critiques on his overiding thesis. that's enough for me to understand it's appeal for now (and most sales of the book were likely based on similar info). but i will read it in it's entirety. Edited April 24, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 the book was number 16 on nyt nonfiction best sellers list. from that fact and the comments here, we can conclude one of several things: many posters here don't read, many posters here don't read nonfiction, posters here don't represent a cross section of the reading american populace, posters here are on avg more conservative on economic policy than the reading public, many posters here are out of touch with mainstream sentiment and/or have no interest in what that might be, many posters here knee jerk reject any idea outside their narrow world view, many posters here are ignorant and all of the above. personally, i'll take all of the above for $10000 alex. many posters here don't read? what kind of arrogant nonsense is that? another socialist retread (and that's exactly what espousing an 80% tax on high income earners is) spinning out another Marxist-inspired pontification is supposed to be accepted as a viable alternative point of view? most in the mainstream regard McDonald's to be a restaurant. most in the mainstream regard Madonna to be music. most in the mainstream regard Dancing With The Stars to be entertainment. and we're supposed to follow mainstream sentiment with regard to economic policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 i've read reviews and critiques on his overiding thesis. that's enough for me to understand it's appeal for now (and most sales of the book were likely based on similar info). but i will read it in it's entirety. I did the same thing. won't read it though. I just finished the book "The Aviators" and now I'm reading Thomas Dewey's bio. Two great books! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 If that was all, it would still be better than the system you Conservatives want in place. Because no one person deserves or needs that much money, IMO. And I think a lot of people feel the same way The system we want in place is the same one that built the greatest, richest, the most free, vibrant nation in history. Bestowed wealth on everyone. Created a huge middle class raising the standard of all. I think the problem with liberals is pure envy. Deep seeded resentment of the successful because that person makes the liberal face their own deficiencies. Lack of motivation. Lack of intelligence or whatever it may be that puts them behind on the scoreboard. Instead of seeing the big picture. Rising water raises all boats so to speak. But liberals( should really be described as Marxists these days) just can't stand that motivated guy having the biggest boat. The 150ft yacht makes them sick even if it means the middle guy can now afford a 35ft Cris Craft that he never would have had a chance to own three or four hundred years ago. Or whatever the equivalent would have been back then. Problem is a few dumb ass presidents started to mess with the system trying to convert us to a socialist country. Big government sucking resources out of the private sector. Huge bureaucracies burdening the private sector with regulations. So thanks Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and now Barry for the sabotage. Nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 many posters here don't read? what kind of arrogant nonsense is that? another socialist retread (and that's exactly what espousing an 80% tax on high income earners is) spinning out another Marxist-inspired pontification is supposed to be accepted as a viable alternative point of view? Marxist??? A) Was the United States a communist country the last time we had taxes that high? B) Or did we have a booming consumer economy? B The system we want in place is the same one that built the greatest, richest, the most free, vibrant nation in history. Bestowed wealth on everyone. Created a huge middle class raising the standard of all. I think the problem with liberals is pure envy. Deep seeded resentment of the successful because that person makes the liberal face their own deficiencies. Lack of motivation. Lack of intelligence or whatever it may be that puts them behind on the scoreboard. Instead of seeing the big picture. Rising water raises all boats so to speak. But liberals( should really be described as Marxists these days) just can't stand that motivated guy having the biggest boat. The 150ft yacht makes them sick even if it means the middle guy can now afford a 35ft Cris Craft that he never would have had a chance to own three or four hundred years ago. Or whatever the equivalent would have been back then. Problem is a few dumb ass presidents started to mess with the system trying to convert us to a socialist country. Big government sucking resources out of the private sector. Huge bureaucracies burdening the private sector with regulations. So thanks Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and now Barry for the sabotage. Nice work. When was the middle class the largest in our history? And what was the tax rate at that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The system we want in place is the same one that built the greatest, richest, the most free, vibrant nation in history. Bestowed wealth on everyone. Created a huge middle class raising the standard of all. this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 this. What year do you want to go back to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 i'd say that's an extremely biased viewpoint but totally expected. i feel on balance i give better than i get here..but let's get back to the facts, things that are so often ignored in favor of opinion here: http://money.cnn.com...ller/index.html. this looks like a bit more than a fringe following just like the book on wall street skimming. the thread was about mass appeal and none have you have written anything that disputes the premise that it's growing for such subjects. but don't let facts get in the way... Lets get back to how when a company is sold, shareholders receive nothing while the CEO takes the whole bag which makes him among the 0.01% who likely fund capital expenditures for budding high frequency traders, because corporate america depends on loans from friends and family, the minority of which rig the system so that they can steal fractions of a penny from large trades somehow making the super rich even richer by stealing from them. That summary doesn't even begin to capture the depths of your ignorance. It wasn't that long ago that you were forced to concede that you have absolutely no !@#$ing idea how the world works. Yet you feel you give it out better than you take it? How can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Lets get back to how when a company is sold, shareholders receive nothing while the CEO takes the whole bag which makes him among the 0.01% who likely fund capital expenditures for budding high frequency traders, because corporate america depends on loans from friends and family, the minority of which rig the system so that they can steal fractions of a penny from large trades somehow making the super rich even richer by stealing from them. That summary doesn't even begin to capture the depths of your ignorance. It wasn't that long ago that you were forced to concede that you have absolutely no !@#$ing idea how the world works. Yet you feel you give it out better than you take it? How can that be? He "feels". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The system we want in place is the same one that built the greatest, richest, the most free, vibrant nation in history. Bestowed wealth on everyone. Created a huge middle class raising the standard of all. I think the problem with liberals is pure envy. Deep seeded resentment of the successful because that person makes the liberal face their own deficiencies. Lack of motivation. Lack of intelligence or whatever it may be that puts them behind on the scoreboard. Instead of seeing the big picture. Rising water raises all boats so to speak. But liberals( should really be described as Marxists these days) just can't stand that motivated guy having the biggest boat. The 150ft yacht makes them sick even if it means the middle guy can now afford a 35ft Cris Craft that he never would have had a chance to own three or four hundred years ago. Or whatever the equivalent would have been back then. Problem is a few dumb ass presidents started to mess with the system trying to convert us to a socialist country. Big government sucking resources out of the private sector. Huge bureaucracies burdening the private sector with regulations. So thanks Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton and now Barry for the sabotage. Nice work. I think that is a pretty poor description. There are alot of very wealthy Liberals, ones with the big boats you describe- and there is envy in both ideologies. Where I believe the difference begins is how to fix problems. Liberals are comfortable with Central Planning, faith in Government to be able to craft comrehensive reforms to address healtcare, immigration reform etc- Liberals are also comfortable with the Government taking more money from citizens, as long as those reforms are created and implemented. Conseravtives, believe much the opposite meanig deffering to the individual and incremental approach to issues. I think you can cite Boulder CO and Detroit as places that shows the good and bad of Liberalism. You can cite Texas and Missisiippi that shows the good and bad of Conservatism. To me, this is why is importatn for Federal Government to Defer to States on anyting they are not speficially tasked to addressing- let States and localities figure out what is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I think that is a pretty poor description. There are alot of very wealthy Liberals, ones with the big boats you describe- and there is envy in both ideologies. Where I believe the difference begins is how to fix problems. Liberals are comfortable with Central Planning, faith in Government to be able to craft comrehensive reforms to address healtcare, immigration reform etc- Liberals are also comfortable with the Government taking more money from citizens, as long as those reforms are created and implemented. Conseravtives, believe much the opposite meanig deffering to the individual and incremental approach to issues. I think you can cite Boulder CO and Detroit as places that shows the good and bad of Liberalism. You can cite Texas and Missisiippi that shows the good and bad of Conservatism. To me, this is why is importatn for Federal Government to Defer to States on anyting they are not speficially tasked to addressing- let States and localities figure out what is best. Why has Boulder flourished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 the book was number 16 on nyt nonfiction best sellers list. from that fact and the comments here, we can conclude one of several things: many posters here don't read, many posters here don't read nonfiction, posters here don't represent a cross section of the reading american populace, posters here are on avg more conservative on economic policy than the reading public, many posters here are out of touch with mainstream sentiment and/or have no interest in what that might be, many posters here knee jerk reject any idea outside their narrow world view, many posters here are ignorant and all of the above. personally, i'll take all of the above for $10000 alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 If that was all, it would still be better than the system you Conservatives want in place. Because no one person deserves or needs that much money, IMO. And I think a lot of people feel the same way Tom, to be honest, I just wanted to start a conversation about the book and so I mentioned it was a best seller. You take the best seller part and run with it. I'm in too good of a mood to insult you right now so I won't. And what makes the book anti-capitalist? Nope! We are totally different people Would you Conservative morons please be quiet!! Bunch of friggin little children Yes, I noticed how you casually mentioned that it was a best seller in the title of your thread. Dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 seriously? How come...? That is the most inexcusable excuse and totally avoids rational thought and logic. Just like you to blame someone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Lets get back to how when a company is sold, shareholders receive nothing while the CEO takes the whole bag which makes him among the 0.01% who likely fund capital expenditures for budding high frequency traders, because corporate america depends on loans from friends and family, the minority of which rig the system so that they can steal fractions of a penny from large trades somehow making the super rich even richer by stealing from them. That summary doesn't even begin to capture the depths of your ignorance. It wasn't that long ago that you were forced to concede that you have absolutely no !@#$ing idea how the world works. Yet you feel you give it out better than you take it? How can that be? not an accurate summation in any regard. the major point i was making that i suspect you fully understand but refuse to acknowledge is this: wall street and high finance generally are largely controlled by a very small, very exclusive, very rich and very powerful group and many of their important dealings are within this small group, disproportionately benefitting those in said group. in a word, their relationships are often incestuous. I think that is a pretty poor description. There are alot of very wealthy Liberals, ones with the big boats you describe- and there is envy in both ideologies. Where I believe the difference begins is how to fix problems. Liberals are comfortable with Central Planning, faith in Government to be able to craft comrehensive reforms to address healtcare, immigration reform etc- Liberals are also comfortable with the Government taking more money from citizens, as long as those reforms are created and implemented. Conseravtives, believe much the opposite meanig deffering to the individual and incremental approach to issues. with you to here. the envy arguemt is old, tired and false. i'd link to some demoraphic stats but the posters making the envy argument seem unimpressed with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts