The Marxist often shout, "Eat the rich"…
and it is hard to dispute this, because it is wrong on soooo many levels.
And the main place it is wrong is that it won't feed anyone.
- The richest people are broke. Elonzo Musky is a brokey who puts everything on the credit cards
- The "money" isn't real. Not only can you not eat it, it is like a balloon. Pop, and nothing.
- "Money" is not the reason people are going hungry, or homeless.
- The disparity in income is not the problem, it is whether you can live below your means. (read that again)
- The lifestyles of the rich and famous is a TV show, not reality.
- You have been programmed to believe envy is good, and a proper response to your laziness.
And don't get me started on all of the "Capitalist" sayings that are complete lies that add to this.
Marxism leads to people starving. By definition. (this is saying nothing about a commune)
Marx defined Communism AND Capitalism
One of the hardest things people have to overcome in order to become excellent entrepreneurs is all the shit that they were taught (indoctrinated) about Capitalism. And often, the softer hearted budding entrepreneurs have to rid themselves of the Communism they were indoctrinated with.
Capitalism has been defined as, "He who has the gold makes the rules".
But, entrepreneurship is actually solving other people's problems. And when you do that, the universe rewards you. It has very little to do with gold.
So, imagine that Communism AND Capitalism are two cages designed to keep you poor and broke. (poor is a mindset, broke means currently without money) Really think about that. The choice you are offered is to be poor and broke, or poor and starving. However, most people believe the hype they were taught.
"Capitalism has brought the most people out of poverty"
"Communism is the radical act of sharing"
Both are lies, used to keep you inside the cage.
Most of the people on the Forbes top 100 list are brokies
Who is richer?
A) a person who has 1000 stock, valued at $1000/stock
B) a person who has $1,000,000 in the bank
Well, this is a trick question.
It actually varies.
In our world of fiat currency. Where banks can make loans / make money out of thin air. Then A is far richer. But, if the bank loans dry up, then B is far richer. And, in between it depends on the interest rates, and bank liquidity.
The way this works is you never spend your assets. You get a loan on them, and spend that.
Elonzo doesn't have a trillion dollars. He has a net worth (current stock price x amount of stock) of a trillion dollars. And the banks can lend Elonzo some money, with the stock as collateral. (if the stocks go up, Elonzo pays off the loan, if the stocks go down, the banks get the stocks and the loan is paid off. Its a giant loop, and the stocks really go nowhere.)
If Elonzo had to sell his stock to get money, he would be sooo much broker than 1 trillion. The first stock sold, would sell for $100 (just a round number for clarity), the 2nd would sell for $99, and as he ate up the order book, his last stocks would sell for $1, until there is no more buyers. He would be lucky if he averaged $20 a piece. Large sell orders crash markets.
But, as long as the banks can whip up some currency, the game of being rich continues.
There is a group of people who want you hungry
We shouldn't even be talking about rich vs poor. We don't know what "rich" actually means. And we do not know what "poor" means either. (you with your minimum wage job make more in an hour, than most of the world makes in a day)
Marx told you a lie, talking about two groups. When there was really three groups. And one of those groups wants you poor and slightly hungry.
The way to keep people under control is to have them earn just not quite enough to feel like they are always fed / can feed themselves. On the edge. Where any little thing can send them into poverty. It is all about control.
The USDA could stop paying people to NOT grow hogs, or limiting the amount of acres that can be planted in wheat… and instantly, we would have a ton of excess food, and all the food prices would fall. Of course, this would put many farmers out of business. Which is the excuse the USDA does these limiting practices. However, that was downstream of govern-cements charging property taxes, which put the farmers on a treadmill of doom.
The Communists are even worse, by killing off the smart farmers, and making the rest toil with no chance of getting ahead. You are stuck being a slave, so why work hard. Further, the same people who limit food above, limit food in the Communist system.
It is not the system, it is evil people who have created the top down system of control, and who want nothing more than to control you.
We, the peasants have been hoodwinked into believing that money, or lack thereof, was the problem. If only we had more money, we think. And after watching Card-ass-ians we think it is even more about the lack of money.
But it is not. We could all have all the money we could print, and we would still be in the same predicament.
We will learn it is about food freedom. Always having enough to eat. And that is incumbent on us to grow it. There should be no one between us and our food.
There should also be no one putting us on a treadmill. Where, if you fall off, you become homeless and starve. (taxes, especially property taxes)
We should have no one printing money, especially without any backing or limit.
And we really need to stop believing the lie of Communism/Capitalism. They are both horrible evil structures if horrible evil people get in control of them. And they were designed like a pyramid for a horrible evil person to get placed at the top.
So, do not get fooled, "Eating the rich" will be worse than trying to fill yourself on balloons. Pop, and there is nothing inside. Even the "balloon" itself disappears.