Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 It's Time We Rounded Up Rich White Males

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 26, 2002
If the war on terrorism has demonstrated anything it's the effectiveness of preemptively arresting and incarcerating undesirables who fit a certain terrorist profile. Some have denounced this action as "racial profiling", which we are told is invidious under the Constitution, and maybe they have a point; perhaps racial profiling does more harm than good.

But we must remember that not all types of profiling are equally bad. Some types produce benefits that far outweigh their costs. Indeed, certain types of profiling are so selective in targeting only a truly odious and uniformly guilty category of persons that they can truly be deemed just and appropriate.

It's time we started profiling and arresting rich white males.


More stories about Elitism
What a bunch of elitist indie kids
Memoirs of an Ex-Southpaw: a Report from the Trenches
Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
The rise of pseudo-connoisseurship and beer
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
Are you Adequate?
Celebrating 2000 Years of British Achievement
Why I want to be an American Citizen
God Bless you your Majesty, salutes you!
Hacker Culture and its Misportrayal by Media and Government
Engineers, the silent, Anti-Social Killers

More stories by
Chuck Flynn

Memoirs of an Ex-Southpaw: a Report from the Trenches
One More Mouth to Feed
Feature: Flags
The Death of the Channel
Media Responsibility in the Modern Era
Reasserting America's Manhood
Caytie, My Porsch? Cayenne
Enron; Global Crossing; General Electric; Monsanto. What do these corporations have in common besides rampant political and economic scandals? They are led in their wicked crimes against humanity by rich white men. Electoral fraud; political corruption; violence; intimidation. These are only some of the pestilences rich white men perpetrate upon our society. It's enough to keep an ordinary citizen awake at night.

With their clamoring for corporate welfare, rich white men suck our society dry. With fraudulent accounting and widespread tax shelters, they refuse to give back their due share to the nation that fosters their livelihoods. Though the fairy tales depict Robin Hoods righting the cosmic balance by stealing from the rich and giving back to the poor, the truth is that the poor remain merely pawns in the well-moneyed gambits of rich white men.

Our surest security lies in the core values of civilization, values that rich white men oppose. When confronted with the awe-inspiring breath-taking beauty of America's pristine wildernesses, ordinary Americans feel a renewed appreciation of our world and of their faith. Rich white men, however, only see profits and spoils. Where an ordinary American sees a baby calf suckling at its mother's teat, a rich white man sees veal; where an ordinary American sees an elderly patient slowly dying of cancer, a rich white man sees a missed opportunity for eugenics.

At times, the behavior of rich white men is simply dumbfounding. We ask ourselves: "How could they believe what they do? How can they live with themselves?" Some call them mad, mad with a thirst for wealth and power that devours everything in its path. Others look to psychological roots, a Napoleonic complex perhaps, that can explain their megalomania and accompanying virulent misanthropy. But whatever the cause, this much is clear: rich white men pose a threat to the very existence of our nation as we know it, and they must be reined in.

The war against rich white men cannot be an easy one for the simple reason that they do not bear a single national face or even speak a common language. Divided into corporate cells of tightly knit "corporate directors", they hold closed-door meetings in anonymous skyscrapers and secretly congregate on the very floors of our securities-trading markets. Though some foreign nations are especially notorious for harboring rich white men and their rich white enterprises -- the Cayman Islands come readily to mind -- we cannot satisfy ourselves with lashing out militarily at such politically isolated sparsely populated lands. We cannot completely turn our attention abroad while domestic rich white men hatch diabolical schemes to rape our pension plans and natural environment at home.

So how can we hope to fight a war against such people in such a world? How can we penetrate such small groups who live in such remote places? The only people who can penetrate these shadowy groups and deter them are their own societies, and it has so far proven impossible to recruit turncoat rich white men to this cause. No, the ordinary clandestine methods are of no use to us here. What is required is a stronger and more overt response.

What I propose is very simple: we must round rich white men up and segregate them from society so they can do no harm. Drawing on our historical success with Japanese internment camps, I propose establishing so-called "country clubs" where rich white men will be permitted a modicum of freedom to live their lives among themselves according to their kind but forbidden from wreaking their havoc on the outside world. The job of deporting rich white men to these clubs will be all the easier for their racial homogeneity; rich white men thrive on the opportunity to exclude other races from their private affairs.

Only by taking initiative and preemptively striking at the rich white scourge within our borders can we loosen their grasp on our the throat of our nation. The road will not be easy and we shall encounter fierce resistance: rich white men maintain a standing army of blacks, Latinos, and poor white men to do their fighting for them. But if we do not rise to the occasion and smite this menace according to our manifest destiny, then our children will never know a world of liberty and prosperity.

Let's make the world a safer place.


Taking into account the pool (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 01:47:26 AM PST
If take to account the <A HREF=";qid=1014589963_ysLDESvW#1">pool</A> in progress. We should start with <A HREF=">adequacy</A>

Where is John Galt when we need him? (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 02:39:16 AM PST
Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.

Ah! (none / 0) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 03:40:31 AM PST
Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.

This explains that rattling sound!

Yeah, just think of having the government put your (none / 0) (#6)
by willieweb on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 04:34:09 AM PST
own radical plan into action for you!

Thinking the same... (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 11:54:04 AM PST
Just laughing with ya.

Nonsense (none / 0) (#17)
by walwyn on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:41:55 PM PST
Ashes don't rattle. They burn witches doncha know.

The truth (none / 0) (#7)
by Juan Fernandez on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 06:14:33 AM PST
riiiingggg... riiiingggg... hello?... hello, is it the Anti-Rich Men League Headquarters? yes, how can I help you? ...well, I would like to revoke my membership, I won the lottery!

hear, hear! (none / 0) (#46)
by Nobody on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 01:30:43 AM PST

Tax fraud (none / 0) (#9)
by westgeof on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 07:31:34 AM PST
This is a familiar subject to me, having gone into this very subject in an economics class I once had. I wish I still had the paper I wrote, it went into how the rich wind up paying less than everyone else in taxes in the US.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I ran some calculations to see what would happen if the tax laws were revamped by myself. The moral of the story was that if we put an income limit of $1 million a year per person, and just flat out taxed the rest of it off, nobody else would ever have to pay taxes.

If you're unfamiliar with US tax laws, people at the low end of todays Adequate Poll, such as myself, would be paying about 33% of their income in taxes. People at the middle to higher end should theoretically pay a similar percentage if the laws were fair, but oftentimes by using their money to buy new laws, they wind up paying as low as 1%. In effect, their money goes to lawyers rather than the government, so they raise taxes for the poor.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Ignorant, ignorant (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 10:43:16 AM PST
The moral of the story was that if we put an income limit of $1 million a year per person, and just flat out taxed the rest of it off, nobody else would ever have to pay taxes.

Did you get an F on the paper? If not, your instructor is a moron. If you were to put a $1 million cap on income and 'tax the rest of it off', exactly what would motivate anyone to do enough work to get more than $1 million in the first place?

happiness? fame? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 01:30:18 PM PST
the happiness that comes with a job well done. You might as well ask the adequacy editors why they work for the hypothetical penny on every caffeinated mint their ungrateful illiterate readers never get around to sucking.

A busy bee is a happy bee; and under capitalism you cant be busy for free (which is rather convenient for the economy.)

no you ass (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 06:41:53 PM PST
the point is if there was *no* incentive for being paid more than $1 million, no one would get payed more than $1 million. if you were on a basketball team earning $1 million a year, why the fuck would you ask for a raise? so that you could give more money to the gov't? there would be no reason for anyone to want to earn more than that per year, so no one would

doesn't mean I don't support high taxes on rich people, but a 100% tax is just stupid

dont be silly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 07:26:04 PM PST
The concept of value is fairly germane to capitalism. I will certainly demand what i'm worth without regard to taxes. I want my boss to pay as much as possible for the benefit of my employment. How much is that? As much as I can get away with. How much can I get away with? As much as the market will bear.

While you pissants with your MSCEs idly click your mice, my mastery of Lunix will ambush your false sense of security to the tune of TWO million dollars! That's might sound like an extravagent reward but it's actually the price of two MSCEs, the two I replaced.

I'm happy, the boss is happy. You arent so happy. In fact, you're probably hungry, you miserable, unambitious, lazy socialist. Not to worry! One of every dollar I earned in the eternal human pursuit of recognition for my superior intellect will now provide you with food stamps. And I feel good about that. I sleep better at night knowing there's an amateur economist out there eating porridge instead of libertarian axioms.

a 100% tax is just stupid

Really, you think? Then again, you think incentive means something other than what it means.

Your lies are unconscionable. (none / 0) (#28)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 10:19:55 PM PST
Who on earth would ever pay good money to someone with "Linux [sic] mastery"? I can maybe see paying a teacher to use Lunix as an object of classroom investigation, with the understanding that it has no practical use (although Minix fills this role perfectly), but to treat Lunix as a source of productivity? Impossible.

Lunix has no Office applications, nor any applications of genuine utility. Some of the games are clever; not fun to play, but have a clever idea or two. The lack of .net compatibility and vulnerabilty to trap doors placed by the hackers who wrote it makes it inconceivable that a real business would employ Lunix.

VA Linux [sic] is sort of an exception, of course, but then they fleeced their investors. Has even one Lunix company ever earned even one dime? Is even one Lunix company not under investigation by the SEC for their criminal venture capital schemes?

You are an obvious liar, and if the Internet were run properly (i.e. using Passport and .net), you would never qualify for an Internet License, or if you did, it would be revoked forthwith. For shame!

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

Aren't you a little short-sighted? (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 04:49:02 AM PST
You don't seem to bother a lot with facts and reality, no? I'll agree with you that Linux sucks on the desktop. But pretending that it is of no practical use, that it is not a source of productivity, that it has no applications of genuine utility is being deaf and blind. I won't give you examples, not because I have not, but because if you haven't seen them already, it's because you don't want to see them.
I don't understand anti-Linux zealotry more than I understand Linux-zealotry.

Lunix sux everywhere (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 09:15:00 AM PST
But pretending that it is of no practical use

MS-DOS has practical uses. The fact that something as pedestrian as Lunix can adequately run server software circa 2002 at essentially no cost is pretty neato, I guess, but not at all inspirational. Lunix can copy files into open sockets. Wow! Will wonders never cease?

I won't give you examples, not because I have not,

Yes you do have to. I insist on ONE example of something Lunix does better than any supported version of NT or a single app running on Lunix without peer on NT.


ok (none / 0) (#42)
by budlite on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:31:49 PM PST
I insist on ONE example of something Lunix does better than any supported version of NT or a single app running on Lunix without peer on NT.

This is trivial I know, and you'll probably discount it, but Linux does run Unreal Tournament much faster and more smoothly on Linux on a Celeron 900MHz CPU than Windows 2000 on a Pentium 4 1.4GHz. Both have the same graphics hardware.

I still say that Linux systems have much less downtime than NT systems too, based on my own experence.

really? (none / 0) (#41)
by budlite on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:26:12 PM PST
Lunix has no Office applications, nor any applications of genuine utility

Plus the Gnumeric spreadsheet that comes with Gnome, various financial programs, such as the one that comes with KDE (I forget its name).

I wonder, have you tried Linux. IF so, have you tried it RECENTLY?

Oh come on. (none / 0) (#43)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:34:12 PM PST
Those don't work. Have you ever tried them? I mean actually tried to do something productive. Do you know what the version number of Abi is? And they are not Office applications. They are knock-offs of the standard business software that the entire (profitable) world uses.

You're confusing ideology with practicality. If I have work to get done today, how can I wait around for Lunix to come out with reliable software? Who pays the bills while I'm waiting?

Who would pay to maintain Lunix? Noboby. Lunix doesn't produce anything; it doesn't get the job done. Any job. If it amuses you to tinker with it, fine, but don't lie.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

halfway there (none / 0) (#45)
by budlite on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 01:28:27 PM PST
Alright, it is obvious that the Linux programmer base isn't necessarily as solid as that of a commercial software product, but I think you haven't got anything done as fast as using Office because you haven't taken the time beyond a couple of hours to get familiar with them.

These suites copy the MS Ofice style because it works, they just feel that people shouldn't have to pay for the whole suite if a free, if less feature-packed tool can do the job. Which I think they can.

The only reason I'm not using them in a "genuine" (for want of a better word) manner is because the course heavily involves use of Windows software, and if I need to edit my documents on a University computer then the only software available is MS Word.

Otherwise I think I WOULD be using either KOffice or OpenOffice on a regular basis.

The point of this long post is to try and get across the concept that Linux is either good or bad on the desktop. There's a sliding scale of usefulness. Some people do find that Linux and programs that run under it do the job just as well as their Windows counterparts, and see no justification for buying Windows and MS Office. On the other hand, people might need the extra functionality and relative ease of use of Windows and Windows-based software, so Linux would be a poor choice.

Don't assume that because you don't think it's useful, that it's a universal belief. An open-source operating system isn't universally inferior to a closed-source one which must be paid for.

Something I always suspected (none / 0) (#47)
by because it isnt on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 02:51:22 AM PST
has no Office applications, nor any applications of genuine utility.

So you admit that Office applications have no genuine utility. This is something I have always suspected, thanks for clarifying the matter. -- because it isn't

Um, no. (none / 0) (#48)
by elenchos on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 02:59:14 PM PST
Fucking ESL people. Why don't you all get your own web sites and leave the English-speaking world alone?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

try harder (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 28th, 2002 at 04:31:41 PM PST
"Nor any applications of genuine utility" can be parsed as "nor [indeed] any applications of genuine utility," you Chomskyist grammar stooge.

Tax fraud (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 11:55:26 AM PST
If everyone who made more than $1 million dollars a year lost every penny of it, who would make more than that much? The answer is no-one. The value of money would change. It is valued at what people think it is worth, such a change in the tax code would change many many things.
Who would go and borrow money to build a large business unless there was a chance for great reward.
There would not be one person who made more than $1 million. It would be very easy to do. We need to encourage people to make money, not discorage.

Interesting concept (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:45:06 PM PST
I don't agree with you two. If "just flat out taxed the rest of it off" means take every cent from them over $1 million and let them with that $1 million, it would probably be one of the dumbest idea ever in the economy field. I don't think that is what it means (Westgeof would'nt have ever talked of that work)

This concept in itself is in fact very old, and much used. You rise the minimum untaxable revenue, then you tax progressively all slices of revenue over that minimum, keeping the incentive to earn more.

A very gross example:
From $0 to $1M: 0% taxes
From $1M to $2M: 33% taxes
From $2M to $3M: 45% taxes
You earn $1M, you don't pay tax. You earn $1.5M, you pay 33% of $0.5M. And if you earn $2.6M, you pay 33% of $1M, plus 45% of $0.6M. Don't tell me there is no more incentive.

Graduated Tax? (none / 0) (#21)
by thecapn on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 01:12:51 PM PST
What about a flat tax for everyone? Is it such a bad idea?

Hmmm (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 01:48:37 PM PST
I agree that there is definitely an incentive to earn more under your plan. Unfortunately, the incentive decreases as income rises, but maybe that isn't a bad thing, I don't know. Regardless, it isn't unlike what we have now in the US.

What bothers me is that your system seems unfair. Why should the people who take risk, as evidenced by their high incomes, have to carry the people who don't, as evidenced by their low incomes? Presumably they have already contributed to society in some large way, most likely by starting a company that employs hundreds if not thousands of workers. Your system relieves the majority of the population from the burden of supporting their government in any way whatsoever, yet they get to reap the benefits.

On the other hand, the real job of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. If we could reign the thing in and get its hands out of all of the social engineering it has been doing I would fully support a realignment of the tax code to fit with your plan. At the moment tax dollars go to fund all sorts of programs that everyone takes advantage of pretty much equally whether rich or poor. If the Federal Government's only job was defense it would stand to reason that the rich should pay more simply because they would have more to protect. Johnny Lunchpail with almost no net worth really has nothing to defend other than his own life. Bill Gates has plenty, a huge home, a giant company, boats, cars, art, etc, etc.

Maybe a plan like this would go a long way toward eliminating corporate taxes, a scourge upon a capitalist economy and the most widespread hoodwinking of the American people to ever take place.

A fair tax system? (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 08:42:25 AM PST
I have yet to see a fair tax system. What we have presently are more or less fair compromises.
You think that a high income is the evidence of risks taken. Most have not taken other risk than to swallow the golden spoon they are born with. But this is not important. You seem to think that the others, the "poors", contribute less to society. Most of the lower income work for the high income. They need each other. There is interaction in the society. And the society needs social peace, the rich much more than the poor, so he pays for it. The best way to protect the properties and position of the rich is not to hire an army of poors to fight the other poors in a permanent state of war (remember the great historical strikes), but to give them a piece of the cake, and the hope they may have a better piece tomorrow.

Your system may seem fairer, and may works, if we accept second zone citizenship, and if we get rid of any notion of human rights, solidarity, etc. But, soon, you'll have to cope with a new Marx, a new Bakounine, a new Engels... and a permanent state of war

What? (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 10:47:01 AM PST
I didn't think I proposed any actual system. Maybe I did.

There are serious issues with claiming that 'most' rich people were born with money. When speaking about the Rockefellers and Kennedys, yes, that is true, at least for the current generation. What you fail to mention is that somewhere down the family tree someone took some risk and earned a bunch of money. I don't see why that person shouldn't be able to provide a cushy life for his family in perpetuity. He earned his money after all.

I also don't see how the fact that the rich need the poor to turn the cranks of their great production machines (as well as to buy the goods produced by those machines) makes any difference to the tax code. The poor guy who bolted the hood on to my Humvee most likely consumes just as many government resources as the guy who owns the factory. The hood bolter contributes less to society though, because any one of a million people can be trained to bolt that hood on, but only one man had the vision to start a Humvee facotry that employs hundreds. That man could also destory the entire company by making a few bad deals (see: Enron) and put all of his employees out of jobs. The hood bolter might mess up a truck or two before someone noticed he wasn't doing his job properly. Regardless, I agree that the best way to ensure that society progresses is for as many people as possible to earn as much money as possible. Even so, there will always be some stratification in income.

I still don't think I advocated any sort of new tax system, other than the elimination of corporate taxes, which should have never been put in place to begin with. Your system might work, but I don't think it is truly fair. If it were adjusted to require everyone, regardless of income, to contribute to government, even in a very small capacity at income levels below $1M, I might even be in favor of it.

My bad! (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 01:08:29 PM PST
I misunderstood you. I thought (why?) you were suggesting a system where only tax payers are serviced by the government. And I may have exagerated with the proportion of golden spoon suckers (no harm intended). But, as I said, it is not important how you got rich when confronted with the Tax Dragon (we only speak of income tax here, OK?).

As for corporate taxes, I agree with you. It doesn't make sense. They shouldn't tax a corporation in itself, when they already tax all the goods it produces, and all the incomes it generates.

Now back to my system. The post was in a thread. This is very important. It was in relation to 2 other posts, and about a third. The $1 000 000 figure has, let's say, some history.
The example was very very very gross. The reality is far more different. Where I live, you begin to pay with an income of $6,000/year, and you pay a few hundreds (I have been in the case, but don't remember; may have been from $100 to $600, not more; I think $600, 10%). more just, no?

define (none / 0) (#25)
by nathan on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 02:19:09 PM PST

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Argh (none / 0) (#38)
by westgeof on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 10:05:23 AM PST
Seems like just about everyone missed the point. Either that or they're just afraid of any change more substantial than raising the minimum wage by about $0.10

The biggest argument to this idea seems to be that there would be no more incentive to work beyond a certain point. Well, I find that simply hilarious. How many people making over $1 million actually work for it? Professional athletes who cry any refuse to play if they don't recieve multi-million dollar contract for playing a game? CEO's who don't have a clue how their company works and take millions of dollars in bonuses while firing thousands of hard working people? Movie stars and popular musicians? Are their "talents" really worth that much? Basically, no one deserves more that $1 million right now; it's not an incentive, it's just pure greed.

Basically my plan was a limit on what anyone could make in one year. This would allow for a better distribution of real money among the everyday people. Not only that, but it would also make many things cheaper. Some people have so much money they can afford to throw it away for almost nothing. If no one made more than $1 million, more people would appreciate the value of money. Sporting events, movies, musical concerts and such would also be cheaper, as less money would be needed to pay off the 'artists' or 'athletes.' Rather than giving CEO's and other top executives huge bonuses every year, companies would be able to keep more workers, improving the rate of employment.

And if you still think there would be no incentive to work, you obviously don't know the difference between a job paying $15,000 a year and one paying $1,000,000 a year. Perhaps you know someone who deservers more than this, if so I'd be interested in knowing.

Of course, the fact that I have to explain this saddens me, it just goes to show how many people out there still are just not Adequate.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Silly (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 11:05:57 AM PST
Professional athletes...

Pro athletes are the primary players in an industry that rakes in billions. Since their talents are responsible for the existence of the industry in no small way, I don't see why they shouldn't expect a chunk of that. Crying has very little to do with it it seems. If it did, maybe we would see a bunch of guys who try really hard and never complain in the NBA.

CEO's who don't have a clue how their company works...

This is a common misconception among low level workers. They think that 'knowing how their company works' means knowing how the mail room sorts the mail. No, running a company from the top has a lot more to do with setting direction, influencing corporate culture, watching cash flow, managing inventories, developing partnerships, very generic business fundamentals. That is why CEOs from totally different industries can be successful in new companies.

Movie stars and popular musicians? Are their "talents" really worth that much?

It appears so as the market is currently paying them quite a bit. If they aren't worth 'that much', why do people buy music or go to movies? Something's worth is not determined by its production cost, or the value that you as an individual place on it, it is determined by general consensus, the market. This is true for capitalist and communist economies alike. would also make many things cheaper.

Please explain how this would work.

...companies would be able to keep more workers, improving the rate of employment.

How would this work? Why, if I owned a widget making factory, would I want to employ a bunch of spare workers? Why wouldn't I want to do the same thing I do now, which is employ as few people as possible as cheaply as possible, so I could keep my production costs down?

You do realize that supply and demand works in both directions? If you want to hire me to build widgets, I might be willing to do that for $100,000 per annum. Maybe you won't pay that, because you can get a guy to do the same job for $99,000 per annum. Given that, please explain why, if you limit the upper end of income, would it result in better distribution of M1 money (I assume you mean M1 money when you write 'real money'). Why would employers pay their workers more for the same work when they can easily get other people to do it for less?

The Real World (none / 0) (#53)
by The Private Fedora on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 03:22:55 PM PST
Why do you get to decide what someone "deserves" to be paid? If there are so many people who want to hire me that they are willing to pay me $1,250,000 a year, than that is what I am worth. Not every person can do every job. Take the person you were paying $15,000 a year, and make him the CEO of your company. Give him $2,000,000 a year (with half of that gone in taxes, of course). Now, see how long your company lasts before you file for bankruptcy.

In the real world, anyone earning more that $1,000,000 a year would move out of the country. If they are a major stockholder in their company, they will move the company with them. Now, you have no taxes being paid, as no one makes more than $1,000,000 a year, and there is no employment, as there is no one left to run these headless corporations. Welcome to the brave new world.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.
Personally, I'd say you've still got it.

It's clear what YOU have in mind (none / 0) (#55)
by innominate on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 05:56:43 AM PST
First, "As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance." How can you miss something you are quite clearly using on a daily basis??
You represent the majority of people that don't really want to know about how the system works. It takes money to make money. That means that the rich will stay rich, and the poor will stay poor; unless the poor get sick of begging for hand outs and start taking responsibility for their situation, then things will get better. You probably believe that the poor should get welfare, and other 'rewards for non-production'. Well, go invest in the barley and hops market, because that is all the poor seem to want to invest in, and someone has to make money on it!

Not quite specific enough (none / 0) (#10)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 08:21:13 AM PST
It is not unexpected for a citizen of a nation such as the United States to make this sort of mistake, so I will forgive you your error even as I correct it. The problems you list are not the fault of rich white men in general, but rather with rich, white, bourgeois men. Historically, the majority of society's ills can be traced to dirty capitalists, forever intent on increasing their monetary holdings at the expense of social stability, public health, and the serenity of the countryside.

The greatest disasters in history, from the Black Plague to the American Rebellion to the Euro can be traced back to the machinations of the shopkeepers. They have no respect for the state or the general welfare of society. They meddle in government, attempting to infuse it with ignoble notions of "property rights for individuals," as if they, with no hereditary claims whatsoever, could even be said to own property. All property is under the ultimate dominion of the Sovereign, granted to individuals for use toward the betterment of society. That these merchants should try to usurp her rights is an outrage, and must be dealt with strongly and harshly.

I agree with your solution, Mr. Flynn, but not with your assessment of the problem. The problem is the capitalists, not simply the white ones. The solution is to incarcerate them, strip them of "their" property and render it back to the nobility. Once back in proper hands, the lands and properties currently held ransom by these villains can be directed to the good of all society by gentlemen trained in such pursuits. The nobility is the only class with the requisite skills, heartfelt compassion and divine inspiration necessary to direct a nation's resources. Rather than investing in valueless pursuits such as professional sports and money vaults, the treasury can be allocated towards artistic patronage, the Church, and the preservation of the Commons. Thus, the state can cease with the multiplication of meaningless wealth and once again progress towards its proper goal: the cultivation and development of good, cultured people.

More one illusion lost. (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:50:15 PM PST
I thought Prozac was sold everywhere.

Misplaced post (none / 0) (#23)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 01:33:04 PM PST
My dear Mr. Anonymous, I believe that you may have mis-clicked and inadvertantly submitted your comment as a response to my post. I'm not sure what the availability of pharmaceuticals has to do with the subject matter at hand. If Adequacy provides the necessary function, perhaps you could save yourself from further embarassment by moving it to its proper home?

What do you have against progress?? (none / 0) (#12)
by Mint Waltman on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 09:50:39 AM PST
Our surest security lies in the core values of civilization, values that rich white men oppose. When confronted with the awe-inspiring breath-taking beauty of America's pristine wildernesses, ordinary Americans feel a renewed appreciation of our world and of their faith. Rich white men, however, only see profits and spoils. Where an ordinary American sees a baby calf suckling at its mother's teat, a rich white man sees veal; where an ordinary American sees an elderly patient slowly dying of cancer, a rich white man sees a missed opportunity for eugenics.

I fail to see your point. What's wrong with improving the landscape by felling a few trees, providing safe, nutritous cut of meat, or improving mankind's chances of survival by culling the herd? Tell me, when did the heathen savages who populated North America ever build a coal power plant? A paper mill? Oh, that's right, they were too busy fighting amongst each other to even develop a written language! What about a steamship? Oh yeah, I forgot, they had no need for one as they didn't have any goods to transport to market to begin with! Sounds to me like you should be subsizing rich white men, not opressing them!

I think a lot of what's in that book you linked to went straight to your head. Do yourself a favor, next time you go to your Gender Studies 201 or Gay Politics at the Crossroads 101 college course, wear some earplugs. You'll prevent you mind from being corrupted by whatever radical 'pro-special-rights-for-gay-people' professor teaches it. Plus, since you won't hear what they're saying, your gag reflexes won't kick in and the other stundents will be able to be indoctrinated without incident. Better to stick to courses focusing on globalization and economic liberalism so you recognize a good business opportunity next time you see it. A little money in your pocket will cure you of that nasty, negative attitude you have.

ask me about Amway

which is worse? (none / 0) (#33)
by fzr on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 05:17:18 AM PST
you should be subsizing rich white men, not opressing them!

Subsizing, whatever it may be, sounds at least as upleasant if not worse than opression.

I'll tell you which (none / 0) (#34)
by jvance on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 08:01:50 AM PST
They're all equally "upleasant."

Adequacy is one of the few fora (alt.peeves is another) where spelling flames are not only acceptable, but mandatory.

However, it is usually considered good form to check the spelling in your own flame first.

Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Like most Adequacy readers.. (none / 0) (#37)
by Mint Waltman on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 09:59:31 AM PST
...I'm an extremely busy man. I'm constantly corresponding with important people, some of whom you have heard of, and of course, some I'm confident you have not. Also, most of us are 'big picture' thinkers who do not get caught up in the mind numbing minutiae of spelling, grammar, count, etc... I prefer to leave that to my underlings. To that end, I hire inner-city youths as paid interns. They do the petty grunt work of proofreading my correspondence, while I provide them with a hot meal, valuable real-world business experience and act as an upstanding role model of Christian virtue. Unfortunately, when an intern fails in his duties, he or she must be terminated. It's a pity, as young Trey Washington had a bright future ahead of him if only he could escape those damned oppressive projects. Thank you for pointing out his lagging!

WW2 (none / 0) (#50)
by JoePain on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 06:30:02 AM PST
You must be really young-- but maybe you've seen some movies. WW2 is a pretty good indicator about the existance of progress. And a pretty good argument for communism.

Oh my Lord! (none / 0) (#51)
by Mint Waltman on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 09:46:29 AM PST
That has to be the most disgusting thing I've ever read! I can't believe you're implying that the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews is 'progress.' What kind of sick, perverse mind would ever posit such a hateful remark? I suppose there's something to be said for the fact that you're actually admiting that the Holocaust did indeed happen, as so many of your ilk fail even in that regard.

As for WW2 being a 'pretty good argument for communism' I have to ask you, would you enjoy waiting in line for 5 hours in order to buy a loaf of bread made with sub-par ingredients? Not to mention the fact that you'd likely be prevented from worshiping the Lord at the church of your choice.

Communism... (none / 0) (#52)
by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 1st, 2002 at 10:43:52 AM PST
But dear, there was communism during World War II. Comrade Stalin was busy building a Soviet paradise on earth during that time, in between killing his own generals, fighting off Nazis, engaging in massive ethnic cleansing and migration, and sending millions of his own people to the gulag for various 'crimes.'

Oh wait, you mean the warm, fuzzy, ideal kind of communism, don't you, where everyone loves one another and shares everything and sings happy songs? Sorry, my bad...

Rich White Males (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 11:24:11 AM PST
There are at least two problems with what you wrote.

First, your comment itself is an example of racial profiling. How is it that you think "rich white males" does not pertain to race? If you are against racial profiling, you are against racial profiling. The statement that any "race" should have different rules itself constitutes racism, in its purest form. It does not matter what that "race" is!

Second, no matter how specific or targeted a particular type of profiling, the efficacy of profiling is based on a mathematical myth. Any competent statistician can tell you that profiling is based on a logical fallacy. Applying a population statistic to a particular member of that population just does not work. It is backewards thinking and there is simply no real logical basis for it.

It does not matter what kind of profiling you are talking about. You can base your profile on skin color, nationality, length of hair, stature, income, behavior, profession, or whatever. It just does not work.

Didn't notice any mention of... (none / 0) (#20)
by poltroon on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 12:54:09 PM PST
Michael Moore's new book, Stupid White Men. The movement you describe is already underway and undergoing rapid expansion. Maybe you should look into joining forces?

what? (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 26th, 2002 at 10:21:05 PM PST
this is a joke, right?

this is some scary shit man. you're acting just like the KKK... i love ironies. it's people like you who take the hard work of others--those people who try to get rid of discrimination--and fuck it up for everyone! why do you have to hate? is your life that awful?

then again... maybe it is just a joke. if you are just being sarcastic, maybe you should make that a little more clear next time, because this sure as shit isn't funny.

Of course it isn't (none / 0) (#30)
by walwyn on Wed Feb 27th, 2002 at 04:42:14 AM PST
Jokes on Adequacy are surrounded by SARCASM ON and SARCASM OFF blocks. See this article for further details.

As this article has no such blocks you can be assured that no sarcasm is intended.

racial profiling is good, if YOU are a cat (none / 0) (#54)
by innominate on Wed Mar 6th, 2002 at 02:01:20 PM PST
go ahead and start profiling, since you have so many races to choose from; cats, dogs, mice...
either your dissertation is exceptionally sarcastic, or you are completely lost in political BS. Rich white men don't fit only in the corporate top echelon; there are many many more that are rich (read wealthy) and have humble surroundings that reflect near poverty, but they have major investments and large bank accounts. Maybe you are confusing rich white men with posers; you know, college rich boy wanna be's with a new BMW 325i and a $1000 Rolex to impress themselves, since no one else cares.
Or maybe that is what you are...


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to