‘Why We Insure Women Only’

This act can and will justify a similar stand such as…we are not concerned with the needs of women!!

Another Swedish copyist. Aahh the joys of feminism, never ending misandry and so many males to yet really piss off.

Come to think of it, those bozos have obviously not done their homework and followed the usual arrogant, biased feminist study method…you know “it’s all men’s fault”.

I do believe that men drive billions more miles than the privilege princesses do, aka…most truck drivers, courier and travelling salesmen are males..

So that company is just blatantly sexist…now there’s a change…

Personally, since i am a free market capitalist, i think its fine. what would not be fine is that companies are told that they have to maintain a market when it is too costly to them. (i worked for a decade for the company that generated rates, then rules, for the insurance industry).

i welcome such things for such things would improve economy… yes its not politically correct, but its right… Just as liability for companies and other things can be effected….

the men here cant say… women shouldnt do a or b or c, and then not allow something like this to improve costs for businesses and for insurance carriers

for instance, with police departments… they now would have to pay MORE premium for women, since the job causes more permanent injures and such for women. then the issue will no longer be directly sex, but cost wise. too many get hurt and its too expensive. this would be better than a pool in which costs do not reflect the actual situation.

more and more, such things for BOTH sexes should be covered. there are many places that this could be applied and all of them would be of greater benifit fiscally, but not socalist moraly.

i think in parlance this is called “opening up a huge can of worms”

Sex/gender is just one of many factors that constitute auto insurance rates. Other examples are age, marital status, and driving history. Either this company lacks the rudimentary computer technology to apply rating factors (highly doubtful), or it is using widespread misandry as a marketing tool to appeal to narcissistic females (very likely).

While race, religion, and sexual orientation are NOT used as rating factors, sex/gender, age, and marital status are routinely used to discriminate and charge higher rates to policyholders based on risk factors associated with group identity. I would attribute this disparity being legal because those charged higher rates are not members of PC protected groups, especially young single/divorced males.

Having extensive driving experience in a country where women are not permitted to drive, the commonly taught practice of “defensive driving” actually becomes dangerous. My experience with male-only driving is that you must be more aggressive, have a much greater focus on what you are doing, you get where you are going much faster, and there are fewer mishaps, as opposed to mixed gender driving, where your attention is more focused on obeying a myriad of rules, regulations, and signs, keeping an eye out for police, you get where you are going much more slowly, and you need to watch out for people not paying any attention to what they are doing.

So artfldgr, you little free capitalist you! I have a question:
Would it be okay for a health insurance company to take on ONLY those under 40 with no pre-existing conditions (like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure) and cut everybody else loose?

If not, why not?

Gentlemen,

I got a snicker out of the ad because their promise to reduce the women’s rate by “up to 40%” is not any fundamentally different than that of other discount car ads such as Geico or Progressive.

In other words, it’s a cheesy sales gimmick. Nothing more.

I’m reminded of the lonely Maytag repairman ads which shows the guy sitting around bored with nothing to do. Consumer reports, on the other hand, claims that Maytag has the HIGHEST repair rates (surprisingly, Kenmore actually fared quite well.) In other words, usually ads are contrarian in nature since they are trying to convince people to do something they ordinarily wouldn’t want to do. So if a company is touting it’s wonderful environmental record, it’s probably to try to spin off some spill they had recently that gave them bad PR.

Ironically, the women may wind up paying MORE for this company then they would to an open gender firm that considers the other metrics that DCFather mentions.

This is remarkably bad business model. This company plans to maximize shareholder value by refusing to sell to half the potential market. Very sound.

When you see men and women in a car it’s almost always the man who is driving. All those extra miles will include a few more accidents. I don’t think most people consider that when bitching about male drivers and higher accident rates.

I drove a bus once for two years. Boulder CO to Denver Airport. One young woman who was hired – wrecked hers three times in a few months, minor stuff, but you knew that they lowered their standards a bit to get more women on board. And maybe it was just bad luck. I have seen women who can drive better than most men but they are the exception, and because a few young guys hot rod around, or some men are driving 12 hours a day and get into more wrecks doesn’t justify giving all woman a discount and having all men pick up the slack.

Feminist marketing – men bad for business, women good for business.

Feminized consumers, who find it appealing that an organization discriminate against men, may spend their money for company’s service/product.

Pink is the new feminist marketing color.

My question here-
Is auto insurance required by law where 1st for Women Insurance Brokers
plies their trade in S. Africa?
The car or the driver?

Is there rampant insurance fraud as bad as…say…Mass., or NJ…?

I swear that ad sounds like a good one for divorce and family courts
across the US and GB.

So artfldgr, you little free capitalist you! I have a question:
Would it be okay for a health insurance company to take on ONLY those under 40 with no pre-existing conditions (like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure) and cut everybody else loose?

yes….

If not, then you ask me why the healthy should be taxed to take care of the unhealthy? in fact, socialist policies today mean that those that are not as genetically fit, end up having more children than they would because for them the barrier preventing such naturally is moved. while those that are healthier, have fewer children, because their barrier is higher.

simple demographics would say that by changing the pay outs to different groups you change their representations in the population. so basically welfare creates a welfare state by lowering the birth rates of the capable and increasing the birth rates of the incapable who need a state to take care of them (and exploit them to get permission to do so).

I am not talking eugenics, i never said anything about removing people, however, once you get into the business of state charity, you are getting into the busiess of eugenics by pressure. the only way not to do that, is not to play with it…

the assumption of people though is that without the state, everyone is abandoned, which is not true at all… most hospitals you see aroudn you were created outside of the state because charities, religions, and the wealthy thought it important.. now that the state has usurped this function, there is little reason for those interested parties to help, oversee, and make good. the state is a nothing that cant be blamed, but people who are involved who put their name to something, tend to want to make sure things are well.

demographically, if the insurance companies were allowed to fairly set rates, people would actually think more IMMEDIATELY abotu what they can do about heir health, rather than LATER thoughts when its too late.

here is how silly it is sir…

insurance goes into a pool, so the healthy pay much higher rates than they would otherwise. their lives are diminished from what they could be because they ahve to subsidize the negative behavior aroudn them. this creates a, might as well do it too if i have to pay for it attitude (after all, if one is to be punished for something wouldnt one think that they at least get to commit the crime?)

now there is also a pool for the welfare people. and the healthy and productive person puts in for that too… with the same diminishing for them working rather than recieving for minimal effort.

now in this pool are smokers… the smokers are on welfare, and their medical is paid for by the healthy non smokers who work hard. (they sure arent being paid by the broke parasites working the system)..

so cigarettes are an evil.. right? so the state decides to do somethign about it. how do they manage this? they increase the amount of taxes on the cigaretes.

this is a good time to note that if they let the insurance company create their rates based on an individuals actual actions, the people would have to NATURALLY choose between healthy as cheaper, or unhealthy as more expensive. if they can afford it, then can be as unhealthy as they want to be and have all the fun that comes with cancer and emphesyma. (do note that this is argued as if this is a luxyry pleasure, not a slow sandpaper that layer by layer removes a persons life)

so now we have this high tax base for cigs… and now the stores that sell cigs see other products sales reduced because the person who wants cigs buying power has been reduced by 14 dollars a day.

now the state then used that money, not to put into the insurance industry and lower the costs or balance it out for the healthy person. they use it for some other socialist program and then try to get he healthy to totally foot the bill for the sick persons health… in this way the state no longer has to foot the bill to the hospitals for the law that they created that forces them to provide care in such a way that it flushes money down the drain since it waits till its too late to do anything.

so now the healthy person who works hard and doesnt smoke has teh burden of higher product costs i the stores, higher than normal insurance costs for his or her family, and higher taxes for the welfare… its no wonder that they arent having kids… they are having the sap drained for them.

of course now what happens is that this person who doesnt work and produce, lives a life of subsistence leisure (you would be surprised how many are willing to live this way). they have a cell phone, they have tv… they have an apartment (to which the helathy perosn pays city tax to help them out too. ouch another bite), they may have a car! they work under the table, steal, and live as humans have always done.

so their poverty subsidized their lives, so that they only have to worry enough to pay for their vices… so washing a car window for 50cents every minute yeilds what in 8 hours? they can pick up 240 in one day… thats enough for cigs, some coke, and perhaps some beers and play the horses. on top of the welfare they only have to do that twice a month and its not a bad deal. (now remember, if they had to work, they would ahve a problem, because they are already crippled by the system since there is this out and they know how to work it. i grew up in that kind of neighborhood and live in the same as such now. section 8 housing is 2 blocks from my apartment).

they even have time to go out and show up at the rallies for more freebies since they dotn work and they have these things during the day. so now the healthy person with good morals is subsizing the politics that will take more from him because everyone now thinks that he doesnt deserve it because he has so much more than those that dont or cant work.

but wait… you see, its kinisheawawadidado and she has 6 kids by 5 different men… why? because each child raises the amount of money she gets to not work. and of course natal care for six kids who are barely cared for, is a good expenditure of the money of the healthy person who has good morals a solid job and wants to ahve a family…

too bad kinisheawawadidado has jumped them and through the state they pay child support to her. she knows better than to give the name of the father, then the state will go after anotehr person in poverty and she gets less… no, better to not know, and ahve the state foot the bill… of course three of the kids are in foster care and they are being paid to take care of them instead of working…

so your method of not allowing the cruel world to take care of it means that the healthier person and family, the hard worker, etc… all have to pay for an increasing army of malcontents with the time to usurp more power because the otehr person is too busy at work for them by proxy to go out and defend their own rights.

is that a bit clearer?

http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/the-americans-with-no-abilities-act-2/

(satire)

WASHINGTON , DC – Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing.”
In a Capital Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.
Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement “warehouse” stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%)
Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million “middle man” positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as “Do you have any goals for the future?” or “Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?”
“As a Nonabled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. “This new law should really help people like me.” With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Senator Ted Kennedy, “As a Senator With No Abilities, I believe it is that the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American and immigrant with no abilities. There should be no distinction made between legal and undocumented immigrants. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen and who reside on these shores, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation. This idea is not unprecedented in America. Even lesser experienced drivers have a right to be on the roads of this great nation.”

i>So artfldgr, you little free capitalist you! I have a question:
Would it be okay for a health insurance company to take on ONLY those under 40 with no pre-existing conditions (like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure) and cut everybody else loose?

yes….

If not, then you ask me why the healthy should be taxed to take care of the unhealthy? in fact, socialist policies today mean that those that are not as genetically fit, end up having more children than they would because for them the barrier preventing such naturally is moved. while those that are healthier, have fewer children, because their barrier is higher.

simple demographics would say that by changing the pay outs to different groups you change their representations in the population. so basically welfare creates a welfare state by lowering the birth rates of the capable and increasing the birth rates of the incapable who need a state to take care of them (and exploit them to get permission to do so).

I am not talking eugenics, i never said anything about removing people, however, once you get into the business of state charity, you are getting into the busiess of eugenics by pressure. the only way not to do that, is not to play with it…

the assumption of people though is that without the state, everyone is abandoned, which is not true at all… most hospitals you see aroudn you were created outside of the state because charities, religions, and the wealthy thought it important.. now that the state has usurped this function, there is little reason for those interested parties to help, oversee, and make good. the state is a nothing that cant be blamed, but people who are involved who put their name to something, tend to want to make sure things are well.

demographically, if the insurance companies were allowed to fairly set rates, people would actually think more IMMEDIATELY abotu what they can do about heir health, rather than LATER thoughts when its too late.

here is how silly it is sir…

insurance goes into a pool, so the healthy pay much higher rates than they would otherwise. their lives are diminished from what they could be because they ahve to subsidize the negative behavior aroudn them. this creates a, might as well do it too if i have to pay for it attitude (after all, if one is to be punished for something wouldnt one think that they at least get to commit the crime?)

now there is also a pool for the welfare people. and the healthy and productive person puts in for that too… with the same diminishing for them working rather than recieving for minimal effort.

now in this pool are smokers… the smokers are on welfare, and their medical is paid for by the healthy non smokers who work hard. (they sure arent being paid by the broke parasites working the system)..

so cigarettes are an evil.. right? so the state decides to do somethign about it. how do they manage this? they increase the amount of taxes on the cigaretes.

this is a good time to note that if they let the insurance company create their rates based on an individuals actual actions, the people would have to NATURALLY choose between healthy as cheaper, or unhealthy as more expensive. if they can afford it, then can be as unhealthy as they want to be and have all the fun that comes with cancer and emphesyma. (do note that this is argued as if this is a luxyry pleasure, not a slow sandpaper that layer by layer removes a persons life)

so now we have this high tax base for cigs… and now the stores that sell cigs see other products sales reduced because the person who wants cigs buying power has been reduced by 14 dollars a day.

now the state then used that money, not to put into the insurance industry and lower the costs or balance it out for the healthy person. they use it for some other socialist program and then try to get he healthy to totally foot the bill for the sick persons health… in this way the state no longer has to foot the bill to the hospitals for the law that they created that forces them to provide care in such a way that it flushes money down the drain since it waits till its too late to do anything.

so now the healthy person who works hard and doesnt smoke has teh burden of higher product costs i the stores, higher than normal insurance costs for his or her family, and higher taxes for the welfare… its no wonder that they arent having kids… they are having the sap drained for them.

of course now what happens is that this person who doesnt work and produce, lives a life of subsistence leisure (you would be surprised how many are willing to live this way). they have a cell phone, they have tv… they have an apartment (to which the helathy perosn pays city tax to help them out too. ouch another bite), they may have a car! they work under the table, steal, and live as humans have always done.

so their poverty subsidized their lives, so that they only have to worry enough to pay for their vices… so washing a car window for 50cents every minute yeilds what in 8 hours? they can pick up 240 in one day… thats enough for cigs, some coke, and perhaps some beers and play the horses. on top of the welfare they only have to do that twice a month and its not a bad deal. (now remember, if they had to work, they would ahve a problem, because they are already crippled by the system since there is this out and they know how to work it. i grew up in that kind of neighborhood and live in the same as such now. section 8 housing is 2 blocks from my apartment).

they even have time to go out and show up at the rallies for more freebies since they dotn work and they have these things during the day. so now the healthy person with good morals is subsizing the politics that will take more from him because everyone now thinks that he doesnt deserve it because he has so much more than those that dont or cant work.

but wait… you see, its kinisheawawadidado and she has 6 kids by 5 different men… why? because each child raises the amount of money she gets to not work. and of course natal care for six kids who are barely cared for, is a good expenditure of the money of the healthy person who has good morals a solid job and wants to ahve a family…

too bad kinisheawawadidado has jumped them and through the state they pay child support to her. she knows better than to give the name of the father, then the state will go after anotehr person in poverty and she gets less… no, better to not know, and ahve the state foot the bill… of course three of the kids are in foster care and they are being paid to take care of them instead of working…

so your method of not allowing the cruel world to take care of it means that the healthier person and family, the hard worker, etc… all have to pay for an increasing army of malcontents with the time to usurp more power because the otehr person is too busy at work for them by proxy to go out and defend their own rights.

is that a bit clearer?

So artfldgr, you little free capitalist you! I have a question:
Would it be okay for a health insurance company to take on ONLY those under 40 with no pre-existing conditions (like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure) and cut everybody else loose?

yes….

If not, then you ask me why the healthy should be taxed to take care of the unhealthy? in fact, socialist policies today mean that those that are not as genetically fit, end up having more children than they would because for them the barrier preventing such naturally is moved. while those that are healthier, have fewer children, because their barrier is higher.

simple demographics would say that by changing the pay outs to different groups you change their representations in the population. so basically welfare creates a welfare state by lowering the birth rates of the capable and increasing the birth rates of the incapable who need a state to take care of them (and exploit them to get permission to do so).

I am not talking eugenics, i never said anything about removing people, however, once you get into the business of state charity, you are getting into the busiess of eugenics by pressure. the only way not to do that, is not to play with it…

the assumption of people though is that without the state, everyone is abandoned, which is not true at all… most hospitals you see aroudn you were created outside of the state because charities, religions, and the wealthy thought it important.. now that the state has usurped this function, there is little reason for those interested parties to help, oversee, and make good. the state is a nothing that cant be blamed, but people who are involved who put their name to something, tend to want to make sure things are well.

demographically, if the insurance companies were allowed to fairly set rates, people would actually think more IMMEDIATELY abotu what they can do about heir health, rather than LATER thoughts when its too late.

here is how silly it is sir…

insurance goes into a pool, so the healthy pay much higher rates than they would otherwise. their lives are diminished from what they could be because they ahve to subsidize the negative behavior aroudn them. this creates a, might as well do it too if i have to pay for it attitude (after all, if one is to be punished for something wouldnt one think that they at least get to commit the crime?)

now there is also a pool for the welfare people. and the healthy and productive person puts in for that too… with the same diminishing for them working rather than recieving for minimal effort.

now in this pool are smokers… the smokers are on welfare, and their medical is paid for by the healthy non smokers who work hard. (they sure arent being paid by the broke parasites working the system)..

so cigarettes are an evil.. right? so the state decides to do somethign about it. how do they manage this? they increase the amount of taxes on the cigaretes.

this is a good time to note that if they let the insurance company create their rates based on an individuals actual actions, the people would have to NATURALLY choose between healthy as cheaper, or unhealthy as more expensive. if they can afford it, then can be as unhealthy as they want to be and have all the fun that comes with cancer and emphesyma. (do note that this is argued as if this is a luxyry pleasure, not a slow sandpaper that layer by layer removes a persons life)

so now we have this high tax base for cigs… and now the stores that sell cigs see other products sales reduced because the person who wants cigs buying power has been reduced by 14 dollars a day.

now the state then used that money, not to put into the insurance industry and lower the costs or balance it out for the healthy person. they use it for some other socialist program and then try to get he healthy to totally foot the bill for the sick persons health… in this way the state no longer has to foot the bill to the hospitals for the law that they created that forces them to provide care in such a way that it flushes money down the drain since it waits till its too late to do anything.

so now the healthy person who works hard and doesnt smoke has teh burden of higher product costs i the stores, higher than normal insurance costs for his or her family, and higher taxes for the welfare… its no wonder that they arent having kids… they are having the sap drained for them.

of course now what happens is that this person who doesnt work and produce, lives a life of subsistence leisure (you would be surprised how many are willing to live this way). they have a cell phone, they have tv… they have an apartment (to which the helathy perosn pays city tax to help them out too. ouch another bite), they may have a car! they work under the table, steal, and live as humans have always done.

so their poverty subsidized their lives, so that they only have to worry enough to pay for their vices… so washing a car window for 50cents every minute yeilds what in 8 hours? they can pick up 240 in one day… thats enough for cigs, some coke, and perhaps some beers and play the horses. on top of the welfare they only have to do that twice a month and its not a bad deal. (now remember, if they had to work, they would ahve a problem, because they are already crippled by the system since there is this out and they know how to work it. i grew up in that kind of neighborhood and live in the same as such now. section 8 housing is 2 blocks from my apartment).

they even have time to go out and show up at the rallies for more freebies since they dotn work and they have these things during the day. so now the healthy person with good morals is subsizing the politics that will take more from him because everyone now thinks that he doesnt deserve it because he has so much more than those that dont or cant work.

but wait… you see, its kinisheawawadidado and she has 6 kids by 5 different men… why? because each child raises the amount of money she gets to not work. and of course natal care for six kids who are barely cared for, is a good expenditure of the money of the healthy person who has good morals a solid job and wants to ahve a family…

too bad kinisheawawadidado has jumped them and through the state they pay child support to her. she knows better than to give the name of the father, then the state will go after anotehr person in poverty and she gets less… no, better to not know, and ahve the state foot the bill… of course three of the kids are in foster care and they are being paid to take care of them instead of working…

so your method of not allowing the cruel world to take care of it means that the healthier person and family, the hard worker, etc… all have to pay for an increasing army of malcontents with the time to usurp more power because the otehr person is too busy at work for them by proxy to go out and defend their own rights.

is that a bit clearer?

the article i post… it goes up.. the post i post… it goes to la la land…

argggghhhhh!

So artfldgr, you little free capitalist you! I have a question:
Would it be okay for a health insurance company to take on ONLY those under 40 with no pre-existing conditions (like diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure) and cut everybody else loose?

yes….

If not, then you ask me why the healthy should be taxed to take care of the unhealthy? in fact, socialist policies today mean that those that are not as genetically fit, end up having more children than they would because for them the barrier preventing such naturally is moved. while those that are healthier, have fewer children, because their barrier is higher.

simple demographics would say that by changing the pay outs to different groups you change their representations in the population. so basically welfare creates a welfare state by lowering the birth rates of the capable and increasing the birth rates of the incapable who need a state to take care of them (and exploit them to get permission to do so).

I am not talking eugenics, i never said anything about removing people, however, once you get into the business of state charity, you are getting into the busiess of eugenics by pressure. the only way not to do that, is not to play with it…

the assumption of people though is that without the state, everyone is abandoned, which is not true at all… most hospitals you see aroudn you were created outside of the state because charities, religions, and the wealthy thought it important.. now that the state has usurped this function, there is little reason for those interested parties to help, oversee, and make good. the state is a nothing that cant be blamed, but people who are involved who put their name to something, tend to want to make sure things are well.

demographically, if the insurance companies were allowed to fairly set rates, people would actually think more IMMEDIATELY abotu what they can do about heir health, rather than LATER thoughts when its too late.

here is how silly it is sir…

i give up… its all in sections… and perhaps the front wont go up… totally annoying to the poster, and to the reader…

Art: At least you’re consistent, for whatever brownie points that gets ya.

If that’s really what you believe you are a capitalist. I think most people would realize this would be an abysmally bad idea.

Allowing health insurance plans to cut out seniors and the ailing so that those people would have to pay $1000 (and up) premiums per individual per month (believe it), just so millions of others can get (maybe?) a 10% rate reduction? Doesn’t sound smart, or free!

With all the outsourcing of parts that automobile companies do to foreign suppliers, the cost of cars STILL goes up 5-7% a year. So where are these savings going? Into investor and manager/CEO pockets. These savings certainly aren’t being invested back into the companies’ infrastructure (or quality) or American automobile companies wouldn’t be in the mess they are.

In the same fashion, health insurance companies would cut out the seniors and ailing AND MAKE MILLIONS IN SAVINGS which would translate to a paltry 5% reduction in your premium.

True laisez-fair capitalism (or however you spell it) usually is just a truly insane configuration by which the morally corrupt steal from the insipidly gullible.

The last time we had laisez-fair capitalism workers had no protections and could be fired if they didn’t return to work within three days of losing a limb. And, 95% of the wealth was centered into 5 or so mega wealthy families.

jackal1994,
the last paragraph says that you confuse capitalism with lawlessness, and lack of liability… 5 or so mega wealthy families?

well guess what.. here is a mathematical fact.. no matter what system you have, you will have 5 mega wealthy families… they will be the top 5… in any column of numbers that span a huge distance, there are a top group.

however, you also forget that the period your talking about was during an explosive change in laizez faire capitalism…

the concept of large numbers of workers, and how they should be treated and such, was never needed. in the past that didnt exist… and laws are not anticipatory… you cant make a law in anticipation of crimes.

in fact the country was less than 200 years old.. its law books were blank…

but if you want to make a fair comparison, compare them to the period just before them… where kings and royalty had everything and the average person had nothing.

and dont forget, in that period just before that horrible time your talking about, there was ZERO upward mobility… at least for men… a pretty girl, like a milk maid, wihout pox, might just marry up, or have a lords baby when being a maid.

but the average man was owned by these people. they could kill you at will and there was no court or legal right for you..

but then it changed… and yes… there were people that made out.. but that has been no different througout time… the average russian makes almot nothing today, but the oligarchs of the epitome of socilaism have how much money?

i would say that the split between the poor of socialist russia and the wealthy there is a lot wider than the split here… in fact there is no middle class there to speak of. and before you say that thats because of capitalism, remember that the boys leading the band are the same boys leading the previous band. same actors, different play.

but here those 5 phantom families, didnt get control… in fact they are still trying… but you think that something broke that? there was no revolution that took the top 5 families monies… fecundity and time takes care of them…. if you step back a bit in history, i bet you cant tell me the 5 top families of italy during the renaissance, or the top 5 wealthiest families of china in the han dynasty, or such.

why didnt they take over the world?

what you dont get is that the wider the measure, the more places that people can occupy on the strip.

so if the span is from US poverty level (apartment, cell phone (i see homeless with cell phones here in ny), etc)… all the way up to bill gates… is a huge spread.

but if there are only two states… the lumpenproletariat that owns nothing and so are all equal… and the elite that rule them, who are all rich…

well thats it… nothing in between… either you got it, or you aint got it.

and guess what… you dont get to move from where you are, since you get to be used if you invent, ot do anything. your life isnt your life, your life is in the service of the system.

now, capitalism might not be perfect.. but its newer.. and we are about to crush it out in favor of socialism… which is monarchy of the new regime, which threw over any other system for themselves so that they can then dictate how it should be as we are to stupid to rule ourselves.

there is nothing stoping you from starting your own business.. you just dont believe in yourself.. you distrust yourself so much that you wish to work safely..

this is the miracle of capitalism..

that the majority of the wealthy made that money themselves.

go to the forbes list of the wealthiest people…

take the top 10.. and read where did they make their money from…
then come back here and tell everyone what you found…

you know what? i have done this before… and what happens is people like you go off and don’t come back. They drop it… or if they do go check, they don’t have the balls to come back and correct things. (by the way, this ‘trick’ works for all years you care to go check it out)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Each one has a link to it… to a page about the people. And one of the categories of that page is how they made their money AND if they started off rich or something else.

Basically are they SELF MADE?

1. Gates, William H III (SELF MADE worth 43 billion.)
2. Buffett, Warren Edward (SELF MADE worth 36 billion.)
3. Allen, Paul Gardner (SELF MADE worth 21 billion.)
4. Walton, Helen R (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
5. Walton, S Robson (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
6. Walton, John T (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
7. Walton, Jim C (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
8. Walton, Alice L (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph (SELF MADE worth 15 billion.)
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony (SELF MADE worth 11 billion.)

And where are the names of the 5 families that controlled everything as you say? You see, time and inheritance dilutes them… in another two generations the Walton money will be broken up… but if we go socialist… you don’t get to own anything, they get to own everything… there will be no more movement from one class to another. (in fact, in enough time, hg wells split species will develop as the ruling class rules forever, and the animals taken care of do all the work)

You don’t want to know how much charity these guys give…and that their works are more effective than the state money which some person wields. It isn’t theirs, and they don’t even get punished for screwing up with it!!!

Want to know why they want socialism? Because of that binary thing above… they want to stop others from doing what they did!!!

And the only way to do that, is to kill the system and sink the boat AFTER you get ashore!

hey jackal1994,
the last paragraph says that you confuse capitalism with lawlessness, and lack of liability… 5 or so mega wealthy families?

well guess what.. here is a mathematical fact.. no matter what system you have, you will have 5 mega wealthy families… they will be the top 5… in any column of numbers that span a huge distance, there are a top group.

however, you also forget that the period your talking about was during an explosive change in laizez faire capitalism…

the concept of large numbers of workers, and how they should be treated and such, was never needed. in the past that didnt exist… and laws are not anticipatory… you cant make a law in anticipation of crimes.

in fact the country was less than 200 years old.. its law books were blank…

but if you want to make a fair comparison, compare them to the period just before them… where kings and royalty had everything and the average person had nothing.

and dont forget, in that period just before that horrible time your talking about, there was ZERO upward mobility… at least for men… a pretty girl, like a milk maid, wihout pox, might just marry up, or have a lords baby when being a maid.

but the average man was owned by these people. they could kill you at will and there was no court or legal right for you..

but then it changed… and yes… there were people that made out.. but that has been no different througout time… the average russian makes almot nothing today, but the oligarchs of the epitome of socilaism have how much money?

i would say that the split between the poor of socialist russia and the wealthy there is a lot wider than the split here… in fact there is no middle class there to speak of. and before you say that thats because of capitalism, remember that the boys leading the band are the same boys leading the previous band. same actors, different play.

but here those 5 phantom families, didnt get control… in fact they are still trying… but you think that something broke that? there was no revolution that took the top 5 families monies… fecundity and time takes care of them…. if you step back a bit in history, i bet you cant tell me the 5 top families of italy during the renaissance, or the top 5 wealthiest families of china in the han dynasty, or such.

why didnt they take over the world?

what you dont get is that the wider the measure, the more places that people can occupy on the strip.

so if the span is from US poverty level (apartment, cell phone (i see homeless with cell phones here in ny), etc)… all the way up to bill gates… is a huge spread.

but if there are only two states… the lumpenproletariat that owns nothing and so are all equal… and the elite that rule them, who are all rich…

well thats it… nothing in between… either you got it, or you aint got it.

and guess what… you dont get to move from where you are, since you get to be used if you invent, ot do anything. your life isnt your life, your life is in the service of the system.

now, capitalism might not be perfect.. but its newer.. and we are about to crush it out in favor of socialism… which is monarchy of the new regime, which threw over any other system for themselves so that they can then dictate how it should be as we are to stupid to rule ourselves.

there is nothing stoping you from starting your own business.. you just dont believe in yourself.. you distrust yourself so much that you wish to work safely..

this is the miracle of capitalism..

that the majority of the wealthy made that money themselves.

go to the forbes list of the wealthiest people…

take the top 10.. and read where did they make their money from…
then come back here and tell everyone what you found…

you know what? i have done this before… and what happens is people like you go off and don’t come back. They drop it… or if they do go check, they don’t have the balls to come back and correct things. (by the way, this ‘trick’ works for all years you care to go check it out)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Each one has a link to it… to a page about the people. And one of the categories of that page is how they made their money AND if they started off rich or something else.

Basically are they SELF MADE?

1. Gates, William H III (SELF MADE worth 43 billion.)
2. Buffett, Warren Edward (SELF MADE worth 36 billion.)
3. Allen, Paul Gardner (SELF MADE worth 21 billion.)
4. Walton, Helen R (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
5. Walton, S Robson (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
6. Walton, John T (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
7. Walton, Jim C (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
8. Walton, Alice L (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph (SELF MADE worth 15 billion.)
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony (SELF MADE worth 11 billion.)

And where are the names of the 5 families that controlled everything as you say? You see, time and inheritance dilutes them… in another two generations the Walton money will be broken up… but if we go socialist… you don’t get to own anything, they get to own everything… there will be no more movement from one class to another. (in fact, in enough time, hg wells split species will develop as the ruling class rules forever, and the animals taken care of do all the work)

You don’t want to know how much charity these guys give…and that their works are more effective than the state money which some person wields. It isn’t theirs, and they don’t even get punished for screwing up with it!!!

Want to know why they want socialism? Because of that binary thing above… they want to stop others from doing what they did!!!

And the only way to do that, is to kill the system and sink the boat AFTER you get ashore!

if you care to go through the rest of the list… you will find it dominated by the self made…

jackal1994,
the last paragraph says that you confuse capitalism with lawlessness, and lack of liability… 5 or so mega wealthy families?

well guess what.. here is a mathematical fact.. no matter what system you have, you will have 5 mega wealthy families… they will be the top 5… in any column of numbers that span a huge distance, there are a top group.

however, you also forget that the period your talking about was during an explosive change in laizez faire capitalism…

the concept of large numbers of workers, and how they should be treated and such, was never needed. in the past that didnt exist… and laws are not anticipatory… you cant make a law in anticipation of crimes.

in fact the country was less than 200 years old.. its law books were blank…

but if you want to make a fair comparison, compare them to the period just before them… where kings and royalty had everything and the average person had nothing.

and dont forget, in that period just before that horrible time your talking about, there was ZERO upward mobility… at least for men… a pretty girl, like a milk maid, wihout pox, might just marry up, or have a lords baby when being a maid.

but the average man was owned by these people. they could kill you at will and there was no court or legal right for you..

but then it changed… and yes… there were people that made out.. but that has been no different througout time… the average russian makes almot nothing today, but the oligarchs of the epitome of socilaism have how much money?

i would say that the split between the poor of socialist russia and the wealthy there is a lot wider than the split here… in fact there is no middle class there to speak of. and before you say that thats because of capitalism, remember that the boys leading the band are the same boys leading the previous band. same actors, different play.

but here those 5 phantom families, didnt get control… in fact they are still trying… but you think that something broke that? there was no revolution that took the top 5 families monies… fecundity and time takes care of them…. if you step back a bit in history, i bet you cant tell me the 5 top families of italy during the renaissance, or the top 5 wealthiest families of china in the han dynasty, or such.

why didnt they take over the world?

what you dont get is that the wider the measure, the more places that people can occupy on the strip.

so if the span is from US poverty level (apartment, cell phone (i see homeless with cell phones here in ny), etc)… all the way up to bill gates… is a huge spread.

but if there are only two states… the lumpenproletariat that owns nothing and so are all equal… and the elite that rule them, who are all rich…

well thats it… nothing in between… either you got it, or you aint got it.

and guess what… you dont get to move from where you are, since you get to be used if you invent, ot do anything. your life isnt your life, your life is in the service of the system.

now, capitalism might not be perfect.. but its newer.. and we are about to crush it out in favor of socialism… which is monarchy of the new regime, which threw over any other system for themselves so that they can then dictate how it should be as we are to stupid to rule ourselves.

that the majority of the wealthy made that money themselves.

go to the forbes list of the wealthiest people…

take the top 10.. and read where did they make their money from…
then come back here and tell everyone what you found…

you know what? i have done this before… and what happens is people like you go off and don’t come back. They drop it… or if they do go check, they don’t have the balls to come back and correct things. (by the way, this ‘trick’ works for all years you care to go check it out)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Each one has a link to it… to a page about the people. And one of the categories of that page is how they made their money AND if they started off rich or something else.

Basically are they SELF MADE?

1. Gates, William H III (SELF MADE worth 43 billion.)
2. Buffett, Warren Edward (SELF MADE worth 36 billion.)
3. Allen, Paul Gardner (SELF MADE worth 21 billion.)
4. Walton, Helen R (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
5. Walton, S Robson (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
6. Walton, John T (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
7. Walton, Jim C (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
8. Walton, Alice L (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph (SELF MADE worth 15 billion.)
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony (SELF MADE worth 11 billion.)

And where are the names of the 5 families that controlled everything as you say? You see, time and inheritance dilutes them… in another two generations the Walton money will be broken up… but if we go socialist… you don’t get to own anything, they get to own everything… there will be no more movement from one class to another. (in fact, in enough time, hg wells split species will develop as the ruling class rules forever, and the animals taken care of do all the work)

You don’t want to know how much charity these guys give…and that their works are more effective than the state money which some person wields. It isn’t theirs, and they don’t even get punished for screwing up with it!!!

Want to know why they want socialism? Because of that binary thing above… they want to stop others from doing what they did!!!

And the only way to do that, is to kill the system and sink the boat AFTER you get ashore!

you forget that the period your talking about was during an explosive change in laizez faire capitalism…

the concept of large numbers of workers, and how they should be treated and such, was never needed. in the past that didnt exist… and laws are not anticipatory… you cant make a law in anticipation of crimes.

in fact the country was less than 200 years old.. its law books were blank…

but if you want to make a fair comparison, compare them to the period just before them… where kings and royalty had everything and the average person had nothing.

and dont forget, in that period just before that horrible time your talking about, there was ZERO upward mobility… at least for men… a pretty girl, like a milk maid, wihout pox, might just marry up, or have a lords baby when being a maid.

but the average man was owned by these people. they could kill you at will and there was no court or legal right for you..

but then it changed… and yes… there were people that made out.. but that has been no different througout time… the average russian makes almot nothing today, but the oligarchs of the epitome of socilaism have how much money?

i would say that the split between the poor of socialist russia and the wealthy there is a lot wider than the split here… in fact there is no middle class there to speak of. and before you say that thats because of capitalism, remember that the boys leading the band are the same boys leading the previous band. same actors, different play.

but here those 5 phantom families, didnt get control… in fact they are still trying… but you think that something broke that? there was no revolution that took the top 5 families monies… fecundity and time takes care of them…. if you step back a bit in history, i bet you cant tell me the 5 top families of italy during the renaissance, or the top 5 wealthiest families of china in the han dynasty, or such.

why didnt they take over the world?

what you dont get is that the wider the measure, the more places that people can occupy on the strip.

so if the span is from US poverty level (apartment, cell phone (i see homeless with cell phones here in ny), etc)… all the way up to bill gates… is a huge spread.

but if there are only two states… the lumpenproletariat that owns nothing and so are all equal… and the elite that rule them, who are all rich…

well thats it… nothing in between… either you got it, or you aint got it.

and guess what… you dont get to move from where you are, since you get to be used if you invent, ot do anything. your life isnt your life, your life is in the service of the system.

now, capitalism might not be perfect.. but its newer.. and we are about to crush it out in favor of socialism… which is monarchy of the new regime, which threw over any other system for themselves so that they can then dictate how it should be as we are to stupid to rule ourselves.

that the majority of the wealthy made that money themselves.

go to the forbes list of the wealthiest people…

take the top 10.. and read where did they make their money from…
then come back here and tell everyone what you found…

you know what? i have done this before… and what happens is people like you go off and don’t come back. They drop it… or if they do go check, they don’t have the balls to come back and correct things. (by the way, this ‘trick’ works for all years you care to go check it out)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Each one has a link to it… to a page about the people. And one of the categories of that page is how they made their money AND if they started off rich or something else.

Basically are they SELF MADE?

1. Gates, William H III (SELF MADE worth 43 billion.)
2. Buffett, Warren Edward (SELF MADE worth 36 billion.)
3. Allen, Paul Gardner (SELF MADE worth 21 billion.)
4. Walton, Helen R (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
5. Walton, S Robson (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
6. Walton, John T (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
7. Walton, Jim C (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
8. Walton, Alice L (inherited it from Sam Walton, who was SELF MADE)
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph (SELF MADE worth 15 billion.)
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony (SELF MADE worth 11 billion.)

And where are the names of the 5 families that controlled everything as you say? You see, time and inheritance dilutes them… in another two generations the Walton money will be broken up… but if we go socialist… you don’t get to own anything, they get to own everything… there will be no more movement from one class to another. (in fact, in enough time, hg wells split species will develop as the ruling class rules forever, and the animals taken care of do all the work)

You don’t want to know how much charity these guys give…and that their works are more effective than the state money which some person wields. It isn’t theirs, and they don’t even get punished for screwing up with it!!!

Want to know why they want socialism? Because of that binary thing above… they want to stop others from doing what they did!!!

And the only way to do that, is to kill the system and sink the boat AFTER you get ashore!

What if the ad read like this?

“Women are, generally a higher risk. By eliminating them, we can afford to give you huge reductions on your insurance premiums. Women probably won’t like this but we don’t care. All we care about is your needs. So gentlemen, read on to find out how you can save up to 40% on your health insurance premiums.”

For those arguing that the free-market should be allowed to decide car/life insurance premiums (since males would pay more because they are a greater risk), if your not a hypocrite, then you should be asking women to pay higher 401K (superannuation)/ health insurance premiums (since are a much higher risk in both categories).

Why is it then that governments and insurance companies are forced by legislation to provide the same retirement benefits to women over a much longer period of time (hence greater benefits to women for a smaller financial input), and the same health insurance premiuns as men, despite the fact that women use doctors and health care fascilities at ~ 1.5 times the rate men (even after allowing for pregnancy related care).

You know once upon a time the U.S’s image was great worldwide. I think one of the reasons for this is America use to stand for an idea. That idea in my opinion was the concept of the FAIR SHAKE. Give me a fair shake and let me fail or succeed on my own. I just want to be treated the same as the next joe.

Nowadays our image is really bad. Why? Probably because that mantra has morphed into “I deserve as big a slice of the pie, and I don’t care what morals I have to flush down the toilet to get it.”

It seems to me that the concept that all companies (but especially the big ones so important to quality like banking, car insurance, health insurance, mortgage companies etc..) should have to open their doors to the ENTIRE public would be a no-brainer. (Oh wait it is! Many people have succesfully sued for millions based on discrimination lawsuits).

You mention how any financial structure can lead to f.at cats on top squishing the normal people. But, you split hairs on me regarding the female-only car insurance and no-seniors health care and the travesties that went on in the early 20th century. Why? If the laws are made by corrupt people at the top, shouldn’t we look instead through a lens of morality & ethics (instead of legality)?

How is selling gender based car insurance or no-seniors health care morally superior to (as examples) Dell stating they won’t sell to blacks because they default on their finance payments, or golf courses saying they won’t admit latinos because they steal the clubs.

The answer: it isn’t any different at all, is it?

The worst part is you try to defend these things (the gender insurance and no-seniors health care anyway) under free market capitalism. This has nothing to do with free markets. This has to do with quality of life, and a FAIR SHAKE.

If anything companies in the US need MORE oversight, not less. Arthur Anderson the #1 premier auditing company in the U.S. indicted for fudging numbers in their clients favor?

I don’t know how much you travel around the world. I don’t, but I have friends in all sorts of different social niches. Friends who were in the military service stationed overseas, and affluent friends tell me that the infrastructure everywhere else (except the third world of course) beats the U.S. hands down.

Whatever these other countries may do wrong, they do one thing right by spending money on cheap reliable efficient mass transit systems.

Where is all of the U.S.’s infrastructure? It’s getting devoured by corporate and government corruption.

I remember looking at the clearing of the remains of the twin towers after 9-11. I was SICKENED looking at this 19th century fire-brigade setup clearing debris one bucket at a time. I thought: there’s (maybe) people trapped down there! Why don’t they use cranes (or at least have a big garbage trailer suspended on a cable and have the guys throw things into the trailer all at once?)? Why don’t they hurry?

Answer? They were afraid of lawsuits. Unbelievable.

And here you are advocating for companies to have the right to discriminate? YOU’RE UNBELIEVABLE!