Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Sanders Proposes Bill to Reduce Wealth Inequality" video.

Bernie Sanders and people who support him need to really learn what wealth really is. There will always be wealth inequality, it is actually good for society. Not everyone desires to own a business. Look at the wealth of a home owner compared to a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person simply does not have much wealth. In income inequality we have it because we have people who simply refuse to work at the best of their ability. People who speak of wealth inequality and compare it to income inequality simply don't know what they are talking about. In all Bernie is once again showing he has no clue what he is talking about.
1
+Bread Canful Wealth inequality is actually good for a society. The reason why we have wealth inequality is because for the average person beyond owning a home they simply don't have much wealth. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter and around 60 to 70% of a homeowner's wealth is in their home. The reason for such wealth inequality is because not everyone desires to own and run a business. The Walton family has so much wealth because they basically own half of Walmart. That means all of it's buildings, trucks, merchandise until it is sold and so on. To have wealth equality you will literally have to take property from those who can, or is willing to develop it and give to those that won't. That means wealth overall in a society will fall. Yeah we will have equality in wealth but it will be underdeveloped and poor.
1
+Bread Canful Walmart does a lot of benefits for society. I creates a lot of jobs for people who simply would not find a job elsewhere. It also has convenient locations and a large selection at low prices in stores that are open 24/7. So it is benefiting the public. People with large amounts of money got there by providing something society demands. Sticking with Walmart they are as big as they are due to the consumers. The consumers made them rich. They did just get rich. When wealth is "more evenly distributed" the overall situation will be worse off. You will see life expectancy drop, illness and overall health get worse and more people suffering. Asking the government to do this is a dangerous approach.
1
+Bread Canful What vague assertions? I provide a lot of concrete evidence. If Walmart did not care about the health of the economy and society they will not open as many stores as they do. They will be like a Raley's or Hy Vee and open a few stores, close their doors at night, hire less, pay less, and raise prices. I am not saying Walmart is 100% great, but the do provide a lot of benefit to society.
1
+Bread Canful I gave evidence, you just don't like it. When I hear of complaints about Walmart there is always one component missing in the equation, that is the consumer. Why does Walmart exist? Because of the consumer. They have a business model that attracts customers. I hear of the low wages and poor working conditions and how they have so much money and wealth but I never hear about the customers. It shows pure ignorance when you do that. But I guess you don't know what the word evidence means as well, or how businesses function in this country,
1
+Bread Canful I gave evidence. You want to talk about wealth redistribution, Venezuela practiced that and their overall wealth is terrible. People think Scandinavian countries practice wealth redistribution but they don't. On Walmart, they are a large employer, one of the largest in the US. But they still offer low prices. Those are facts. I find it funny how you ask me to give citations when you give none yourself. I am giving you evidence. If you want me to take the time to give you citations I can, at that point this goes from being a comment to a thesis. Plus it falls into the trap of where I give evidence and then you just ignore me in the end. I have been there before. I have learned the best way to have your argument fall apart is to ask question. On Walmart, why do you not include the consumers in your criticism? You complain about the wealth they have but why don't you include the consumers in your argument?
1
+Bread Canful You said in an earlier argument that Walmart does not benefit society, but yet has a lot of consumers and employs a lot of people. So how does Walmart not benefit society?
1
+Bread Canful Oh, I forgot. You will also give "citation" from bias sources claiming them to be legit. A group called "The Equality Trust", right there that is a red flag. Do you really trust that source? If you do then you are more gullible then I thought. We do have an unequal society, we have an unequal tax code where the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes.
1
+Bread Canful Ok, read the Washington Post article "How income inequality benefits everybody" Start with that. It shows that one can easily find a counter point to what you are presenting. I do research and reasoning. You trust a book written by a bias source. No different then when someone had me read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and by page 17 I could have written a 5 page report showing how ignorant that book was. You also have yet to answer my question in why Walmart does not benefit society?
1
+Bread Canful So your book is gospel by my source is not? I knew this will happen. This is why I refrain from putting up sources because it leads to one person calling my source flaw and their source the know all. I have a great reason to say it is bias simply from the source. This tells me everything I need to know about you. You pick sources you like and when someone comes, in detail with a counter argument you go "la la la" while plugging your ears. I am still waiting for an answer on my question as well.
1