NATO Stock Hawk

Trump is the most anti-American person I've ever seen.

Space X - safety and environment are optional.

That's a profound statement. Very elusive to define what is fair or equal (according to who/what). Great point you make.

Becomes difficult in this thread chat structure to have these nuanced conversations. I value everyone's ideas here -- they are all good and I'm not saying mine are better ideas or more valid. I think through discussion we uncover good questions and hope you enjoy the discussion as well.

So for me: Economic justice, therefore, is not just about lifting individuals through hard work — it’s about transforming systems that trap people in poverty. It means challenging the structures that prioritize wealth accumulation for the few while marginalizing the many.

For King, economic justice meant creating guaranteed income, investing in public services, and eradicating poverty as a moral/social imperative. He believed economic inequality perpetuates racial/social injustice... the fight for civil rights includes a fight for living wages & fair labor practices.

King famously stated:

“What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger?”
(Speech at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1967)

Also need to refer MLK Jr.

Dr. King saw economic justice as integral to social justice, arguing that racial equality without economic security is incomplete. He called for a "radical redistribution of economic and political power" to address poverty, discrimination, and worker exploitation.

So for me, economic justice, from this view, means dismantling systems that concentrate wealth and power through corporate influence, wage suppression, and tax loopholes. It’s about empowering workers, guaranteeing basic rights, and creating systems that prioritize human welfare over profit.

Great question. And subjective. So for me: “The primary principle of international order is that the rich men rule the earth. This principle remains constant regardless of ideology or form of government.”
(Chomsky, Profit Over People, 1999)

Hey Jimmy, it’s not about dismissing sources like Fidelity — it’s about recognizing bias and testing conclusions. It’s totally fine to use biased sources as long as we identify the bias and actively look for evidence that could disprove the claim so the theory becomes stronger.

Simply labeling a source as “well-respected” isn’t enough — it’s about critically evaluating why that respect exists and whether it holds up to scrutiny.

The goal isn’t to find perfectly unbiased data (it rarely exists) but to develop conclusions that are well-framed, rigorously tested, and transparent about their own limitations.

Including biased sources is valid — as long as they’re balanced with contrasting perspectives and critically analyzed.

That’s why ethnographic research emphasizes methods like triangulation (cross-referencing data from diverse sources), grounded theory (letting patterns emerge rather than starting with assumptions), and seeking falsifiability (actively trying to disprove one’s own hypothesis).

The point isn’t to dismiss one source over another, but to use methods that minimize bias and acknowledge it where it exists.

However, it’s not just about being skeptical of these sources. Even government data or peer-reviewed studies are not inherently free of bias. Government reports may reflect policy priorities, while academic data can be shaped by funding sources or disciplinary focus.

Dave Ramsey conducts his own surveys, but these are inherently biased because his audience self-selects — people who already follow his financial philosophy. His messaging often frames wealth as the result of discipline, ignoring systemic factors like education, networks, or inherited stability.

Fidelity is a financial services company whose data reflects the perspective of investors and the wealthy — promoting the idea that wealth comes from individual effort, which aligns with their business model.

Jimmy, I get where you’re coming from, but there’s an issue with relying on sources like Fidelity and Dave Ramsey without critically examining their biases.

To critically assess wealth and social mobility — especially when analyzing claims about “self-made” millionaires or economic inequality — it’s essential to use credible sources and employ rigorous ethnographic methods.

I appreciate your openness, Videoguy, and I get where you’re coming from. But there’s something interesting happening here: in trying to challenge stereotypes about the rich, you’re actually creating one — the resilient, self-made millionaire who overcame hardship through pure effort.

Repeating unverified stats from popular figures without critically examining their biases only strengthens misleading narratives. If we’re serious about understanding wealth, we need data, not feel-good stories.

Phoenician is right to question the credibility here. Dave Ramsey isn’t an authoritative source — he’s a financial talk-show host whose advice often aligns with a neoliberal narrative: that wealth comes purely from hard work and discipline.

If we’re serious about discussing economic justice, let’s focus on the reality of how wealth is accumulated and preserved, not on loaded terms that deflect from the issue.

Most critiques aren’t about resentment — they’re about addressing structural inequality that keeps wealth concentrated at the top. Labeling it as hate just dismisses legitimate concerns and shuts down dialogue.

Jimmy, using the term “inherited wealth haters” unfairly frames the conversation. It assumes that anyone questioning wealth distribution is motivated by hate rather than a desire for fairness.

How do we know people “hate” inherited wealth?

The real problem isn’t how one individual made it — it’s how the system continuously redistributes wealth upward, leaving most people stuck at the bottom regardless of how hard they work. Getting hung up on this stat just diverts attention from discussing the real structural imbalances.

Thanks for being open to the dialogue — it’s important to challenge our assumptions and look at the full picture.