jump to last post 1-44 of 44 discussions (539 posts)

Is it wrong to accumulate wealth?

  1. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Why take more resources than you need to be comfortable? How many cars or jets or mansions is REALLY enough?

    Is it wrong to take more than your fair share?

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No it is not.     Why is wealth viewed so negatively?     Wealth enables one to live extremely comfortably,  a wealthy person does not suffer the stresses that a less wealthy person does.  He/she does not have to worry about putting food on the table and providing for his/her family.    He/she has more than enough assets to go around.   He/she does not have to worrry about being paychecks away from homelessness.  Wealth= socioeconomic security and peace of mind.

      Wealth enables relationships to run more smoothly.    Studies show that financial worries are one of the main problematic areas in relationships.   When one is under undue financial stress, he/she is not a happy camper and oftentimes takes out such frustration on family members.    When one constantly worries about how to provide for himself/herself and his/her family, life is not fun.  Living from hand to mouth is not copasetic to say the least.

      Wealth enables one to live a luxurious life and the life of one dreams.   When one is wealthy, one is better enabled to help others and to establish foundations.   Think of Oprah, Bill Gates, and John Welch.   These titans have massive wealth but use monies to help others.    It is time to stop demonizing and denigrating those who have wealth and want to be wealthy.    Most intelligent and well-thinking people want to and yearn to be wealthy.     Only the non-thinking do not wish to be wealthy much to their and their family's socioeconomic peril.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't need to be wealthy. I want enough money to be able to pay my bills, be prepared for emergencies and to treat myself once in a while. Enough money maybe to help my family and others. You don't have to be wealthy to do that.  I don't think I am a "non-thinking" person.  Yearning to be wealthy prevents every day life from being pleasant.

        And I don't have anything against the rich either, I can't stand some of them but that has nothing to do with how much money they have but more to do with their personality. (Thinking, Donald Trump here)

      2. 0
        screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @gmwilliams, by your own Bio Page, you had distinct advantages. Starting with private schools and thru college. Not everyone have these advantages. Most went thru poorly funded public schools and didn't get your leg up!

      3. 59
        stoneyyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        gmwilliams wrote in part; "No it is not.     Why is wealth viewed so negatively?     Wealth enables one to live extremely comfortably,  a wealthy person does not suffer the stresses that a less wealthy person does.  He/she does not have to worry about putting food on the table and providing for his/her family.    He/she has more than enough assets to go around.   He/she does not have to worrry about being paychecks away from homelessness.  Wealth= socioeconomic security and peace of mind. "

        Not necessarily.  Being wealthy does not mean good money management. There is the tendency (not all inclusive) to boost spending to meet average income.  If the income drops there's a problem.

        A good illustration is Enron's Ken (kennyboy) Lay's wife.  She lamented she didn't know what to do and they were down to their last ten million.

    2. 0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No! I believe in capitalism and if you can honestly earn the money, spend it as you please! However Capitalism without a social safety net is Serfdom. And that is what we are seeing now!

      When the rich want to rule us and dole out at their discretion and tout that charity should take care of the poor not a government mandate you better worry. History has shown us their charity is not all that charitable. So no I have no problem with wealth accumulation, just pay your fair share of taxes and if you are a job provider pay a livable wage and stop blackmailing communities for subsidies to run your damn business there so you can make even a larger profit. Play fair!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And who will define what your "fair share of taxes" is?  You or those that want your wealth for their own purposes?

        Strictly speaking, "fair" is that everyone in the country pays exactly the same amount of taxes, but we have somehow decided that it is "fair" somehow to enforce the concept of sharing the wealth.  Which ultimately boils down to "give me your wealth to use for my purposes instead of yours".

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If I were rich I would be more that willing to pay more taxes to help those who didn't get the help and the breaks that I did no matter how hard they worked. Or to help keep up the infrastructure of the county in which I live, to help the schools (even though I have no children), to ensure it is a pleasant place to live.  I have always willingly paid extra taxes if I have earned more in a certain year. I believe it's part of being a member of society.

          "to whom much is given, much is expected" and I take that as paying back for the fact that you were fortunate enough to become a success. Not everyone who works hard becomes rich and those who don't strive for that are not all lazy.

        2. 0
          Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don’t think I can answer your question because we use our definitions of fair in different ways. You see a flat tax as fair and I see a progressive one as fair. Both define the word fair correctly but we are miles apart in our views.  Don’t think I can win you over to my views, nor can you convince me that your views are the right ones. But I hope for the sake of this country those views somehow can come to a compromise to benefit us all.

        3. 61
          Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not consider charging everyone the same taxes to be fair, because the same amount of money has a different practical meaning to different people.

          To a middle-class person like me, $20 is 'go get a snack because I'm bored' kind of money. To a homeless person begging on the streets, $20 means 'I can eat instead of starving for the next few days'. To a rich CEO, $20 is pretty much nothing.

          I do not consider it fair to expect payment that will cause one person to starve for the next week while not even being noticed by the other person. That would be like expecting the same performance in terms of chores from both a 5 year old and a 15 year old.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are two different things that come into play here. One is wealth as a vehicle to experience the freedom to live the lifestyle you deem neccessary to be happy and content. The other is greed and all the conotations that ensue with it. Greed is self fulfilling and is rooted in obsession which is by all means unhealthy on any level. I don't think wealth in general is a bad thing.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Concur  1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!  It totally nonplusses me that there is an adversion to wealth.  People have been so inculcated with the premise that accumulation of wealth is wrong.  Why?  Wealth equals freedom, especially freedom to live a lifestyle that you want and to be without worry.  What is WRONG with people?   

        Tell that premise to a people who is struggling socioeconomically, living from day to day, wondering if there will be food on the table and/or a roof over his/her head.   Tell that premise to an impoverished person who cannot even afford the basic necessities.   Tell that premise to a homeless person.  Tell that premise to an inner city child whose has next to nothing!    Wealth= a better, carefree life.   When one is wealthy, he/she is beyond comfortable and have assets as his/her disposal.   Wealthy people thrive instead of merely surviving.     Wealthy and money are not negative concepts.     Which WOULD you rather be- (a) wealthy beyond compare or (b) just comfortable but you do not have all at your disposal?    The correct answer is (a)!   Enough said!

        1. 61
          Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is because some people are very wealthy and refuse to share their wealth that others are starving and homeless.

          In talking to two different people from Communist countries, both were surprised that Canada (where I live) has starving people. In a Communist country, either everyone starves (if the country is poor) or no one starves (if the country is rich). Despite all the lack of freedom and human rights abuses, what do you think most average citizens care about? Their own survival.

          And while poorer countries (eg Bulgaria) may not be capable of feeding all their people even if they distribute wealth equally, if the entire world distributed its' resources fairly, we could eliminate starvation. Richer countries such as the US or China - or even my own Canada - could easily pay for a good quality of living for many more people than our own populations, if we did not allow people to accumulate extreme wealth.

          And it's not like it would really hurt the wealthy to take their money away. Research shows that, above a certain income, wealth has no correlation with happiness. As long as you earn enough to be able to get housing, food, and other necessities, with a bit left over for leisure activities, there's no difference between a ditchdigger and a CEO in their ability to enjoy life. You don't need to be rich, you just need enough to pay the bills.

    4. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. You earned those things.

      That is no different than a person having thousands of dollars in savings. They are, instead, choosing to invest the money in themselves. Property is the best investment you can make. Don't be jelly wink

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        THANK YOU!  THANK YOU!   It is MY MONEY and MY PREROGATIVE,  I earned THIS MONEY, HONEY, I DO WANT I WANT TO DO!  AMEN AND APPLAUSE!

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          capitalist

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I AM and D#$%#! PROUD OF IT!

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol...oh I can tell

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But is she/he rich? smile

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, just extremely comfortable!

          2. kathleenkat profile image90
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            hippie

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              yep

            2. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              High five to that!  Let's add socialist!

    5. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, it's not wrong to accumulate wealth. What is wrong is accumulating wealth at the expense of others. What is unethical is having vast amounts of wealth while others around you are starving.

      Why is it unethical?

      Ethics are rules arrived at through time and experience that lead towards the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time.

      The reason why it is unethical for some to have vast reserves of wealth while others are starving is that it leads to violence and revolution. History has shown that repeatedly. Violence and revolution are not for the greater good in that it kills people. Ironically, it becomes for the greater good when the resources are so unequally divided that it endangers of survival of the majority.

    6. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fair share? Is there a finite "pie"? How does one person's success and accumulation of wealth keep someone else from succeeding? Your premise is flawed from the start. Besides, most people who accumulate wealth also employ others, fund research and charities and invest in business/economic growth.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mitch, socialism is blooming here!   No use in explaining your premise, SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT!    DON'T EVEN WASTE YOUR ENERGY!   CAN NEVER CONVINCE A SOCIALIST!

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No they don't. That is done by people who spend their wealth.
        Those who accumulate it do none of those things.

      3. 61
        Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is impossible for everyone to be rich simultaneously. If you know anything about economics, you know that acquiring wealth necessarily comes at the expense of others.

        If everyone has a million dollars, then dollars will lose value. The prices of everything will go up, and consequently your spending power will go down. I'm sure many Japanese people have a million yen, for example, but since it takes 300 yen to buy a soda, having a million yen does not make you rich.

        And you know why yen are worth so little? Because there are so many yen printed. Germany made this mistake in the 1920s, when they tried to pay off the other countries after WW1 by printing more currency. The result was hyperinflation, and the value of the Deutsche Mark plummeted.

        It is possible to make everyone comfortably well off. But if some people are rich - which means not just having lots of money, but having lots of spending power - then others have to be poor. That's basic economics.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's actually not true. Wealth can be generated without taking wealth away from anyone, and it happens all the time. Also, generating wealth doesn't devalue other money(it's not the same as printing money). Just because everyone was wealthy wouldn't mean prices went up, it would likely mean that we had many more assets as a nation(new electronics, gadgets, etc)...

          Basic economics should have you understanding the difference between printing money and generating wealth.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And we get back to the question where if an economic system is increasing its wealth by 3%, where does the wealth come from for those who are increasing their wealth by many times 3%?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              1 - You seem to think you have an argument with me that you don't have.

              2 - The real answer to that is much more complex than the wealth creation discussion we had earlier, and I really don't care to go into it with you.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                1. who's arguing?

                2. don't care to or can't?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  1 - An argument, as in arguments presented in discussion.

                  2 - Don't care to. It took pages and pages to get you to admit that wealth can be created. And even though you had already admitted as much, you continued to make a stink about it. After I took the time to explain it to you, after asking, you insulted me and changed the subject as if I had never addressed your question in the first place.

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think what you're missing is that the wealth that is created is not the kind of wealth that is beneficial to society. At this point, virtually all wealth that is created is created for the benefit of a few and virtually destroys the rest of humanity plus the environment.

                    Nobody is disputing that people can get rich. However, most people don't want to use the methods of wealth creation that are now being used.

                    a) Lying to the masses of people.
                    b) creating an artificial need through brainwashing/advertising
                    c) paying wage slavery wages.
                    d) destroying the habitat and pollution

                    And more.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You took the time to explain to me! Oh how gracious of you.
                    Still as arrogant I see.

        2. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "It is possible to make everyone comfortably well off. But if some people are rich - which means not just having lots of money, but having lots of spending power - then others have to be poor. That's basic economics."

          Absolutely, it is possible to make everybody well off. If we all work together to do that, it is very achievable. The issue is the nature of a FEW - not the majority - who want to be better off than others.

          http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … their.html

    7. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing wrong with wealth.  I does depend on how you have obtained said wealth.  It is hypocritical to espouse how much God is a meaningful part of your life, as you sit on billions, but want to cut benefits to the most vulnerable of our society.  If you just want to be a rich a--hole, and not care about anyone else...leave God out of it!

    8. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wealth is a good thing.  It provides a goal that is achievable by everyone.  You obviously do not comprehend the ability of a person like myself to earn everything that I own.  I have worked all my life and I deserve everything that I have, that I make, and that I worked for.  My work has never harmed anyone or anything.  My work has been productive and has provided me and my family with wealth and a very comfortable life.  I owe you nothing.  Wealthy people owe me nothing unless they want me to work for them.

      1. 61
        Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not everyone can become rich. In fact, pretty much every rich family in the US can eventually trace their ancestry back to organized crime, because that's pretty much the only way for a person to go from poor to rich.

        The single best predictor of your economic status is the economic status of your parents. This is not due to genetic factors (as people in the 1800s and early 1900s often believed) but due to what kind of money you inherit, what kind of education you can afford, the connections you have with others of the same status as your parents, and so forth. Yes, hard work plays a part, but if you never get the opportunity, your hard work means nothing. If you or your parents can't afford, when you're 18 or so years old, to send you to university, then with the exception of the limited few who get scholarships (and no matter how hard everyone works, the number who get scholarships is pre-set) you won't be able to get a university education. This limits what jobs you will get hired for, and jobs requiring university degrees tend to be the higher-paying jobs. If you save up your money, how long will it take until you can afford to go to university? It could be a long time. And even if you get your degree and get a university degree job at 40, the other 40 year olds in that field will have been working for 10-15 years, and they'll have seniority and experience over you. Which means they earn more. And you will never catch up, because the time that you spend getting that experience, they will spend getting even further ahead.

        And then there's student loans. Maybe you can afford university then. But it's a gamble - what if you don't manage to get a good job? (Not every university graduate gets a job that uses their training, not out of laziness, but because there are only so many jobs available.) You may never be able to pay off your student loans - I know of some people who will most likely die before their student loans are paid off.

        And the disparity comes even before university. Public schools don't teach the same things that private schools do. They don't have the resources to give the best education. They often have larger classes, which means less individual attention for each child, and kids learn better when given individual attention from teachers. (If you don't understand the material and everyone else does, you better hope the teacher has time to explain it to you individually. And not every kid even realizes when they haven't understood, so you can't count on them asking questions, even if the teacher has the time to answer all the questions being asked.) Some subjects, such as chemistry, are made considerably easier to learn by spending a bunch of money buying supplies such asa chemistry lab and chemicals to do hands on practice. Textbooks also cost money, and up-to-date textbooks are more expensive than outdated textbooks are. All of this adds up to the kids from the more prosperous schools finishing grade 12 with a better quality education, which makes doing well in university a lot easier. (And if you flunk out of university, you won't get the economic benefits of a university education. Flunking out can be due to lack of effort, but it can also be due to lack of ability, which may be due to a poorer education.)

        I am middle class. My parents can afford to pay my university tuition. I don't know what the future will bring, but I know that I have a decent chance of getting a good job (I'm planning to become a clinical psychologist). If I work hard, I can get my degree, and probably get a job that is only open to someone with a psychology degree. But I know that if my parents were on welfare or minimum wage, I would not have the same security to train for my future. The fact that my mother is a lawyer and my father is a computer programmer makes a big difference, at least as big as all of my hard work does.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Come on, you have to know better than that. We have millions of rich people who came from poor families, not organized crime.

          I'm sorry, that's not universally true. A single 18-year old can work his way through college on a minimum-wage job. Not at any university, and not in any city, but it's possible. It takes hard work, and it might require moving, but it's possible, and people do it.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True,  one of my maternal aunts did it, so did one of my maternal uncles, and my mother!

            1. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, your maternal uncle and your maternal aunt did it 30 years ago. At what point are you going to realize that what was possible 30 or 40 years ago hasn't been possible for the past ten years and is highly unlikely to be possible in the future.

              Times have changed radically.

              That is what you are not taking into consideration.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Come on, people are still doing it today.

                1. Express10 profile image88
                  Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I too know people that are still doing it today in these difficult economic times. However, I also know one young man that took $100 to start his own business and earns more money than the ones working at the mall...while going to college.

                  The thing is that those who believe and seek opportunities will find them. Those that just want to say how things are impossible will find it so.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    AMEN to that-so many NEGAHOLICS and HATERS out there!

    9. 0
      Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you say that then there is no point in a nation being or becoming a superpower. For all we want is bread and house. If the humans live like that, then we would have not had much difference between animals and humans. Infact the way we live: wanting more comforts than we have and looking to get better every day, is what that made humans the most powerful species on the planet.

      Being and becoming rich or richer is actually a noble deed, we cant restrict the human will and nature. We are not taking something from others, we are just utilizing the opportunities well. If there are no rich people and every buddy felt comfort with just daily bread and shelter then who will provide jobs?? to get bread and meat you need money and for that you need a job and to get a job you need someone rich enough to start a company.... And this is what the simplest difference between capitalism and communism. I prefer the former if you prefer the later(which is late now) then its up to your choice....

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Panzer, YOU  are SOMEONE with GOOD SENSE!   NO USE of CONVINCING JOHN of this premise!  NO USE AT ALL!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think, like you, that Panzer totally misses the point.

          1. 0
            Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, my friend then tell me your view?? So do you want a state that is all powerful, with workers and employees as it focus and banning all private sectors.?? DO you really want USA to become a Communist country??? I wonder whats your reply....

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As we all know, socialism and communism does not work.  Look at Russia and Eastern Europe, they rebelled against such strictures.   China is becoming more capitalistic.    John should live in the real world.  Panzer, you are wasting your breath and knowledge on such a person.   SITUATION: TOTALLY HOPELESS!

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                gmwilliams, where do you get the idea that socialism doesn't work. The best countries and the most prosperous countries I have ever lived in have all being socialistic.

                Do you understand what socialism means?

                It does not mean there isn't capitalism. It means that certain facilities that are common to all people are subsidized heavily by the government, e.g. transport, communication, electricity, water, health, education, etc.

                Europe is socialistic. Australia is socialistic. In the South Africa I grew up in the 50s and 60s, it was socialistic. South African airlines was owned by the government. So was the South African railways. So was the South African telephone system. The minute those things became privatized, quality and price went to the dogs. They've never been right since. When Margaret Thatcher privatized British Rail, it went to the dogs. The private sector was more interested in profit than fixing up the rails and so many people died.

                You seem to think that America is working. No, it's not. The system in America has more than destroyed half your people. Half of them - the highest in the world - are suffering from mental illness. You have the highest rates of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Eighty five percent of working Americans loathe their jobs. According to the 2009 census, half your people are living in poverty.

                Where did you get this idea that capitalism is working. How, exactly, do you define 'working?"

                With all due respect, you have a very strange definition of what works and what doesn't.

                1. 0
                  Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is a new and strange explanation for Socialism and a new supporter for Communism.. But mam dont take my reply personally after seeing your comment i went through and checked your hubs and they are really informative 'which proves your highly skilled. But i wonder why such an advanced person leave such a comment?? Rich cant be blamed for others being poor; I dont get the money out of others pocket and i pay my taxes properly, I create some jobs for others in my company and that makes me a good citizen and good human.

                  Once again "If a person is born poor its not his mistake but if he dies poor its his mistake and not others" I work hard and i am rewarded you cant bully me to give away my money.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Wages in America have been flat for years while CEO pay has risen substantially, sometimes with little relation to company performance."

                    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd … mpensation

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You get all that from my belief that accumulating wealth is bad!
              Do you know what accumulate means?
              Do you get up everyday and give all your money to somebody wealthy, who doesn't need it?

              I don't see how you can get from not wanting some to enrich themselves at the expense of others to wanting a communist country.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Again...how do they do it at the EXPENSE of others. People are paid what they have agreed to be paid, people have purchased goods and services that they have agreed to purchase at a given price and shareholders have either increased or decreased thier money through "betting" on the market. Where is this "taking" mentality expressed in the real market place?

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No use trying to convince Mr. Holden of this.   He will still be relentless in his premise that the rich is "exploiting" the poor through profits.   Let Mr. Holden retain this premise.     WE ALL KNOW BETTER!   As Southern people say, "Bless his heart."

                  1. 0
                    Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you. There is no use of convening, for you can wake someone who is sleeping but you cant wake who pretends to sleep or people who are drugged.  In the end incapable and unsuccessful people who always feel jelous of successful and rich people and start to speak ill of them..

                    Even in India there are some people without a proper backbone and want reservation in education, jobs and given a chance they will ask for reservation of smart girls and guys to love and marry. To add more in India if you are from SCST caste/class then you can get a medical or engineering college seat with just 40%-60% marks and that too with scholarship. But if you are from a forward community (or from Brahmin society) then you cant get the same college seat even if you score more than 90%. same rules applies for Government jobs. And that's why most skilled Indians go to America, Australia or England for Higher studies and they prefer to settle there. If the same system is applied on western countries too then i fear where will my beloved and honorable US citizens go???

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The key to all that is in "betting" but you won't see that will you? In your book it will be OK to use people as gambling tokens.

                  How do you actually come to the conclusion that if somebody offers a job at $x an hour, take it or leave it, that anybody taking that job has had any say in that price, a say necessary for there to have been agreement.
                  If somebody wants to buy a loaf of bread, they buy it at the price the baker dictates or they don't buy it where is the agreement in that?

                  It is all taking.

                  1. kathleenkat profile image90
                    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Many people negotiate salaries prior to accepting jobs.

      2. Express10 profile image88
        Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for you opinion here Panzer. I too earn money without harming or stealing from others. I utilize or create opportunities to earn money. I know that if I want a comfortable life, healthcare, safe and beautiful home, it costs money and I must earn that money to provide these "creature" comforts. I do not think it's wrong to accumulate wealth. I too agree with GMWilliams.

    10. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is wrong to accumulate debt. But that is what America does through massive entitlement spending.

    11. Wayne Brown profile image87
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who determines "fair share"....Obama?....Congress?.....the Federal bureacracy?  Why not just hand over the keys and walk away.  There are many, many people who build outstanding and successful businesses providing products and services.  The productivity and profitability of that business might have take the better part of a lifetime to achieve...why give it away?  Why not enjoy the fruits of the spoils. There are other aspects to consider.  Many wealthy people are very giving and charitable but they do it quietly and without the desire for publicity in the process.  But, like a tree falling in the forest, if there is no one there to shout it to the masses, it did not happen, at least in their minds.  Individual achievement, success, and the spoils that go with it have long since been a benchmark in America for all of us.  We all want to achieve security and to experience the higher things of life.  Unfortunately, the reality of it all says that most of us probably won't and for a number of reasons starting with our own dedication, self-determination, and focus.  Success is not all just luck or the right time and place...effort is required...lots of effort and maybe lots of failures along the way.  For many of those who have achieved something, they have risk everything they have had in life to do so.  Had they not made it, they would have walked away with nothing and asked for nothing.  If one thinks that we should have a country built on "fair shares" just so that everyone can feel equal even though they do not attempt to produce, then the answer is to form a socialist collective and allow the government to slice the pie in equal pieces to pass out to everyone regardless.  Then, you can watch as the pie slowly, over time, begins to shrink as fewer and fewer producers remain and more and more cross over the line to the non-productive side where the slice is just as larege.  That equation is a loosing proposition over the long haul for any countries attempting it. The present regime would like nothing more than to have the power to take everything away from us and dictate what we will have...in their minds that is equality.  In my mind, it is robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote.  So goes it down at the Gulag.  ~WB

    12. Billy Hicks profile image90
      Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Let's talk about the real question you're asking:

      "Is it wrong to accumulate power?"

      Let's face it, wealth is power, plain and simple. Money is a resource; a tool that allows you to control both objects and, to some extent, people.

      Now, is there an inherent "evil" to the acquisition of that power; not at all. As long as it's done legally, then by all means, have at it- the more the better.

      The problems come when either the "wrong person" accumulates wealth or the wealth is obtained illegally. That's a whole separate issue, and one worthy of discussion. As far as wealth goes however, no there is nothing wrong with accumulating as much wealth as you choose to.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're not taking human nature into consideration.

        Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        1. Billy Hicks profile image90
          Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "The problems come when either the "wrong person" accumulates wealth or the wealth is obtained illegally."

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, please. Obviously you have no idea who many rich people use and abuse. Just mix with them for a while on a personal level and listen to them talk. You'll soon lose your illusions about them.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe if it was removed from them it would take them down a notch or two.
              Ya think?

            2. Billy Hicks profile image90
              Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              When you commented that I wasn't "taking human nature into consideration", I copy/pasted part of my original comment (the one you presumably read before commenting on), to illustrate that I did in fact "consider human nature".

              If there's some issue here with communication, I completely understand; Lord knows I'm not the most eloquent person around, and as such, I'd be happy to elaborate on anything that you feel I haven't explained correctly. 

              However, making a sweeping generalization and saying that I "obviously have no idea" about something, and that I have some kind of illusions about "them", is more than a little arrogant, don't you think?

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Billy, if you hold the opinion you do, then you honestly don't comprehend this. Please tell me exactly why it is that some people want to be rich, i.e. have more than other people do.

                It's evil. There is absolutely nothing good to be gained by a few people having a million times more than other people. Understand, that I am not saying that everybody must have exactly the same, but the word 'rich' means a lot more than a range of possessions.

                There is lower middle class, middle classes, and upper middle classes. They have a range of wealth. However, that is completely different to people who milk others to have excessively more than others.

                And there isn't a single good reason that I can think of other than greed, self agrandisement, and love of power. And theyr'e all extremely debased instincts.

                1. Billy Hicks profile image90
                  Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Where to begin... I know: let's do this Q & A style:

                  Q: "Please tell me exactly why it is that some people want to be rich, i.e. have more than other people do."

                  A: Because they can. Because we live in a free country where anyone who's willing to work hard can achieve anything they want, regardless of where they come from.

                  Q: "It's evil. There is absolutely nothing good to be gained by a few people having a million times more than other people."

                  A: Assigning motive to the acquisition of wealth, by calling it "evil" is just ignorant. Warren Buffett has given over $30 Billion to charity, Bill Gates has given over $28 Billion, and Oprah (who was born and raised about as dirt poor as you can get) has given over $300 Million and done more charity work than I could be listed here. Does that sound "evil" to you?

                  Q: "And there isn't a single good reason that I can think of other than greed, self agrandisement, and love of power. And theyr'e all extremely debased instincts."

                  A: Let me answer this point with a question of my own: from where do draw the unqualified arrogance to criticize others for their success? If you choose to embrace a life of poverty and service to others, that's great, but why do feel this need to denounce others who don't happen to share your personal views?

                  1. 0
                    Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Perfect.. Thats what i too say, sharing or giving is good but you cant compel the rich to do it. If a rich man starts a new company its actually sharing, sharing doesn't means just giving charity, if you want to get direct(and free money) from a rich man then its not sharing its begging...

                  2. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    One can always tell the difference between someone who actually thinks and someone who endlessly quotes other people.

                    For the record, when Sir Edmund Hilliary was asked why he wanted to climb Everest and he replied with 'Because it's there,' it was a classic sidestep.

                    That is NOT a reason. The same reasoning can be used when someone asks, "Why do you want to murder people?" And the answer would be "Because they're there.?

                    Puh-lease.

                    Using one or two examples of people whom you know precious little about is not a reason to say that accumulating wealth is good. I would be more impressed if you said that every single person that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet employed made a decent living. I would also be more impressed if Bill Gates charged substantially less for his software. Why? Because that would have enabled far more people to access it sufficiently early to improve their lives. Pricing things so that only the top half of a community can buy them is unethical, especially when the person who is responsible for doing it has more money than God. He could easily have cut his profits and then a lot more people would have been able to help themselves.

                    I find your last comment completely laughable. How do I have 'unqualified arrogance' because I think people who have something in them that drives them to get that sort of wealth (because it is always at the expense of the greater good) are emotional cripples and missing in conscience? It is an opinion derived at through more than 30 years of study, and the previous 30 years, was of personal connection with these people.

                    It's not that I have a need t denounce others who don't hold my views. What I have an issue with is the few who are destroying our world because of the deep empty void inside them that drives them to wealth accumulation.

                    As a species we are facing destruction and all you're worried about is some gold in the bank?

                2. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll step in.

                  I want to be extremely rich. I want to provide a sustainable fund for my posterity, so that each individual will receive a certain amount of money upon completion of certain tasks(marriage, diploma, college, trade school, etc) as well as have an emergency fund to keep them from starving or becoming homeless. I want the fund to be large enough to be sustainable for my children, grand children, great grandchildren, at least for 5 generations, hopefully closer to indefinitely.

                  I also want to set up scholarships, animal shelters, and charities. I want to have enough money to supply them with funds through interest, so the funding will never dry out.

                  Simply not true. How is setting up a fund that can provide for others indefinitely, using interest, be considered evil?

                  What is evil about my half-brother, who happens to be in the top 1% by wealth(at this point, that means at least $8 million to be in the top 1%)?

                  Do you know how he got so wealthy? He took an IT company that was failing(over 150 employees), secured financing to purchase it, completely restructured the company and grew it over 5 years. Then he sold it. Not only did he save those 150+ jobs, but he created over 100 more, and helped contribute to the shared increase in the standard of living for all Americans. How is that evil?

    13. onefineham profile image60
      onefinehamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At certain levels of wealth disproportion a society becomes very unhealthy, extremely inefficient and ultimately unstable. It is highly likely in the United States we are at or very near that point. So the short answer is that sometimes there is such a thing as bad wealth accumulation.

    14. jacobkuttyta profile image45
      jacobkuttytaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no use or purpose in accumulating wealth beyond which you cannot use.  It is a waste of time and energy as well as you are preventing others from using it.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What?????????? C'mon now, if others want, WORK, WORK, WORK !  Those who are wealthy are SMART enough to realize that the socioeconomic climate is forever fluctuating and they have monies and investments to tide them over in more precarious times.  Wealth also affords one to live QUITE COMFORTABLY without worry.  Who wants to socioeconomically worry all the time, NOT I!  WEALTH is GOOD.......no WEALTH is GLORIOUS INDEED!  Wealth provides myriad choices that being poor DOESN'T provide.   My late father said that it's SO MUCH better to die and leave than to live and....WANT!  Don't YOU agree?

    15. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      the jealousy that is breeding over wealth is one that will always surface when the distraught poor are plagued by a government bent on destruction of society.  When left to their own accord, people will aspire to their level of comfort based on their internal desire to achieve it.  This is normally termed motivation.  Today, the wealthy are motivated much more than those who think that wealth is bad.  The jealousy in society goes through the following patterns -  [lack of motivation >  failure > jealousy > radical apathy > dependence > motivation].
      Our society is currently passing from radical apathy into dependence.
      if we do not reach motivation soon, the society will be destroyed.
      The answer is wealth is good - but jealousy levels drive a radical apathy that falsely deems it bad.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "with liberty and justice for all"

        But especially for the wealthy and not so much for those that make them wealthy.

      2. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Right you ARE, it's nothing but jealousy at its most primal level.   The idea is that I'm not rich so why SHOULD anyone else be?   The rich, particularly in American society, have been demonized  while the impoverished have been idolized as morally purer and superior.   There are people who strongly believe that NO ONE should be socioeconomically wealthy.   WRONG they are; if a person has the talents and wherewithal to succeed, he/she can be as wealthy as he/she WANTS to be. If that is being a billionaire, so be IT!
        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9064214_f248.jpg

  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I personally believe it is wrong to accumulate and hold onto obscene amounts of wealth, but I don't judge others for doing it, as long as they don't also use their wealth to game the system.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Bah humbug! No such thing as an obscene amount of socioeconomic wealth.  The MORE, the BETTER I say! NOTHING'S wrong with being as wealthy as one chooses to be.  It is quite admirable to have the drive to become as wealthy as one is able to be.  Why the hate and denigration of the wealthy? 

      Being wealthy affords one immense financial freedom and freedom from want.  When one is wealthy, he/she does not have to worry about if he/she will have rudiments like poorer people have to do on a consistent basis.   Being wealthy also provides one with psychosocial power and clout which is OWNERSHIP of one's life as opposed to the middle and lower classes who have to be on the behest of those who are more powerful.   

      Wealthy people have POWER and OWNERSHIP.  They have the jobs and they have a brand.  They do not have to exist on the behest of those more powerful because they themselves are powerful in their own right.  When will people become smart and realize that it is MONEY and WEALTH that rules the world.  That is THE PARADIGM of the world-money and wealth.  One has to learn how to play the game well if he/she wants to suceed in a free market, capitalist society.  There is no need to complain and/or hate the wealthy.   

      Many people are poor, especially in America, because they have the mindset that one should only strive to an acceptable level and to go beyond that is greed.  Well, it is not.  Many people do not want to take the risks to  become wealthy themselves, instead they look at the wealthy with envy while they are struggling socioeconomically from day to day.   If one wants something, PLAN, ORGANIZE, and STRATEGIZE for it.  Also take responsibility and make the necessary sacrifices.   Nothing worhwhile is easy.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9064199_f248.jpg

      1. Express10 profile image88
        Express10posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        As usual, I cannot agree with you more. What is striking is the fact that so many will tear down those who are wealthy yet secretly want it themselves, all the while believing that some levels of wealth are "just too much." This mindset is hypocritical and confusing yet, I have heard these ideas from many other adults all my life. I disagree with these ideas and actions. Many people want to limit other people's wealth that is/was legally earned or attempt to redistribute other people's money. It is sad to see that people truly want to do these things and it brings to mind the proverbial crabs in a pot, the crabs in the middle and the bottom of the pot are always pulling the ones above them down.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          DEFINITELY, it is the crabs in the pot mentality.  The attitude is that they AREN'T rich and thus NOBODY ELSE should be also.  This is analogous to the A student being beat up by C and D students because the former is "too smart" and needs to be like other children. Really, what business is it of people when others want to be rich.  There's NOTHING wrong with being wealthy.  There is such an anti-wealth and anti-achievement mentality and mindset among some people; however, these are the ones who constantly moan about socioeconomic struggle, putting a roof over their heads, and food on the table.  These are the ones who whine the loudest when there are improvements made to their neighborhood.   They WHINE about being poor but REFUSE to do anything about it!

  3. ocbill profile image75
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    "Wealth enables one to live extremely comfortably,  a wealthy person does not suffer the stresses that a less wealthy person does.  "

    Tell that to the "ONES" who live in excess in other countries. They get carjacked, home invasions, corrupt cops. If you can wake up & feel good about "yourself" living better than everyone else or 90% of the population that is not bliss or comfortable.
    Why? You will always be looking over your shoulder as those close to you and unknown try to take what you have.
    True they don't suffer the stresses of those less fortunate but you agree that some who are middle class or even struggling who became wealthy or make 6-figs sometimes feel their life prior to that fortune was less stressful.  More Money = More Problems.  Professional Athletes, Celebrities, Movie Execs say this. Funny, how those rich politicians are not included with tragic losses so much.

    Yes, you'll enjoy  the nice cars, food, restaurants, designer clothes, vacations, spas, country clubs but there are other stresses. I prefer the 120K to $250k crowd.  It is comfortable, yet not too excessive. However, if you become wealthy and help others as mentioned above, then that is a person who is definitely beneficial to society. In essence, not a hoarder. Wealth to accumulate is wrong in my opinion. Corps that sit on close to 1 trillion dollars on wall street sicken me if they don't help society substantially.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      yep

  4. moonlake profile image88
    moonlakeposted 4 years ago

    I had relatives that bought an old nursing home. The place was in bad shape they worked their rear ends off. Cleaning and working on this place themselves. Making sure patients were well taken care of. All their hard work paid off pretty soon they had another nursing home and than another until they became millionaires. It wasn't wrong for them to become rich. They earned it. It's their money they have a right to spend it the way they want. They had their own charities that they gave money to. He went back to his old hometown and his church and paid for whatever needed to be done with the church. Nothing wrong with that.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1,000,000,000,000,000,000!

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    There is a point at which one is morally obligated, IMHO, to share your fortune with the needy.  I choose three charities a year and give them a measly 1% of what I have made after tax. The very wealthy can do a great deal more without having to sacrifice anything significant.  And many do.  I don't begrudge Mr Gates his mansion given the work done by his foundation.

  6. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Ok let's look at this from another perspective.
    Who decides how much a person should have to live comfortably?
    Congress?
    The UN?
    A Central Committee?
    Who decides what happens to the overage and what happens to the hideous creatures who think they should have the right to earn what they are able to?

    These need to be pondered. Do they not?

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think perhaps a commitee of starving children who have to dig through garbage dumps for food and scrap metal to sell would be a fine choice.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So if my monthly budget is 2400 but I earn 3600 I am starving children??
        Please be aware also some are not as wealthy as others would have you believe.
        By the way.....thanks for avoidance of answering any of those questions.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          no problem.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I already answered your question. How about answering mine?

    2. 61
      Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd argue that it should be based on the psychological research showing that above a certain income, higher earnings don't get you more happiness. This means we could optimize happiness by ensuring that as many people as possible are at the 'point of no further gain' (which is middle class).

  7. Shil1978 profile image87
    Shil1978posted 4 years ago

    Well, wrong or right is subjective. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong in accumulating wealth. One assumes here that there is a lot of hard work that has gone into the wealth accumulation and one hasn't gotten this wealth through questionable means. But, having said that, wouldn't it be wonderful if those who have 'enough' wealth shared it with the many who live a day-to-day existence with countless struggles? Of course, one isn't assuming here that you reward someone who is lazy or unwilling to work, but people who really are in need..!!

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      + to infinity!  It is SMART and EXTREMELY SAVVY to accumulate wealth period!   Why would a person choose socioeconomic struggle if he/she can be wealthy.   Accumulation of wealth takes strategizing, organization, investments, and smart work.   Wealth also takes a large amount of confidence and ability to take calculated risks.   Many people are afraid of such things and prefer to be secure and comfortable albeit struggle!

    2. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To add to gmwilliams point, and along the way to increasing your wealth, you have most certainly increase the wealth of others. You have employed people directly, purchased items that required the employment of others etc...

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Mitch, holler at ya in total agreement.  As Dr. Phil aptly stated, some people just don't get it!  It is the wealthy that boost and stimulate the economy through creation of jobs and other amenities.   Why do some people abhor wealth when wealth is so beneficial all around?    It is better to accumulate wealth than to be poor and mired in poverty, methinks so.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It is better to have enough money to be secure and use the rest to do good in the world.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, it is not the wealthy that boosts and stimulates the economy it is the middle class who actually go out and spend money creating jobs and other amenities. The rich just get richer off it all.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        At any one time there is a finite amount of "stuff" in the world. For one person to have more means that another will have less.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image85
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    But...as they say... you can't take it with you...

    1. 0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am sure there are people who have the fear if they do take it with them someone will dig you up and take it! smile

  9. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    I still don't get an answer to who decide who should have what.
    How much and when and where do you lose it and who to?

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      JChams, if you work for it , its yours no matter how much it is.  It is NO ONE'S business how much money you make as long as you do not hurt anyone in the process.    It is YOUR money to use and enjoy as YOU wish, no more, no less!    Why this animus against accumulating wealth?  Ridiculous, I would rather be wealthy than poor.......ummmmmmmmm!    If other people are uncomfortable with your wealth, well that is THEIR problem, not YOURS!    In other words, YOU earned that money, not THEM!

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh no you misunderstand....I agree with YOU.
        I want an explanation of the solution to what someone sees as a problem.
        It's not a problem for Warren Buffet. He owes how much in taxes? But this is so obviously aimed at Romney.....

        1. OLYHOOCH profile image61
          OLYHOOCHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Morning. I have started investing in, Silver. I have a 10 year projection and will buy by the once.

          Two or three a month for the next ten years.

          I have a hunch, Silver will go up.

          OLY

  10. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    But the way I see it is that there is a finite amount of wealth and one persons wealth is another persons poverty.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I respectfully disagree. We do not take money from poor people when we get up and go to work, when we create or invent something of value, when we entertain others for pay, when we collect charity for pay, when we so much as mow another's lawn...for pay.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If one can only think in singular lines then that might appear to be what is being said. However, that is not what is being said. What is being said is that resources are finite, for example, at one point there was gold in the USA. That gold is no longer there because it has been used up.

        So resources are always finite.

        When the system is set in such a way that it will reward some people with an excessive proportion of those rewards for a certain amount of work, and other people it will reward with substantially less, then the system is rigged.

        That is what we are currently experiencing. Nobody is arguing that some make greater contributions than others and so should have a greater reward. What is being argued is about the degree - not the principle.

      2. Express10 profile image88
        Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The great thing about the U.S. is that as long as you can AFFORD jets, cars, mansions, you can buy as many of these resources as you'd like. In my reply to John Holden, I was replying to exactly what he said. He made the argument that one person's wealth is another's poverty and I respectfully disagree with that view.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But you are then assuming that there is an infinite amount of money, enough for everybody to be multi billionaires if they wanted to be.

          There isn't.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If everyone were multi-billionaires then no one would be. It's like a tie ball game. It may as well be 0-0.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly!

              You are well I hope?

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes....been very busy and the monitor went out.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ach! They do that to you.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So I am using my wife's TV as a monitor. not popular.

    2. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If I have the money to buy a jet, and you don't, I am not preventing your buying a jet by my buying a jet.

      Now, if we were both able to buy a jet, and there was only one in the store, then one of us would have to wait. Always more jets where that came from smile

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, but if you are using me to earn you money to buy your jet . . .

        1. kathleenkat profile image90
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If I were using you to earn my money, you would be my employee.

          There would be no corporations if people didn't work for other people. No restaurants, no grocery stores, no malls, no auto dealerships... If you don't want to work for someone else, start your own business. Eventually, if it gets big enough, you will need to hire employees which help you make money.

          I fail to see your logic. Please explain in more than 15 words.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Absolute tosh! There are plenty of jobs with no leeching employer.
            They are called cooperatives.

            I don't know if that's more than fifteen words or not but it's plenty to disprove your argument.

            Just to add that there are also many employers who do not exploit their workers but don't get filthy rich either.

            1. kathleenkat profile image90
              kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't disprove anything. People are free to work for cooperatives if they wish to. Nobody is forcing them to work for corporations. And every business makes money off of their employees. What they choose to do with it, however, is another issue. If I make enough money to buy a jet because you're working for me, and increasing revenue of my business, than that has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with what I want to do with my own money. If you choose to quit, then that's you're  business, because I am certainly not preventing you from buying a jet. You could find another means of income, that doesn't support me. And I can easily replace you.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Five snaps to that! Amen, sister, walk on.........recognize!

      2. Express10 profile image88
        Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Kathleenkat, I agree with you. If you have the money to buy whatever you choose then buy it if you wish. You are not taking money from the poor or resources from them unless you are literally going into their homes or neighborhoods and stealing from them or taking some sort of financial benefit that is due to them for your own benefit.

        I can't agree with the view that money is finite. Certain natural resources may be...however man made things for sale generally aren't. Further, natural resources are generally owned by fairly or very affluent people.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's true in the sense that money spent by the super rich on multiple McMansions, expensive cars and other luxury goods means fewer resources are available for goods and services needed by the poor and moderate income families.

  11. Express10 profile image88
    Express10posted 4 years ago

    It is a very good thing to accumulate wealth. Think of all the good that you can do with it if you choose.
    The only problem is the negative thinking of "fair share" which I have never bought into and never will. This self-limiting negativity comes only from those who haven't yet found a way to earn more than they previously thought they could, would, or ever dreamed of.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But if you are doing good with it you are not accumulating it are you?

      1. Express10 profile image88
        Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, you can do good things with wealth without sacrificing your lifestyle. There are many people that provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, scholarships, etc. for people in need without giving them the clothes off their back.

        Surely you are not saying that you would give everything you own away just because someone else needs, wants, or asks for it?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who said anything about giving the clothes off your back?

          Please look up the meaning of "accumulate", I'll give you a clue,it's nothing to do with being wealthy but everything to do with keeping all your money. You don't accumulate it by spending it on cars or meals or clothes, you accumulate it by not spending it.

          1. Express10 profile image88
            Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It appears that by respectfully disagreeing with you, you have some anger issues towards me and those who disagree.

            I know the meaning of the word accumulate. I also know the meaning of giving back. I believe that people are doing good things by accumulating wealth as they are able to weather financial storms, be self-sufficient, and are not likely to need handouts from others.

            I went on to say that one can do good things with wealth without sacrificing their lifestyle. Again, as I said several comments back, I respectfully disagree with you.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No anger. Just puzzled how you can think that people can accumulate wealth and still do good things with it!

              1. Express10 profile image88
                Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's similar to being on an airplane when the oxygen masks drop down. If you don't first put yours on, you may black out before you can help anyone else. By insulating themselves from economic surprises and mishaps and by using that wealth to help others (in the family, out of the family, creating foundations, jobs, etc.), wealthy people can make a difference. Some choose to help a certain few, others try to reach many. One cannot do good things with wealth if they don't have it. If you don't have it you are more likely to suffer in various ways or miss opportunities that could better your life or that of your loved ones.

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  + 10000000000000000000000000000000 !  Wealth = freedom, hence >wealth is equivalent to > financial freedom and <wealth equals <financial freedom and > socioeconomic struggle!

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But you only do that by spending, not accumulating!

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Totally concur with this intelligent premise!

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image85
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Wealth is good... greed is not.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Amen Uninvited Writer!

  13. peeples profile image90
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    It is a great thing to accumulate wealth as long as it is done in an honest way and doesn't go to your head. However I can say that I do not understand why those who are very wealthy don't do more for those that aren't. Of course there are some who are very wealthy and horrible people but there are horrible people in any group.  Do I think people shouldn't be able to get rich? That's bizarre. People should be able to get rich as long as they can find a way of doing it that doesn't include stepping on the poor to get there.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because if they were to do more for others that would interfere with their wealth accumulation!

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wealthy people do not OWE others a living.   If others want a better life,  they should help themselves.  As the saying goes if one wants a helping hand, look at the end of his/her arms!

        1. peeples profile image90
          peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree however I don't see why the rich wouldn't want to help those who are helping themselves (and still need minor assistance) or physically can't help themselves. Just seems at some point there is only so much money you can personally use. A kind heart should never feel they owe others but should want to help others help themselves.

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Peeples, now there's a great statement..."I agree. However, I don't see why the rich wouldn't want to help those who are helping themselves."

            If, at any time, during the past 35 years, if even one rich person had invested in me, I would have been on my feet and self sustaining within a year. But because I've spent my entire life just trying to get enough to eat, I haven't been able to have the energy or the resources to get out of this.

            This is called a poverty trap. The only people who don't comprehend it are people like gmwilliams - with all their supposed knowledge of sociology. I actually don't believe he knows anything about sociology because he holds the opinions that he does.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, and poorer people don't owe wealthy people a living either. Must wealthy people are only wealthy because other people make them so.

          1. kathleenkat profile image90
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            People who have the resources to make other people rich, are rich themselves. They aren't poor.

            Man, do I ever wish that I had enough extra cash to pay someone enough to make them rich big_smile

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              + 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 !

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You don't need money to make somebody else rich,  you just need to work for low wages and make sure your employer earns more off your labour than you do.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                zzzzzzzzzzz!

              2. kathleenkat profile image90
                kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, a circle? Did you remember that nobody is forcing you to work for $8 and hour at some plantation?

                There is a difference between profit and revenue. Generally, there is very large profit. You make a toy, which retails $20, for example. Lets say you manufacture 4 of those toys per hour. You're not going to get paid $80 and hour. So, the company brings in more profit than you cost at $8 an hour. However, the majority of profit goes into buying things for the company, such as paying employees (including non-production workers like receptionists and janitors), it goes towards buying supplies, and it goes towards maintenance. I know someone who owns a small welding business. He makes a lot of money, but he spends most of it on supplies (steel is very expensive). He pays his workers $8 an hour. He isn't making much money off of them; just enough to pay into his mortgage and retirement.

                If you're such a huge fan of socialism, I would suggest moving to Canada. Really; their economy isn't soley based on capitalism, like ours. Goods are also much more expensive there.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, our gasoline is cheaper, most goods are at the same price as those in the rest of the Western world and so is most of our food. I also believe our dollar is doing better than the US right now... or almost on par.

                  Canada is not a socialist country other than having universal health care and government programs that also exist in the US.

                  I just don't understand people who are not willing to help their fellow human beings survive on the very basics. Yes, there are a few people who cheat the system but they are by no stretch the majority. You two can't seem to understand that you can work yourself to death and still not become rich or successful; timing and luck and where you were born do play into it also.

                  1. kathleenkat profile image90
                    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Is that the case for all of Canada? I live right on the boarder of BC, and they come down here every weekend to buy goods, mostly gas, dairy and clothing. They tell me it's cheaper down here. The only thing I they have told me that wasn't cheaper was cereal, for some reason.

                    Yes, people can work hard their entire lives. But being successful isn't just luck. You have to work, and know when to take oportunities and risks. Greater the risk, greater the reward. Many people who take risks or new careers on a leap of faith end up being more successful than staying at an easy, predictable job.

  14. 0
    Arlene V. Pomaposted 4 years ago

    No!  Absolutely not!  What people do with their riches is their business.  Whether you inherit it or have earned it, you have the only say in what you're going to do with your money.  To expect anyone to "share the wealth" because you have ideas for this wealthy person's money is just plain absurd.  What it comes down to is envy.  Butt out and mind your own business when it comes to someone's financial information.  Wealthy people have the right to do what they want with their money because it happens to be THEIRS.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed! People should grow up and realize that if they want something, they should work for it and do not expect others to rescue them.   As my late father aptly put it, no one OWES anyone anything PERIOD.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And that goes equally for the wealthy - nobody owes them anything.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I wish you'd tell them!

            1. Express10 profile image88
              Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I can fully agree that nobody owes anyone anything.

  15. kathleenkat profile image90
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    We can all live comfortably if we live within our means. That does not make us capitalists. A jet is within the means of a billionaire. A new car is within the means of someone like me. I lived rather comfortably while in college, even while making a measly 24k/year, and spending half of it on college. I lived within my means. And I was able to have more than those around me because of that.

  16. donotfear profile image92
    donotfearposted 4 years ago

    "Yes, it is terrible to accumulate wealth....you must take the wealth and spread it around so that all can share.   I never made lots of money or kept it for myself or family.  I shared with everyone & donated my Chicago home to charity............."

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zysza-8xra4/TQMAl6nutbI/AAAAAAAACkA/JhZrkjFNtR4/s1600/funny-celebrities-cartoon-comic-25.jpg

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Socialism has arrived.......and taken over,.EGAD!

    2. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My God. I wonder if people from other countries just how vile some people in America are. A friend of mine emailed me from London the other day that said that world wide people were waking up to the real conditions and culture of America. When I see pictures like this and I see the vile things that people like you say, I am reminded of what my German Jewish father went through in Nazi Germany in the 30s. There really is no difference.

      1. 0
        Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think some of the people on here are trolling. Maybe to increases their clicks or just to get a rise out of the general population

        Hanging out on the web can really make you think a large percentage of the population is inbred and idiotic, but it is just Internet Fever, which seems to give people the ability to spew whatever they think they can get away with while hiding behind their computer screen. It is the same all over the planet, really.

        Pushing your personal ignore button, can really lower your stress level

    3. 0
      Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My friend the point is you can give it to others if you have more, but you cant be forced to do so by laws and regulations if that is done 'with in a few good decades most major companies would move out of the country for good.

      And regarding charity, giving and helping , there is no point in telling and sharing that you share or help others. There is a proverb in Tamil that literally translates "when right hand gives the left hand should not know that" which means you should not say that i gave or helped others... Instead of that its better to keep things with your self..

  17. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    If everyone worked hard for the purpose of accumulating wealth, we would be in sad shape.  It is hard to accumulate wealth as a janitor or teacher's aide, yet we need someone to do those jobs, don't we?  It would be nice if those who do productive work that contributes to the overall functioning of our society could make enough to afford a decent home, healthy food, medical and dental care, and an education for their children.  Wouldn't it be nice if the people who run Walmart, for example, would pay their executives less and their employees more?

    I know it is not a "requirement," but wouldn't it be the decent thing to do?

    1. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My uncle owns a Walmart. He's prettty well-off.

      But I agree on this. People like Miley Cyrus don't need to make more money than a college professor. But that's our culture, we love us some entertainment.

      1. 0
        Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My friend in simple words that's America is far better and richer than other countries. The society is made of individuals and so is the nation, the point is communism says citizens should suffer and nation should benefit out of that, while western and democratic nations(like India, England or India) prefer and follow both the society and people are same and so each and every citizen should take care for himself and the nation/state should help them achieve it. In the end its capitalism that always works in the long run.

        To explain in simple terms:

        Capitalism is like a sour and tough medicine that heals and improves health; while communism is much like typical Russian vodka which is nice and tasty to drink, and looks and feels good for some time but it has nothing but a sad and long awaiting disaster for health.

        So the point is solving and healing a problem or a disease is the best way, we should not use drugs to forget it or dull the pain for some time.. for it will get worse later.. and you will get addicted to those drugs or alcohol. Thats how time and time again communism or dictatorships thrived using political and economical unrest and upheavals.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think you're very much mistaken. Australia has socialism and they live a lot, lot better than Americans do. Their quality of life is about the best. The European quality of life is also superior to that in America.

          In addition, about half of Americans are living in poverty according to the 2009 census.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 … ow-income/

          They're also drowning in debt because that's the only way they can pay for things. Furthermore, half the people in the county have some form of mental illness plus they have the highest rates of cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes in the world. The diabetes is the result of 'cheap' food because most people can't afford to pay for the good, nutritious food that the rich are able to buy. If you take a look at the demographics in this country, you will see that the rich are slim and about 2/3 of the rest of the population are obese. This is because of junk food and, probably, stress

    2. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My uncle was a janitor his whole life.
      He did not make a lot of money, but to him, he was wealthy because he could buy anything he wanted.
      your request appears to be something of a dilemma of human resource management.
      under good human resource management, the janitor would understand the ramifications of taking a low paying job, but doing it well to try to get ahead by improving themselves to move forward into a career branch of domestic maintenance where the janitor begins his own business to branch into multiple janitor teams that he manages to do a quality job. 
      By working toward this goal, the individual would create a business plan that provides efficiency and cost cuts so that he can make more and provide more to his quality work crew.  A win-win situation where everyone wins..
      by providing quality work at a reduced price, the new company owner then will find that he has more work than his current crew can handle.
      this means more people have a chance to work hard for the company owner now bu they must meet the quality standards of the great company.
      Before long, the janitor and his wife own 7 companies in 7 cities cleaning 150 businesses, 75 curches, and 27 schools.
      Now they are doing real well as the team is pumping at full speed.
      Anyone can do it.  But they must start small with what they can control.
      This is the American Dream, not the nightmare that is being thrust upon the nation today.
      Hard, smart work brings more wealth.  And, a lot of jealousy from those who do not want to work for it.
      My brother spent 25 years being jealous of me until he saw that my business plan was much better than his.  Now that he is following my hard smart work structure, he not only owns his own house, he owns several rental properties.
      anyone who wants to improve their wealth should read and follow the rules listed on http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Rich

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        taburkett, you have taken the words out of my mouth.   Concur with you a multillion percent.   Couldn't have said it better!   This reminds me of my extended family.    My mother and next oldest maternal aunt were the 1st and 3rd of ten children from an impoverished Southern sharecropper family.    My mother wanted a better life, worked her way through high school and nursing school.   She eventually become upper middle income through smart work, planning, and strategize.     She was not jealous of those who were socioeconomically better off than she was- not ever!

        My next oldest maternal aunt elected a different path.    She was just as smart as my mother, even smarter.    She had a prodigious intellect.    However, she become mired in her impoverished condition and developed a poverty consciousness.   She became pregnant as a young teen.    She stopped going to school.   She then married into a wealthy family but she divorced.   She became a maid, she detested the job.    My father suggested that she better herself by going into civil service.   She refused to do that.   Others suggested education and betterment programs, again, she refused to do that.     She became increasingly embittered about her life, hating and criticizing those who were socioeconomically better than she was.   She hated those more affluent, successful, and wealthier than she was.   She frequently asked my mother for financial support.    She wanted to live rich but did not want to work for it!    She wanted to be where she was in life; if not, she would have improved herself, good point you made, taburkett!

  18. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I guess people do think that the pie is limited... it's not though.

    If you think it is limited, then you could consider it immoral to accumulate more than your 'fair share'.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If the pie isn't limited why then do people go hungry? No need for all this ranting about stealing money off rich people to give to the poor, just chop them a slice of that unlimited pie, nobody will miss it!

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, see... there are certain economic activities that grow the size of the pie. People are able to accumulate wealth by creating wealth(and create wealth by accumulating wealth).

        See, it's not unlimited as in you can just give unlimited funds to everyone. It's non-limited, in the sense that someone can create wealth that wouldn't exist if they didn't do so, and it does nothing to 'steal' from the poor. In fact, the net effect of all the creation of wealth is a net increase in the wealth and standard of living for everyone, including the poor.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So there is and isn't an unlimited pie!

          And you accuse me of trolling!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            John, quit lying. You keep claiming I'm saying things that I'm not.

            I said the pie isn't limited. I didn't say it is unlimited. And my last post further clarified that point.

            The pie isn't unlimited. That would indicate that there is unlimited wealth available for everyone.

            The pie isn't limited. That would indicate that there is only so much wealth to go around.

            The truth is, the pie is constantly growing. People are able to create wealth without taking it from other people.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you tell me that something isn't limited then I'm going to believe that it isn't. 
              If you tell me that the pie isn't limited, but it is, then I'm going to ask you if English is your first language.

              And please explain how people can create wealth without it coming from other people.
              You sell, say a car, how does that money come to you without actually leaving the other person? It isn't magiced out of thin air surely.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you really want to get into the topic of wealth creation? That's a very in-depth topic, I just want to know if you are really willing to discuss something like that, without lying about what I am saying, and changing the subject.

                You're trying to create a false dilemma. The pie isn't limited to a certain amount of wealth. The pie has been growing consistently for hundreds of years. If it was limited, it wouldn't be able to grow.

                You make such a big deal out of perceived little problems, but if you would step back, you would see that they aren't problems.

                Here, let me rephrase it for you, since it is apparently causing you trouble.

                The pie isn't unlimited, but it isn't fixed either. It is constantly growing, and the new bits don't come out of anybody's pocket.

                Better?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, do let's get into wealth creation. I don't lie about what you say, I report it faithfully. It may not be what you mean, but it is what you say.

                  I agree that the pie has been growing over the centuries but that does not mean, as you stated earlier, that the pie is unlimited. Trust me, you did say that. I'll trawl back and find it for you but I'd rather not have to.

                  Where does wealth come from if not from other peoples pockets, or labour?  If you look at gold, fabulously expensive but it is found in the ground, nobody makes it but the people who actually dig it out of the ground often live in poverty! Without them there would be no gold but the ones who profit don't even get their hands dirty.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That is another lie. You claimed to be quoting me when I supposedly said 'saving is bad for the economy'. I didn't say that. You claimed to be representing my position when you made that stupid remark about 'fair wages' being 'not good' for the economy. Where did I say that?

                    You straw man like crazy.

                    What is your background in economics? I don't know how far back I need to go to talk about wealth creation.

                    I said it wasn't limited, and I explained further that it isn't limited in the sense that it can grow. I should have been more clear in my first post, because you have turned on the full-on nitpick mode.

                    You can't claim that I didn't make myself clear in my second reply to you. I VERY clearly stated that it isn't unlimited, but it isn't limited to a fixed amount either.

                    Tell me about your background in economics first, then we can talk about it.

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    John, how can the pie grow without people stealing from each other.

                    If the pie is 100, and person A steals 10 from person B, then the pie is still 100.

                    By saying you agree that the pie has been growing, you have to admit that wealth can be created without taking it from someone else. Otherwise, it wouldn't grow.

                2. Express10 profile image88
                  Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  AMEN to JaxonRaine. Wealth can be created and grown without taking wealth from others. It is grown by taking risks, doing things that others simply refuse to do, and by looking for opportunity. Luck plays a role but there are a variety of factors, none of which include stealing from others.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then kindly explain how wealth is created without it coming from somebody else?

                  2. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    EXACTLY! You know this, I know this, and Jaxson know this!   It is such a total non-brainer, so why it is "difficult" for certain people to comprehend this simple concept?  I AM THROUGH!  Have a lovely weekend, all, and have a lovely Labor Day!

  19. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Here John, simple answer.

    Wealth can be 'created' by assigning value to natural resources. For example, you get a seed, plant it, and grow a tree. Then you take a seed from that tree and plant another. The first tree you chop down and turn into furniture. Then you sell it. You took something that isn't considered wealth, a tree, and turned it into something that is considered wealth. You just increased the GDP and wealth of yourself and the country without stealing from anybody.

    Wealth is also created by depositing money into a bank. Your deposit has value, but the bank's ability to loan money also increases. In essence, it is a debt, but in practice, the effect is an ever-increasing amount of wealth in a nation. It's a very real bubble, and the wealth created is very real as well.

    Almost all wealth is just a representation, which is why 'artificial' wealth like that is, in actuality, real wealth. It's why paper money means something, because we all agree, as a society, that it means something.

    Wealth can also be created by converting labor into wealth. For instance, if you take two gadgets, A and B, worth $10 each, you might be able to combine them, with an hour of work, into Product C. Product C sells for $30, and consists of $10 for A, $10 for B, and $10 for your labor.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fine, if you grow the tree, you cut down the tree and you make a piece of furniture out of it.
      The problem comes when you get somebody else to plant the tree, somebody else to cut the tree down and another to turn it into a piece of furniture taking a slice of the profit at each stage but putting nothing into it (apart perhaps from money that you've borrowed off others).

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There you go again John, moving the goalposts.

        I was just demonstrating ways in which wealth is created.

        I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not giving someone money in exchange for their labor is fair, I already know we won't agree on that.

        I was just hoping you would learn something about how wealth works.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You really are a patronising person!

          Why shouldn't you actually learn about how wealth works, you obviously don't have the first idea.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Answer this question John.

            Is it possible to create wealth? (Stealing wealth from someone else isn't creating, it's redistributing).

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's been a whole lotta redistributin' goin' on as evident from the huge increase in inequality of wealth and income in this country over the past 40 years or so.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There's been a whole lotta wealth creation.

                As to distribution, here's an example. A middle class person goes to see a movie. A star in that movie made $20 million.

                The middle class person gets to see a movie, entertainment and happiness and all that. The star gets paid. Both people are happy with the transaction.

                But then, people come out and act like the middle class person is the victim, and the star is stealing from Americans...(movie stars are bad examples, because they are usually liberal).

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And, as liberals, they usually pay their income taxes and don't spend millions on tax lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes. Romney's tax return was as thick as a NY phone book.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yup, we should simplify our tax code.

                    Your post has nothing to do with the fairness of the distribution of income though... nice deflection.

                    Receiving wealth isn't a bad thing.

                  2. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Ralph when you convince Warren Buffet to pay his taxes that statement will have merit. There are tax cheats in the Democrat party all over Washington. It's common knowledge.

  20. austinhealy profile image84
    austinhealyposted 4 years ago

    In my opinion, there is nothing wrong about accumulating wealth, provided everybody has 1-a roof over their head 2-food on the table in reasonable quantity 3-a decent job to keep 1 and 2 going.  Opportunities to grow would be nice too .There may be moral issues about too much wealth, but this is not the topic of the discussion here. What is bothering is not the accumulation of wealth in itself, but the accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller circle of people. In other words, the increase of wealth of some becomes the loss of others. This can only go for so long before the whole system explodes and I am under the uncomfortable impression that we are almost there. We live in an economic system based on consuming manufactured goods. If the buying power of consumers keeps eroding, they can buy less and less, and the economic cycle is disturbed. That's where we are now. There has always been wealthy people around through history, so the problem is not that there are too many wealthy people, but too many poor people if we want to continue under the system we call capitalism

  21. izettl profile image92
    izettlposted 4 years ago

    Is too much food good for you? Is too much of anything really good for you? But you are asking is it wrong. I guess it's not wrong if you're Republican right? How the heck did politics get into this? BUT all the Democrats want more equality between incomes, more opportunity for lower class, lack of big business, etc. So I guess it depends on who you are. If that makes you happy, but is it good for you? No would be my answer and that goes back up to what I originally said about too much of anything isn't good. How much is enough? If you're never happy then nothing is ever enough.

  22. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    The immaturity in the OP and in many of these responses is so obvious , No .....! Wealth breeds wealth!
    Generally those with the most , spend the most ! We live , like it or not , in a consumerists cultture. Our health and welfare  always depends on someone purchasing something ! Who has the most ability to do that ? Those with more !  Where does YOUR livelyhood come from ?  What is your income tied to , a product of manufacturing ?  Retail ?  The internet ?  Service ? Ask yourself , do I just want more of what someone else has ?.....:-}

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well it works for the wealthy! They constantly want more of what other people make.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely.  It works for the wealthy, it works for the poor, and it works for the great middle class.  There is hardly a person anywhere that is actually satisfied with what they have and wouldn't like to have more or different.

        A good thing, too, or we would still be riding in a Model T, using a washboard and tub in the back yard to wash clothing and plowing the fields with oxen.  Without a desire for something better, there is no reason to work to produce it.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure that what we have now is better. Although, admittedly, I would not like to come face to face with an ox on a daily basis.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Hollie lol

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hello, John. Long time no see. big_smile

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Are you surprised smile

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol  Me neither!  I don't get along with oxen.  Of course, I'm not happy walking the furrows in a field somewhere, either.

            I do appreciate my washing machine and my microwave.  I don't cook well over wood.  I like my furnace and I love my AC every time the temp goes over 90 outside.  I like car tires that don't go flat every few miles, and a car that doesn't have a crank in front.  Lots of things I really like, and all a result of somebody somewhere wanting something they didn't already have.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I appreciate those things, too. But there are so many things about modern life which I don't appreciate. I dunno, maybe the simple life has its advantages.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No argument there; modern life is far more stressful than it has ever been in the past.  We must now depend on others for simple everyday tasks rather than being able to do them ourselves (fix our car, for instance) and I don't like that, either.

                I appreciate the web as an information source, but hate the total 24/7 connectivity provided by cell phones.  Lots of things I don't like in todays world.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep, I wish we could ditch many things and just keep the good. smile

      2. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The rich dont just buy from the rich , they dont just share with the rich , I do believe from the groundskeeper to the bankers ,Everyone benifits!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who said anything about buying?

          The unemployed worker who subsists off the tax payers money is called scum, the wealthy man who lives high on the hog off the money that others earn is hero worshipped.

  23. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    There are many perspectives offered here demonstrating that as much as we have in common, we are also different in our approach to things. I do not believe many people start out on a quest to obtain wealth but moreso in an effort to find security...enough money to make them feel secure.  Those who experienced the Great Depression came away with that desire yet they could never accumulate enough wealth to rid themselves of the paranoia of their experience.  At the same time, they could never bring themselves to spend any of it either.  Most died and left it to their relatives who either grew it or squandered it over time.  My grandfather was such a man who dug what he saved right out of the soil of a hard scrabble southern farm.  That small stash gave my grandfather and grandmother the peace of mind to get through the rest of their lives.  In that sense, it did its job. Those who seek security have a keen sense of being out there all alone fully exposed.  Instead of looking on themselves as "victims", they dig in and do something about it starting at the lowest level and improving their lot penny by penny in the process.  Moving forward is a fight for survival when it would be so easy just to declare "victimization", give up, and throw one's self on the mercy of the people for handouts.  There are people who truly need that support but there are far too many taking it right now who could be joining the fight for their own security rather than making it someone else's burden. As a nation, we are allowing the government to shape us into a dependent people that looks to a government for security and solace.  It is a weakness which we cannot afford and only our individual efforts to achieve a higher station in life providing for our own security and well-being as best we can will overcome it.  ~WB

  24. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    And still no explanation from Jaxson as to why he is so sure that he can teach me!!

    The arrogance.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In regards to the topic of wealth creation, I think I can teach you(simply sharing knowledge) because I know how wealth is created, and you appeared to not know. Further, you asked.

      You haven't answered my question, do you now think that wealth can be created or not?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, you think you know how wealth is created but by thinking that wealth being transferred from one person to another is wealth creation then you haven't the faintest idea.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          John, when did I say transferring wealth from one person to another is creating it?

          Please, quote where I said that.

          *Hint: Straw Man*

  25. pstraubie48 profile image89
    pstraubie48posted 4 years ago

    No. It is not. I  am not a woman of substantial means so I feel my opinion andA that's what it is, an opinion (and we know what folks say about them) is unbiased.
    So those who have a lot of money, a lot of cars, many homes and luxury liners hold the money, by happenstance of birth or by discovering some new something or other that caught on and stuck might seem greedy to us. And perhaps they are.
    But, i would hate to think that how much money we could earn would ever be regulated unless it was done so illegally. While I may not be one of those who holds an overabundance of fundage, I am not the one to cast stones in their direction.

    Actually is it not my judgment call to say how much of anything is enough for another to own. I would hope that if I ever had more than enough money that I would use it to help others which I way I believe we are on the planet.

  26. aware profile image71
    awareposted 4 years ago

    I had a boss one time that told me.
    Ray , a million dollars is only this thick.
    With two fingers spread , not so wide .
    He said . to me  "that's not a lot of money.

  27. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    And John, if I'm patronising it's because you are very immature in your discussion. You are discourteous, use a double standard, refuse to acknowledge simple fact(such as what I have and haven't said)...

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm discourteous!!

      I have never debated with anybody as discourteous as you before. Nor as patronising.

      I suggest you examine your own levels of maturity before you criticise others, your response seems to be to accuse anybody who does not agree with you of being a straw man and using ad hominem arguments..

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't call you a straw man John...

        I said you are using straw man arguments. I linked to them earlier, do you understand what a straw man argument is? If I say "I don't care about X", and you claim I said "I am happy with X", did you claim I said what I said, or something I didn't say?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh stop splitting hairs and get back to the topic you are frantically trying to avoid.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not splitting hairs at all. You criticize me for not knowing how to be civil and claim I called you a straw man as evidence. In fact, I called your argument a straw man. Big difference between attacking a person and attacking an argument.

            As to the topic at hand, you are the one who dropped it with your previous reply.

            In reality, the topic has been completely finished. You have learned that wealth can be created, and that is what I came in here to talk about.

            The only topic left is whether or not I said "I'm happy with the poor subsidizing the rich". You still think I said that, and I'm still waiting for you to quote where I said so.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There you go again! "I have learned"!
              You are rather arrogant aren't you?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Haven't you?

                You started off by saying wealth couldn't be created. Later you said it could.

                learn: gain or acquire knowledge

                How is it arrogant of me to say that you have acquired knowledge? Shouldn't that be a good thing?

                EDIT: Weren't you the one who told me to get back on topic? You still won't address it. Where did I say what you claim I said?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  By implying that I didn't already know something. Remember, I sad wealth is created at about 3% of the economy but wealth is gathered by some at a disproportionate rate.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are several more comments along those lines. You consitently said that wealth is only taken from others.

                    I'm sorry, I assumed that when I said wealth can be created, and you asked how, that you didn't know how. How silly of me.

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have actually answered this point several times. You decide to split hairs and claim that not caring is somehow different from being content with a situation and that being content is somehow divorced from being happy.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Split hairs?

                I said I don't care.

                That doesn't mean I'm content with.

                Even if it did, content is not happy.

                What you are trying to do is say "Well, you said 4, which is almost 5, which really isn't that far from 10, so you really said 10".

                Let's examine it, shall we?

                Care: to feel interest or concern.

                So if I say I don't care, it means I'm not interested or concerned.

                Content: a state of satisfaction.

                If I'm not interested in something, does that mean I'm satisfied with it?

                In addition, I don't agree with your assumption that the poor subsidize the rich.

                So, really John, what is the 'topic at hand' that you want to return to? Some statement that you are still trying to claim I said?

                I disagree with the statement that you think I'm happy with the poor subsidizing the rich. I disagree that the poor subsidize the rich.

                Now what?

  28. William Young profile image60
    William Youngposted 4 years ago

    More than my fair share? Who gets to determine that? What business is it of anyone's how many cars, mansions or jets someone has? I'll be happy to answer that for you---it's none of their business. If someone is a millionaire or a billionaire and they gained their wealth through perfectly legal means, they are paying their taxes the way they are supposed to and obeying the law, they can have as many mansions, cars and jets as they want. This is America.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree and do not understand why others feel emboldened to limit other's financial realities or aspirations. If they don't like it, they can leave America, but wait, that costs money they probably are angry they don't have.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Totally concur with you both naturally.  This brings to mind the Bobby Brown song, MY PREROGATIVE, to paraphrase the song, it is MY PREROGATIVE I am going to do what I want to do,  this world is a trip, this person talking about me, that person talking about me, I MADE this money, you didn't,  right Ted, I outta here!

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are aware who Bobby Brown based his celebrity persona on?

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, Hollie.    I was just paraphrasing the song, personally, I DETEST the man.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You think it is restricted to America lol

        1. Express10 profile image88
          Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course I don't think that it is restricted to America however, I made the comment about America because I live in America & keep hearing the similar refrains of hatred of wealth from Americans. In my opinion as it has always been, it's not wrong to accumulate wealth so long as it's done legally. The bottom line is the poor owe no one anything and the rich owe no one anything.

  29. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”   Thomas Jefferson

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nobody's suggesting that so far as I know.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”   Thomas Jefferson"

        I think he is guilty of fuzzy logic here. He doesn't get that no one is talking about work - but the unfair rewards of work...

  30. Globetrekkermel profile image68
    Globetrekkermelposted 4 years ago

    There is terribly wrong in accumulating wealth which is based mainly in the premise of greed,power and control. Simple as that. We are all victims of consumerism which breeds hoarding of wealth. We generally base our success with the external indices of what we have, what we do,and who we are and if those are not met , we are labeled as failures.If there are no wealthy people ( i am talking the likes of Bill,Mark, and Larry Ellison et al.) there will be no poor people.Why not put the money in one pot and distribute it equally among the people of the world, THIS WILL DEFINITELY WIPE OUT POVERTY .VOILA ! RADICAL ECONOMY IN ITS PUREST FORM.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Zzzzzzzzzz,socialism and communism simply does not work!   Why should income be "equally" distributed?   Preposterious idea to say the least!

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Add to that, capitalism doesn't work either.
        I know of nothing in socialism that says income should be equally distributed.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Capitalism WORKS INFINITELY BETTER than the idiotic systems of SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, go back to sleep, John!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you think that capitalism works for everybody then I think you need to wake up, rather than me go to sleep.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It WORKED for ME and the PEOPLE THAT I KNOW!  Life is what a person makes of it.  If he/she achieves, he/she is successful, no doubt about it!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                not only you...

                it's worked for millions and millions of people. The majority of Americans take it upon themselves to improve their situations, and succeed. More than half of the poorest American pull themselves out of the bottom 20% each decade, and a surprising amount of them rocket to the top brackets.

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey! I'm all right Jack!

                What about the millions it doesn't work for, or don't they count?
                What about the millions who spend their lives as wage slaves or worse?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Question John.

                  What is the difference between the millions of people who, starting in the lowest 20% of earners, added over $80,000/year to their earnings within a decade, and the millions of people who didn't?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Opportunity, perhaps?

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Putting aside your rather dubious figures for the moment, as Hollie says, opportunity - but also motivation. Many are not motivated primarily by money which is just as well otherwise we'd have no police, no ambulance crews, no refuse collections and none of those other things that rely on low paid workers to make them happen.

      2. 0
        Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are correct.. what is happening?? is this the second round of Communism?? Communism always rises when there is an economic crisis. It promises more but takes everything. Friends pls understand one simple fact Communism and socialism looks intimidating and successful on the paper but it fails badly when applied its a decoy to drag human society back to dictatorship and totalitarianism.

        1. cfin profile image78
          cfinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed. In a perfect world, where everyone was perfect. Where there was no greed, and no ill intent, communism would work. Unfortunately, the very thing that makes us great as humans, also means that we can never live this way. Ambition.

  31. cfin profile image78
    cfinposted 4 years ago

    It depends on what you count as wealth.

  32. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    "Is it wrong to accumulate wealth?"

    Depends on how you accumulate it and what you do with it. Where I come from conspicuous consumption is frowned on, especially during deep recessions.

    "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
    Matthew 19:24

    1. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So, are you saying rich people go to Hell?

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's almost humorous when liberals quote the bible out of context.
        Jesus was speaking to the rich young man. He didn't say impossible. He said difficult.
        And there are lots of evil people who are not rich.

      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes he is. He is also saying they are inherently evil.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm merely quoting Matthew. Personally, I don't believe in Hell or Heaven for that matter.

        1. kathleenkat profile image90
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Whether or not you believe in Hell doesn't matter. You are quoting something several thousands of years old. Back then, wealth was measured in how many sheep, goats and children you had. It is irrelevant to today's economic structure.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some people around here, especially in the GOP, put a lot of stock in the Bible. Apparently you aren't one of them. Fine. So happens it's the basis for what we call Judeo-Christian morality to which I subscribe.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's a reason for that. It works.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, it generally does. But different people interpret it in different ways.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And like you would do if it was a Mitt Romney owned company it would still be Mitt, not just the company, because after all he really is the Devil himself right?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Right.

                    Romney has apparently used every available tax loophole while at Bain and on his personal tax returns--Cayman, Bermuda and Swiss accounts. I haven't read the same about Buffett.

                2. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah......the ones who want to twist it twist it.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He owns the company and the liability Ralph.
              Like many other libs he wants you to do what he says not to do what he does, which is not pay taxes.

              http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct= … cXZtgOOUoQ

            3. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I am in the media ministry at my church. We broadcast the services on internet tv.

  33. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    So if it is really this just horribly wrong to accumulate wealth shouldn't it all just be taken away and given to the poor?
    Whether the monied like it or not?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.  It's called a graduated tax rate.

  34. Tallo Amporo profile image61
    Tallo Amporoposted 4 years ago

    If you have much money then you donate some of your money to the poor to help them then you will be happy and comfortable .

  35. Shrikrishnap profile image68
    Shrikrishnapposted 4 years ago

    In my opinion it is really not wrong to accumulate wealth but it is very important to share some percentage back to society. It is not good to be greedy about collecting more and more money. Because   collecting money is kind of addiction. We can see there are many wealthy people around who has lot of money but they still want more money.

    It is very important how are you earning this money. If it is earned by wrong activities & bad businesses it is never a proper way. This is like snatching money from others and taking away their bread and butter.

    Giving back from what you earned, to the society makes your life also peaceful. If you keep on only accumulating money that takes away peace of mind.

    Give donations to correct organizations especially needy people you find around. Help them and make their life easy.

    Accumulate blessings with accumulated wealth that is biggest wealth.

  36. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    I once asked the I Ching how to get rich. It said accumulate.

  37. Lady_E profile image82
    Lady_Eposted 4 years ago

    There's nothing wrong about accumulating wealth as long as you are sharing it.

    Bill Gates is a good example. Use what you have to bless others too.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But if you are sharing something how can you be accumulating it?

      1. Mitch Alan profile image86
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I do not accumulate it in the first place how can I give anything away?

      2. Lady_E profile image82
        Lady_Eposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I questioned that a bit when I wrote my answer - I'd say it multiplies. (The spiritual law of giving.) Bill Gates still gives a lot away and still has been able to accumulate a large chunk of it. Now you'll think I've gone cuckoo but that's my way of thinking.......

      3. 0
        Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, now tell me how can you share if you dont accumulate?? If money is evenly spread then who will share?? and how can you share? So sharing is good, but without having something to share, how will you do that?? So in general if communism or socialism to work there should be capitalism in the first place. So communism, needs capitalism to even get started...

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          First of all, who's talking about communism?
          And secondly "communism needs capitalism to get started"
          Why is that so?
          You aren't another one who has been sucked into thinking that commerce is capitalism, are you?

          1. 0
            Panzer Kumarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I leave coz i am afraid of you... It seems we both are strong in our views and will not give up, so there seems to be no common ground here.. But for i will still love to be your friend apart from this.. send me a private message of your facebook id and i want to add you there(way from discussion)

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL, don't be afraid my friend, I'm pretty harmless really.

  38. Miro Lee profile image60
    Miro Leeposted 4 years ago

    What i think is that there should be some equal between the people who have the most lot and people who makes real values with hard work.
    Not that 1% owns 99% of the whole world  and 99% own just 1%
    It's wrong! I still don't get why some people need much much more then they need and can even spend.

    1. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To pass on to their children, and children's children? Someone on this thread mentioned that they want to give their offspring a fruitful life, indefinitely. That requires a lot of wealth today, and the accural of interest throughout generations to come. That's probably why people hang on to more than they "need."

      Also, who gets to say what people "need?" I think the individual gets to decide. That's why some people drive multiple cars; obviously they felt a need to do that, else they probably wouldn't do that. What do they care if I don't think they need that many cars?

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I can't even get beyond the self absorption of this response. Have you seen how the children of the super wealth turn out. They're gross.

        Also, it's not biblical. In the bible, land and capital had to be returned to the original families that owned them. NO families were permitted to build up that much wealth.

        There's a reason. Wealth corrupts character. As Jesus said, "It's easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than to get into heaven."

        Also people who had more than others were supposed to divide what they had with those who didn't have - equally. Read your new testament.

        It's basic ethics.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You never did respond to me.

          I want to be wealthy to provide for my posterity. I don't want to give them obscene amounts of money, but enough to give them a boost or to help them start a business. Enough to get them through any hard times.

          I want to create charities and scholarships that are indefinitely sustainable, meaning they need to be able to function off of interest only.

          How are either of those goals immoral or evil?

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            JaxsonRaine, have you ever considered that neither capitalism, communism, or any other system is sustainable on a planet with 7 billion people?

            Ethics are based on the greater good for the greater number over the longest period of time.

            There's nothing wrong with an upper middle class standard of living. And, essentially, it's quite possible for everybody on this earth to live very well because we have the technology and knowledge to do it.

            However, while we have people who want to have excessively more than other people, this will never happen because they will always be working against the system.

            If you are unable to work out why a profit making system is no longer sustainable in today's world, I'm sorry I don't have either the time or the energy to explain it to you. However, I do have a blog called Capitalism and YOU, and you're welcome to google it and think about it.

            In addition, what's wrong with your children working and contributing just the way other humans do? Do you really want them to be layabout, drunkards, drug addicts and all the other things that the kids of the super wealthy indulge in (with a few exceptions)?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You will have a hard time proving that. We still improve standards of living all across the world.

              Wealth isn't fixed, it can be created. I can create wealth for my family without taking it from anyone else. That's the great thing about it, we can all create wealth.

              Again, creating wealth doesn't take wealth from other people.

              No longer sustainable? Then why is it still working?

              Did I ever say that my children wouldn't work? No. Why would they be layabout, drunkards, or drug addicts?

              Nothing about what I said requires, or even implies that. Additionally, I made it clear that I didn't want to give them obscene amounts of money.

              So, how about you answer my questions? What is immoral or evil about providing contingency funds for my posterity?

              What is immoral or evil about creating self-sustainable charities and scholarships?

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm just curious. Where exactly have you lived in the world that you think it's working? And what exactly do you call 'working?'

                Half the people in the US are living in poverty. Something like 40% are on foodstamps. Half of the people in this country have got mental illness brought on by the sheer stress of survival.

                What, exactly is working?

                Australia is working. That's socialism.

                Germany is working. That's socialism.

                Finland is working. That's socialism.

                Forgive me if I ask, but where exactly, outside of the United States, have you lived and worked? Personally, I can't remember the number of countries and cities I've lived in. And I've traveled to a lot more.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How about if you want me to respond to your questions, you also respond to mine?

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jaxson, the way you respond is based on a certain ideology - that it's okay for some people to be super rich while other starve. This is justified 'because everybody can be rich.'

                    To illustrate a point.

                    When Stephen King was writing his book, 'On Writing,' he said that people often asked him what he read and that he would go blank because he read so much that it wasn't possible to answer it in the few minutes he had.

                    By the same token, your questions and beliefs are based on such a primitive and low level perception that I would have to write a book to get you to understand how I'm getting to where I am.

                    I'm afraid I'm going to let this go. Nobody is ever going to get you to believe that it is inherently unethical for there to be extremes of wealth in any society. It's not okay. Yes, there can be variations, but not to the type of extremes. The situation has bred revolutions throughout history, including the French revolution and the Russian revolution.

                    It's not about jealousy. It's about starvation. People are not on food stamps because they're lazy but because there aren't any jobs. And there are a mass of economists who will explain this situation to you, including Robert Reich, one of the past Secretaries of State.

                    I'm going to leave this now. I've got other things to do and if you really want to know about this, there are thousands of good books on it.

        2. kathleenkat profile image90
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's a rather 'gross' generalization.

          My dead grandparents left money and posessions for me. I guess that makes me gross. It sure is disgusting that my grandmother would leave jewelry for me in her will, rather than give it to the 'less fortunate.' I feel disgusting. Thanks, I'll go give all my inheretence to Goodwill now! Then, maybe, Jesus will love me.

        3. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Boy we sure do like that Bible when we think it helps us make a point.
          That's twice in two days i have seen that same verse by two different people.
          Normally they don't want to hear about it.

  39. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Lol, why is it so hard for some people to understand the concept of a two-way discussion?

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No Jaxson, I understand you enjoy discussion. Many people do. I don't enjoy it. When I put this amount of time into something, I'm doing something exceptional. It cost me something. It wasn't good enough for you. It was the best I could do.

      I'm very quiet and never talk to anyone unless it is absolutely necessary. Yes, I write, but it drains me. I have a central nervous processing disorder that makes the conversion of thought into words very, very slow and sometimes it can take me a week to find the words. Other times, it's taken me a decade to respond to something that someone else took split seconds to do. I have had to work on this disability every day of my life for my entire life, and it's only in the last decade that I have come to a place where I can respond in a more timely manner - and I've had very good disability counselors help me do this. So writing is a much better method for me. Even so, there is only so much I can do.

      In terms of talking, I probably say 20 words my entire day most days. Sometimes, I don't speak for days on end. It drives a lot of people around me nuts because I don't answer, but I can't help that because i can't think that fast.

      I answered what I thought were the most important questions. I didn't have what it took to have my thoughts go as fast as yours. I'm sorry.

      Of course, I understand that someone like you does not see complex processes and complex situations. For you, there will always only be one reason that people disagree with wealth - jealousy, and if they don't answer all your questions, then they must look down on you.

      The fact is that one response or one outcome can be the result of many different situations and to assume it always stems from one is very, very limited in brain function.

      That's why i don't want to put any more effort into it. You're very limited.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Surely, with all the effort you've put into trying to teach me something, including the insults, you could have easily answered two yes/no questions that I put forward long ago in this conversation.

        I'm sorry about your problems, but do you feel that gives you leave to insult people?

        The truth is, you used a broad brush that called myself, and people I love unethical and evil. When I tried to engage you on that regard, you evaded the topic every response. If you have such a serious problem, I would hope you would have learned compassion from it.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson, don't waste your time.   Some people believe that being rich is unethical and wrong.  NO, IT'S NOT.  Poverty breeds the worst ills of mankind, not wealth.   Wealth and riches are good!  Remember the old adage a person has been poor and is now rich, and rich is indefinitely-B-E-T-T-E-R!

          More ills occur because of poverty.   When people are poor, they do things that they would not do if they were wealthy.   Poor people take their children out of school so more money can go into the family economy thus depriving children of an education that would have been more condusive of the future.   Poor people commit more crime because they need the money to survive.   In many poor neighborhoods, many children are so desperate for money and the good life that many go into illegal activities in order to earn monies to live beyond poverty.     If such people were wealthy, they would have more constructive ways of  spending their times and living their lives.   Wealthier people are less selfish and are more likely to give to charities than poor people who eke out a living!   Wealth is good and poverty is bad, too bad THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE do not realize that premise!

          1. Express10 profile image88
            Express10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            AMEN!

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then why are you so intent on making many people live in poverty?

  40. leights profile image62
    leightsposted 4 years ago

    Some people just want to make wealth remain in their family, so they are not only thinking about resource that can satisfy themselves, but also about their future generation.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ++++++++++++++++++++ !

  41. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    @Jaxson,

    I'm assuming you want me to say motivation sets them apart- However, that question is one which can only be probed effectively with scientific study, not guess work, internal biases or groundless value judgements.

  42. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

    One of the reasons I don't enjoy debate is it's not a good use of resources. It's much simpler to write an article covering all the issues and then one never has to answer them again. The issue with the debate is that the same old discussion ensures over and over again.

    Anyway, I wrote an article entitled "Why the desire to be rich is unethical." I didn't use it for Hubpages because I write about financial issues and capitalism on my blog entitled "Capitalism and You."

    I'm not permitted to put a link here but you can search for it. I don't need hubreaders for purposes of self promotion because my work is good enough for the search engines to find them, so please don't think this is about self promotion.

    I've just written the answers to the questions that the brigade who are promoting wealth don't consider... smile

    1. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you put the link on your profile?

  43. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    What exactly is there to admire in hoarding very large amounts of wealth?  I have more respect for people like Gates who put a good proportion to work in their charities.  Sure they enjoy the perks of wealth, but they feel the responsibilities too.  Wealth is a kind of power, and like all power how you use it reveals character.

  44. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    It is the individual person's money to do with as he/she pleases.  No one else should not tell others what to do with their money.  It's THEIR money. If they want to be billionaires, that's their business and NO ONE else's business!

    Again, NO ONE owes ANYONE anything.  NOW that's the problem at hand.  The rich earned their money so let others earn theirs.   People are poor in America for the most part because of their passive and negative mindset, psychology, and mentality.  They feel that others should rescue them from their socioeconomic predictament which they created for themselves.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So you can say what is "better" -- but we shouldn't?

      Yeah, that seems reasonable  hmm

 
working