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?
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.
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)
@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!
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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
No they don't. That is done by people who spend their wealth.
Those who accumulate it do none of those things.
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.
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.
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 - 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. who's arguing?
2. don't care to or can't?
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.
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
Now there is only one group of people doing this right?
Or will you be honest and admit this is a bipartisan thing?
Why wouldn't I admit it's a bipartisan thing? It's also international.
There's a major class war going on in this country. What has politics got to do with wealth creation for the few at the expense of the many got to do with either party?
None of those are wealth-creation activities...
Anybody can create wealth, and it's easy to do so.
Psst, Hey Jackson.
You are only supposed to be wealthy if you are a liberal like Micheal Moore.
Or any number of other hypocrites over there.
I just have to tell you that I have an irrational emotional response to your avatar. You are a dead ringer for a former neighbor of mine in Oregon who was never invited in my house again after he noticed a humorous anti-Bush screen saver on my computer and ordered me to "take that off!" I literally had to shove him out of my house while he screamed at me for being a traitor. He also tore off a "Republicans for Obama" sticker from boyfriend's (now my husband) car, repeatedly stole Obama signs from my yard, and harassed my boys about joining the military to go to Iraq while making excuses for his own son not to.
I finally had to call the police to get him to leave me alone.
Anyway, not your problem, but I felt like sharing. I have not responded to any of your posts since you starting using that avatar. lol
I recently changed my picture here to a picture of me in costume for a fundraising murder mystery dinner theater my wife and I are involved in. It is so unlike me I thought it was a fun thing to do. I don't wear suspenders.
The play is Trouble at the Tropacabana and is an I Love Lucy murder mystery. My wife and I are Fred and Ethel. We recently did it for the Mend Crisis Pregnancy Center and were a big hit.
But if enough people throw up over the picture I will likely change it again.
Sounds fun! Now that I know the back story, maybe I can tolerate it better. Again, it's my problem, not yours! Please don't change anything.
Now just so you understand a little more...I am the only non-Obamite in my family. On either side.
However I would never do what your neighbor did.
I would rather convince you of your error.
Actually, they are all wealth creating activities.
Virtually every single company I've worked for in the last 20 years indulges them. They've become an epidemic.
If you don't think that basic wage is wage slavery then you have no idea what you are talking about. And every single car that is manufactured is spewing out poisonous gasses. And virtually all excessive roads and buildings are destroying our habitat, as are landfills. And all advertising is based on the principles of Edward Bernays.
JaxsonRaine, the reason you believe the hogwash you do is because you don't appear to be capable of working out the above for yourself. You are unable to see the connectivity between what I've said and what you're saying.
That's why you don't get what other people are saying. You don't make the connections - either because you're incapable of doing do or because, at an unconscious level, you don't want to, because it would limit your own wealth making creations.
No, I'm talking about wealth creation.
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
None of those activities creates wealth.
Lying to someone cannot create wealth. How is that supposed to happen?
Creating an artificial need cannot create wealth. Creating a product that is priced at fair-market value higher than the sum of its parts does create wealth.
Paying any wage does not create wealth, it just distributes wealth.
Destroying the habitat doesn't create wealth. Utilizing resources can create wealth, but those aren't the same thing.
Everything else you said had nothing to do with what I said.
What's solution Sophia?
Give us a plan. I personally would like to see one that doesn't bow it's knee to a particular political party. Because if you have been brainwashed into believing they are the answer you are just as bad as you believe Jackson to be.
You took the time to explain to me! Oh how gracious of you.
Still as arrogant I see.
"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
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!
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.
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.
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.
True, one of my maternal aunts did it, so did one of my maternal uncles, and my mother!
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.
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.
AMEN to that-so many NEGAHOLICS and HATERS out there!
GN, have you ever wondered what would happen if everybody suddenly got up and set themselves up in business?
You do realise that the system you so love depends on there being plenty of have nots to survive.
It depends on there being many with hardly two pennies to rub together.
Show your sources, please.
I do not know anyone who can't pick up more than 2 pennies off the sidewalk. In fact, I found a penny this morning.
With respect, what has that got to do with unemployment and slave wages?
I want credible sources, from you, as to why you have been relentlessly making these claims over the past several weeks. I do not want my question answered with a question.
Where do I start? You know people who are perpetrating the con trick are not too likely to write down what the con trick is and how it works but ask yourself why no government aims for full employment any more, why no company aims for full employment any more, why people like Thatcher say things like "unemployment is a price worth paying to control inflation"
Now will you explain what you meant by "I do not know anyone who can't pick up more than 2 pennies off the sidewalk"
You said "people who barely have two pennies to rub together." Nobody is that poor. You can scrounge a lot more change than that by simply walking the streets and staring at the ground. That is why I meant by that.
Where are your sources? How do you know that nobody strives for 100% employment anymore? Something you read, or heard, or experienced obviously had to have put that idea into your head. Give me something to read. If someone has fallen victim to this, it is highly likely that they wrote about it.
For the third time, I ask you: Where are your sources? You obviously have these radical ideas for some reason.
<sigh> not having two pennies to rub together is not a literal. It indicates not that somebody literally doesn't have two pennies to rub together but that the person doesn't have any spare money.
If you want to read what others say about full employment google it, you'll get the same sources that I would give you. Failing that you could just think about it for a few moments and realise how your system does depend on unemployment and even poverty.
I am asking for sources that have inspired you. I want to read what you have read.
Is that clear enough for you? I don't want to "google" it because quite frankly, anyone can post anything they want on the internet. Proof of that with me posting this message right now. I want credible sources, with authors, on credible sites. I want references to published material. I want to know what you read, so I can finally understand where you are coming from (you are doing a terrible job explaining yourself, by the way, and that's why I ask.)
This is the fourth time I have now asked: Where are your sources?
My sources are 60+ plus years living on this planet and in a country that has been marginally socialist and extremely right wing and capitalist. Seeing the pain, even death, that capitalism causes. Seeing whole communities torn asunder in the name of profit and generations of families thrown on the employment scrap heap unwanted by their country.
Get over your desire to see everything written down by "experts" you'll only be disappointed (or relieved as they'll only write what you agree with).
I am sorry friend but i suggest you better leave USA for good. Former Soviet Union or Uncle Stalin's house would have been the best place for you...
I'm not even in the USA, I can hardly leave it for good!
Then you have no business commenting on our economic structure.
Oh! I didn't realise that only Americans were allowed to accumulate wealth!
The more we try the harder he replies, the fact though i dont agree with a single word he says, I still seem to be liking him for his hard last stand. He is firm with his view and ideology and reduces to give ground..
Watch it Panzer, they eventually work out that you're not American either, oh but hang on, you'll be OK you're arguing with them and not against them.
The point is i am a free person with my own ideas and views. And if i was i was surrounded by opposite ideological persons(like the place where you are in) i too will stand still and reply.. And even more importantly my comments and ideas usually go well with masses for i know what to sell and where to sell after-all i am a capitalist(as per your view)
Whether or not either of you is currently living in America is ultimately meaningless. The facts are the facts and the facts remain : One person's being successful or accumulating wealth DOES NOT keep another person from doing the same. What was your point concerning the definition of accumulate that you so strongly asked Panzer to define?
Mitch, not true.
In order for one person to be rich, others have to be poor. If everything is equally rich, then nobody is rich. By its very definition, the word 'rich' means to have more than others. Not everybody can have more than others.
Yes, of course, three or four people in a thousand or 10,000 in 100 million can be rich. And, yes, of course, anyone can choose to be one of those select few. That is not what this is about.
What it's about is that it is wrong for some people to want to be above other people.
All of it goes back to some sort of indoctrination that it's good to be 'successful.' Making money at the expense of the greater good is not ethical. it's not smart. And it's not to be admired.
This applies to all rich people, because if they had any humanity inside them, they would give away everything they didn't need.
And that's biblical by the way!
Cool, you don't need a computer or internet access. Why don't you give that away?
I sure hope you don't have any money in your savings. That wouldn't be very "Biblical" of you, would it?
I will remember you comment for atleast 10 years.. Excellent question.. I wonder what is her answer..
Good for you, Kathleen. LOVE IT! To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, those people who hate wealth should give away their computers, their monies and lifestyles, and live their ethos. HA! These people DO NOT WANT to do that- they love their CAPITALISTIC COMFORTS too much. See, Katheleen, these people are subconscious capitialists even though they profess to be socialists and communists! If they had to be poor ONE WEEK, they WOULD NOT SURVIVE!
I have noticed many people who decry riches and capitalism are those who come from affluent backgrounds. I know of such people. They detest money and capitalism while they live in their coops and condos with mommy and daddy supporting them. They were definitely NOT in the SURVIVAL MODE so to speak.
I have NEVER,NEVER, NEVER encountered poor people who decry money and capitalism. . In fact, they want MORE MONEY. Many poor people state that they were sick of being poor and wanted to be rich. When I was in college, it was the poorer students who majored in business, math, and hard sciences. They knew that such fields were the high paying fields and they will earn THAT money! The ones who pontificate against riches and capitalism often come from affluent to very affluent socioeconomic backgrounds-how hypocritical indeed!
Affluent and rich people are the ones who are ADULATED in this society. They are the ULTIMATE symbols of success and symbols to aspire to. No one wants to be poor. Affluent and rich people are the "A" students of the adult world while poor people are considered to be the "F" students of the adult world. If wealth and being rich was soooo bad, ask a child if he/she wants to be wealthy and/or rich, he/she responds with a resounding yes. Ask the same child if he/she wants to be poor, he/she would look at you as if you had a severe mental illness.
I was looking at Michael Moore's CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY. Mr. Moore clearly decries capitalism for all its "evils"; however, he has become hugely wealthy from his dvds. Again, HOW HYPOCRITICAL INDEED! In other words, capitalism is the best economic system around and anyone who criticizes it is totally amiss to say the least! Case closed!
Mam in simple terms: If a person don't want to become better, richer, more comfortable and to a greater height than where he is now, he will not be classified as Human-being.
We humans are the apex and best of the evolution process that triggered life and death on the planet earth. And humans became stronger and smarter because we never felt comfort with what we had and wanted more and more, for instance for a lion or tiger; all they want is few pounds of meat per day, safety from other animals and that will keep them happy and content, but even an early stone age man was different, when humans had free time they didn't sleep. Rather they build smarter hurts, did painting, tried to hunt more food for future, and this is something of a basic instinct with all human beings, and you cant ignore, give-up or or call this as an error.
In the end i want to live as a human and so i want to get better and keep on being and becoming better. And in my view its by no means wrong. And this is human nature..
And this answer applies to Mr. John Holden as well
So you equate being a richer human being with being a better human being!
So a man who robs a bank of £1 million is a better human being than Mother Theresa?
haha,, here comes the failure and fear with in socialism(or may be John itself) i never said stealing or robing is correct i just said earning and improving in a fair way is good and that's human nature. As you speak humans lived without electricity just a few centuries before and by that time it was possible and so can you say you can live without electricity coz you dont need extra comforts like that???
Panzer, there are those who hate the rich. These people have a poverty consciousness. They have been inculcated that being poor is honorable while being rich is inherently evil. People receive such doctrination from religious authorities who proclaim that any form of wealth is wrong and that wealthy people are corrupt while poor people are pure and innocent.
Many parents inculcate this poverty consciousness and the cult of socioeconomic mediocrity by conveying that money is the root of all evil. They further emphasize to their children that socioeconomic struggle is good and that being affluent is wasteful. These are the people who brag about scrimping and cutting corners. They love being poor and struggling and believe that all should be doing the same. They hate the rich because the latter live a life of ease and comfort which the former wish to do but are so brainwashed with the premise that being rich is so wrong that they are afraid of going beyond their inherent paradigm.
The rich has been subjected to all types of prejudices and animus. According to many religious texts, the rich are inherently evil and therefore damned because they are not considered to be as spiritual as poor people are. There are synonyms for the rich such as filthy rich and other types of pejorative names. People hate to see other people do better than they do. It is the crab in the barrel mentality i.e. if one is poor and struggling and sees another person bettering himself/herself, the former prevents the latter from advancing himself/herself by pulling him/her down to the former's socioeconomic level. In other words, if I am struggling, then you are going to do the same- how dare you think you are better than me by advancing oneself socioeconomically.
Yes, Panzer, there is intense jealousy of the highly successful and rich in this society. It is indeed shameful, while the rich are demonized, the poor are glorified as poor souls, so-called victims of society. This is totally inverse logic. Shouldn't the successful be glorified? I think so! Socialism, communism, and the anti-achievement ethos is becoming quite rampant indeed!
Define "Rich" and "Poor". Some one does not need to be poor for someone else to be rich. Lets suppose there are 100 people in a society and 10 people have $1000 income each, 30 people have $500 income each and the remaining 60 people have a $200 income. If the necessary income to survive with a roof, food etc is $100, then non of these people are poor and yet some are clearly "rich" by way of comparison.
The Biblical way is not to confiscate from those that produce to give to those that do not. Is it not Biblical to simply give everything other than the bare necessities away for the sake of giving them away. If you are referring to when Jesus told the rich man to go and give away all that he had, then you are taking that verse out of context. He was speaking to that man specifically and in general to anyone who would put their wealth or status above their love of God. He said a rich man can ot enter the kingdom of God. He was not saying that simply being rich keeps you out of heaven. A very common misreading of that verse.
In the end they drag even the holy and almighty Christ into this., Who knows they will soon say Christ was a Socialist or even a communist.. Its beyond humans to discuss now...
Certainly his actions were more in line with socialism than with capitalism.
No, they were not. He did not promote confiscatory redistribution. He said to "give with a cheerful heart" and to NOT give if it was not done that way. Read it in context before you misrepresent it.
There has been no "confiscatory redistribution." Our tax laws are riddled with loopholes with the result that our taxation is about as regressive as a banana republic. The redistribution has been one way from the middle class and the poor to the rich.
Neither does socialism. Least not real socialism, maybe the capitalist idea of socialism (like bailing out banks and paying people to be unemployed) does,but real socialism doesn't.
No, not true.
Rich: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth.
Nothing about being rich is comparative to other people. America is a rich society. Our poor are often better off than the 'wealthy' in other countries.
And the wealth isn't a fixed amount. Everyone can be wealthy.
Sir its 3:00 Am in the mid night but this interesting debate has kept me fresh and awake. While i have lots of clients and orders awaiting to be done and delivered tomorrow.
If it is meaningless then why did you copy kathleenkat in raising it?
My point about the definition of accumulate was that Panzer seemed to be talking about rich people giving their money away, which as defined, is not accumulating it.
So, you comment about our system without actually being a part of it and utilizing second hand information...is that correct?
Care to elaborate with an example? Perhaps you can write a Hub outlining your personal experiences? I am still as lost as ever. And no, I will not 'get over' it. So far, you have giving me nothing, aside from an explanation of "I'm right because I'm older than you, and you should take my word for it!" I am not going to take what you say as fact, because, quite frankly, that is what destroys free thinking and creates societies of drones (I'm pretty sure by now the North Koreans actually believe their leader is a god).
(Fifth time I am asking you to explain yourself).
What communities are torn apart by capitalism and freedom? Don't you mean the communities that are held down by socialist policies that promote government assistance and subsidize failure? Don't you mean the promotion of a "you can't do it without the government" attitude, rather than you "can do it" INSPITE of the government?
Alas no. I mean communities that are brought down by capitalism along with a lack of freedom.
Socialist policies don't promote government assistance and they do not subsidise failure. Those are products of capitalism dressed up as socialism so you'll know who to blame.
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....
Panzer, YOU are SOMEONE with GOOD SENSE! NO USE of CONVINCING JOHN of this premise! NO USE AT ALL!
I think, like you, that Panzer totally misses the point.
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....
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!
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.
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.
"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
When you own a company, then you can decide who to hire, who to fire and what to pay your employees and yourself. That is how it should be. Start a company, build it, and only take the same pay as your employees...that is your right IF it is your company and ONLY if it is YOUR company.
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.
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?
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."
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???
So which are you, asleep or drugged?
I know quite a few of your fellow countrymen, all hard working, driven even. Some had become reasonably wealthy, others not so. Are they asleep or drugged, or maybe some know people that others do not.
As for your comments about incapable and unsuccessful people, I hope they were generalisations and not aimed at anybody who does not chase the mighty dollar as the be all and end all.
He did not mention money, but merely success. And his point is true either way. Someone should not begrudge another because they have succeeded. One person's success is not predicated upon another person's failure...nor is the opposite true.
If thats your point then you cant go after it. But what will you do if you get seriously ill and you are living as per your rule(not to collect any extra money)? Then you have to ask from others, and what if they refuse?
The point is i am saying that i should take care of myself and so should others.. If they are poor i have nothing to do with it. If i am rich as i told i can start a company and give jobs, then this means i am giving or in your words sharing my wealth. And apart from that i cant go to every single poor mans house and give some money on a daily or monthly basis.
Rather than feeling jealous of successful persons and arguing for no point if they(poor) start to work they cant get rich. There are millions of people who rose from humble position to a mighty place with all riches and comforts. So thats they are the examples, giving is good, asking is shame, asking to give is pointless. But in the end i too agree on sharing but i cant agree on forced sharing or saying being rich or accumulating wealth as a crime. Being or becoming rich and wealthy is a noble deed and i neither see nor feel shame in that.
I ask you again, do you understand the meaning of the word "accumulate"?
John, Instead of repeating your question about the meaning of "accumulate", why don't you define it as you mean it in the context of this discussion?
Perhaps he is asking it coz he didn't know it.. haha
I don't see what the context of this discussion has to do with the definition of accumulate!
to gather or become gathered together in an increasing quantity; amass; collect
[from Latin accumulātus, past participle of accumulāre to heap up, from cumulus a heap]
So socialism means copying from Dictionary and pasting it without even caring to say it yourself?? So what i said seems to be correct, he wanted to know that so he asked, since we didn't tell that he referred to a dictionary.
And now that you had referred a dictionary and understood the meaning for "Accumulate" Will agree with us?
Ok, now that you have stated the obvious, how does that move the conversation forward or in anyway change what has been said?
Mitch, in all fairness it was you who asked me to define the word!
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 $x an hour, take it or leave it, that anybody taking that job has had any say in that price, a say necessary for there to have been agreement.
If somebody wants to buy a loaf of bread, they buy it at the price the baker dictates or they don't buy it where is the agreement in that?
It is all taking.
Many people negotiate salaries prior to accepting jobs.
If someone offers you a job at X$, you have 3 choices...
1. accept the position at the offered compensation.
2. negotiate the compensation, if possible.
3. refuse the position and seek employment elsewhere.
Those should be the only 3 options. I have taken a job at the offered compensation, I have negotiated (and gotten more) and I have looked elsewhere. Why shouldn't that be the case?
Well that would be the case if it was with the wise ones, while others are always otherwise.
Capitalism is still the BEST economic system around. It rewards those with the most smarts, talents, and drive. Capitalism is quite an equitable system. Those who do-great! Those who do- well, #%$! ! Pure and simple, for those who advocate socialism and communism-news flash: you are slowly and woefully misguided. There will NEVER be an equal distribution of wealth. Those who work smart and strategize and use their talents are deserving of the wealth while those who refuse to strategize, plan, and work smart in addition to using their talents, well, too #$%$! bad! People DO have a choice, it is only their mindsets which program them to be mediocre and to be satisfied with less instead of achieving their utmost!
"Capitalism is still the BEST economic system around."
True, provided there are rules and referees to make sure the markets deliver fairly on their promise of efficient allocation of resources. American capitalism has strayed from this model according to some of our brightest Nobel Prize economists. We now have deals with the government made by the drug companies, Wall Street, oil companies, coal companies, hedge fund operators, insurance companies which guarantee or allow them to make profits in excess of what they could make in a free market.
They should make as much as they can in a competitive free market without selling shoddy merchandise, polluting the environment, cheating their workers, using false advertising, colluding with other so-called competitors to fix prices, bribing legislators to get tax loopholes or special breaks, and so forth.
Eventually you run out of other people's money...
Socialism isn't about an equal distribution of wealth, it is about an equal distribution of opportunity though.
Opportunity is not something that is given or but taken, so who ever has the skill will grab it while others have to blame themselves. If i don't have software skills then i should try something else and if a private business doesn't works for me then i should go to work(for some other company). Instead i should not feel jealous of others..
Yes, many people negotiate salaries, few people negotiate wages though and they tend to be at the poorer end of the spectrum.
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.
It is wrong to accumulate debt. But that is what America does through massive entitlement spending.
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
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.
You're not taking human nature into consideration.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"The problems come when either the "wrong person" accumulates wealth or the wealth is obtained illegally."
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.
Maybe if it was removed from them it would take them down a notch or two.
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
"with liberty and justice for all"
But especially for the wealthy and not so much for those that make them wealthy.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
Ok let's look at this from another perspective.
Who decides how much a person should have to live comfortably?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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..!!
+ 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!
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...
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.
It is better to have enough money to be secure and use the rest to do good in the world.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.....
But the way I see it is that there is a finite amount of wealth and one persons wealth is another persons poverty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If everyone were multi-billionaires then no one would be. It's like a tie ball game. It may as well be 0-0.
Yes....been very busy and the monitor went out.
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
No, but if you are using me to earn you money to buy your jet . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But if you are doing good with it you are not accumulating it are you?
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?
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.
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.
No anger. Just puzzled how you can think that people can accumulate wealth and still do good things with it!
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.
+ 10000000000000000000000000000000 ! Wealth = freedom, hence >wealth is equivalent to > financial freedom and <wealth equals <financial freedom and > socioeconomic struggle!
But you only do that by spending, not accumulating!
Totally concur with this intelligent premise!
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.
Because if they were to do more for others that would interfere with their wealth accumulation!
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!
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.
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.
No, and poorer people don't owe wealthy people a living either. Must wealthy people are only wealthy because other people make them so.
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
+ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
It actually is a misconception, the US dollar is usually higher than the Canadian so goods just look cheaper, after you factor in the exchange rate and the amount of gasoline or bus or train fare you use to get there there is not much of a saving if any. Gasoline is definitely cheaper.
I didn't say success didn't take work. I said that you can work as hard as you want and still not succeed. But even when you work hard it does take some luck and timing. Not everyone succeeds after taking a risk.
Yeah...when I worked in retail we had the exchange rate taped to our registers on a daily basis. It changed every day. For people who live in Vancouver, or other towns near the border, its probably cheaper for them to just cross the border.
I don't not see the need to help struggling people. I donate my clothing every year, so I guess I don't accumulate as much wealth as others. I wouldn't consider myself rich by any means, but I am definitely well-off. That being said, I don't feel the "need" to help others because I worked so hard myself, and let's face it, I see the same bums on the side of the road with cardboard signs for the past five years. That's where I get the impression that a lot of poor and unfortunate people don't even try. When they sit on the side of the road with a cardboard sign, and get pass-outs, then later on you see them smoking cigarettes...No, I don't feel the need. But I will donate clothing and food to places like Goodwill and Salvation army because I know it just isn't going towards someone's habits, or their laziness. Though I usually choose to help out the Humane Society instead (I just love animals). But I in no way feel like I have an obligation to do it.
Kathleenkat, I agree that being successful is not just luck. I know some very affluent people who TOOK RISKS with their money or careers to become rich. They TOOK ON GREAT CHALLENGES without guarantees and did not stay in an easy, predicatable job. Most people in this world are risk averse and will pass up an opportunity to make $100 just to hold on to the $25 that they have to spare.
Not all will come out on top as nothing is guaranteed. However, the difference is that those who take risks and are willing to do things that most others won't, are the ones who tend to move ahead.
Many highly successful and/or wealthy people do go beyond their comfort zone to pursue their desires and goals. They discard societal notions of job security in order to create businesses, enterprises, and/or pursue highly risky careers. The reason why many people are not wealthy is that they are devotees and worshippers at the altar of job security. They are purgatorially miserable but they prefer to remain in this situation than to fearlessly pursue their dreams. Sometimes venturing into the so-called unsafe and unknown areas can be quite lucrative!
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.
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.
And that goes equally for the wealthy - nobody owes them anything.
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.
"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............."
Socialism has arrived.......and taken over,.EGAD!
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.
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
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..
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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'.
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!
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.
So there is and isn't an unlimited pie!
And you accuse me of trolling!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DON'T patronise me.
If you want to know my experience of economics, don't demand it without first giving me the background to your experience.
Don't decide what we can and can't talk about.
I'm not patronising you. I'm not trying to decide what we can or can't talk about.
I'm just wondering how much background you have in economics so I can explain it best.
No, you explain to me your background in economics and I'll decide whether we can talk about it or not. So far not one word from you.
John, that's completely irrelevant.
I wanted to know your background, not to decide what we can and can't talk about, but to know how best to explain to you how wealth is created(as opposed to stolen).
Instead of taking an opportunity to learn, you act flippant and ungrateful. How about a 'Oh, I didn't know that, thanks for explaining it' instead of continuing to change the subject and present straw man arguments?
Why on earth should I worship at your feet? You obviously have never thought this thing through rather just parrot what you've been told.
I'm not asking you to worship at my feet(again, that is a straw man. Notice how you keep acting like I said things that I never said?)
You asked a question. You asked me to explain how wealth can be created, because you didn't(or still don't?) think it was possible. When I took the time to explain it, you didn't take it as a learning experience. You moved the goalposts, and now criticize me claiming I'm the one who doesn't understand it...
And when did he insinuate worship...sounded like he was trying to share knowledge, but you attacked because it conflicts with your talking points.
He doesn't want to learn.
Ironically, before I even explained it, he admitted unknowinging that wealth is created, because GDP grows. If it was just being redistributed(taken or stolen) it wouldn't grow, it would be static.
Now I honestly don't know where he stands on the subject... but it's all about attacking/making fun of people he doesn't agree with.
And what makes you think you're my teacher?
I could say that from your responses you certainly don't want to learn but I don't feel the need to massage my ego by constantly drawing attention to what I see are your failings.
John, you asked me, and several other people, to explain how wealth can be created.
In my book, that qualifies as asking me to teach you something.
[sarcasm]So sorry for assuming that, I should have realized that by your asking you were simply trying to prove your own point.[/sarcasm]
Then your book is wrong!
If I ask for an explanation, that does not mean that by definition whatever you say will be correct and therefore educational.
Are you saying my explanation was wrong?
If I cut down a tree and make furniture, I didn't create wealth?
If you cut down the tree and make furniture then indeed you do create wealth.
If somebody else cuts down the tree and makes furniture than you don't create any wealth at all, you just take wealth off those who do create it.
Ok. Before you didn't think it was possible to create wealth. Now you do.
Why did your understanding on the matter change?
Did I say anything about that? No. Again, straw man and move the goalposts. I never said anything addressing that.
I don't think that many people who are supposed to create wealth do so, they just transfer wealth.
Actually I think you're the straw man here, remember the title of the thread?
1 - The topic changing isn't the same a straw man.
2 - Answer my questions please. You now admit that it is possible to create wealth, where you didn't before. Why did you change your mind?
You're right, I was wrong, sidetracked by your constant moving of the goal posts and straw man arguments.
The man who cuts down the tree and makes furniture out of it doesn't create wealth, he just makes another means of transferring wealth.
When did I move the goal posts? Quote please.
When did I present a straw man argument. Quote please.
Hollow accusations are all you can present. Logical fallacies all of it.
Can you answer the question? Are you capable?
Let's just clear this up. It should be very simple. Answer two questions for me:
Do you now understand that wealth can be created without taking it from somebody else?
If so, why did you change your mind?
Read my posts, really read them and don't imagine that you know the content.
Transferring wealth is not wealth creation.
John, answer the questions.
I'm not talking about transferring wealth. I'm not talking about the money moving from the guy who makes the furniture to somebody else. I'm talking about the creation of wealth.
1 - Do you agree that wealth can be created?
2 - If so, what made you change your mind?
As for your accusations, please back them up. You have failed to quote a single example of me moving the goalposts or presenting a straw man argument.
Grow up and back up your claims. It's not arrogance, you really are acting immaturely. You keep claiming that I've said things I haven't said, you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong, and you refuse to back up your accusations with quotes.
On top of that, you refuse to answer simple questions, and you criticize me for answering your questions.
OK, one more chance person A cuts down tree, makes furniture out of it and sells to person B. Person A is richer by $X but person B is poorer by $X.
Where is the wealth that has been created? You know, created as in didn't exist before. Not didn't exist for person A, but didn't exist anywhere before.
And try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth when you respond.
Why can't you just answer a simple question. The first one is yes/no... it's not that hard.
Let's try again. I'll try to make it easier for you. Just delete the part you don't like.
1 - Is it possible to create wealth? Yes/No
As to your situation, the wealth is created when person A makes furniture.
Person A - Before Furniture: $500 cash = $500 wealth
Person A - After Furniture: $500 cash + $100 furniture = $600 wealth
Person B - Before Purchase: $500 cash = $500 wealth
Person A - After Purchase; $600 cash = $600 wealth
Person B - After Purchase: $400 cash + $100 furniture = $500 wealth
The wealth was created, and never disappeared. You are wrong when you say that person B is poorer by X, he transferred liquid wealth into non-liquid wealth.
Again, I have answered your question. Please answer mine.
I will keep a 'civil' tongue, as long as you stop presenting straw-man arguments and moving the goal posts. Also, I'm still waiting for you to prove how I presented straw-man arguments, with quotes please.
Just curious... how do you define wealth?
I would define wealth in the following way...
Having everything that one wants and more than one needs.
However, I would define a wealth nation as one that had an environment where streets didn't have potholes, where there was public transport available for everybody and everybody could get everywhere they wanted to, where medical services, food, education was affordable and available to all, where there was no rubbish in the street, and where everything looked gorgeous i.e. great buildings, clean streets, wonderful flora and fauna...
Saudi Arabia and China have got cities like that. America? Not as far as I know...
I define wealth as the sum value of all current capital(economic capital, not accounting capital) in an economic system.
The value of all money, services, and assets.
Yes, having everything everyone wants and needs would be considered wealthy in my opinion.
That of course assumes that a second hand item retains its value, which a well made oak table may well do, might even increase in value. But what about a new car which losses a considerable $age of its value as soon as it is driven off the forecourt, or a loaf of bread which has absolutely no second hand value.
There is no way that the purchaser retains his equity then and no wealth has been created, just transferred.
John, I'm not going to answer any more of your questions or objections until you answer mine.
You are being extremely discourteous by refusing to have a two-way conversation.
Have a discussion, or have a nice day. Your choice.
And he accuses me of being discourteous
I've actually been trying to have discussion with you for getting on for 24 hours now but you insist on lecturing me and patronising me.
Yes, I do.
You refuse to have a two-way discussion. You asked a question, I answered it, and you attacked me for it.
I asked you a question, you ignored it and asked your own. I answered it, and re-asked my question. You ignored it.
Can you see how that is discourteous?
But you don't see anything discourteous in demanding that I tell you my qualifications in economics without volunteering your own!
I wasn't demanding your qualifications.
I was asking for your background, because that would have helped me to know where to start. If you have a solid background in modern economics, I would answer differently than if it is a subject you never cared about.
And you don't realise how patronising that sounds!
W when you ask about an economic principle'how is it patronizing to ask your background?
the better I understand the better I can explain.
Never in my 63 years has anybody ever asked me what I know before entering in to a discussion with me!
Oh wait, you aren't offering a discussion, you're offering a lecture!
You asked a question about a concept that I understand. I'll take that as an experience to share knowledge...
Just like if someone asked me about finding limits in math, I would want to know what their mathematical background was before starting to explain.
You're probably just projecting onto my actions, as I entered this discussion with all sincerity.
Saying that I want to enter into a discussion about wealth creation is not asking you anything.
As for you understanding, from many examples you have given your understanding is based on theory, how things should work, and not on how things do work.
When you say 'Please explain how people can create wealth", that is the same as asking the questions "How can people create wealth?".
As to how things work, you're wrong.
If you create a table, you created wealth. That's not theory, that's an example that you can clearly see, you could even go do it yourself. Please explain to me how it doesn't work?
You still seem to be saying that wealth isn't created...
How then does GDP grow if wealth isn't created?
I think if you actually read my posts you would see that I agree that the economy grows by usually 2 or 3% per annum (though in the UK the economy has actually shrunk for the last couple of years) this is not reflected in the growth of the top ten per cent of the population who see their wealth increasing by much more than that 2 or 3%.
And yet, you still act like you don't think wealth can be created. It's like you are playing both sides of the fence.
All you do is keep trying to shift the topic back to your precious "rich people are stealing from poor people', no matter what we are actually talking about.
So why would you ask me to explain how wealth can be created, if you know that it can?
Playing head/mind games with you, Jaxson. He is hitting the jugular to get you to respond. HE KNOWS THE GAME and IS MANIPULATING YOU!
I really don't see it that way.
To present logical fallacies, to use ad hominem, to play both sides of the argument... I don't see that as me being played... I see that as him playing himself.
I don't have enough activity at my other forums, so I respond. It's fun.
Okay, but there are some people who intentionally like to work a person's last nerve. That type of person is totally unconscionable in my opinion! In addition to that, that person is totally not civil. If a person is decent enough to answer a question and educate the other person regarding the subject at hand, the latter should at least LEARN, APPRECIATE, and MOVE ON!
Yes, just stop doing all those things and stick to the point of the discussion.
By the way, you demanded that I give you quotes for when I accused you of the same things that you accused me of, but I don't remember you giving any quotes to back up your claims!
Yes, I quoted myself to prove that you were using straw mans.
You never did the same.
I explained why you were moving the goal posts.
You never did the same.
I answered your questions.
You never did the same.
Why don't you show some courtesy?
You quoted yourself! Wow, that really proves that I'm a straw man!
And were did you explain that I was moving the goalposts? In your imagination doesn't count.
You answered my questions with questions of your own and with diversions.
As for courtesy, I'm not sure that you know the meaning of the word,or certainly not as most people know it!
Do you know what a straw man argument is? To prove that you used a straw man argument, I quote my own argument. That proves that what I said, and what you claimed I said, aren't the same thing.
Lol, please try to have a basic understanding of logic before you criticize me on it.
You moved the goalposts because this started with you claiming that wealth can't be created, only redistributed. That makes wealth creation the topic at hand. You keep changing the subject(moving the goal posts) to redistribution, not creation.
I answered your questions with answers. I then re-asked my questions, and you ignored me. Do you need me to quote that too? Have you forgotten?
I started out by saying that wealth wasn't created (perhaps too late at night) then modified it to say that it was but not to the extent that some people increased their wealth by.
You say that wealth creation and wealth distribution aren't the same topic, I disagree it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion about where wealth comes from and goes to without looking at both aspects of the matter.
Or, put it another way, we've covered the topic of wealth creation with me agreeing that it can be created, now lets look at how wealth is distributed.
Ok, I dont care about distribution. It's not equal,
So you're happy to see the poor subsidise the rich!
Straw man. I didn't say that.
If you think I did, then quote me.
And where in there did I say I'm happy about the poor subsidizing the rich?
Do you know what a loaded question is?
"Ok, I dont care about distribution."
You can't really make anything much clearer than that - you don't care about distribution then you can hardly start arguing that you do really.
Saying I don't care about distribution is not the same thing as saying that I'm happy with the poor subsidizing the rich.
1) I never said I"m happy with the distribution, but that doesn't really matter. Just thought I would point out another straw man you are using.(I know you don't understand that, but it's ok).
2) I never said the distribution is uneven because the poor subsidize the rich. That is called a loaded question.
1) my bad, I took "I don't care" to mean that you don't care,silly me.
2) How can a statement be a loaded question? Surely a question has to contain at least an element of asking!
1) Again John. Saying "I don't care about" is not the same thing as "I'm happy with". See, this time you said that you took me to mean that I dont' care. That's correct. I have no problem with you saying that I don't care. If you say I'm happy with, then you are lying about my position. Understand?
2) It's a loaded question because it assumes that the poor are subsidizing the rich. If I answer 'Yes', then that is saying I'm happy that the poor are subsidizing the rich. If I answer 'No', it means I'm not happy that the poor are subsidizing the rich. As I don't agree that the poor are subsidizing the rich, I can't answer that question. Because it's loaded.
You would seriously benefit from learning about formal logic...
Yet another patronising response!
1) to not care suggests a level of satisfaction with the status quo.
2) er, what's wrong with "I disagree"? You can actually respond to statements with more than a yes or a no. For example, if I was to say "it's a bright and sunny day here in Manchester" that would neither be a loaded question or only answerable with a yes or no. You could say, "huh, it's raining here" or" similar weather to us".
I think that you really need to run off for a bit and learn about logic.
A - "Happy with" and "a level of satisfaction" are not the same thing. You fail completely at arguing a consistent point, you constantly move the goalposts and misrepresent what I have said. To care is to "feel trouble, anxiety, interest, or concern". It has nothing to do with satisfaction.
B - Can you admit that I didn't say I was happy with it?
Herp derp, I DID respond with a different answer other than yes/no.
I suggest you learn about logic because you move goalposts, use straw man arguments, loaded questions, among others... what's worse, you continue to do it over and over.
So please show me where I said I was happy with the poor subsidizing the rich.
"And where in there did I say I'm happy about the poor subsidizing the rich?"
Judging from your comments in this forum subsidizing the rich appears to be your main mission in life.
Oh really? And how am I advocating 'subsidizing' the rich?
By working at a rate of pay that is way beyond what your labor is worth. Or, at least, most of us are. We don't have a choice either because it's either starve and go homeless or work at a job that pays wage slavery wages.
Oh right, the entitled-to-more-than-what-other-people-want-to-do-with-their-property argument.
You don't make sense. It's unethical to pay people what is currently being paid to them. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, we were paid a living wage. This is no longer so. Your forebears fought long and hard to get to work 5 days a week, not have to work more than 8 hours a day, and get paid a decent wage. You obviously have no respect for any sustainable system - only for the right to become rich. I think your values suck.
When I worked as a cashier, I made $13 an hour. I felt that I was being overpaid and that my job was worth a lot less than my company was giving me for it. Places like Walmart and Target will pay the same job minimum wage.
At one point, I made $6 and hour to sit on a chair and greet customers. Maybe one or two a day would come by when the boss wasn't there to help them. In the mean time, I could do stuff like sweep the floor, or draw a picture, or pick at my nails for all the bossman cared. This was in Tennessee, about 10 years ago. I felt that since I was getting paid to sit, that it pretty friggin generous.
Currently, I am making several dollars more than that. I have a different job, which requires an education, and is more mentally demanding than scanning barcodes ever was. I feel that I am recieving a very fair and liveable wage. It's a little tight at times, but I don't think I would be worth more unless I had more added to my job description.
I don't know what industry you are working in, or have worked in in the past, but through my experience I have felt I recieved a very generous pay for what my work was worth. I think it is inaccurate for you to say that we, as working America, are not getting paid what we are worth. How much is a person who scans barcodes, or a person who sits in a chair worth to you?
As I recall you think the oil depletion allowance is good public policy.
I don't recall whether you have supported the carried interest loop hole enjoyed by private equity and hedge fund operators. (The one that made Mittens a $100 million fortune.)
Your continual whining that the rich pay more than their fair share of federal income taxes.
Those come immediately to mind.
I never said the oil depletion allowance is good policy.
I never supported the carried interest 'loophole'.
So, mark those off. Now taxes.
I'm not whining, how about we keep the discussion mature Ralph? I state, with facts, that the rich pay more than their fair share. That means the rich are subsidizing the rest of America. Just because I point that out doesn't mean I'm advocating having the poor subsidize the rich.
Well, it appears to me that the "poor are subsidizing the rich."
Just curious, what is your position on the oil depletion allowance? And on the tax breaks enjoyed by hedge fund operators and private equity people like Romney??
I don't like when the government helps out some companies or industries, and not others. Things like oil depletion allowances shouldn't exist. Instead, corporations should pay more equivalent rates, and lower rates than they currently have to pay.
When it comes to investment tax, I think the tax should reflect the activity. Short-term trading should be taxed at a much higher rate than long-term investment. Ultra-quick trading(1 day or less, especially 5 minute electronic algorithmic trades and such) I'm fine with taxing at the regular income rate, and adding in FICA.
Individual tax breaks need to be looked at individually, I can't make a blanket statement about whether or not I approve of all of them.