The Ultra rich getting richer

[Bonam]

Lets ask him!

Lets see what he says about disparity of wealth in general as well.

I suspect he pretty much has to say that. Those statements express the prevailing social attitude. A person as visible as Bill Gates disagreeing with such sentiments would be bad PR. He may well truly believe those sentiments of course, just saying.

Anyway, looking at his statements, he makes some valid points, that for example his education and that of his employees was subsidized, among other things. But add up all these subsidies and they are still orders of magnitude less than the wealth that he (and his employees) created.

Now as to concentration of wealth, I agree. Wealth should not ideally be concentrated in the hands of a few powerful people. Certainly, the concentration of wealth is at odds with the democratic value of everyone having an equal voice. But, wealth redistribution through socialist-type programs is not the answer to this problem. All socialism does is put power into the hands of a different group of people, but still a small one. They gain power through their political skill and craftiness rather than through their ability to create wealth or earn money.

Personally, given the choice, if power is to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority, as it inevitably is in any of the governing systems yet invented by mankind, I'd rather that the power be correlated with one's productive ability (those who can make money) rather than with one's political ability (being a backstabbing lying bastard). I have much more respect for the intelligence and ability of our brightest business minds and our greatest innovators rather than our most successful politicians, though both can of course fail as has been aptly demonstrated in recent times.

[dre]

I suspect he pretty much has to say that. Those statements express the prevailing social attitude. A person as visible as Bill Gates disagreeing with such sentiments would be bad PR. He may well truly believe those sentiments of course, just saying.

Anyway, looking at his statements, he makes some valid points, that for example his education and that of his employees was subsidized, among other things. But add up all these subsidies and they are still orders of magnitude less than the wealth that he (and his employees) created.

Now as to concentration of wealth, I agree. Wealth should not ideally be concentrated in the hands of a few powerful people. Certainly, the concentration of wealth is at odds with the democratic value of everyone having an equal voice. But, wealth redistribution through socialist-type programs is not the answer to this problem. All socialism does is put power into the hands of a different group of people, but still a small one. They gain power through their political skill and craftiness rather than through their ability to create wealth or earn money.

Personally, given the choice, if power is to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority, as it inevitably is in any of the governing systems yet invented by mankind, I'd rather that the power be correlated with one's productive ability (those who can make money) rather than with one's political ability (being a backstabbing lying bastard). I have much more respect for the intelligence and ability of our brightest business minds and our greatest innovators rather than our most successful politicians, though both can of course fail as has been aptly demonstrated in recent times.

I suspect he pretty much has to say that.

I dont think thats the case. He doesnt just "say that". Hes actively campaigned for a large estate tax for years, even though he would pay the very most of anyone in history.

he makes some valid points, that for example his education and that of his employees was subsidized, among other things. But add up all these subsidies and they are still orders of magnitude less than the wealth that he (and his employees) created.

It goes beyond just educational subisides. The public did most of the initial research that spawned his entire industry and paid to build much of the infrastructure that made it possible. Wealty people "use" the government way more than other people. Take the massively expensive transportation system, highways, etc. A poor person might own a bicycle or one car. A wealthy person might have a whole fleet of vehicles and theyre using that system to deliver millions of products all over the country. They profit from it more, and the use it more. Same goes for communications infrastructure, etc.

But, wealth redistribution through socialist-type programs is not the answer to this problem. All socialism does is put power into the hands of a different group of people, but still a small one.

Taxation is not socialism, and taxing the wealthy at higher rates most definately works to avoid concentration. Thats why the estate tax came to be... it was a response to the gilded age, and the railroad tycoons. Not all systems concentrate wealth at obscene levels. In fact this really only started happening during the last 20 years. Before that western countries did a pretty good job.

Personally, given the choice, if power is to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority, as it inevitably is in any of the governing systems yet invented by mankind

History also s hows that things get UGLY when that happens. Eventurally that wealth WILL go back into the pool. Taxes are a better way to do it than violence IMO. Id rather avoid that scenario. Its just just flat out impossible for this to continue on as it is without major problems.

And todays rich are ignorant of this for the most part. They never learned the lessons of aristocracies, and the guilded age, or the french and russian revolutions. They dont understand the risk they put themselves at when they game the system to keep multiplying their wealth.

I'd rather that the power be correlated with one's productive ability

Thats almost the exact definition of fascism, where society is organized at the behest of the producers and industrialists. The concept might roll off your toungue nicely but I seriously doubt youd ever want to live in a place where that idea was taken to its extreme, as it inevitably would be.

Without progressive taxation and inheritance taxes this society would have collapsed a LONG time ago.

Edited December 3, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Taxation is not socialism, and taxing the wealthy at higher rates most definately works to avoid concentration. Thats why the estate tax came to be... it was a response to the gilded age, and the railroad tycoons. Not all systems concentrate wealth at obscene levels. In fact this really only started happening during the last 20 years. Before that western countries did a pretty good job.

You are talking about concentrating wealth, I am talking about concentrating power. When taxes are low, power is concentrated in the hands of industrial leaders. When taxes are high, power is concentrated in the hands of government officials. Either way, the power belongs to a small group of individuals. The difference is what qualities one needs to become a successful business leader and what qualities one needs to become a successful government official.

[dre]

You are talking about concentrating wealth, I am talking about concentrating power. When taxes are low, power is concentrated in the hands of industrial leaders. When taxes are high, power is concentrated in the hands of government officials. Either way, the power belongs to a small group of individuals. The difference is what qualities one needs to become a successful business leader and what qualities one needs to become a successful government official.

No thats not how things work in a functioning democracy. Public officials are constantly getting rotated out of power, and the public gets to elect them. Thats how power SHOULD be allocated, its exactly how our society is supposed to work.

What you propose is an oligarchy. Its a really bad idea, and things will get ugly before long. Ask the wealthy in Venezuela how that turned out for em.

Edited December 3, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

No thats not how things work in a functioning democracy. Public officials are constantly getting rotated out of power, and the public gets to elect them. Thats how power SHOULD be allocated, its exactly how our society is supposed to work.

Constantly rotated out of power? Not really true. For one, multiple 4+ year terms is not really "constantly". More importantly, only a small fraction of the positions of power in government in Canada are elected positions.

What you propose is an oligarchy. Its a really bad idea, and things will get ugly before long. Ask the wealthy in Venezuela how that turned out for em.

I'm not "proposing" anything. What I'm saying is the rich being rich and having some influence as a result of their wealth is not so horrible a thing. I like the fact that in our society, not only government wields power, but also private individuals and private enterprises. Just like the checks and balances internal to government are supposed to prevent abuses of power by any one branch thereof, so too having power distributed among a variety of competing nongovernmental and governmental entities reduces the capacity of any one such entity to abuse the power that it has. At least, unless they decide to collude in their abuse of power.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Constantly rotated out of power? Not really true. For one, multiple 4+ year terms is not really "constantly". More importantly, only a small fraction of the positions of power in government in Canada are elected positions.

I'm not "proposing" anything. What I'm saying is the rich being rich and having some influence as a result of their wealth is not so horrible a thing. I like the fact that in our society, not only government wields power, but also private individuals and private enterprises. Just like the checks and balances internal to government are supposed to prevent abuses of power by any one branch thereof, so too having power distributed among a variety of competing nongovernmental and governmental entities reduces the capacity of any one such entity to abuse the power that it has. At least, unless they decide to collude in their abuse of power.

What I'm saying is the rich being rich and having some influence as a result of their wealth is not so horrible a thing.

It IS a bad thing because it feeds off of itself. The wealthy use their influence to get more wealth then use that wealth to get more influence. Democracy wont work for long under those conditions, and youll probably live long enough to see why.

[August1991]

GATES: The huge disparity in wealth that's happening, is something that is, I think, really dangerous.

MOYERS: Why?

GATES: Wealth is power, Bill. And it just is not a good situation. And the examples of the aristocracies of Europe are so clear. We don't want to have a country like that. Who was it that said, it was Louis Brandeis who said...

IMO thats absolutely true. You can have a society that concentrate wealth to an obsene degree or you can have democracy. Not both.

IMHO, Bill Gates usually has something intelligent to say but in this case, his own fame and ego may have coloured his view.

Gates is worth about $50 billion. There are about 1.3 billion Chinese and while Gates accrued his vast wealth, even if each Chinese on average only managed no more than $100, then that would be $130 billion.

----

This thread misunderstands markets. In a market, the choices of a billion Chinese matter more than the choice of a Bill Gates, or even the Chinese Communist Party.

[RB]

Typical zero-sum thinking.

You're wrong, RB. I suggest that you rethink life, and the universe.

Look at it this way - we see people getting richer, we see poverty, we see a lot of poor miserable people - but we live in a capitalistic society that allows us exploit resources and become greedy.

You want me to change my views that greed does not exist? That some people not going to be demise in order for others to move ahead, in order for others to become rich. Some win others have to lose, well not completely - they just get the short end of the stick.

People have inherently been greedy, and have greedy ways, oh don't worry not you, but everyone else is greedy. Give me an example of a country that was not greedy, Russia perhaps, US, UK, Spain, France, Iraq, how about Canada? but ....

How does a person become richer? or the topic of conversation the rich getting richer. Well people are individualistic and looking out for themselves and so they set off to pursue their interest to benefit themselves. What I can say to you is thatthere is NO other systems available to look at where you can get rid of poverty, or lets call it by its name "poor people".

Hoever, poor people in Canada and the US are much better off because they are exploited where capitalism flourishes, business and trading are advancing, and the order of things is for rich who is always greedy, getting richer. In this case, you would be surprised to note that the poor people have just escaped being desperately poor albeit visions of poor famished people.

In an extreme senario send all the rich folks to another planet for one week, see what they accomplish in their new environments - and see what really happens to poor people left behind.

[Jack Weber]

You are talking about concentrating wealth, I am talking about concentrating power. When taxes are low, power is concentrated in the hands of industrial leaders. When taxes are high, power is concentrated in the hands of government officials. Either way, the power belongs to a small group of individuals. The difference is what qualities one needs to become a successful business leader and what qualities one needs to become a successful government official.

Dead wrong...

What your talking about is unfettered free markets redistributing wealth back into the hands of the few...

Thise few will then corrupt the political process and rig the situation for the advancement of only those few...

It's a horrible idea that will reduce most people to animals trying to eke out a meagre,almost Medieval serflike existence.

Are'nt you the guy who also thinks that RTW legislation(in the US),essentially legalized union busting,is a good idea?

Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

Are'nt you the guy who also thinks that RTW legislation(in the US),essentially legalized union busting,is a good idea?

Yep.

[Jack Weber]

Yep.

So you support free market legislated corporate tyranny???

Great...You must think places like corporate Fascist China are the best new model for a modern society...

By the way,I'll take your flippant "yep" as a tacit agreement to everything else in my previously post you selectively quoted...

Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[blueblood]

Dead wrong...

What your talking about is unfettered free markets redistributing wealth back into the hands of the few...

Thise few will then corrupt the political process and rig the situation for the advancement of only those few...

It's a horrible idea that will reduce most people to animals trying to eke out a meagre,almost Medieval serflike existence.

Are'nt you the guy who also thinks that RTW legislation(in the US),essentially legalized union busting,is a good idea?

How is that dead wrong?

Its only dead wrong if the "few" just bury their money in a whole in the ground. Fortunately, they spend and invest their money improving the lives of those around them.

The only "few" that have corrupted political proceses are those in communist regimes or military dicatatorships in which capitalists flee because of bad policy and unpredictable nutbar sixes in charge of those countries.

The irony is that it was capitalism that got western civilization out of the middle ages. Had western civilization followed your line of thought in the middle ages, we would still be under the thumb of the catholic church and a lot poorer.

What's wrong with "Union busting", people have as much right to join a union as they have a right to work.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What's wrong with "Union busting", people have as much right to join a union as they have a right to work.

Sorry, only the socialists have worker's rights.

[Jack Weber]

How is that dead wrong?

Its only dead wrong if the "few" just bury their money in a whole in the ground. Fortunately, they spend and invest their money improving the lives of those around them.

The only "few" that have corrupted political proceses are those in communist regimes or military dicatatorships in which capitalists flee because of bad policy and unpredictable nutbar sixes in charge of those countries.

The irony is that it was capitalism that got western civilization out of the middle ages. Had western civilization followed your line of thought in the middle ages, we would still be under the thumb of the catholic church and a lot poorer.

What's wrong with "Union busting", people have as much right to join a union as they have a right to work.

What's wrong with union busting???

How 'bout we turn this around?

What right do you have to try to break up my union local?

If you want that type of "freedom" go to the non union shop down the street,most likely take less money,a poorer benefit plan,and in an industrial setting,be more likely to injured and/or killed on the job.But please do that on principle,and not at the expense of those who would prefer to bargain collectively for something better...

RTW is designed to destroy the union movement from within,by breaking the backs of individual locals financially,using the misguided "freedom and choice' arguement you're using right now.

Ask yourself who was behind RTW in th late '50's,and who is still behind it,and ask yourself if those motivations have the individuals freedoms in mind?

Take a look at where RTW legislation is successful and then look at wgaes,benefit plans,and safety records.It should come as no surprise that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico(essentially Louisiana) AND the mining disaters in West Virginai and Kentucky last spring came in RTW states...

And spare me the usual "Communist" invective...

Unfettered Capitalism is an extreme...And it's a nightmarish extreme just as horrific as any Marxist nightmare you or I can think of.

The reason we have unions is because of the greed and callousness of corporate robber barons in the late 1800's and early 1900's.The reason we havea vibrant middle class in North America has absolutely nothing to do with the generosity of Capitalists and Industrialists.It has to do with the sacrifice of working people collectively standing up to those who could'nt have cared less about anyting but themselves and the companies they started.

By the way,that hard fought standrard of living is under attack by those who think that deregulation and global free markets are the way to go.Neoliberal economics is simply amother wealth redistribution excercise that seems to be designed,under the guise of economic freedom,to keep wealth in(or return it to) the hands of the few at the top.It also seems to be designed to play off one region against another,in a not so veiled attempt to ratchet up global corporate profits at the expense of the standard of living of most people...

Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[August1991]

You want me to change my views that greed does not exist? That some people not going to be demise in order for others to move ahead, in order for others to become rich. Some win others have to lose, well not completely - they just get the short end of the stick.

I have no objection to your belief that greed will always exist.

You are wrong however to believe that for some people to win, other people have to lose. Life is not a hockey game.

As Belinda Stronach said, and I paraphrase, life is like making pie. We can share the pie, or we can make a bigger pie.

[GostHacked]

False....anybody can create money....but not currency. Learn the difference.

However, the amount of created money does affect the value of your currency.

[blueblood]

What's wrong with union busting???

How 'bout we turn this around?

What right do you have to try to break up my union local?

About as much right as unions have of forcing workers to join them or look elsewhere for work. To me that is an infringement of the charter of rights and freedoms. It has to be a two way street. Workers have every right to form an organization and workers have every right not to join that organization.

If you want that type of "freedom" go to the non union shop down the street,most likely take less money,a poorer benefit plan,and in an industrial setting,be more likely to injured and/or killed on the job.But please do that on principle,and not at the expense of those who would prefer to bargain collectively for something better...

Modern companies have learned about how cheaping out leads to lower productivity and leads to unions which lead to even further lower productivity. This isn't the 1890's anymore. Japanese car plants in Canada are an example of this.

RTW is designed to destroy the union movement from within,by breaking the backs of individual locals financially,using the misguided "freedom and choice' arguement you're using right now.

So? If a union can't survive without having to force its workers to join it is proof positive that it isn't necessary anymore. If work conditions are so horrible, then people would willingly band together and cause problems.

Ask yourself who was behind RTW in th late '50's,and who is still behind it,and ask yourself if those motivations have the individuals freedoms in mind?

Take a look at where RTW legislation is successful and then look at wgaes,benefit plans,and safety records.It should come as no surprise that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico(essentially Louisiana) AND the mining disaters in West Virginai and Kentucky last spring came in RTW states...

Alright then, lets unionize everything, make the cost of doing business prohibitive, and increase outsourcing to emerging markets. Wage earners are a dime a dozen, and during this recession that statement has now become a reality.

And spare me the usual "Communist" invective...

Unfettered Capitalism is an extreme...And it's a nightmarish extreme just as horrific as any Marxist nightmare you or I can think of.

Everyone becoming richer is a bad thing?

The reason we have unions is because of the greed and callousness of corporate robber barons in the late 1800's and early 1900's.The reason we havea vibrant middle class in North America has absolutely nothing to do with the generosity of Capitalists and Industrialists.It has to do with the sacrifice of working people collectively standing up to those who could'nt have cared less about anyting but themselves and the companies they started.

Those "robber barons" were horrible business managers. Google is a non-unionized environment and has been voted one of the best places to work on a consistent basis. Not only that Google is a far larger company than the "robber barons". Same goes for Apple. The fear of unions starting up has resulted in better working conditions across the board. There is nothing wrong with workers willingly banding together to negotiate for improved working conditions; however, there is something terribly wrong when workers have to be forced into these organizations or they don't have a job. That's discrimination and you know it. However, those unions right now are paying a price for their arrogance and entitlement due to the fact of outsourcing to emerging markets and large capital investments in these countries where people are willing to work. The only way North America will grow again is when the workers in emerging markets either organize for better working conditions, or there is so much growth in those countries that wages will have to rise in order to get workers to work for said companies. When those wages coupled with freight are higher than wages in North America, then the jobs return.

By the way,that hard fought standrard of living is under attack by those who think that deregulation and global free markets are the way to go.Neoliberal economics is simply amother wealth redistribution excercise that seems to be designed,under the guise of economic freedom,to keep wealth in(or return it to) the hands of the few at the top.It also seems to be designed to play off one region against another,in a not so veiled attempt to ratchet up global corporate profits at the expense of the standard of living of most people...

Wrong, the standard of living of people in emerging markets is rapidly improving thanks to deregulation and free markets.

Why are profits a bad thing? Do you know who owns multinational corporations?

North American wage earner's sense of entitlement has caused the economic problems we have, and once that entitlement is gone, will growth resume.

[Jack Weber]

About as much right as unions have of forcing workers to join them or look elsewhere for work. To me that is an infringement of the charter of rights and freedoms. It has to be a two way street. Workers have every right to form an organization and workers have every right not to join that organization.

Modern companies have learned about how cheaping out leads to lower productivity and leads to unions which lead to even further lower productivity. This isn't the 1890's anymore. Japanese car plants in Canada are an example of this.

So? If a union can't survive without having to force its workers to join it is proof positive that it isn't necessary anymore. If work conditions are so horrible, then people would willingly band together and cause problems.

Alright then, lets unionize everything, make the cost of doing business prohibitive, and increase outsourcing to emerging markets. Wage earners are a dime a dozen, and during this recession that statement has now become a reality.

Everyone becoming richer is a bad thing?

Those "robber barons" were horrible business managers. Google is a non-unionized environment and has been voted one of the best places to work on a consistent basis. Not only that Google is a far larger company than the "robber barons". Same goes for Apple. The fear of unions starting up has resulted in better working conditions across the board. There is nothing wrong with workers willingly banding together to negotiate for improved working conditions; however, there is something terribly wrong when workers have to be forced into these organizations or they don't have a job. That's discrimination and you know it. However, those unions right now are paying a price for their arrogance and entitlement due to the fact of outsourcing to emerging markets and large capital investments in these countries where people are willing to work. The only way North America will grow again is when the workers in emerging markets either organize for better working conditions, or there is so much growth in those countries that wages will have to rise in order to get workers to work for said companies. When those wages coupled with freight are higher than wages in North America, then the jobs return.

Wrong, the standard of living of people in emerging markets is rapidly improving thanks to deregulation and free markets.

Why are profits a bad thing? Do you know who owns multinational corporations?

North American wage earner's sense of entitlement has caused the economic problems we have, and once that entitlement is gone, will growth resume.

1. Hogwash...Less than 20% of the workforce is organized in the country and half of that is public sector unions.So it's even less in the private sector.So it's clearly NOT the hardship you're making it out to be to find that job in a non-union shop.But if less than 10% of the total private workforce is unionized,why the need for RTW,if not to simply crush the labour movement?Because it's clearly not representing 90% of the private workforce.

This is about your blessed shareholder value,and nothing else...Trying get rid of any,and all checks against your blessed free markets.....Simply put,selfish,self absorbed,and,short sighted...

2.Japanese car companies in Canada pay wages they do and have benny plans they do,not out of the goodness of their hearts and because they're benevolent...They do it because if they did'nt,the CAW would be knocking down their door!It's an added bonus of the union movement.The union wage and benny plan sets the bar.To keep a union out of a company,they actually have to act as if they are quasi-unionized.That's a win win for the union and non-union employee...And a solid win for our standard of living...

3.No one is forced to join a union in a private workforce where less than 10% of that workforce is unionized.

A silly,and bogus canard belying your neoliberal economic ethos.

If one does'nt want to work in a unionized environment,one simply avoids those places.It's fairly easy...

4.The fear of most companies is'nt generally about costs...That's only a part of the equation.It's about power and control in the workplace.That's what drives the RTW movement,and it's that mindset that drives the well heeled folks behind it.Productivity is a nice term for less people doing more work for less money.And wage earners are a dime a dozen because of the neoliberal global free marketeers who can get that labour cheaper in China.This has the well intended consequence of forcing us to lower our standards to compete.Of course,this makes us generaly poorer,and unable to by the shares in your blessed companies to keep our economy vibrant....More shortsightedness...

5.Being rich is'nt a bad thing,but in your unfettered free market utopia,that simply would'nt happen.It would simply concentrate the total wealth of any society into the hands of the very few at the top.I think we can aim for something a little more equitable,than turning most people into economic animals scrounging for the few crumbs that fall of the global free marketeer's tables?

Worse than that,history tells us that when wealth is concentrated like that,very bad things come out of it.When there are large groups of people being economically disenfranchised by poor economic policies,very bad ideas seem more like good ideas.Revolutions tend to be bloody,and the few at the top tend to die horribly...How do you think things like Marxism took hold?

6.This is where we might have some agreement.I think the union movement in 'the West' has long become far too defensive.They complain about the loss of jobs in Europe and North America(rightfully so),but they are not prepared to fight the globalists at their own game.It does no one any good complaining about the loss of jobs here and doing nothing about the place where the jobs are going.If these unions are truly international,they MUST take the fight that won us our standard of living to the places we are losing our standard of living to.And once there,must fight the fight we fought here 60/70 years ago to raise the standard of living in those places.

Will globalists free marketeers fight this?

Absolutely!

Will it be bloody and will people lose their lives??

Well ask a Chinese coal miner how his life is right now...And then ask him if he could fight back collectively to make his life better,if he'd do it?

I'll bet the answer is an unequivocal "Yes!"

Those that have the power and control of the workplace never give it up without a fight.And generally,they must be brought to heel forcibly,because they won't do it willingly....

7.Sure that standard of living in emerging markets is rising.Of course,there are still over 1 bilion Chinese living in poverty.And going up from zero to 3 looks great.Of course,we went from 10 down to 7 to do so.And that deregulation got you an oil disaster in the Gulf,dead miners in China,dead miners in West Virgina,dead miners in Kentucky,low wages,bad to zero benny plans,wealth concentration at the top in the hands of the few,the rise of Fascist China,suidides in Chinese workplaces,chaos on Wall Street..etc...

But let's here it for shareholder value!!!

By the way,I'm an investor...I'm for a more controlled Capitalism.I invest in blue chip companies that pay a dividend...

8.Entitlement???We should suffer so that shareholders of multinational companies can make money of the hides of the underemployed???

Nice...Augusto Pinochet would be proud...

Of course your right that once we lower our standard of living to those 3rd World nations we are being played off against by the Global free marketeers things will even out....By that time,we will be living like Medieval economic serfs...You folks never seem to learn from history...

Edited December 19, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Oleg Bach]

It is not about money with these people. Eventually it is about the abuse and dominance of what they consider their sub-human subbordinates....Greed or gainfulness is a sickness. If one of these ultra rich people as a poor man if he is "gainfully employed" - he really means - do you submit to the master..which is him?

Nawh - I really don't care about the so-called ultra rich...

There is a street person I see who is the ultimate horder...first it is a bike packed like a mule..then he evolved to a shopping cart..then a trolly the size of a car - packed with useless junk - that he pushes down the alley.

My richer older brother is also a horder..but a classy one - He has a fine home with a large basement - there is fine industrial shelving down there and he has two of every object ever created by mankind..that he will NEVER use.

Then the highest order of hoarder is my investment banker "friend" - He probably secretly has a net worth of a couple of billion bucks...He really does NOTHING useful with the money - just accumulates more and more with no clear useful or benevolent purpose for it...

So I suppose my point is..those who lack spiritual power..who are socially crippled..who are not capable of giving or recieving love - who really have no friends are the ULTRA RICH...There whole self worth is material - and material is like flesh..it disipates and disappears out of the material world...I have no sympathy for these people - they through their hording harm the rest of us.

There is only so much matter in the world - to create a huge pile of wealth - you must deminish the next guys pile...No I don't want to hear about the trickle down effect - or charitably donations by these people.

Charity does not mean turning a profit by giving through some tax deductable scam.

[Zachary Young]

The economy is a positive sum game. Wealth is created. This idea that you get rich by taking from someone else is absurd. That is simply not how the private sector works. That IS how the public sector works, which is why we have a class war going on in North America. You have the productive private sector, which generates wealth, and the parasitic public sector that lives off everyone else. This is why politics is a crock of shit. The law has turned into an instrument of plunder instead of a defense of property rights and liberty.

Perhaps if you people read a little more economic theory and didn't get your ideas about how the world works from the game monopoly our society would be a little better off.

[Shady]

The economy is a positive sum game. Wealth is created. This idea that you get rich by taking from someone else is absurd.

Exactly!

To listen to these idiots make it sound like rich people tap into your bank account and withdraw money without your permission is ridiculous. Unfortunately these people are a product of our bad education system, that fails to teach proper business and economics.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly!

To listen to these idiots make it sound like rich people tap into your bank account and withdraw money without your permission is ridiculous. Unfortunately these people are a product of our bad education system, that fails to teach proper business and economics.

Fair enough, but the ultra rich are never happy. If taxes were zero, they would demand that they be paid to keep their money invested in the country.

There is an unstated contract between the wealthy and the rest of the country, which used to be called 'noblesse oblige'. If they are our leaders, then they should look out for somebody other than themselves once in awhile.

[Shady]

Fair enough, but the ultra rich are never happy. If taxes were zero, they would demand that they be paid to keep their money invested in the country.

I don't know where you get that from, but I'm sorry you feel that way.

[August1991]

The following fascinating video puts alot of this in perspective. Is it really true that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer? Or is that some people are getting richer and other people are remaining poor?

The video uses country averages and only at the end, Rosling (the statistician behind the video) starts to consider regions within countries. We don't have the data now but it would be interesting to examine such a graph following the world's families, generation after generation.

[Zachary Young]

Not all wealthy people deserve their wealth. Bill Gates is the perfect example of someone who deserves every dollar he has made (and then some). Imagine a world without Windows. He brought personal computers to the homes of billions. The productivity that has resulted because of his business efforts is incredible. He deserves his billions and then some.

Wealth is either acquired by being created, stolen or gifted. Now if wealth is created, who then justly deserves this wealth? If an artisan sculpts a statue, should it belong to him, to everyone communally or should a select group of men decide who should get the sculpture? This seems like a no brainer to me, and it is as true of any enterprise as it is of the artisan's efforts.

But people who get wealthy through theft, through living off lucrative government contracts, people who get rich because their wealth is acquired by using the government to steal from people who actually create wealth, they are not even deserving of the shirts on their back, pathetic parasites that they are.