If you're not rich or unemployed, blame yourself

[bush_cheney2004]

Which is it? Life's not fair, in other words, bad luck or it's their fault? You can't have it both ways.

Has nothing to do with luck....there will always be winners and losers. Commie ideas like yours are the enemy of all.

[cybercoma]

"Commie" ideas like mine protect industry from disruption.

[GostHacked]

Cain is right...before anyone blames anybody else, they need to take some responsibility for their own choices and outcomes. This is a very American idea and has broad appeal. I recall another successful president refining the idea into a fine line from an inauguration speech:

Cain used to work at the Fed, not sure what credibility he has there.

...And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what, together, we can do for the freedom of man. - JFK 1961

Those kind of words can get people shot!

[Mr.Canada]

Cain in the US said more or less these exact words and many posters on this forum seem to subscribe to this philosophy. It implies that every single person could simultaneously be rich and employed, that there's no such thing as cyclical or systemic unemployment. In other words, it contradicts the foundation of economics: scarcity.

100% correct. If these whiners put as much effort into their own livers as they do whining they'd be millionaires by now.

[cybercoma]

100% correct. If these whiners put as much effort into their own livers as they do whining they'd be millionaires by now.

That's completely false. It presumes the possibility of full employment.

[Guest American Woman]

Cain in the US said more or less these exact words and many posters on this forum seem to subscribe to this philosophy. It implies that every single person could simultaneously be rich and employed, that there's no such thing as cyclical or systemic unemployment. In other words, it contradicts the foundation of economics: scarcity.

If you're not rich or unemployed, blame yourself

Yes, those were the words, but the message was that more people need to look at their own actions, take responsibility for their own lives, their own decisions, rather than always putting the blame elsewhere. If you take it literally, yes, it does imply what you said. But if you take it the way it was intended, along with the rest of what he said, ie: in context, he is saying that people need to start being responsible for their own decisions, rather than always blaming someone else for their lot in life. It's a good message, no?

[dre]

If you're not rich or unemployed, blame yourself

Yes, those were the words, but the message was that more people need to look at their own actions, take responsibility for their own lives, their own decisions, rather than always putting the blame elsewhere. If you take it literally, yes, it does imply what you said. But if you take it the way it was intended, along with the rest of what he said, ie: in context, he is saying that people need to start being responsible for their own decisions, rather than always blaming someone else for their lot in life. It's a good message, no?

It's a good message, no?

Absolutely. Its a great message. The problem is when people use it to excuse structural and institutional inequity in the system (im not accusing you of doing that, but I see this happening constantly).

Edited November 20, 2011 by dre

[blueblood]

Absolutely. Its a great message. The problem is when people use it to excuse structural and institutional inequity in the system (im not accusing you of doing that, but I see this happening constantly).

That inequality results from savings, said savings being passed down, and the heirs of said savings not squandering their money. In some cases from 200-300 years worth of savings.

In other cases an entrepreneur comes up with an outstanding product that people want.

The problem the 99% have is that they have to essentially start from scratch every generation because not enough wealth is saved to be expanded upon. In most cases they get to the point where they pay off student loans,get a house, car and that's about it, not mch wealth to pass down. It's why they have more difficulty amassing wealth.

[dre]

That inequality results from savings, said savings being passed down, and the heirs of said savings not squandering their money. In some cases from 200-300 years worth of savings.

In other cases an entrepreneur comes up with an outstanding product that people want.

The problem the 99% have is that they have to essentially start from scratch every generation because not enough wealth is saved to be expanded upon. In most cases they get to the point where they pay off student loans,get a house, car and that's about it, not mch wealth to pass down. It's why they have more difficulty amassing wealth.

Thats part of it. But its also partly institutional. The top 1% has also successfully changed the rules of the game, and weaken rules that were meant to make sure wealth does not concentrate. The top bracket tax rate has been cut to 1/3rd of what it was a few decades ago, and they are working to kill the estate tax, which would amplify the phonomenon you described.

Between WW2, and 1975 the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% was actually FALLING. The rules of the game changed.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The problem the 99% have is that they have to essentially start from scratch every generation because not enough wealth is saved to be expanded upon. In most cases they get to the point where they pay off student loans,get a house, car and that's about it, not mch wealth to pass down. It's why they have more difficulty amassing wealth.

To your point, the concept of "Old Money" and "New Money" is well documented going back to at least 19th century fiction, and 20th century wealth management and preservation. It was made abundantly clear to me early in high school with F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.

[blueblood]

Thats part of it. But its also partly institutional. The top 1% has also successfully changed the rules of the game, and weaken rules that were meant to make sure wealth does not concentrate. The top bracket tax rate has been cut to 1/3rd of what it was a few decades ago, and they are working to kill the estate tax, which would amplify the phonomenon you described.

Between WW2, and 1975 the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% was actually FALLING. The rules of the game changed.

In between ww2 and the Reagan admin. There was so many loopholes in the tax code that the high tax rate was just window dressing.

And what is wrong with the phenomenon I just described? If people started saving their money and had smarter succession plans, they could pass down what wealth they had, but most people chose to blow it on consumption.

[blueblood]

To your point, the concept of "Old Money" and "New Money" is well documented going back to at least 19th century fiction, and 20th century wealth management and preservation. It was made abundantly clear to me early in high school with F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.

You really see this concept in the ag industry. Some people for whatever reason believe their kids should take out a massive loan and buy them out. In Canada we have banking regulations which prevents kids from taking out the full market value of the operation so the parents sell out at a discount which saddles the kids with massive interest payments and there ends up not being enough money for daddy to retire, all because daddy is a greedy fool. Others decide to split the land up equally among the kids instead of fairly, which means the kids have to start at a weaker position.

The smart ones set up a company so the farm stays in tact, the kids pay daddy a pension plan, and use the savings to expand from their current position instead of having to go backwards when daddy kicks the bucket or retires.

Bad succession planning, It's one of the biggest problems in agriculture, a cause for most guys going broke, and a monument to stupidity.

[The_Squid]

100% correct. If these whiners put as much effort into their own livers as they do whining they'd be millionaires by now.

So you're a millionaire then....?

[Moonlight Graham]

Perhaps not a billionaire, but a mulch-millionaire certainly. Do I want to devote my life to the pursuit of this wealth though? No, not really. I'm just fine with a middle class salary and more time off.

I think there's a lot of people who could be millionaire's, but choose solid careers that just don't pay that kind of money, or just don't want to put in the crazy work it would take ie: entrepreneur business. A lot of people are just stupid though, and don't have the natural smarts, skills, or natural talents needed.

Now, there are a heck of a lot of other factors that go into being rich or poor though, or being ie: poor vs middle-class.