Do the rich earn their income?

[dblack]

The common enemy of corporatism? Explain please.

Corporatism is not, as it is often popularly misconstrued, 'rule by corporations'. It's a mode of government whereby power is distributed by the state to various organized power blocks in society. These power blocks might be composed of large incorporated businesses, but they can also be labor groups (unions), religious organization, cartels formed around specific resources or services, etc... The point is, political influence is organized around group identification. Government leads by brokering deals between these various groups, divvying up power and resources among them.

Corporatism stands in opposition to the ideals of both free market economics and egalitarian democracy. The most recent glaring example of corporatist politics was the wheeling and dealing Obama brokered between all the vested interests regarding health care reform. Such negotiations tend to satisfy the demands of the various 'players' while holding the priorities of the nation as whole as a secondary consideration at best.

 

[gslack]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

WTF kind of a cop-out lame excuse was that? They don't get money for existing. The use of their money (ies) earns more money for them in its use by banks, investments, etc... Dude you just argued that debt is good in one thread and somehow the rich don't earn their money in this one. And you do not see a conflict in the two??

No.

One more time...

Wealthy people do the largest investing. Investing in banks, businesses, stocks, bonds, you name it. That is what generates wealth not only for them but other people as well. Want or need a car loan? Then rich people have to be investing into banks or it won't be easy for you to get it cause there is no large monies available that people will risk on you to borrow. Understand this yet?

Money made from these investments they either reinvest back into something or place into CD's, savings accounts, retirement accounts, trust funds, charities, non-profits and any other account or institution. Monies into accounts is used by banks to add to their monies to loan out to you for your car loan...

Without those rich people using their money to make money you wouldn't be able to get a loan. Its as simple as that...

1. Money doesn't generate wealth. People do. "Putting money to work," is just an expression. Even if money did work, it would be the money doing the work, not the rich people.

2. You don't need rich people to have money. Even if there were no rich people, money would still exist. It would just be more evenly distributed.

3. Banks don't need money to make loans. It's loans that create money, not the other way around. Even if they did, ten people with ten dollars have as much as one person with one hundred.

Okay you are officially an idiot now....

This will be my last response to you on this because I feel you are either someones deliberate cry for attention no matter how ignorant you have to appear, or you are another of konradv's alter egos. You make about as much sense and show as much common sense as he does..

responses to your numbered points in order...

1. NO people with money who use their money to make money actually make or lose money. What you tried to do was use a deceptive term to appear knowledgeable. You failed again.. It makes you look high or stupid..

2. You really aren't with it are you... Money makes the rich people rich. If they weren't rich, someone else would be. Your statement wasn't smart, witty, or deep, it was lame and plain ignorant...

3. WTF? You must be drunk or high... Banks loan money. To say they don't need money to make loans is the most ignorant thing you have said yet....

Dude you are being idiotic and I for one am tired of your nonsense. I don't know if its deliberate, you're high, or just really aren't very mature... Either way your contrived nonsense and play acting is now too annoying to tolerate...

I hope others catch on to your BS soon...

 

[Wicked Jester]

WTF kind of a cop-out lame excuse was that? They don't get money for existing. The use of their money (ies) earns more money for them in its use by banks, investments, etc... Dude you just argued that debt is good in one thread and somehow the rich don't earn their money in this one. And you do not see a conflict in the two??

No.

One more time...

Wealthy people do the largest investing. Investing in banks, businesses, stocks, bonds, you name it. That is what generates wealth not only for them but other people as well. Want or need a car loan? Then rich people have to be investing into banks or it won't be easy for you to get it cause there is no large monies available that people will risk on you to borrow. Understand this yet?

Money made from these investments they either reinvest back into something or place into CD's, savings accounts, retirement accounts, trust funds, charities, non-profits and any other account or institution. Monies into accounts is used by banks to add to their monies to loan out to you for your car loan...

Without those rich people using their money to make money you wouldn't be able to get a loan. Its as simple as that...

1. Money doesn't generate wealth. People do. "Putting money to work," is just an expression. Even if money did work, it would be the money doing the work, not the rich people.

2. You don't need rich people to have money. Even if there were no rich people, money would still exist. It would just be more evenly distributed.

3. Banks don't need money to make loans. It's loans that create money, not the other way around. Even if they did, ten people with ten dollars have as much as one person with one hundred.

Okay you are officially an idiot now....

This will be my last response to you on this because I feel you are either someones deliberate cry for attention no matter how ignorant you have to appear, or you are another of konradv's alter egos. You make about as much sense and show as much common sense as he does..

responses to your numbered points in order...

1. NO people with money who use their money to make money actually make or lose money. What you tried to do was use a deceptive term to appear knowledgeable. You failed again.. It makes you look high or stupid..

2. You really aren't with it are you... Money makes the rich people rich. If they weren't rich, someone else would be. Your statement wasn't smart, witty, or deep, it was lame and plain ignorant...

3. WTF? You must be drunk or high... Banks loan money. To say they don't need money to make loans is the most ignorant thing you have said yet....

Dude you are being idiotic and I for one am tired of your nonsense. I don't know if its deliberate, you're high, or just really aren't very mature... Either way your contrived nonsense and play acting is now too annoying to tolerate...

I hope others catch on to your BS soon...

Yeah, I don't where he got his economics education from, but if it's paid for he needs to demand a refund.

 

[ShackledNation]

WTF kind of a cop-out lame excuse was that? They don't get money for existing. The use of their money (ies) earns more money for them in its use by banks, investments, etc... Dude you just argued that debt is good in one thread and somehow the rich don't earn their money in this one. And you do not see a conflict in the two??

No.

One more time...

Wealthy people do the largest investing. Investing in banks, businesses, stocks, bonds, you name it. That is what generates wealth not only for them but other people as well. Want or need a car loan? Then rich people have to be investing into banks or it won't be easy for you to get it cause there is no large monies available that people will risk on you to borrow. Understand this yet?

Money made from these investments they either reinvest back into something or place into CD's, savings accounts, retirement accounts, trust funds, charities, non-profits and any other account or institution. Monies into accounts is used by banks to add to their monies to loan out to you for your car loan...

Without those rich people using their money to make money you wouldn't be able to get a loan. Its as simple as that...

1. Money doesn't generate wealth. People do. "Putting money to work," is just an expression. Even if money did work, it would be the money doing the work, not the rich people.

2. You don't need rich people to have money. Even if there were no rich people, money would still exist. It would just be more evenly distributed.

3. Banks don't need money to make loans. It's loans that create money, not the other way around. Even if they did, ten people with ten dollars have as much as one person with one hundred.

Okay you are officially an idiot now....

This will be my last response to you on this because I feel you are either someones deliberate cry for attention no matter how ignorant you have to appear, or you are another of konradv's alter egos. You make about as much sense and show as much common sense as he does..

responses to your numbered points in order...

1. NO people with money who use their money to make money actually make or lose money. What you tried to do was use a deceptive term to appear knowledgeable. You failed again.. It makes you look high or stupid..

2. You really aren't with it are you... Money makes the rich people rich. If they weren't rich, someone else would be. Your statement wasn't smart, witty, or deep, it was lame and plain ignorant...

3. WTF? You must be drunk or high... Banks loan money. To say they don't need money to make loans is the most ignorant thing you have said yet....

Dude you are being idiotic and I for one am tired of your nonsense. I don't know if its deliberate, you're high, or just really aren't very mature... Either way your contrived nonsense and play acting is now too annoying to tolerate...

I hope others catch on to your BS soon...

I have in a previous topic.

 

[Wiseacre]

The common enemy of corporatism? Explain please.

Corporatism is not, as it is often popularly misconstrued, 'rule by corporations'. It's a mode of government whereby power is distributed by the state to various organized power blocks in society. These power blocks might be composed of large incorporated businesses, but they can also be labor groups (unions), religious organization, cartels formed around specific resources or services, etc... The point is, political influence is organized around group identification. Government leads by brokering deals between these various groups, divvying up power and resources among them.

Corporatism stands in opposition to the ideals of both free market economics and egalitarian democracy. The most recent glaring example of corporatist politics was the wheeling and dealing Obama brokered between all the vested interests regarding health care reform. Such negotiations tend to satisfy the demands of the various 'players' while holding the priorities of the nation as whole as a secondary consideration at best.

In other words, you're talking about special interest groups that have some influence in Washington based on money, number of voters, whatever. Gotta be a better word than corporatism, which suggests a focus on big corps, but that's another discussion.

In a free and democratic society, how do we limit the power such groups have without detracting from the 1st amendment? Lobbyists have way too much power, but how does one restrict anyone's access to the people in gov't in a fair and balanced way? Senators and Reps have to know not only what the people think but also what the various organizations have to say about various issues too.

In one sense our elected officials are supposed to do right by their constituents as well as the whole country, but where that dividing line is can get a little blurred. To me it comes down to ensuring greater transparency in how deals are done and who did what. And then we the people have to hold them accountable, either through recalls like in Wisconsin or in the next election. The system sucks but we aren't doing enough about it or forcing Washington to act, and that ultimately is on us.

 

[ShackledNation]

The common enemy of corporatism? Explain please.

Corporatism is not, as it is often popularly misconstrued, 'rule by corporations'. It's a mode of government whereby power is distributed by the state to various organized power blocks in society. These power blocks might be composed of large incorporated businesses, but they can also be labor groups (unions), religious organization, cartels formed around specific resources or services, etc... The point is, political influence is organized around group identification. Government leads by brokering deals between these various groups, divvying up power and resources among them.

Corporatism stands in opposition to the ideals of both free market economics and egalitarian democracy. The most recent glaring example of corporatist politics was the wheeling and dealing Obama brokered between all the vested interests regarding health care reform. Such negotiations tend to satisfy the demands of the various 'players' while holding the priorities of the nation as whole as a secondary consideration at best.

In other words, you're talking about special interest groups that have some influence in Washington based on money, number of voters, whatever. Gotta be a better word than corporatism, which suggests a focus on big corps, but that's another discussion.

In a free and democratic society, how do we limit the power such groups have without detracting from the 1st amendment? Lobbyists have way too much power, but how does one restrict anyone's access to the people in gov't in a fair and balanced way? Senators and Reps have to know not only what the people think but also what the various organizations have to say about various issues too.

In one sense our elected officials are supposed to do right by their constituents as well as the whole country, but where that dividing line is can get a little blurred. To me it comes down to ensuring greater transparency in how deals are done and who did what. And then we the people have to hold them accountable, either through recalls like in Wisconsin or in the next election. The system sucks but we aren't doing enough about it or forcing Washington to act, and that ultimately is on us.

With all due respect, dblack is correct. What he described is the definition of corporatism.
The Economic System of Corporatism

"The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

"Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature. The categories of socialist and pure market economy are virtually empty. There are only corporatist economies of various flavors. "

People who assume it only means corporations are simply incorrect, although understandably so. The US does not have a free market system. We have a corporatist system, with some elements of the socialist welfare state and the Marxist concept of a central bank.

 

[Wiseacre]

Corporatism is not, as it is often popularly misconstrued, 'rule by corporations'. It's a mode of government whereby power is distributed by the state to various organized power blocks in society. These power blocks might be composed of large incorporated businesses, but they can also be labor groups (unions), religious organization, cartels formed around specific resources or services, etc... The point is, political influence is organized around group identification. Government leads by brokering deals between these various groups, divvying up power and resources among them.

Corporatism stands in opposition to the ideals of both free market economics and egalitarian democracy. The most recent glaring example of corporatist politics was the wheeling and dealing Obama brokered between all the vested interests regarding health care reform. Such negotiations tend to satisfy the demands of the various 'players' while holding the priorities of the nation as whole as a secondary consideration at best.

In other words, you're talking about special interest groups that have some influence in Washington based on money, number of voters, whatever. Gotta be a better word than corporatism, which suggests a focus on big corps, but that's another discussion.

In a free and democratic society, how do we limit the power such groups have without detracting from the 1st amendment? Lobbyists have way too much power, but how does one restrict anyone's access to the people in gov't in a fair and balanced way? Senators and Reps have to know not only what the people think but also what the various organizations have to say about various issues too.

In one sense our elected officials are supposed to do right by their constituents as well as the whole country, but where that dividing line is can get a little blurred. To me it comes down to ensuring greater transparency in how deals are done and who did what. And then we the people have to hold them accountable, either through recalls like in Wisconsin or in the next election. The system sucks but we aren't doing enough about it or forcing Washington to act, and that ultimately is on us.

With all due respect, dblack is correct. What he described is the definition of corporatism.
The Economic System of Corporatism

"The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

"Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature. The categories of socialist and pure market economy are virtually empty. There are only corporatist economies of various flavors. "

People who assume it only means corporations are simply incorrect, although understandably so. The US does not have a free market system. We have a corporatist system, with some elements of the socialist welfare state and the Marxist concept of a central bank.

Well, I'm really pissed cuz I don't have a major or even minor interest group looking out for me. So many people and groups getting bailed out or special deal, but I'm the one stuck with the bill. Who the hell is going to bail me out, where's my deal?

I don't think we have a corporatist system, we have a free market economy and a corporatist gov't. Which is one damn good reason every last one of you oughta be a Tea Party activist to change that gov't. Cuz it ain't working for people like me and you.

 

[ShackledNation]

In other words, you're talking about special interest groups that have some influence in Washington based on money, number of voters, whatever. Gotta be a better word than corporatism, which suggests a focus on big corps, but that's another discussion.

In a free and democratic society, how do we limit the power such groups have without detracting from the 1st amendment? Lobbyists have way too much power, but how does one restrict anyone's access to the people in gov't in a fair and balanced way? Senators and Reps have to know not only what the people think but also what the various organizations have to say about various issues too.

In one sense our elected officials are supposed to do right by their constituents as well as the whole country, but where that dividing line is can get a little blurred. To me it comes down to ensuring greater transparency in how deals are done and who did what. And then we the people have to hold them accountable, either through recalls like in Wisconsin or in the next election. The system sucks but we aren't doing enough about it or forcing Washington to act, and that ultimately is on us.

With all due respect, dblack is correct. What he described is the definition of corporatism.
The Economic System of Corporatism

"The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

"Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature. The categories of socialist and pure market economy are virtually empty. There are only corporatist economies of various flavors. "

People who assume it only means corporations are simply incorrect, although understandably so. The US does not have a free market system. We have a corporatist system, with some elements of the socialist welfare state and the Marxist concept of a central bank.

Well, I'm really pissed cuz I don't have a major or even minor interest group looking out for me. So many people and groups getting bailed out or special deal, but I'm the one stuck with the bill. Who the hell is going to bail me out, where's my deal?

You and me both, believe me.

I don't think we have a corporatist system, we have a free market economy and a corporatist gov't. Which is one damn good reason every last one of you oughta be a Tea Party activist to change that gov't. Cuz it ain't working for people like me and you.

It is not possible at all to call our economy a free market economy.There are government mandates on what can or cannot be produced, who can or cannot buy what, who gets tax breaks, who gets bailed out, who gets subsidized, and countless other corporatist policies. We have a central bank that is in complete control of the money supply, manipulates the prices (interest rates), and monopolizes currency. We have rampant welfarism, strong unions, and laws mandating that we buy healthcare.

There are elements of the market, yes, but it is severely restricted and convoluted. Critics of our current economy mistake it for the free market, and point to the many problems throughout it as reason to abandon the free market. But what they see is corporatism and semi-socialist policies. We need to return to a free market economy, which hasn't existed since Keynes General Theory corrupted the history of economic thought.

 

[Wiseacre]

With all due respect, dblack is correct. What he described is the definition of corporatism.
The Economic System of Corporatism

"The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

"Although Corporatism is not a familiar concept to the general public, most of the economies of the world are corporatist in nature. The categories of socialist and pure market economy are virtually empty. There are only corporatist economies of various flavors. "

People who assume it only means corporations are simply incorrect, although understandably so. The US does not have a free market system. We have a corporatist system, with some elements of the socialist welfare state and the Marxist concept of a central bank.

Well, I'm really pissed cuz I don't have a major or even minor interest group looking out for me. So many people and groups getting bailed out or special deal, but I'm the one stuck with the bill. Who the hell is going to bail me out, where's my deal?

You and me both, believe me.

I don't think we have a corporatist system, we have a free market economy and a corporatist gov't. Which is one damn good reason every last one of you oughta be a Tea Party activist to change that gov't. Cuz it ain't working for people like me and you.

It is not possible at all to call our economy a free market economy.There are government mandates on what can or cannot be produced, who can or cannot buy what, who gets tax breaks, who gets bailed out, who gets subsidized, and countless other corporatist policies. We have a central bank that is in complete control of the money supply, manipulates the prices (interest rates), and monopolizes currency. We have rampant welfarism, strong unions, and laws mandating that we buy healthcare.

There are elements of the market, yes, but it is severely restricted and convoluted. Critics of our current economy mistake it for the free market, and point to the many problems throughout it as reason to abandon the free market. But what they see is corporatism and semi-socialist policies. We need to return to a free market economy, which hasn't existed since Keynes General Theory corrupted the history of economic thought.

Every free market has to have some controls on it to protect consumers, employees, and other businesses. Certainly we have gone too far, to the point where the gov't is requiring me to purchase a health insurance policy or pay a penalty. Or is it a tax? Pretty much though, I still have the right to spend my money as I see fit, and businesses have the right to sell at whatever price they want. If I want to quit my job for whatever reason, I can do so whenever I choose. As an employer I can decide when to hire and fire, within the bounds of the law when it comes to discrimination. Or go out of business and head for Canada.

Sooo - while I agree with much of what you're saying, we still basically have a free market economy IMHO. The gov't is dorking it up big time, has done so for quite some time (decades), we always seem to swing from too much control to too little. But when I see such wild swings in the stock market up and down, mostly down lately, I gotta question just how much power the corporatists have over our economy.

 

[dblack]

In a free and democratic society, how do we limit the power such groups have without detracting from the 1st amendment? Lobbyists have way too much power, but how does one restrict anyone's access to the people in gov't in a fair and balanced way? Senators and Reps have to know not only what the people think but also what the various organizations have to say about various issues too.

Agreed. The right of the people, corporations, lobbyists or otherwise, to petition government isn't the problem. The problem is that we've blown through the basic constitutional constraints on government that were designed to protect us from corporatism and the like. Most of the special favors granted by government could, and should, be ruled unconstitutional. But current legal precedent has nullified most precepts of limited government and that puts us in a really bad spot. Without those protections there's very little to hold back the growth of authoritarian government.

 

[Sundial]

The operative word is "can." Many get poorer, some get wiped out completely.

The reason they (and anyone actually) has the opportunity to possibly get rich is because they take risks. Sometimes those risks pay off. Most of the time they don't. Risk vs. reward, and that helps everyone.

No one gets rich without effort. Even frauds like Bernie Maddoff and Barney Frank expend effort - defrauding suckers takes work, too.

Many people have worked hard, earned a fortune, then lost it because they didn't know how to manage it. Pete Ham of Bad Finger ended up installing carpet, despite 8 #1 hits, because he trusted others to manage his money - which they promptly stole.

I agree, I was just countering the "hire someone to manage their money" talking point. Sure, it doesn't require effort sometimes. It always requires risk, something Progressives ignore when they go on their class warfare bents.

I understand that that having money automatically means you could lose it - just like having a Magic 8-Ball entails the risk that you could lose it. But how does that affect whether the rich make a contribution?

 

[Sundial]

Let us see if I earned my income yesterday.
I drove to Atlanta, 42 miles, and did research in the Fulton county courthouse. Traffic was horrible and $12 to park and dealing with government workers to search for closed files and make copies. Then I drove to Lilburn, Ga. to interview witnesses, 35 miles from Atlanta, then to Watkinsvile, Ga. another 45 miles to interview 2 more witnesses, then to Athens, Ga. 15 more miles to take care of some other business, then to Gainesville, Ga. another 50 miles looking for a defendant in a civil case and then to Murrayville, Ga. another 12 miles to look further and then back to the office another 50 miles away.
A 10 hour day plus mileage of 232 miles plus the parking and lunch comes to almost $1000.
I busted my ass for that $$$ and my clients are glad to pay it and yes, I am rich.
Because I EARNED THE $$$ THAT MADE ME RICH.
Same as 95% of all the other rich folks.
Amazing how many dumb asses there are out there that believe $$$ falls from trees.

You might be rich, but you're not wealthy.

It sounds like you might work for some wealthy people though.

Shaq is rich. They guy who signs his check... is wealthy.
--Chris Rock

 

[bucs90]

According to the IRS, the answer is mostly not.

Of the richest of the rich only 6.5% of income was from working, as of 2007. The rest came from things like interest, dividends, and capital gains.

In other words, the kind of income you get without having to wake up in the morning.

Which raises the question: if the rich are consuming without working, who is doing their work for them?

Link

I slept in this morning. I'm not rich.

You ******* left wingers are so full of hate and envy. Sure, many people got rich by investing their money. The money they earned.

You pathetic, jealous idiots hate rich people so much, simply because they don't have to dig ditches or wait tables for their money. You HATE that YOU are gonna have to do labor to earn a living and they no longer have to. Yes, they started at a young age on a path that now allows them to wake up and work from a laptop in bed.

Dont hate yourself, or them, because you didn't take that same path.

 

[bucs90]

I can't believe I even gave this thread my time. This is a group of hateful, jealous left wingers full of pure envy.

These idiots are a year or two of working at Target away from joining the London rioters.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Let us see if I earned my income yesterday.
I drove to Atlanta, 42 miles, and did research in the Fulton county courthouse. Traffic was horrible and $12 to park and dealing with government workers to search for closed files and make copies. Then I drove to Lilburn, Ga. to interview witnesses, 35 miles from Atlanta, then to Watkinsvile, Ga. another 45 miles to interview 2 more witnesses, then to Athens, Ga. 15 more miles to take care of some other business, then to Gainesville, Ga. another 50 miles looking for a defendant in a civil case and then to Murrayville, Ga. another 12 miles to look further and then back to the office another 50 miles away.
A 10 hour day plus mileage of 232 miles plus the parking and lunch comes to almost $1000.
I busted my ass for that $$$ and my clients are glad to pay it and yes, I am rich.
Because I EARNED THE $$$ THAT MADE ME RICH.
Same as 95% of all the other rich folks.
Amazing how many dumb asses there are out there that believe $$$ falls from trees.

You might be rich, but you're not wealthy.

It sounds like you might work for some wealthy people though.

Shaq is rich. They guy who signs his check... is wealthy.
--Chris Rock

 

[Sundial]

Where should I be looking? What is it that prevents the rich from enriching themselves at the expense of everyone?

Bill Gates and Paul Allen write MSDOS, they get very rich.

Well, actually they didn't actually write it. They bought it from a guy named Patterson, who in turned copied it from a guy named Kildall. They did rename it though - MSDOS was originally QDOS = "Quick and Dirty Operating System".

Explain to me how this is at your expense, or the "expense of everyone else?"

What makes you think I think Bill Gates made his fortune at my expense?

Sure, you're jealous and pout that it's "NO FAIR," but explain exactly what expense his success laid on you?

What makes you think I'm jealous?

Are you sure you didn't just make that up in your head?

What is a good decision? Is it one that enriches the investor, or one that benefits the country as a whole?

So what you demand is that when each of us get up in the morning, we ask ourselves "how is what I do today going to benefit Sundial?"

Umm... No?

No. They're landlords. They collect rent. They don't try to manage the renters' businesses for them.

So, the house that I sweated to raise enough to buy, that I spend weekends and evenings fixing things at, that I make the mortgage payment (And let me tell you, my wife puts in just as much work as I do) is me just collecting rent?

If you're sweating and working nights and weekends, it doesn't sound like you're one of the people I'm talking about.

 

[bucs90]

As much as rapper's glorify "Cash money" and getting their "paper", you'd think left wingers who glorify these rappers wouldn't hate the idea of being rich so much.

Oh...wait, I forgot. It's ok for black rappers and sports stars, or elite hollywood actors or intellectuals to be rich...........just NOT white male businessmen. Them being rich is evil and we must GEEET 'EM BOYS!!!!!!! Because working in business and the market is NOT earning your money. But spitting sick rap rhymes or throwing a ball is.

 

[Sundial]

Where should I be looking?

Look at the points I'm making for starters. In a free economy you can't make money unless someone else gives it to you voluntarily. And unless they're insane or being coerced, they won't do that except in trade for something they value.

That's not exactly true.

In a capitalist society, the people who own things profit from the work of others.

For example, suppose I have a small business. I provide a service. At first it's just me. Then I hire a secretary to answer the phone, file the files, and do other shitty little things I don't like to do. Then I hire somebody to do the work that I used to do, and I go home and go to sleep.

Now I still have an income - which is the profit from the business - but I'm no longer doing work. The profit is the difference between the economic value of the work my employees are doing, and what I actually pay them.

My employees could keep all the money from the clients who are paying them for their service. (Remember, I'm not providing the service anymore. I'm at home asleep.) But if they did it would be called embezzling, and they would risk going to jail.

So there's a sense in which the money they're giving me is "voluntary," and a sense in which it's not.

Now before you jump down my throat, I'm not arguing there's anything wrong or immoral about starting a business and retiring on the income it produces.

I'm simply observing that we have a legal and economic system in which the people who create value turn over a substantial part of that value to people who own things.

Whether you want to say they're doing it "voluntarily" is sort of beside the point.

What is it that prevents the rich from enriching themselves at the expense of everyone?

Laws against fraud and theft.

Suppose someone gets rich from cornering the market in silver. What law prevents him from enriching himself at the expense of others?

Suppose someone finds a way to make a mint by selling crappy securities to gullible investors. Is there a law that prevents him from doing that?

Or suppose someone establishes a de facto monopoly in an operating system. Isn't it the law that makes that possible?

The owner always has the final say, is always the ultimate manager, over what they own. That's the entire meaning of ownership. They can choose to delegate that authority if they want, but it's their decisions in the end that matter.

Even if you're right about that - and I'd argue that it's the decisions of the people who are making the decisions that matter - how does that create value?

I understand the decisions of the people who run IBM and Coke make a difference. Maybe I want to open a new bottling plant, or hire some more engineers. Those decisions have real economic consequences.

If I decide to sell Coke and buy IBM, what difference does that make to anybody but me?

 

[bucs90]

If left wingers spent half the time they use complaining about rich people trying to actually become rich then maybe they would actually become rich hahaha!

There are lots of ways to get rich. But complaining about others being rich isn't one of them. Stop hatin', start workin'.

 

[hippie2049]

If poor people stopped using their political influence would they remain poor?