A Question For Supporters of Uncontrolled Free Markets

a reply to: Edumakated

I have been in the corporate world, CEOs are not nearly as intelligent as you give them credit.

CEO's are A type personality sharks, who care nothing about their own employees. They are in their position because they agree with the kind of income disparity we see in the world.

They are arrogant, greedy and good orators, nothing else.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Tesla ended up broke...

Because of bad business decisions.

Edison reinvested all his money to continue inventing.

Because he was a businessman.

And I will let Jobs speak for himself

“I was worth over $1,000,000 when I was 23, and over $10,000,000 when I was 24, and over $100,000,000 when I was 25, and it wasn’t that important because I never did it for the money."

For someone who did it for such alrtustic purposes he certainly ended up with a s*** ton of money because he was in business.

You will have to try harder than that.

Why? You did noting to disprove that any of those men (and the others you conveniently left off) were not in business.

They all were, every single one of them.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Edumakated

The thing is, you can take any reasonably intelligent Joe, stick him in a board room with a bunch of financial advisers and he can run a company just fine. It's usually not the "leader" that's super tallented, but the people he surrounds himself with.

The same with the POTUS, a general, any leader -- they're only as good as the people giving them information and advice.

Hell any one of us could probably run a fortune 500 company if we had the right people advising us.

Exactly, CEOs are not nearly as intelligent as some think.

They are greedy, arrogant and good orators. Nothing more. They are sharks who care little or nothing about the fish who do all the work. Most of them wouldn't last a day doing the work of those who they supervise.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I made no argument against businessmen in general. My argument is against wealth disparity.

So tell me which of their inventions would they not have invented if they could only be a millionaire and not a billionaire?

Try answering my questions.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: johnwick


Buying stocks and ira's would be considered spending their money. Theybought a tangible item therefore adding Capitol to a company for investments in expansion and equipment. I doubt he put $150 million in his checking account.

well not quite.....in 2014, the companies in the S & P 500 spent at least 914 billion of their profits in stock buybacks...
www.bloomberg.com...

I believe we where speaking of an individuals income not a companies. Of course are companies individuals now?
Any how I'm not sure how buying stock in you own company figures into the equation. I would think a company should be able to buy ownership back from stockholders.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
So tell me which of their inventions would they not have invented if they could only be a millionaire and not a billionaire?

Who cares? I do not begrudge people their success, no matter how large it happens to be, I am not into class warfare.

My point was to show you that your historical revisionist statement of them not being businessmen was totally incorrect.

So where is this magic land of uncontrolled free markets? Surely, one wouldn't suggest the corporatocracy in place currently in the USA is an example?

a reply to: Edumakated

And why should someone who is a specialist, just because it is scarce, not have a wealth cap?

Why should a boxer make 250,000 million when the boxing trainers at the local gym makes 50K?

Why should the Entertainer make millions while the high school educators of Music and the Arts make thousands.

Why not tax the entertainment industry and reinvest that money in our children? So that all children have access to sports and the various arts.

Double post, didn't think this one made it through.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Edumakated

And why should someone who is a specialist, just because it is scarce, not have a wealth cap?

Why should a boxer make 250,000 million when the boxing trainers at the local gym makes 50K?

Why should the Entertainer make millions while the high school educators of Music and the Arts make thousands.

Why not tax the entertainment industry and reinvest that money in our children? So that all children have access to sports and the various arts.

Because entertainers are liberals and our moral and intellectual superiors, they don't have to live by the rules they preach, everybody else is supposed to.

a reply to: Edumakated

National banks, with profits returning to the people can make the same loans.

There is no need for private banks.

Investors can invest if they choose, but banks and loans need to handled by the government.

Not a private Federal Reserve, who's profits go to bankers that we bail out anyway.

Add - you are correct their is much economic ignorance, but I am not among the ignorant.

a reply to: Edumakated

"Too many of you focus too much on what other people are doing and making instead of worrying about yourself."

Mmmm, maybe its the case that more and more, but not necessarily too many, see that so few have so much that they believe a great deal of the wealth should be spread around more evenly. I suspect that "more and more" will become "too many", as there are fewer and fewer jobs do to technological advancements.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Edumakated

I have been in the corporate world, CEOs are not nearly as intelligent as you give them credit.

CEO's are A type personality sharks, who care nothing about their own employees. They are in their position because they agree with the kind of income disparity we see in the world.

They are arrogant, greedy and good orators, nothing else.

What separates a leader from an exceptional leader is that exceptional leaders understand that they became successful because of the people they surround themselves with.

An exceptional leader understands the value of those they choose to associate with, and understands the importance of all the various cogs in the machine they steer. These individuals see value even in the lowest peon, as they understand that a ship can't sail without a full crew all doing their part.

And no, not "everyone" can be a CEO -- the world can't support 7 billion companies. LOL

I'd like to say that people skills matter -- but you're right, I've known a lot of successful business owners and it's kind of 50-50. Some are charismatic and could sell you a pet rock, others are cut-throat and have no personality. It really just comes down to being level headed and making sound decisions based on good, quality information.

When you have government providing bailouts for 'too big to fail' that's the antithesis of free markets and capitalism. Corporate welfare has nothing to do with free markets.

Some of the least successful business owners I've known are the ones that are to emotionally invested in their company -- usually inventors or someone selling a product they've invested a huge amount of personal effort into.

These people can't think objectively about their company, and thus make terrible CEO's. It would be far smarter for these people to have sold their product and idea off to someone who isn't emotionally invested in it to objectively take the company in a profitable direction.

I did not say they were not businessmen.

I separated the invention from the business. The invention would have been invented because they enjoyed inventing.

And most of them did not appear to be in it for the sole purpose of money. Of course they wanted to profit off inventions, but a wealth cap would have done nothing to stifle their inventions.

Again how is Uncontrolled Capitalism better for mankind? And who deserves the higher pay? The educators or the exploiters, who would not know how to exploit without an education?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Isurrender73
So tell me which of their inventions would they not have invented if they could only be a millionaire and not a billionaire?

Who cares? I do not begrudge people their success, no matter how large it happens to be, I am not into class warfare.

My point was to show you that your historical revisionist statement of them not being businessmen was totally incorrect.

I realize you don't care. But this is not about class warfare it is about humanity, and the right for the 17 million jobless who are actively seeking to be employed, have access to housing and a living wage that does not include welfare.

Not caring does not fix the problem. Not caring is the problem.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Some of the least successful business owners I've known are the ones that are to emotionally invested in their company -- usually inventors or someone selling a product they've invested a huge amount of personal effort into.

These people can't think objectively about their company, and thus make terrible CEO's. It would be far smarter for these people to have sold their product and idea off to someone who isn't emotionally invested in it to objectively take the company in a profitable direction.

I agree, some people need outside investors to help them see rationally. I am for entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

But even with a wealth cap, a good invention will always find it's way to the market even if it takes a little longer.

We don't truly need any more inventions, but we sure do want more. And tinkerers will continue to tinker either way.

Do you think those As seen on TV products will just disappear if we put a wealth cap on tinkerers?

a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm convinced this world is dire need of good ideas. We suffer from a lack of creativity, and good ideas that aren't profitable (but would help a great many) are disregarded and never taken to their potential.

We are stifled by the almighty dollar, and we do not see our greater potential. We scramble on top of each other, kicking other's teeth in, all to chase after the scant resources we can amass. We don't look at the greater good, or outside our own selfish happiness. We want to satisfy our own greed, our own ego -- and everyone else be damned.

The value of the individual is diminishing, and the value of a human life is almost worth next to nothing. Is it any wonder we have record levels of depression and people snapping?

Profit over people is not a sustainable way of carrying society forward into the future.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Edumakated

And why should someone who is a specialist, just because it is scarce, not have a wealth cap?

Why should a boxer make 250,000 million when the boxing trainers at the local gym makes 50K?

Why should the Entertainer make millions while the high school educators of Music and the Arts make thousands.

Why not tax the entertainment industry and reinvest that money in our children? So that all children have access to sports and the various arts.

Because entertainers are liberals and our moral and intellectual superiors, they don't have to live by the rules they preach, everybody else is supposed to.

Lol, great point.

I love how millionaire entertainers come on TV telling us all how much we need to give of our money to support their causes. While they continue to live in multi million dollar homes, spend their money on unnecessary BS, and drive a Prius. Then they say look at how great I am for giving a million dollars and driving a Prius.

Self-Entitled BS it all it is.