It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pieman
there is a finite amount of resources in the world at any given time, the only way for the present poor to gain more is to either make it and keep it or take the resources already in existence. which do you prefer?
thinking does not make yu rich
exploitation of the abilities of others makes you rich.
almost every 1st world country operates trade restrictions, these restrictions amount to a formalised policy to restrict the wealth and welfare of the third world.
Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Originally posted by apacheman
I'm not talking about income, I'm talking about wealth. There's a huge difference.
Please specify how you consider income not to be a form of wealth.
Here's a fairly simple explanation:
The plain truth is it would take you ten years to become a millionaire earning a 100 grand a year- That's if you didn't spend a dime in those ten years!!!
Let's face it, as a business owner most of your net worth, or wealth is tied up in your business. That means your wealth is measured by the value of your business. Wealth Depot is dedicated to helping you build the value of your business, and thereby creating wealth.
Many assume that wealth comes from saving, disciplined investing, foregoing current pleasures in life so that savings will lead to wealth. This is all true, however it takes many years, and in some cases a lifetime or more to achieve wealth in this manner. This is the technique that the investment community has duped the average wage earner into thinking.
Consider this: The selling price of many service firms can be equaled to about one year's gross revenue. If you grew your firm's sales by $250,000 last year you have increased you net worth by a quarter of a million dollars. That certainly beats foregoing dinner with your family or an annual vacation just so you can invest the money which may or may not grow over time.
Obviously, you want to build wealth, but you also want to create current income in the process. Let's take a look at the difference between wealth and income.
Wealth
Long Term Store of Value can provide Income as a Return on Investment
Contributes Significantly to Net Worth
Allows Freedom – Both Financially
and personally
Allows a legacy to be passed on to heirs
Wealth is long-term.
Income
Could contribute to wealth if savings occur
If any Money is left after paying expenses,could provide short term freedom
Usually used to pay current living expenses
Money received in a period
Income is short-term.
I'm also not talking about communism:
Oh yes you are albeit a limited form of it. People should stop making money "for the good of the community" is your suggestion. Tell me how many jobs and products would we have available to us were it not for the Henry Ford's, General Electrics, Steve Jobs, Standard Oil, Bill Gates etc.. The only way these companies remain successful is by making profit and using that profit to continue to invest and innovate better products. With out people voluntarily buying their products they would not earn a single dime.
If it were not for most of those esteemed gentlemen and companies we would have more jobs, not fewer, as they all worked assiduously to reduce the number of people required to do a job: that's called increased productivity. On one hand that's good for the company and the economy, also the remaining workers if the increased profits are shared with them. On the other hand, if you use that increased productivity to drive your competitors out of business, that's only good for you, not the economy overall, nor the workers.
I'm talking about, well, ethical capitalism, or perhaps mature-stage capitalism.
What is unethical with capitalism? I create a product, if people want it, I and the consumer of that product both benefit otherwise the transaction would not happen.
A reasonable limit on wealth would allow "trickle-down" to actually function:
What would be a "reasonable" limit? There is a reason why these people are successful. They have the ability to turn their vision into reality benefitting all of us within reality. If it doesn't benefit us, we don't buy it.
a living wage for workers could easily be accomodated
What is a living wage? How are wages determined in the first place? Wages are determined by ability and skill and the supply and demand of that skill. A cashier is not going to be paid as much as an engineer because one requires much more skill than the other and their are much fewer people who have the knowledge on how to be an engineer than on how to be a cashier. If a business owner sees that one of his workers ability to get things done, they will give him a raise or a promotion because they recognize the workers skill and ability. If a worker does not complete the task that the employer is paying the employee to do, he has a right to fire him.
There are other, greater, motivating factors than more profits and greater wealth accumulation: lots of folks aren't motivated by money. Only selfish and greedy people would stagnate, science and such would leap.
I'll tell you what, the next time you go to work, tell your employer that you will work for free because money does not motivate you. Then come back to ATS and tell us how much further you have moved in your life to gaining what you want.
Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by tide88
Bill Gates is much more of a ruthless businessman than a good engineer, his ruthlessness stifled many good products that Microsoft would otherwise have had to compete with to the betterment of both (isn't that a capitalist truism?). It also got him sued multiple times for unfair business practices. Microsoft's products really suck because of him, they've retarded better software development and adoption. Have you ever used an Amiga or Atari?
To say that Microsoft was in an "infantile stage" when he made his first billion is simply preposterous, please try to make your arguments rationally supportable by facts.
In a population of some 350 million people, high IQs are, in fact, a dime a dozen: ask any corporate recruiter. And as history has shown uncountable times, "irreplaceable" people have been and are replaced on a daily basis throughout the country.
Both Gates and Jobs didn't do their thing all by themselves: each had an army of talented people behind them who were more directly responsible for the innovations, ideas, development and production than they were. And each was and is replaceable.
[edit on 24-1-2009 by apacheman]
And his business savvy and ruthlessness as well as ability to run a company has made the company the success it is. Not everyone with an IQ that high has the ability to run a company and do what he did at microsoft. ANd to say an IQ of 170 is a dime a dozen is completely untrue. Seeing that only 1% of the worlds population have an iq of 135 or higher, I would harldy say that constitutes a dime a dozen number.
The big break came in 1980 when an agreement was signed to provide the operating system that became known as MS-DOS, for IBM's new personal computer. In a contractual masterstroke, Microsoft was allowed to licence the operating system to other manufacturers, spawning an industry of "IBM-compatible" personal computers which depended on Microsoft's operating system. That fuelled further growth, prompting the company to float in 1986, raising $61m. Now a multi-millionaire, Allen had already stepped back from the frontline. But Gates continued to play the key role in the company's growth, with his vision for networked computers proving central to Microsoft's success.
Originally posted by Techsnow
I personally agree with a cap on wealth. There's no reason for one person to have $50billion in liquid assets. Where do you draw the line? What if one person were to make/have so much money they actually became a threat to the government. Once they hit a certain point in assets all it becomes more is a competition for power in the rich peeps club. They will never stop trying to get more unless someone steps in and makes them. Take away their money. 1Billion is enough for one man, make him give the rest to the poor.
so there is a limited amount but we'll never run out, how do you work that little contradiction out?
Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Yes there our finite resources in the world, but we will never ever exhaust them.
"thinking" is a rather simplified description of the process of attempting to release the liquidity of mineral assets in the face of the IMF, world bank and various G numbers.
Take Africa for example, they have vast amounts of coal, oil, farmland, lumber, water, diamonds etc. Why is much of the continent still poverty stricken and unindustrialized? It is not for lack of resources, it is a lack of thinking on the part of the people, the politicians
I would like to see anyone get rich without thinking.
Utilizing peoples abilities to bring your product to life is not exploitation in the way that you mean the word.
Originally posted by apacheman
A reasonable limit is one billion dollars: what can you possibly need more for, save ego gratification?
A living wage is the floor that meets the requirements of living without having to do without necessities and without fear of running afoul of the law simply due to poverty.
The state demands that you must have auto insurance if you drive to work. If your employer won't pay enough for you to do so, then you must either break the law or do without something else.
A sub-living wage is a disguised subsidy to the business community:
if the government needs to pay for a citizen's living and medical expenses because businesses refuse to pay well enough for a citizen working two jobs to pay for those necessities themselves, then the business is in effect being subsidized by the other taxpayers.
Just because there is a living wage floor doesn't mean there won't be jobs that pay more. But just what do stockbrokers do that makes them worthy of being paid tens and hundreds of millions per year?
If you think money is the only motivator, how sad for you: there are many Mother Theresa's in this world
Originally posted by pieman
so there is a limited amount but we'll never run out, how do you work that little contradiction out?
"thinking" is a rather simplified description of the process of attempting to release the liquidity of mineral assets in the face of the IMF, world bank and various G numbers.
eh....lottery? aristocracy? george w bush? thinking is not a requirement of wealth!!!
please don't tell me what i mean, my point is simply that there is no way for one person to generate enough on their own to become wealthy, for one man to be rich, another must be made poor. it's a simple truth, i mean nothing but what i say.
i'm glad we agree on the injustice of trade restrictions.
Originally posted by RRconservative
So if I reach the wealth cap in 3 months....does that mean I can take a 9 month vacation?
When you punish productivity...productivity will decrease.