One person should only be so rich.

reply to post by Maslo


It becomes a problem when most of these investments and developments have zero return on the people. Big return in profits.

reply to post by Dasher


Thanks for the clarifications.

I agree that some intangible products are genuine and produce value.

But your original post seemed to place the entire onus of being poor upon their decision making skills, which is vastly too simplistic and broad a brush for me to accept.

I know many poor people who work very hard, are highly intelligent, and make very wise decisions, but still are poor because the opportunities afforded them to improve are extremely limited.

Take your field, programming. It employs fewer people for less every year. I know many former programmers who no longer can find work because the need for programmers hasn't kept pace with the number of people learning the trade.

You are lucky.

Odds are there are literally thousands of programmers who are more capable, willing to work harder for less, than you. If you employer decides to go cheap, your skills, hard work and whatever won't count for squat. If you are self-employed, all it will take is a minor change in the market to render you poor, or an accident that effects your ability to program.

What then?.

Will you blame yourself for your poor decision making that led you to drive to a job and thus got into an unforeseen accident? Or for living in a spot where a tornado, earthquake or flood wiped out your means of support?

Above all else, you are lucky.

Success always has a strong element of luck in it.

And those who claim to make their own luck are usually loading the dice unethically and taking suckers for a ride.

I don't think that a limit such as you propose would do any good. I am more radical. I think capitalism itself should be reconsidered.

reply to post by Dasher


If you actually had a choice between companies, not buying from an unethical one might be productive. But when one person, or a small group of persons, owns every major brand through several different companies, they couldn't care less which of their brands you boycott.

It is very difficult to pull off a successful boycott today, as the advantages of corporate bankruptcy are simply too great to ignore. If the boycott is "successful", the company goes bankrupt, debts are avoided, labor contracts broken, and the owners walk away richer from the experience, both through the bankruptcy process and through higher profits from their alternative companies reaping the benefits of increased sales.

Boycotts are obsolete tactics. They are effective only in closed local economies, not at all useful against multinational conglomerates.

reply to post by jeichelberg


That isn't proof they could get it back if divested of it.

It also is no proof that they obtained their wealth legally.

The drug cartels have loads of money, but the mere possession of it doesn't mean they could repeat it or that they got it ethically.

im sorry but i totally agree with poster, not that im all for comunisme.

you know, there are ppl in the world who cant even spend there money in 4 or 5 lifetimes and with interest they keep getting more and more, and where does that come from, us....


so, im for the idea of limiting the ammount of cash on the bank or whatever....

reply to post by s12345


If no one could be rich...what good would money be? It would be worthless. Your argument holds no water.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by apacheman

 

The plain fact is that most rich are rich because they were born into it, had opportunities unavailable to most, took unethical advantages of the system, broke laws getting there, or just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Hard work, skill, and intelligence actually have far less to do with success than luck does.

I think it is interesting that people who feel successful think it was their hard work, skill, and intelligence that got them there, while people who feel unsuccessful think it's because of the successful people taking advantage, being unethical, breaking laws, or being lucky.

Personally, I'm sure there ARE successful people who take advantage, are unethical, break laws, and are lucky...but to say that's the main way people get successful sounds like whining.

Sounds like a statement of fact to me. Anyone who is successful will acknowledge you have to take advantage and be unethical to get there. If a successful person tells you otherwise their success is out and out luck, or they're lying to you.

The problem is that the age old saying is true, money is the root of all evil. And when you get money you turn selfish and abandon your morals to protect what you have. It's human nature. It's out and out greed. I know because I've been there.

£200k a year is more than enough for anybody on the planet. Anything more is greed for the sake of greed. Yes, there is an argument of freedom and liberty for being able to keep whatever you earn, but that doesn't change the fact it's greed. And yes many people who make good money work hard and are intelligent, but that also doesn't mean you don't have to take advantage of people, tread on people, deceive people.

An honest person would say "Yes I make money, yes I'm taking advantage of others, yes I'm greedy - That's my right". But most people earning money aren't honest, deep down they know their greed is inherently wrong and immoral. Hopefully they will see the light.

OR, and I forgot to add, they're too stupid to realise their position hurts others

reply to post by tkwasny


Regulations usually come about because someone was egregiously violating principled behavior.

Fire safety regulations stemmed from the practice of locking employees in while on duty resulting in massive deaths.

Work hour regulations stemmed from employers demanding 12-hour workdays six days a week.

Regulations per se aren't the problem, they usually exist for good reasons; no lead in paint, no asbestos in houses, no pesticides or other contaminants in foods.

It is when corporate lobbyists get regulations installed that inhibit free enterprise, limiting competition unfairly, or creating the illusion of regulation when the actuality is the opposite (see the SEC and other financial regulatory agencies) that they become problematic.

It's amazing how many people seem to want to defend the rights of the super rich. I will say this," You would not find the super rich defending you". These people have to realize just because they think it cool to have a big yacht is a strange reason to defend them when you will probably never have that much wealth. Sorry to state the obvious but the super rich are largely born extremely wealthy: even the supposedly self made. Some are dictators, Mugabee a dictator is the kind of person you are defending. Think how much easier it would be to not rely on the super rich giving donations and instead putting system in place to solve the worlds problems. Just because something has always been done does not mean it should continue to be so; change is necessary on this matter worldwide. Our progress as a species will force change. The world is moving on. Wealth is as essential as water and food. You may think there is plenty of water, but if you defended a persons right to own as much water or food as they wanted it could cause the rest of the world to starve. Wealth is not an optional extra, it is a necessity, and as such one person should not be allowed to have too much.

Originally posted by pheniks
im sorry but i totally agree with poster, not that im all for comunisme.

you know, there are ppl in the world who cant even spend there money in 4 or 5 lifetimes and with interest they keep getting more and more, and where does that come from, us....


so, im for the idea of limiting the ammount of cash on the bank or whatever....

Envy is regarded as one of the 7 deadly sins for the same reason that not coveting thy neighbors goods is a commandment. Religion has nothing to do with what results from those core attitudes.

reply to post by apacheman


I am the one willing to work cheap and for more hours than I am paid. And once I develop a better reputation, I will up my rates and work more realistic hours. For now, I am in a position in which I must "make" my opportunities when I can. It has required much sacrifice and is exceedingly uncomfortable, but those who are willing to sacrifice the most are the ones who are usually rewarded. Obviously, not in every case, but generally, it's true by your admonition/warning to me. In this case, though, I am the other side of it than you assumed.

To say again; Those who are willing to bend their knees are more likely to reap the harvest.

Regardless, we all have much to be thankful for, even in poverty.

reply to post by apacheman


Yes, the sacrifice is often huge, but as they say; You get the government you deserve. And in this case, you get the society you are complicit with.

reply to post by cuervo


So you are telling me every person that got their billions were ill-gotten? Granted there are people that lie, cheat and steal to creat their empire but that goes on no matter how much money a person makes. That's not a billionaire problem, that's a human problem.

reply to post by Dasher


The sad part is that that day will never come.

By the time your reputation is built, there will be someone who will work harder and longer for less out of sheer desperation to survive.

I've been around long enough to see it happen repeatedly.

We truly need to cap wealth.

Only then will the pressure ease.

Look at the bigger picture and try to see the implications of the quest for unlimited wealth.

Stop for a moment and think about what it takes to satisfy the urge for more for a billionaire. Will an additional 0.1% increase per annum satisfy him? That amounts to a mere $1 million, that's pocket change. 1%? $10 million, not even good tip money. 10%? Okay, $100 million starts to be satisfying if you're merely a $1 billionaire, but is the proportional equivalent tip money to one with $10 billion.

10% or more seems to be the yardstick by which they measure. There are something over 1300 billionaires in the world today with a net worth of over $13 trillion. 10% of that requires them to take $1.3 trillion per year ad infinitum for them to feel like they are making progress, barely. Most demand higher returns.

It is exponentially unsustainable, there is no possible way to satisfy that level of demand from them.

The system is crashing because of it.

They are addicted to wealth building, and it is truly a sickness.

Capping wealth is the only peaceful alternative to violently removing them from the scene, which has been the historical solution to the problem of severe economic imbalance.

We are very near that point.

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by nawki
reply to post by Adamanteus

 

Why can you not run it for free. You don't need any more money you 100mil ... ??

Can't see your point?

Why would I want to? If I had all the money I could ever own I'd be flying around the world spending it instead of working for nothing.

If You won the lottery for 100 million tomorrow would You continue to go to work and tell the boss to keep Your salary because you had enough money?

I would.

I would do something i enjoy doing... such as programming. Rather than blindly waste money on "myself" i would put money towards something that other people can enjoy or research.

It is possible without having greed... although it is rare in the real world. Greed is everywhere...

Why would you want to fly all over the world anyway, if i really had that much money i would invest it towards something that helped us get off this planet.

You'd be surprised what 100 mil could do.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Capitalism works great on paper, too, but not so much in reality.

Just look around you.

Has unbridled capitalism really created a better world?

If you think it has, how do you account for the billions living impoverished lives while a few thousand have vastly more than they need or can intelligently use?

I never said it did create a better world. In fact i wasn't advocating for capitalism period nor did i say anything about it at all. What i was advocating was socialism, of share and share alike. I am not a rich man, and never will be and i do not want to be one, i have found peace and solace in humbleness and humility. I have no grandiose aspirations of being "great", only a fool entertains those dreams because when you die you cannot take it with you. God isn't going to care how much money you had or how powerful you were when you were alive so those thoughts do not concern me.

I disagree with the original post because I for one believe that the Free Enterprise system is the key to wealth. I am not going to work extra hard for some lazy couch potato or a 498 lb. blob of humanely flesh who would not kill a snake that was coming up on him. I will make my own and to each or his or her own. If you are wanting to go out and give up some of your hard earned money to some lazy s$#thead, go for it. I just have one question: Are you any kin to Obama?