Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[theeedude]

What do you mean have to offer? Like we need to save the poor except if they are brown?

That answers my question. Thanks!

 

[Genx87]

That answers my question. Thanks!

Im happy you can finally admit you are ok with saving the white poor in this country and eff the brown poor in other countries.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, I guess you have two options then. You can rob the guy at gunpoint and take his money to supplement your own lack of achievement. Or vote for government people to do the deed for you and hope you get back some of the tax crumbs. Either way it doesn't make you a better person or someone who contributes more to the world, it just means you've forcibly taken someone else's money to suit your fancy of what economic distribution you personally feel is more "just."

Remarkable case of Stockholm Syndrome or maybe improper socialization as a toddler. Either way, it's just your standard empty rant in adulation of Wealth.

What Greene can't recognize is that the concentration of wealth & income cuts off the very opportunities he's enjoyed & that he seems to want to promote. It's a runaway train.

 

[alien42]

Either way it doesn't make you a better person or someone who contributes more to the world, it just means you've forcibly taken someone else's money to suit your fancy of what economic distribution you personally feel is more "just."

and how does one become a billionaire? oh, that's right, but taking other peoples money.

 

[glenn1]

Remarkable case of Stockholm Syndrome or maybe improper socialization as a toddler. Either way, it's just your standard empty rant in adulation of Wealth.

What Greene can't recognize is that the concentration of wealth & income cuts off the very opportunities he's enjoyed & that he seems to want to promote. It's a runaway train.

Please explain how concentration of wealth prevents you from coming up with the next big idea that makes you a billionaire and turns the current billionaire into the owner of a bankrupt company with obsolete technology. Oh that's right, you just don't have the ability and are pissed off that others do. So instead of boycotting the billionaire's stuff, you just bitch about how millions of people line up in front of him and say "shut up and take my money!"

and how does one become a billionaire? oh, that's right, but taking other peoples money.

In exchange for things the other person wants, such as a product, idea, or service. So hold onto your money and the doctor will hold onto his treatment, Steve Jobs his iPad, etc.

 

[dainthomas]

1. Im positive if a worker in Guatemala didn't have a job yesterday and has one today their standard of living will increase.
2. I'd imagine most people would feel the same way. What I find interesting is how many on the left scream about wealth inequity seem to share your sentiments. As if income and wealth inequity stop at our borders.

I meant that me lowering my standard of living would somehow give someone in Guatamala a job.

 

[CitizenKain]

Please explain how concentration of wealth prevents you from coming up with the next big idea that makes you a billionaire and turns the current billionaire into the owner of a bankrupt company with obsolete technology. Oh that's right, you just don't have the ability and are pissed off that others do. So instead of boycotting the billionaire's stuff, you just bitch about how millions of people line up in front of him and say "shut up and take my money!"

Because the money that could exist to give someone to opportunity to do so is sitting in a hedge fund somewhere. What about the person who wants to start a business, but can't afford to since they bankrupt from medical payments? What about the education that people don't receive since education has been gutted by the wealthy?

Having an idea doesn't mean shit if you can't bring it to fruition.

Guillitones can still be made, people like Greene would do very well to remember that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please explain how concentration of wealth prevents you from coming up with the next big idea that makes you a billionaire and turns the current billionaire into the owner of a bankrupt company with obsolete technology. Oh that's right, you just don't have the ability and are pissed off that others do. So instead of boycotting the billionaire's stuff, you just bitch about how millions of people line up in front of him and say "shut up and take my money!"

Nice straw man! Dressed him in your own clothes, huh?

 

[realibrad]

Because the money that could exist to give someone to opportunity to do so is sitting in a hedge fund somewhere. What about the person who wants to start a business, but can't afford to since they bankrupt from medical payments? What about the education that people don't receive since education has been gutted by the wealthy?

Having an idea doesn't mean shit if you can't bring it to fruition.

Guillitones can still be made, people like Greene would do very well to remember that.

You dont seem to understand what a hedge fund is.

I dont really blame you too much, its common. The rich do not let their money sit usually. Putting money into a hedge fund is a very active thing. A hedge fund is when people pool money together to buy something. The reason they do this, is because they want their money to grow. The only way to make that happen, is to buy something that will give a return. If you put money into a bathtub and let it sit, you will still have the same nominal amount. Inflation may go up or down, so the real value may change, but the number of bills will stay the same.

If you were to take that same money, and loan it out, you could likely get more back than you gave out. A win win for everyone. You could also put that money into stocks, which is like a type of loan, and cash it out later and make money.

So in reality, a hedge fun is not the rich hoarding their money. In reality, a hedge fun is people getting money together to invest in the economy.

 

[realibrad]

Nice straw man! Dressed him in your own clothes, huh?

Its not a straw man. Its a valid question that many economist try and make.

A person being rich does not imply that they got that way because they stole or held back anyone. The economy is not a zero sum game.

If there 2 people in a group, and you need to hunt, cook, build weapons, clean, make clothes, store water. That is a total of 6 jobs in this situation. 1 person could do all these jobs if they started from the time they woke up to when they went to sleep.

Say person A is better at hunting, and can kill 2 deer a week, while the other can only kill 1 deer a week. To survive, they must kill 1 deer per week per person. The better hunter has no need kill deer beyond what is needed for himself, so the potential is wasted.

Say person B can build 5 arrows a day, while person A can only build 2 arrows a day. Say they only need to build 2 arrows a day to be able to hunt. The extra arrows that could have been built get wasted, because there is not a need for them.

What if, person A did all the hunting, and person B did all the arrow building. Both would have more free time at the end of the day, by splitting work. Now, imagine a world far more complex. Where some are better able to do jobs that are more valuable, while others cannot. We are all better off by allowing the rich to become rich, assuming they got it through free exchange.

 

[ivwshane]

So I take it you are not willing to lower your standard of living for somebody in a foreign nation then?

How about the billionaire CEO's lower their standard and raise the living standards of the Chinese themselves? Naw! That would require the CEO to lower his living standards!

What you and others fail to realize is that a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[realibrad]

How about the billionaire CEO's lower their standard and raise the living standards of the Chinese themselves? Naw! That would require the CEO to lower his living standards!

What you and others fail to realize is that a rising tide lifts all boats.

What is the moral justification for getting 1 person to change over another?

I'm not saying you dont have one, just asking what yours is.


I don't think incentives are arbitrary though. Many billionaires seem to work the way they do because of competition, and a drive to be successful. If you take away the accomplishment, you take away the benefit we get when they succeed.

 

[BoberFett]

and how does one become a billionaire? oh, that's right, but taking other peoples money.

No billionaire has ever taken my money without my consent, unless it was taken by government through taxes and given to them through corporate welfare.

The only other money of mine that billionaires have is because I chose to trade it for something they could offer me. A product or a service.

If you're mad that billionaires have your money, don't be mad at the billionaire. Be mad at yourself or your government.

 

[BoberFett]

Because the money that could exist to give someone to opportunity to do so is sitting in a hedge fund somewhere. What about the person who wants to start a business, but can't afford to since they bankrupt from medical payments? What about the education that people don't receive since education has been gutted by the wealthy?

Having an idea doesn't mean shit if you can't bring it to fruition.

Guillitones can still be made, people like Greene would do very well to remember that.

"Sitting" in a hedge fund?

What does that mean for money to "sit" in a hedge fund.

How does that money grow?

Water?

Fertilizer?

Sunlight?

Do Democrats understand how money works?

 

[ivwshane]

What is the moral justification for getting 1 person to change over another?

I'm not saying you dont have one, just asking what yours is.


I don't think incentives are arbitrary though. Many billionaires seem to work the way they do because of competition, and a drive to be successful. If you take away the accomplishment, you take away the benefit we get when they succeed.

Justification? The same justification one billionaire uses to tell millions of other people what to do. Do you know what it is? Because I don't but it sure looks like a play for the plebs to race towards the bottom, where he will surely win out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh yeah, sure, lets put that off to the side,..

But, do you at least acknowledge he believes the American people need (his word, not mine) to lower their lifestyle expectations?

I agree that he's right. The implicit is not that we're making too much, but we are spending beyond our means and accumulating a staggering amount of debt which if we faced adverse circumstance could crush us. A person shouldn't spend 2/3 of their income on a home they can't afford to maintain. That makes no sense and neither does a 100k a year salary permit a 60k of credit card debt.

 

[ivwshane]

No billionaire has ever taken my money without my consent, unless it was taken by government through taxes and given to them through corporate welfare.

The only other money of mine that billionaires have is because I chose to trade it for something they could offer me. A product or a service.

If you're mad that billionaires have your money, don't be mad at the billionaire. Be mad at yourself or your government.

Lol! Spoken like a true idiot! You don't pay billionaires unless they have something you want? No, you pay, you just aren't smart enough to realize it.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/09/ho...-buybacks-and-why-its-bad-for-the-rest-of-us/

 

[werepossum]

Its not a straw man. Its a valid question that many economist try and make.

A person being rich does not imply that they got that way because they stole or held back anyone. The economy is not a zero sum game.

If there 2 people in a group, and you need to hunt, cook, build weapons, clean, make clothes, store water. That is a total of 6 jobs in this situation. 1 person could do all these jobs if they started from the time they woke up to when they went to sleep.

Say person A is better at hunting, and can kill 2 deer a week, while the other can only kill 1 deer a week. To survive, they must kill 1 deer per week per person. The better hunter has no need kill deer beyond what is needed for himself, so the potential is wasted.

Say person B can build 5 arrows a day, while person A can only build 2 arrows a day. Say they only need to build 2 arrows a day to be able to hunt. The extra arrows that could have been built get wasted, because there is not a need for them.

What if, person A did all the hunting, and person B did all the arrow building. Both would have more free time at the end of the day, by splitting work. Now, imagine a world far more complex. Where some are better able to do jobs that are more valuable, while others cannot. We are all better off by allowing the rich to become rich, assuming they got it through free exchange.

Well put, sir.

"Sitting" in a hedge fund?

What does that mean for money to "sit" in a hedge fund.

How does that money grow?

Water?

Fertilizer?

Sunlight?

Do Democrats understand how money works?

Of course Democrats understand how money works. Other people earn it. If those people earn more than the Democrat, then those people are evil and government should take that money and spread it out among the Democrats who earn less. And all money not take from rich people and given to them or spent by government on their behalf is wasted.

 

[realibrad]

Lol! Spoken like a true idiot! You don't pay billionaires unless they have something you want? No, you pay, you just aren't smart enough to realize it.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/09/ho...-buybacks-and-why-its-bad-for-the-rest-of-us/

Not always right? Did the founders of google steal your money? I would argue that they came up with something people liked, and thus we paid them by using their product.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I agree that he's right. The implicit is not that we're making too much, but we are spending beyond our means and accumulating a staggering amount of debt which if we faced adverse circumstance could crush us. A person shouldn't spend 2/3 of their income on a home they can't afford to maintain. That makes no sense and neither does a 100k a year salary permit a 60k of credit card debt.

So true, I do everything I can to reduce my debt. I pay cash whenever possible and last year I refinanced my house for a lower interest rate for a shorter term.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well put, sir.


Of course Democrats understand how money works. Other people earn it. If those people earn more than the Democrat, then those people are evil and government should take that money and spread it out among the Democrats who earn less. And all money not take from rich people and given to them or spent by government on their behalf is wasted.

Let me explain how money is earned in my corporation. The people who don't really understand what I do ran it pretty much down. Sales were down and there wasn't going to be a bonus at the top level. So what did they do? They changed the rules and based their bonuses on controllable expenses AKA labor. They cut staffing with a battle axe, so much so that no one at the store level could possibly get a bonus, and that added to the execs bonus as well. Staffing cuts, no raises, hours cut, and all because they screwed the pooch, but they were damned well going to be rewarded no matter who they hurt.

You want to tell me how that thinking doesn't hurt me and others?

 

[theeedude]

Im happy you can finally admit you are ok with saving the white poor in this country and eff the brown poor in other countries.

I am sure they will appreciate your crocodile tears trickling down.
Because clearly without middle class in America to buy imported goods, the life of the poor in third world will improve.

 

[realibrad]

Let me explain how money is earned in my corporation. The people who don't really understand what I do ran it pretty much down. Sales were down and there wasn't going to be a bonus at the top level. So what did they do? They changed the rules and based their bonuses on controllable expenses AKA labor. They cut staffing with a battle axe, so much so that no one at the store level could possibly get a bonus, and that added to the execs bonus as well. Staffing cuts, no raises, hours cut, and all because they screwed the pooch, but they were damned well going to be rewarded no matter who they hurt.

You want to tell me how that thinking doesn't hurt me and others?

I think I have a better question. Do you think those actions at the top are good or bad for the company?

 

[theeedude]

Let me explain how money is earned in my corporation. The people who don't really understand what I do ran it pretty much down. Sales were down and there wasn't going to be a bonus at the top level. So what did they do? They changed the rules and based their bonuses on controllable expenses AKA labor. They cut staffing with a battle axe, so much so that no one at the store level could possibly get a bonus, and that added to the execs bonus as well. Staffing cuts, no raises, hours cut, and all because they screwed the pooch, but they were damned well going to be rewarded no matter who they hurt.

You want to tell me how that thinking doesn't hurt me and others?

The problem is we didn't give a big enough tax cut to the executives on the bonuses they got for cutting jobs. If we did, it would have trickled down in no time.

 

[TreVader]

99.99% of being a billionare or millionare is luck of the draw. Even your skill, is luck. You were lucky to be born that skilled


Lucky to be born in america, lucky to be born in CA, lucky to be born in the twilight of the 20th century. We are all lucky mother fuckers.


I don't admire someone unless they are somehow dynamic. If you got here rich, stayed rich, and died rich... that is far less interesting to me than if you got rich and went broke then redeemed yourself. Or even if you just went broke. People should move. Socially, economically, politically, and physically people need to move or they become docile and useless. That is, IMO, the problem with the center of this country. The crooning midwestern land whales have forgoten how to move.