Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[BoberFett]

No, I would not tell you that that kind of thinking doesn't hurt you and others. What I will tell you is that the other kind of thinking, that government deserves all and knows all, is much worse. Either your company will be better off, or it will be worse off. If the latter, it will languish and eventually be replaced by a better company, or else current management will be fired and new management brought in. While admittedly that will hurt you and your coworkers, it's better for society as a whole. If the former, then even though it hurts you and your coworkers, it's better on balance for your company and for society as a whole.

Government, however, never fails, no matter how bad the results. It just grows. Seizing the income of others - no matter how much more worthy you may feel yourself - and redistributing that money just encourages those with capital to invest it in other places, and those without capital to vote themselves more largesse. Why bother trying to build a better mousetrap when the rewards for doing so are equally shared? Let someone else be bothered. At some point that better mousetrap never gets built, because the risks for trying just aren't worth the diminished rewards for succeeding.

In Soviet Russia, better mousetrap builds you!

 

[Fern]

Are conservatives here actually arguing that offshoring jobs is good because it spreads the wealth to Guatemala? I'm so confused as to why y'all are mocking liberals for only caring about American jobs... isn't that a point of agreement? Are you so interested in arguing that you'll take a contrarian position solely to get in some further pot-shots at your opponent?

No, conservatives wouldn't be arguing that.

Democrats have long argued in favor of helping the poor in other countries with trade agreements. That has now changed somewhat as they've seen the results (loss of high paying jobs here etc) and are now divided on the issue.

See this article by a liberal org for a history of free trade agreements:

Democrats Divided on Free Trade Agreements

"Democrats have coalesced in favor of trade policy reform over the past decade as President Bill Clinton's NAFTA, WTO and China trade deals not only failed to deliver the promised benefits but caused real damage," said Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch to Nation contributing editor Christopher Hayes.

But the centrist Democratic Leadershp Council insists, "While many Democrats find it tempting to 'Just Say No' to Bush trade policies... , this would squander real opportunities to boost U.S. exports... and keep this country competitive in a global marketplace from which we cannot possibly isolate ourselves."

http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Did your customers stop coming to your store? Why or why not?

When too many get treated the same way, it becomes systemic, so, yeh, customers quit coming in. Right now, it's called the lesser depression.

 

[Subyman]

Hoarding money?

If money is being loaned out through investments, how is that hoarding?

Jesus Hume Christ on a pogo stick, do Democrats truly not understand how money works?

They think net worth is calculated by the huge pallet of cash sitting in the billionaire's garage.

 

[werepossum]

Are conservatives here actually arguing that offshoring jobs is good because it spreads the wealth to Guatemala? I'm so confused as to why y'all are mocking liberals for only caring about American jobs... isn't that a point of agreement? Are you so interested in arguing that you'll take a contrarian position solely to get in some further pot-shots at your opponent?

Maybe they're just tired of fighting it. I know I am. Both parties and most individuals are firmly in favor of outsourcing. For years I was the idiot paying higher prices (often for substandard products) to buy American or failing that, products built in Canada or Mexico or Israel or the UK or Germany. No mas. I've thrown in the towel.

In Soviet Russia, better mousetrap builds you!

lol

I just hope as a nation we can survive until most people are unnecessary for manufacturing or design and we all receive government stipends. We rock at that.

No, conservatives wouldn't be arguing that.

Democrats have long argued in favor of helping the poor in other countries with trade agreements. That has now changed somewhat as they've seen the results (loss of high paying jobs here etc) and are now divided on the issue.

See this article by a liberal org for a history of free trade agreements:


http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm

Fern

It is decidedly odd on what the parties agree.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! like I said, you are an idiot

From the article you didn't read.

Average Americans, adds William Lazonick’s Roosevelt Institute study, are also paying dearly for Corporate America’s trillions in stock buybacks.

One example: In the decade after 2001, high-tech giant Cisco spent 107 percent of its net income on stock repurchases. How do firms spend over 100 percent of what they make? They cut costs elsewhere. In Cisco’s case, Lazonick notes, that meant “rounds of large-scale layoffs to sustain its buyback habit.”

The government is taking your money you stupid fuck because CEO's and corporations are doing what they can to increase their compensation at the expense of their workers who they end up laying off and who end up using government resources.

You stupid fucking piece of shit, the article says nothing of the sort. If you're talking about government subsidies the articles mention that has government making up for some companies lack of providing benefits or high wages, I've already covered that you illiterate fucktard. That's government taking my money. Not the company, you fucking stupid moron. If the government would stop covering up for those companies' deficiencies, maybe people would actually rebel against working for or being customers of those companies. Instead government keeps greasing the wheel for the status quo. As I say, stupid Democrat fucks like you bemoan the common man all the while cheering on his demise.


Edit:

Democrat pieces of shit like you want change, but only if it's easy. You don't want any change through hardship. You're like those unions that hire people for minimum wage to protest for them, because they don't think they're making enough money. Oh the irony. Democrats don't want to actually boycott Walmart across the board and encourage all Walmart employees to walk off the job. That would be painful, and nobody wants pain. They just expect to shame them into paying higher wages out of the goodness of their hearts. Bunch of lazy, useless fucks.

Add more straw man please!! Maybe add another little quip about al gore or some other bullshit.

 

[werepossum]

Wow. This gives me hope of marrying a billionaire after I, too, am post op. :thumbsup:

You could be a Bond girl! (Well, a Bond "girl at pool" anyway.)

They think net worth is calculated by the huge pallet of cash sitting in the billionaire's garage.

And grows by siphoning the life out of children and puppies.

 

[nickqt]

And grows by siphoning the life out of children and puppies.

Most wealth grows by being handed to criminals on Wall St. who push the money around enough until it has "grown" through interest and market fluctuations, regardless of any actual value, or utility of the money in being pushed around. i.e. the money isn't creating "innovation". It's being pushed here for a bit, then over there, and then back over here. Often times, it's just stock buybacks that literally increase the value of something by reducing the actual utility of the stock by decreasing ownership.

Or, a bubble.

Give the rich zero incentive to invest in their own companies (by reducing taxes, removing tariffs, and allowing "free trade") and you get an ultra-rich class of "investors" who have almost zero actual interest in common with their fellow citizens. 1929 and 2007 are good examples.

In fact, the stock market/credit crashes that happen after the rich use their money to inflate bubbles are extremely useful as the resulting firesales of real estate, business holdings, equipment, etc, are wonderful for further increasing net worth that isn't just made out of an abstract concept of cash and stocks that are inherently worthless.

 

[DrDoug]

This rich asshole really made me laugh! A guy whose family could wipe their asses with $100 bills every day for the rest of their lives and never even notice it is telling us proles that we need to lower our expectations about what we can expect as Americans.

Austerity for thee but not for me! Now that's rich! :thumbsdown:

 

[motsm]

This rich asshole really made me laugh! A guy whose family could wipe their asses with $100 bills every day for the rest of their lives and never even notice it is telling us proles that we need to lower our expectations about what we can expect as Americans.

Austerity for thee but not for me! Now that's rich! :thumbsdown:

So his statement is wrong because he is rich? Or do you actually have a real counterpoint to what he said?

 

[nickqt]

So his statement is wrong because he is rich? Or do you actually have a real counterpoint to what he said?

I don't think he is saying that his statement is "wrong", but that it's slightly hypocritical for someone who has so much money that everything is effectively free to tell others who are already struggling, should sacrifice even more for the "greater good".

Because if you have the money to ship ice floes from Antarctica to Hawaii to watch them melt is inherently OK because money.

 

[DrDoug]

So his statement is wrong because he is rich? Or do you actually have a real counterpoint to what he said?

Yeah, I have a response. Tax these fuckers like it was the 1950's. Once they have to pump that money back into their company instead of paying high taxes for taking it all for themselves, you watch how much better life gets for everyone down below.

I could say a lot more and be a lot more detailed but why? It's a waste of my time because no matter what I or anyone else says on the internet, nothing is going to change. So why waste my time. Simply put, when executives couldn't rape their companies and employees because they would have to give a good chunk of that loot to the government, they wisely chose to reinvest in their companies. Better benefits, better pay, more people working on the next best widget ever created (you know, creating and innovating), holding prices down to compete and so on, everyone did well. Once rates dropped to a level where they could rake in the loot, they did. Prices went up, pay went down and jobs went overseas, all in the name of more loot for the rich guys and those they pay off to make this happen.

And here we are today. The white knights here are fucking idiots. These rich guys don't give one shit about them, or anyone else for that matter, but boy these idiots sure love them some rich meat.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I have a response. Tax these fuckers like it was the 1950's. Once they have to pump that money back into their company instead of paying high taxes for taking it all for themselves, you watch how much better life gets for everyone down below.

I could say a lot more and be a lot more detailed but why? It's a waste of my time because no matter what I or anyone else says on the internet, nothing is going to change. So why waste my time. Simply put, when executives couldn't rape their companies and employees because they would have to give a good chunk of that loot to the government, they wisely chose to reinvest in their companies. Better benefits, better pay, more people working on the next best widget ever created (you know, creating and innovating), holding prices down to compete and so on, everyone did well. Once rates dropped to a level where they could rake in the loot, they did. Prices went up, pay went down and jobs went overseas, all in the name of more loot for the rich guys and those they pay off to make this happen.

And here we are today. The white knights here are fucking idiots. These rich guys don't give one shit about them, or anyone else for that matter, but boy these idiots sure love them some rich meat.

Yeah, they'd invest in their companies all right, but it would be new factories in China and new headquarters in the Caribean. In the fifties it made sense to invest in America; now it does not. How many companies have left the U.S. purely for taxes? A buttload of major corporations have. How many now manufacture off shore? We dropped all our technology transfer restrictions under Clinton, we signed free trade agreements under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama, and we've continuously increased our regulatory burden. Now you're advocating confiscatory tax rates for the resource owners and you feel they will simply roll over because you want their money. Real world doesn't work that way. Every single innovation is now instantly available to off-shore interests, and even service operations are increasingly transferred off shore. 1950s tax rates applied to a 2010s business environment will not have 1950s effect.

There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.

 

[werepossum]

Most wealth grows by being handed to criminals on Wall St. who push the money around enough until it has "grown" through interest and market fluctuations, regardless of any actual value, or utility of the money in being pushed around. i.e. the money isn't creating "innovation". It's being pushed here for a bit, then over there, and then back over here. Often times, it's just stock buybacks that literally increase the value of something by reducing the actual utility of the stock by decreasing ownership.

Or, a bubble.

Give the rich zero incentive to invest in their own companies (by reducing taxes, removing tariffs, and allowing "free trade") and you get an ultra-rich class of "investors" who have almost zero actual interest in common with their fellow citizens. 1929 and 2007 are good examples.

In fact, the stock market/credit crashes that happen after the rich use their money to inflate bubbles are extremely useful as the resulting firesales of real estate, business holdings, equipment, etc, are wonderful for further increasing net worth that isn't just made out of an abstract concept of cash and stocks that are inherently worthless.

Wow. Your "explanation" as to how wealth grows is even less sensible than my intentionally nonsensical theory. Just push it around, huh?

 

[Sonikku]

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.

Yeah but by that logic $7.25 an hour minimum wage every year would buy less and less and would need to be raised from time to time just to keep pace with the same level of buying power.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah but by that logic $7.25 an hour minimum wage every year would buy less and less and would need to be raised from time to time just to keep pace with the same level of buying power.

Um, yeah. It drives inflation, but otherwise minimum wage continuously drops in real terms.

 

[bozack]

So while I fully expected to read the bitching and moaning about how this guy needs to pay his fair share and all that other redistributive mantra what I am surprised with is how anyone here can honestly say this guy is wrong?

I know there will be a host of the usual suspects that will brow beat me over this but even if anecdotal the stories of excess and entitlement throughout American society have to start in some degree of truth...I have said it before but I worked right near loads of "affordable" housing units where seeing new luxury cars and folks doing nothing all day with brand new iphones were the norm...

Now expand this out to people who actually work where that and more is just what they expect.....families stretch themselves to own all sorts of stuff that is unnecessary, expensive cars, big houses, etc....

I am just as guilty as the next guy as keeping up with the jonses is a hard thing not to do....but I do think as a whole we all could stand to re-evaluate priorities and refocus on that which is truly important, building a quality life that is sustainable, not spending ourselves into debt that lasts through the next millennium.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, they'd invest in their companies all right, but it would be new factories in China and new headquarters in the Caribean. In the fifties it made sense to invest in America; now it does not. How many companies have left the U.S. purely for taxes? A buttload of major corporations have. How many now manufacture off shore? We dropped all our technology transfer restrictions under Clinton, we signed free trade agreements under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama, and we've continuously increased our regulatory burden. Now you're advocating confiscatory tax rates for the resource owners and you feel they will simply roll over because you want their money. Real world doesn't work that way. Every single innovation is now instantly available to off-shore interests, and even service operations are increasingly transferred off shore. 1950s tax rates applied to a 2010s business environment will not have 1950s effect.

There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.

Guys like this are just trying to scare the rich into their grand scheme. When that doesn't happen we will see if they can work up the balls to attempt a Hugo Chavez style nationalization and outright confiscation. Because they feel the rich don't "deserve" what they have and are morally justified in physically taking it from them.

 

[DrDoug]

Yeah, they'd invest in their companies all right, but it would be new factories in China and new headquarters in the Caribean. In the fifties it made sense to invest in America; now it does not. How many companies have left the U.S. purely for taxes? A buttload of major corporations have. How many now manufacture off shore? We dropped all our technology transfer restrictions under Clinton, we signed free trade agreements under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama, and we've continuously increased our regulatory burden. Now you're advocating confiscatory tax rates for the resource owners and you feel they will simply roll over because you want their money. Real world doesn't work that way. Every single innovation is now instantly available to off-shore interests, and even service operations are increasingly transferred off shore. 1950s tax rates applied to a 2010s business environment will not have 1950s effect.

There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.

Yup, it's all our fault, we have nobody to blame other than ourselves for this. There was no incentive, like lower taxes on the top earners, that pushed business interests into paying off politicians to make off-shoring legal so that they could then cut labor costs here and suck up the cash for themselves. This all happened because taxes were too high, regulations were absolutely horrible and those poor companies were suffering under the burdens imposed on the by a mean, nasty government. Allowing them to off-shore meant they didn't have to deal with the regulatory burdens the same politicians who later pushed for off-shoring imposed on those poor companies. Now that they don't have to suffer and are raking in the profits, we get to do the suffering for them!

Win-Lose!

Keep telling yourself what you said and it becomes 'reality'. It's not. This mess has been a long time brewing, like a frog in a pot of water brought to a slow boil. Some of us saw them crank up the heat on the stove. I saw this mess coming back in the early 80's but it actually started with Nixon going to China.

Enjoy your swim froggie...lol!

Guys like this are just trying to scare the rich into their grand scheme. When that doesn't happen we will see if they can work up the balls to attempt a Hugo Chavez style nationalization and outright confiscation. Because they feel the rich don't "deserve" what they have and are morally justified in physically taking it from them.

As if I'm going to scare some rich dudes...lol! Boy, you sure think a lot of little ol' me!

Socialism, it's gotta be that or nothing! Fucking git.

 

[WackyDan]

edit I have no idea why I can't get the link to work,.. hijacking Bowfinger's post (thank you Bowfinger);




And, why do we need to live with far less?


Ah, yes! In order to "win" back the job that use to give an American $15/hr, but is now giving an Indian, Philapino or Polish person $6/hr, the Americans need to 'reinvent' their whole system of life, to be able to live off of a $6 or less salary!

Wait, does that mean that the cost of living will be adjusted as well?

Doubtful.

Well, how about we follow his whole system of life?


,.. ah. Yes, another case of do as I say, not as I do.

Ironically wasn't this Davos thing also a large conference on global warming? 1700 private jets flew in for it. I find that comical to say the least.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, they'd invest in their companies all right, but it would be new factories in China and new headquarters in the Caribean. In the fifties it made sense to invest in America; now it does not. How many companies have left the U.S. purely for taxes? A buttload of major corporations have. How many now manufacture off shore? We dropped all our technology transfer restrictions under Clinton, we signed free trade agreements under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama, and we've continuously increased our regulatory burden. Now you're advocating confiscatory tax rates for the resource owners and you feel they will simply roll over because you want their money. Real world doesn't work that way. Every single innovation is now instantly available to off-shore interests, and even service operations are increasingly transferred off shore. 1950s tax rates applied to a 2010s business environment will not have 1950s effect.

There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.

You are right, there is no free lunch and yet you continue to push for a cheaper lunch for the wealthy, why?

Jobs are already going to foreign countries regardless of tax rates so you think lower taxes will change that? How naïve.

Taxes on the .01% need to be raised heavily and new tax brackets need to be created with higher rates along with harsher penalties based on dollar amount for those hiding their money. Tax subsidies/loopholes for corporations need to be closed and the tax rate needs to be lowered along with taxing all profit generated anywhere in the world for companies that do business with the US regardless of where they are located.

When companies and the wealthy are forced to pay taxes or spend their money, guess what they will choose to do? They will spend it and most of the time it will be invested back into the company they run or into new ideas.

Taxing is not a moral issue, it's an economic one.

 

[Jhhnn]

What Greene is telling us is that the American middle class hasn't properly defended itself against the top down class warfare that's been successfully waged for the last 35 years. He's right that we need to settle for less, sad to say. Support for their leadership just means that the current trajectory will make that even worse over time.

So, uhh, you go, Job Creators, and thanks, Ronnie, thanks a lot.

 

[Subyman]

Yeah, they'd invest in their companies all right, but it would be new factories in China and new headquarters in the Caribean. In the fifties it made sense to invest in America; now it does not. How many companies have left the U.S. purely for taxes? A buttload of major corporations have. How many now manufacture off shore? We dropped all our technology transfer restrictions under Clinton, we signed free trade agreements under Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama, and we've continuously increased our regulatory burden. Now you're advocating confiscatory tax rates for the resource owners and you feel they will simply roll over because you want their money. Real world doesn't work that way. Every single innovation is now instantly available to off-shore interests, and even service operations are increasingly transferred off shore. 1950s tax rates applied to a 2010s business environment will not have 1950s effect.

There. Is. No. Free. Lunch.

That's not completely true. A lot of companies are trying to bring certain sectors of manufacturing (but mostly assembling) back to the US.

 

[theeedude]

Ironically wasn't this Davos thing also a large conference on global warming? 1700 private jets flew in for it. I find that comical to say the least.

Comical that you think it's a conference on global warming, considering it's the World Economic Forum.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, I have a response. Tax these fuckers like it was the 1950's. Once they have to pump that money back into their company instead of paying high taxes for taking it all for themselves, you watch how much better life gets for everyone down below.

I could say a lot more and be a lot more detailed but why? It's a waste of my time because no matter what I or anyone else says on the internet, nothing is going to change. So why waste my time. Simply put, when executives couldn't rape their companies and employees because they would have to give a good chunk of that loot to the government, they wisely chose to reinvest in their companies. Better benefits, better pay, more people working on the next best widget ever created (you know, creating and innovating), holding prices down to compete and so on, everyone did well. Once rates dropped to a level where they could rake in the loot, they did. Prices went up, pay went down and jobs went overseas, all in the name of more loot for the rich guys and those they pay off to make this happen.

And here we are today. The white knights here are fucking idiots. These rich guys don't give one shit about them, or anyone else for that matter, but boy these idiots sure love them some rich meat.

The highlighted above and the quote below :thumbsup:

The government is taking your money you stupid fuck because CEO's and corporations are doing what they can to increase their compensation at the expense of their workers who they end up laying off and who end up using government resources.