Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[Jaskalas]

Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

California is WAY ahead of Davos. They're living the dream.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

As I said, the government is taking my money, not the corporation. Learn to read you stupid fuck. You are the stupidest piece of shit to grace these forums with your stench.

 

[ivwshane]

As I said, the government is taking my money, not the corporation. Learn to read you stupid fuck. You are the stupidest piece of shit to grace these forums with your stench.

Keep your head in your ass kid

 

[WackyDan]

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

Forcibly? Doubt it.

 

[Subyman]

Keep your head in your ass kid

A more intelligent conversation could be had in there than on these forums.

 

[Jhhnn]

Forcibly? Doubt it.

Coercion takes many forms. It's not like you can keep working at the factory when they move it to China or Mexico. Or when they automate production. If you try, you'll be arrested for trespassing. If you can't pay for heat, you'll freeze w/o a fireplace. If you can't then make the rent or the mortgage payment or sell because you're underwater, the sheriff will come & put you & the kids out on the street.

Happens all the time. Whole communities. Major cities. But please, do go on defending the perps, our own financial elite. Or figure it out.

 

[WackyDan]

Coercion takes many forms. It's not like you can keep working at the factory when they move it to China or Mexico. Or when they automate production. If you try, you'll be arrested for trespassing. If you can't pay for heat, you'll freeze w/o a fireplace. If you can't then make the rent or the mortgage payment or sell because you're underwater, the sheriff will come & put you & the kids out on the street.

Happens all the time. Whole communities. Major cities. But please, do go on defending the perps, our own financial elite. Or figure it out.

What a stretch you took there.

Your problem/our problem is corporate oligarchy, but keep on suggesting that I'm a greedy bastard supporting the filthy rich.

 

[Fern]

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!

I'm pretty sure off shoring has always been "legal". Anyone lobbying to make that legal wasted their money.

Now import tariffs may have made off shoring a little more expensive than otherwise. But anyone who wants to make the argument that a return to tariffs will bring a resurgent US economy is welcome to try.

Our problem is competition. WWII gave us the best model to attain global supremacy in economics, specifically manufacturing: We bomb their factories and infrastructure into rubble.

Outsourcing? What happens to (most) US companies that don't outsource? They go out of business. IIRC, IBM wasn't outsourcing their hardware business in 80's and the Japanese stepped in and ate their lunch. IBM has since been out of the hardware business. There are a metric crap ton of companies one can point to as an example of adapt (meaning outsourcing in many cases) or die. Walk through a Walmart and look at the products. They all represent products once made by US companies that are now out of business.

It's just going to get worse. US companies that npw outsource are having their tech and other know-how swiped by the (foreign) home country (e.g., China). At least our companies make some money on outsourcing. Once the foreign countries obtain the ability to make the products our companies will be booted out and the foreigners will take the whole 'pie'. It won't be a Chrysler half made in China, we'll driving Hyundai's 100% made in China.

I don't what the answer is, but sitting around bitching about the past isn't going to help, global economics are very dynamic. I sometimes think business, like the military, is always fighting the last war. I.e., we better not be trying to rebuild the Maginot Line when we should be preparing for the newest form of Blitzkrieg.

Fern

 

[nickqt]

I'm pretty sure off shoring has always been "legal". Anyone lobbying to make that legal wasted their money.

Now import tariffs may have made off shoring a little more expensive than otherwise. But anyone who wants to make the argument that a return to tariffs will bring a resurgent US economy is welcome to try.

Our problem is competition. WWII gave us the best model to attain global supremacy in economics, specifically manufacturing: We bomb their factories and infrastructure into rubble.

Outsourcing? What happens to (most) US companies that don't outsource? They go out of business. IIRC, IBM wasn't outsourcing their hardware business in 80's and the Japanese stepped in and ate their lunch. IBM has since been out of the hardware business. There are a metric crap ton of companies one can point to as an example of adapt (meaning outsourcing in many cases) or die. Walk through a Walmart and look at the products. They all represent products once made by US companies that are now out of business.

It's just going to get worse. US companies that npw outsource are having their tech and other know-how swiped by the (foreign) home country (e.g., China). At least our companies make some money on outsourcing. Once the foreign countries obtain the ability to make the products our companies will be booted out and the foreigners will take the whole 'pie'. It won't be a Chrysler half made in China, we'll driving Hyundai's 100% made in China.

I don't what the answer is, but sitting around bitching about the past isn't going to help, global economics are very dynamic. I sometimes think business, like the military, is always fighting the last war. I.e., we better not be trying to rebuild the Maginot Line when we should be preparing for the newest form of Blitzkrieg.

Fern

Tariffs help build a manufacturing base because it prices out foreign competition. There are 300 million Americans. That is a pretty huge market. If the countries that produce the goods we consume were to stop exporting them to us tomorrow, the manufacturers here in the US would pick up billions of dollars worth of contracts almost overnight.

Unfortunately, the free trade agreements exist and aren't just going to go away overnight, and even if they did, the US (along with the UK) decided back in the 1980s that the best way to up shareholder profits was to sell off the manufacturing base by shuttering factories and laying off workers. i.e. we decided to sell off as much of our industry as possible to increase dividends, and the free trade agreements made it permanent.

There is nothing stopping US manufacturers from producing goods. It just isn't as profitable to the shareholders, which means that the executives aren't going to do it, because they are there to increase profits to benefit their own incomes that come through stock options.

It isn't about fighting the last war. It's about looking at what is and isn't working.

Enact a 30 hour full-time workweek, with a bump in wages/salaries so that people make the same that they make now at 40 hours. You acutally provide Americans with wages/salaries that are more inline with productivity, you create a massive jobs program since employers will be hiring people to make up for the -10 hours per current employee, and of course you're giving Americans a much better quality of life since they are working less. Which also stimulates innovation as many people have great ideas for businesses but are stuck in 40 hour a week jobs. Give 'em the same $ and give them 10 more hours of freetime, and you'll see more small business startups, since the $ will still be there.

Technology is only a problem for luddites who are afraid of technology, and for capitalists who feel that labor should feel grateful they aren't starving in a gutter somewhere. When technology and automation was coming online, it was touted as something to make everyone's life better through higher productivity and more freetime.

Well, the productivity came, but the better pay/more free time never did. Who benefited from that? Not labor. Instead, labor is earning basically the same amount it was 30 years ago, even though it produces much more.

That's the disconnect. It's the reason why inequality has risen over the past 30 years, and it's the reason why it's becoming a common issue of discussion.

 

[inachu]

Billionaires have too much and much should be taken away from them as what they do causes wars and kills nations and economies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tariffs help build a manufacturing base because it prices out foreign competition. There are 300 million Americans. That is a pretty huge market. If the countries that produce the goods we consume were to stop exporting them to us tomorrow, the manufacturers here in the US would pick up billions of dollars worth of contracts almost overnight.

Unfortunately, the free trade agreements exist and aren't just going to go away overnight, and even if they did, the US (along with the UK) decided back in the 1980s that the best way to up shareholder profits was to sell off the manufacturing base by shuttering factories and laying off workers. i.e. we decided to sell off as much of our industry as possible to increase dividends, and the free trade agreements made it permanent.

There is nothing stopping US manufacturers from producing goods. It just isn't as profitable to the shareholders, which means that the executives aren't going to do it, because they are there to increase profits to benefit their own incomes that come through stock options.

It isn't about fighting the last war. It's about looking at what is and isn't working.

Enact a 30 hour full-time workweek, with a bump in wages/salaries so that people make the same that they make now at 40 hours. You acutally provide Americans with wages/salaries that are more inline with productivity, you create a massive jobs program since employers will be hiring people to make up for the -10 hours per current employee, and of course you're giving Americans a much better quality of life since they are working less. Which also stimulates innovation as many people have great ideas for businesses but are stuck in 40 hour a week jobs. Give 'em the same $ and give them 10 more hours of freetime, and you'll see more small business startups, since the $ will still be there.

Technology is only a problem for luddites who are afraid of technology, and for capitalists who feel that labor should feel grateful they aren't starving in a gutter somewhere. When technology and automation was coming online, it was touted as something to make everyone's life better through higher productivity and more freetime.

Well, the productivity came, but the better pay/more free time never did. Who benefited from that? Not labor. Instead, labor is earning basically the same amount it was 30 years ago, even though it produces much more.

That's the disconnect. It's the reason why inequality has risen over the past 30 years, and it's the reason why it's becoming a common issue of discussion.

You rotten commie bastard!

 

[nickqt]

You rotten commie bastard!

I know right! Typical libruul, discussing how we can seize the means of production while taking away our benevolent oligarchs' assets so that we can just sit at home watching TV.

There are plenty of options on how to solve a whole lot of issues, but one political party wants to do it very, very slowly without upsetting the powers that be. The other political party just considers it ultra-mega communism and a usurpation of their freedom.

It's why the "two countrys" thing is pretty accurate. Even bring up a Scandinavian country, or Germany/Switzerland, and you get the dog-whistles about how those countries are more "homogeneous" in their citizenry. I just want to say, right, so my tribe, right or wrong, is why we can't have nice things. Brilliant. Lets keep up that attitude, and then loudly wonder why our country(Empire) is crumbling around us while our benevolent masters take the money and run.

 

[OverVolt]

He's right though. Tough times ahead. Some billionaires are idiots and some of them have a good sense of the economy. He is the latter.

“I started with nothing and have lived the American dream,” he said. “My office is right next door to the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach where I worked as a busboy and waiter working my way through college. Every day when I go to work, I drive by the Breakers and I’m reminded of the great opportunities I’ve had, and my goal is that these opportunities are again available to today’s busboys. That’s why I’m at Davos, in the Giving Pledge, donate to hundreds of charities and am willing to invest a lot of time and money in a conference.”

Ah yes confirmed. You left that quote out of the OP. I've never seen such a large disconnect betweens the average person's expectations and reality. Like trident. Can you imagine being in a lecture of 100 tridents? Thats pretty much a modern freshman class of 2015.

 

[werepossum]

A more intelligent conversation could be had in there than on these forums.

Lol +1

I'm pretty sure off shoring has always been "legal". Anyone lobbying to make that legal wasted their money.

Now import tariffs may have made off shoring a little more expensive than otherwise. But anyone who wants to make the argument that a return to tariffs will bring a resurgent US economy is welcome to try.

Our problem is competition. WWII gave us the best model to attain global supremacy in economics, specifically manufacturing: We bomb their factories and infrastructure into rubble.

Outsourcing? What happens to (most) US companies that don't outsource? They go out of business. IIRC, IBM wasn't outsourcing their hardware business in 80's and the Japanese stepped in and ate their lunch. IBM has since been out of the hardware business. There are a metric crap ton of companies one can point to as an example of adapt (meaning outsourcing in many cases) or die. Walk through a Walmart and look at the products. They all represent products once made by US companies that are now out of business.

It's just going to get worse. US companies that npw outsource are having their tech and other know-how swiped by the (foreign) home country (e.g., China). At least our companies make some money on outsourcing. Once the foreign countries obtain the ability to make the products our companies will be booted out and the foreigners will take the whole 'pie'. It won't be a Chrysler half made in China, we'll driving Hyundai's 100% made in China.

I don't what the answer is, but sitting around bitching about the past isn't going to help, global economics are very dynamic. I sometimes think business, like the military, is always fighting the last war. I.e., we better not be trying to rebuild the Maginot Line when we should be preparing for the newest form of Blitzkrieg.

Fern

I largely agree, but having dropped our technology transfer barriers, dropped our import tariffs, and accustomed our citizens to cheap foreign imports we have to do something or find the US obsolete. We are pretty much the most expensive place to do business on a large scale, and our core science and math curricula is shamefully behind. We are badly losing the global competition, and I see nothing on the horizon that changes that. If we return to even steeper import tariffs, at the least we'll gain some time to figure out a way forward.

 

[Jhhnn]

We are pretty much the most expensive place to do business on a large scale

Patently false-

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2014-01-21/best-countries-for-business-2014.html

 

[Matt1970]

Tariffs help build a manufacturing base because it prices out foreign competition. There are 300 million Americans. That is a pretty huge market. If the countries that produce the goods we consume were to stop exporting them to us tomorrow, the manufacturers here in the US would pick up billions of dollars worth of contracts almost overnight.

Unfortunately, the free trade agreements exist and aren't just going to go away overnight, and even if they did, the US (along with the UK) decided back in the 1980s that the best way to up shareholder profits was to sell off the manufacturing base by shuttering factories and laying off workers. i.e. we decided to sell off as much of our industry as possible to increase dividends, and the free trade agreements made it permanent.

There is nothing stopping US manufacturers from producing goods. It just isn't as profitable to the shareholders, which means that the executives aren't going to do it, because they are there to increase profits to benefit their own incomes that come through stock options.

It isn't about fighting the last war. It's about looking at what is and isn't working.

I was with ya till this point.

Enact a 30 hour full-time workweek, with a bump in wages/salaries so that people make the same that they make now at 40 hours. You acutally provide Americans with wages/salaries that are more inline with productivity, you create a massive jobs program since employers will be hiring people to make up for the -10 hours per current employee, and of course you're giving Americans a much better quality of life since they are working less. Which also stimulates innovation as many people have great ideas for businesses but are stuck in 40 hour a week jobs. Give 'em the same $ and give them 10 more hours of freetime, and you'll see more small business startups, since the $ will still be there.

Technology is only a problem for luddites who are afraid of technology, and for capitalists who feel that labor should feel grateful they aren't starving in a gutter somewhere. When technology and automation was coming online, it was touted as something to make everyone's life better through higher productivity and more freetime.

Well, the productivity came, but the better pay/more free time never did. Who benefited from that? Not labor. Instead, labor is earning basically the same amount it was 30 years ago, even though it produces much more.

That's the disconnect. It's the reason why inequality has risen over the past 30 years, and it's the reason why it's becoming a common issue of discussion.

Enacting a 30 hour workweek on top of a jump in pay will only drive costs up.

 

[boomerang]

Reading some of the posts in this thread, while they gave me some hearty laughs this morning, really highlights the severe shortcomings of our educational system. Garbage in garbage out is in play with brains too.

I posed this question with no answer in another thread. Can wealth be created or can it only be divided? Our educational system teaches that it can only be divided. One really can't blame the students of this process. The problem comes when those students start calling the shots. 724 more days with no guarantee we won't end up with another lunkhead in the White House that got taught the same things as the current lunkhead.

Living within our means, borrowing wisely and leveraging wisely would go a long ways towards bringing the nation closer to solvency. You'd think the Hope and Change crowd would actually embrace some change. But sadly, they've been taught that wealth can only be divided and are on a misguided quest to take from others that which they have earned to distribute it to others who haven't. A short term fix that is not even remotely a solution. But that's what they've been taught.

We have a problem. We can skirt around the root cause of the problem or we can get to the core of it and correct it on as permanent a basis as is attainable in this fluid world we live in. We have to be bold enough to teach our children how the real world works and how to work within it not that the deck is stacked against them and that jealousy and greed are the cornerstones of how to deal with it.

 

[glenn1]

Reading some of the posts in this thread, while they gave me some hearty laughs this morning, really highlights the severe shortcomings of our educational system. Garbage in garbage out is in play with brains too.

I posed this question with no answer in another thread. Can wealth be created or can it only be divided? Our educational system teaches that it can only be divided. One really can't blame the students of this process. The problem comes when those students start calling the shots. 724 more days with no guarantee we won't end up with another lunkhead in the White House that got taught the same things as the current lunkhead.

Living within our means, borrowing wisely and leveraging wisely would go a long ways towards bringing the nation closer to solvency. You'd think the Hope and Change crowd would actually embrace some change. But sadly, they've been taught that wealth can only be divided and are on a misguided quest to take from others that which they have earned to distribute it to others who haven't. A short term fix that is not even remotely a solution. But that's what they've been taught.

We have a problem. We can skirt around the root cause of the problem or we can get to the core of it and correct it on as permanent a basis as is attainable in this fluid world we live in. We have to be bold enough to teach our children how the real world works and how to work within it not that the deck is stacked against them and that jealousy and greed are the cornerstones of how to deal with it.

When a billionaire says it, he gets widely panned by the usual suspects on the left.

When a millionaire president of their own tribe says it they applaud. See Carter's "Malaise speech" and more recently gems like this from Obama.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,”

 

[realibrad]

Tariffs help build a manufacturing base because it prices out foreign competition. There are 300 million Americans. That is a pretty huge market. If the countries that produce the goods we consume were to stop exporting them to us tomorrow, the manufacturers here in the US would pick up billions of dollars worth of contracts almost overnight.

Unfortunately, the free trade agreements exist and aren't just going to go away overnight, and even if they did, the US (along with the UK) decided back in the 1980s that the best way to up shareholder profits was to sell off the manufacturing base by shuttering factories and laying off workers. i.e. we decided to sell off as much of our industry as possible to increase dividends, and the free trade agreements made it permanent.

There is nothing stopping US manufacturers from producing goods. It just isn't as profitable to the shareholders, which means that the executives aren't going to do it, because they are there to increase profits to benefit their own incomes that come through stock options.

It isn't about fighting the last war. It's about looking at what is and isn't working.

Enact a 30 hour full-time workweek, with a bump in wages/salaries so that people make the same that they make now at 40 hours. You acutally provide Americans with wages/salaries that are more inline with productivity, you create a massive jobs program since employers will be hiring people to make up for the -10 hours per current employee, and of course you're giving Americans a much better quality of life since they are working less. Which also stimulates innovation as many people have great ideas for businesses but are stuck in 40 hour a week jobs. Give 'em the same $ and give them 10 more hours of freetime, and you'll see more small business startups, since the $ will still be there.

Technology is only a problem for luddites who are afraid of technology, and for capitalists who feel that labor should feel grateful they aren't starving in a gutter somewhere. When technology and automation was coming online, it was touted as something to make everyone's life better through higher productivity and more freetime.

Well, the productivity came, but the better pay/more free time never did. Who benefited from that? Not labor. Instead, labor is earning basically the same amount it was 30 years ago, even though it produces much more.

That's the disconnect. It's the reason why inequality has risen over the past 30 years, and it's the reason why it's becoming a common issue of discussion.

Its always sad that people assume that foreign goods/services are at a lower price because of lower wages. Toyota does not make a cheaper car than GM because it uses slave labor. Toyota makes a cheaper car because they are better at making cheaper cars.

If you believe technology is a good thing, then you should not be for tariffs.

I'm not going to explain the last one, because I want to see if anyone can figure out my logic there.

 

[fskimospy]

Reading some of the posts in this thread, while they gave me some hearty laughs this morning, really highlights the severe shortcomings of our educational system. Garbage in garbage out is in play with brains too.

I posed this question with no answer in another thread. Can wealth be created or can it only be divided? Our educational system teaches that it can only be divided. One really can't blame the students of this process. The problem comes when those students start calling the shots. 724 more days with no guarantee we won't end up with another lunkhead in the White House that got taught the same things as the current lunkhead.

Living within our means, borrowing wisely and leveraging wisely would go a long ways towards bringing the nation closer to solvency. You'd think the Hope and Change crowd would actually embrace some change. But sadly, they've been taught that wealth can only be divided and are on a misguided quest to take from others that which they have earned to distribute it to others who haven't. A short term fix that is not even remotely a solution. But that's what they've been taught.

We have a problem. We can skirt around the root cause of the problem or we can get to the core of it and correct it on as permanent a basis as is attainable in this fluid world we live in. We have to be bold enough to teach our children how the real world works and how to work within it not that the deck is stacked against them and that jealousy and greed are the cornerstones of how to deal with it.

This post seems to highlight the shortcomings of our media and mental health systems.

How insane do you have to be to think that schools teach kids that wealth can only be distributed and not created? What kind of weird bubble do you live in where someone told you that?

 

[realibrad]

This post seems to highlight the shortcomings of our media and mental health systems.

How insane do you have to be to think that schools teach kids that wealth can only be distributed and not created? What kind of weird bubble do you live in where someone told you that?

I don't think its true that schools don't teach wealth creation, it is a common belief that I see. Many seem to think that wealth is taken from others, and anyone who is super wealthy only got that way by stealing. You can find that idea many times on this thread.

So, if schools are teaching that wealth can be created, it is troubling that people still don't believe it.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think its true that schools don't teach wealth creation, it is a common belief that I see. Many seem to think that wealth is taken from others, and anyone who is super wealthy only got that way by stealing. You can find that idea many times on this thread.

So, if schools are teaching that wealth can be created, it is troubling that people still don't believe it.

Who do you think holds the view that anyone who is very wealthy got that way through theft and what posts here do you think say that?

 

[realibrad]

Who do you think holds the view that anyone who is very wealthy got that way through theft and what posts here do you think say that?

The most clear example is post 54

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

There are more examples, but less direct.

Or we can just return taxation and regulation back to pre-Reagan days. I pick that, but you can indulge in your strawman if you want to. It's the "let them eat cake" crowd that took the fruits of other's labor for their own opulence and ignored inequality that got themselves guillotined. Can't say I am sympathetic to their ilk. They had ample warnings.

That one is pretty scary.

 

[fskimospy]

The most clear example is post 54

There are more examples, but less direct.

I'll give you that one! I would say that's a pretty fringe opinion though and I bet even if you asked that guy if he thought wealth couldn't be created he would probably say no.

All I can say is that I've never met a single person in my whole life who believes wealth cannot be created. I'm sure there's one out there, but it's mighty rare. If boomerang actually thinks our schools teach it or that substantial people believe such a thing, he's nuts. Or more likely, consumes so much right wing media that they have convinced him of things that are obviously false.

That one is pretty scary.

It's also reasonably correct. Huge inequality can lead to social unrest.

 

[realibrad]

I'll give you that one! I would say that's a pretty fringe opinion though and I bet even if you asked that guy if he thought wealth couldn't be created he would probably say no.

All I can say is that I've never met a single person in my whole life who believes wealth cannot be created. I'm sure there's one out there, but it's mighty rare. If boomerang actually thinks our schools teach it or that substantial people believe such a thing, he's nuts. Or more likely, consumes so much right wing media that they have convinced him of things that are obviously false.



It's also reasonably correct. Huge inequality can lead to social unrest.

Inequality leads to social unrest, because, the people believe that it got that way because of the idea that the wealth was stolen.

I come from CA, and I might not have a good sample, but in my experience the idea is not uncommon, but common. Many consider wealth something in excess. They don't see their cell phone, or car, or trips out to dinner, or makeup ect as wealth. The word wealth has lost its meaning in culture.