Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[fskimospy]

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

You can't make that sort of logical leap. When inequality gets past a certain point there is a perception that people have been enriched unjustly, yes. (by the way, this is nearly always correct) That in no way means that people believe all wealth is 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.

I mean I lived in CA for almost ten years and I never once heard someone think of wealth as something that was fundamentally in excess, nor did I ever hear someone say that they believed wealth was only gotten through theft.

Like zero times ever. I think you may be reading into what people are saying a little too much.

 

[glenn1]

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

It doesn't help that class warriors feed resentment of the wealthy and the idea they have an "unfair" share. Many have been convinced they do not have an opportunity to create wealth and their only aspiration is to knock the rich down a peg rather than build something of value themselves.

 

[realibrad]

You can't make that sort of logical leap. When inequality gets past a certain point there is a perception that people have been enriched unjustly, yes. (by the way, this is nearly always correct) That in no way means that people believe all wealth is stolen.



I mean I lived in CA for almost ten years and I never once heard someone think of wealth as something that was fundamentally in excess, nor did I ever hear someone say that they believed wealth was only gotten through theft.

Like zero times ever. I think you may be reading into what people are saying a little too much.

When I say stolen, I don't mean it in the way I think you are taking it. Stolen as in diverting it from 1 person to another. A rich person got rich because they usurped might be a better way of putting it.

As for what is wealth and how people see it. Do you have wealth, and are you wealthy? I think you would agree that you have wealth, but I would bet you don't consider yourself wealthy. I don't know how much you make, and what your life is like, but I think you understand the point.

People don't see thinks like a cell phone as a form of wealth, when everyone has a cell phone too.

 

[trenchfoot]

I have no problem with folks having wealth per se. What I do have a problem with is what these wealthy folks do with that wealth, specifically in their way of corrupting our politicians and propagandizing the voting public expressly for gaining even more wealth and influence beyond their wildest dreams.

Any further wealth they gain from such despicable behavior is, in my mind, tainted, unbelievably greed-driven and morally criminal. Yet, it's these very kinds of folks we elect as our leaders.

Go figure.

 

[glenn1]

I have no problem with folks having wealth per se. What I do have a problem with is what these wealthy folks do with that wealth, specifically in their way of corrupting our politicians and propagandizing the voting public expressly for gaining even more wealth and influence beyond their wildest dreams.

Any further wealth they gain from such despicable behavior is, in my mind, tainted, unbelievably greed-driven and morally criminal. Yet, it's these very kinds of folks we elect as our leaders.

Go figure.

The left wants both Santa Claus government and to completely control how the loot gets passed out. And yet the proles get angry at a handful of guys who made fortunes in the market and completely ignore the people who would put themselves in charge of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money annually. To me the people who are seeking unquestioned and unchallenged control of the government payout machine are infinitely more dangerous than the Bill Gates types out there.

 

[realibrad]

I have no problem with folks having wealth per se. What I do have a problem with is what these wealthy folks do with that wealth, specifically in their way of corrupting our politicians and propagandizing the voting public expressly for gaining even more wealth and influence beyond their wildest dreams.

Any further wealth they gain from such despicable behavior is, in my mind, tainted, unbelievably greed-driven and morally criminal. Yet, it's these very kinds of folks we elect as our leaders.

Go figure.

seems to me the problem in what your situation, is that the government is being used as a tool by the wealthy. So, would it be a solution to make the government less of a tool? How do you stop corruption among those who have the power?

In my view, you could do that my making the government less powerful in the economy. Let the only way to get wealthy be if consumers want a product.

 

[desy]

Or you could get lobbyists out of the political system and wasteful elections spending and campaigning. The elected officials could spend time governing instead of fundraising

 

[realibrad]

Or you could get lobbyists out of the political system and wasteful elections spending and campaigning. The elected officials could spend time governing instead of fundraising

So, what you want to do get the bad people out, and leave the good people.

How would you do that?

 

[glenn1]

Or you could get lobbyists out of the political system and wasteful elections spending and campaigning. The elected officials could spend time governing instead of fundraising

Yeah, because that would surely cause the politicians to refocus their energies exclusively on the poor and direct those trillions of taxpayer dollars towards them. Because that's the defining trait of most congress critters - bottomless empathy and completely selfless generosity towards the downtrodden. I bet they'll even start donating their salaries to charities once freed from the shackles of those dastardly "lobbyists."

 

[desy]

Shorten the election cycles, get rid of superpacks, remove lobbyists access to politicians. Real limits to campaign financing and alternative funding methods
There are many things to be done.
I didn't say it would make better politicians but it can go a long way to shortening the leash on corruption

 

[realibrad]

Shorten the election cycles, get rid of superpacks, remove lobbyists access to politicians. Real limits to campaign financing and alternative funding methods
There are many things to be done.
I didn't say it would make better politicians but it can go a long way to shortening the leash on corruption

How does any of that remove the incentive for those who have money to use government?

Currently, those with money use lobbyists to do their bidding by proxy. All you will do is make it slightly more complicated. Campaign financing will again do little, because they will find other way to pay off politicians. Shorten election cycles, and all you do is make informal non official election pandering.

 

[Matt1970]

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?

Different thread, but look what happens when all I ask is "What makes you think you are entitled to the money other people earned?"

What makes you think they earned it? Does a poker player who stacks the deck earn his winnings? How about a lottery employee who rigs a game and collects a winning ticket? A financial adviser who skims money from customer accounts illegally? How about if that same adviser buys influence to get a law making his skimming legal? Does he then earn what he skims?

Does a mob boss earn the money he gains by controlling his territory? How about a monopolist who controls his market through financial power rather than physical coercion? How about cartel members who conspire together to control markets? Do they earn their profits? How about anyone who uses wealth or power to distort the market in their favor?

The problem is "earn" is an ambiguous word. It covers a whole spectrum of activities, from outright theft on one extreme to gaining the fruits of one's own labors in a free and open market at the other extreme. Most people have no trouble with wealth that is truly earned. The issue is wealth that comes from gaming the system or distorting the market. The wealthy's apologists ignore that issue, apparently presuming that mere possession of wealth is proof it was earned. That is an extremely naive view, at best.

 

[werepossum]

Patently false-

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

Given that America has more businesses failing than being started, I'd say Bloomberg's scoring is caca.

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.

I'd say Toyota is better than GM at making good cars. When GM was cutting quality to the bone, Toyota was building better cars. But that's an aberration; most products are off-shored for lower cost of production.

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.

Agreed. That's a good point and a view oft expressed here. I've even heard it expressed by some who vote far right for social issues. (There's a real winner of a voter, a man convinced that everyone who has more money got it illicitly but votes GOP because he hates gays.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Different thread, but look what happens when all I ask is "What makes you think you are entitled to the money other people earned?"

You sniveling cretin. My point, which you continue to weasel away from, was the mere existence of wealth does not prove it was earned legitimately. Much wealth certainly is earned fair and square, but in today's highly corrupted system, there is also much wealth that's not. You are too ideologically blinded to even acknowledge that issue, let alone address it honestly or intelligently. Instead, you dodged and diverted and distracted, because honestly thinking for yourself was just too darn hard. Fail.

 

[realibrad]

You sniveling cretin. My point, which you continue to weasel away from, was the mere existence of wealth does not prove it was earned legitimately. Much wealth certainly is earned fair and square, but in today's highly corrupted system, there is also much wealth that's not. You are too ideologically blinded to even acknowledge that issue, let alone address it honestly or intelligently. Instead, you dodged and diverted and distracted, because honestly thinking for yourself was just too darn hard. Fail.

To be fair, how can you assume the wealth could not have been earned? Perhaps I have missed it, but you seem to be saying that its not possible to get that much wealth. How do you know this, because you said so.

Is there a demonstrable way to show how you got to your view?

 

[Bowfinger]

To be fair, how can you assume the wealth could not have been earned? Perhaps I have missed it, but you seem to be saying that its not possible to get that much wealth. How do you know this, because you said so.

Is there a demonstrable way to show how you got to your view?

I'm not saying that at all. Almost everyone acknowledges the current system has become corrupted by the power of deep pockets. This includes not just corrupting government, but also corrupting the mythical free market. Is so, it is axiomatic that some portion of wealth is a product of that corruption. Not all wealth, as I've said repeatedly, but some.

Do you disagree the current system has been corrupted? If not, how can we pretend that this corruption has no consequences?

 

[realibrad]

I'm not saying that at all. Almost everyone acknowledges the current system has become corrupted by the power of deep pockets. This includes not just corrupting government, but also corrupting the mythical free market. Is so, it is axiomatic that some portion of wealth is a product of that corruption. Not all wealth, as I've said repeatedly, but some.

Do you disagree the current system has been corrupted? If not, how can we pretend that this corruption has no consequences?

There was a time that everyone agreed that illness was created by sin. The argument that everyone knows X is a crappy argument, and from your previous posts, you can do better.

I will agree that government has been corrupted. Insider trading is not illegal, because those who make the rules said they don't apply to congress.

As for the corruption of the "free market", explain that more. Because it sure seems like the market is being manipulated by the corrupted government. But, I may not understand what you meant.

As for the "system" that has been corrupted, I'm not sure in what context you are using the word. If you mean the system of free exchange, then yes, because of the corrupted government. If you mean the free market, then no.

The last question is not really worth getting into, as its built off of an assumed answer to previous questions you asked, and would have little value if we did not answer those first.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given that America has more businesses failing than being started, I'd say Bloomberg's scoring is caca.

As if mere repetition is argument. How many businesses fail every time they build a new Walmart?

 

[realibrad]

As if mere repetition is argument. How many businesses fail every time they build a new Walmart?

How many midwives were lost when condoms became popular?

Seems just as relevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Different thread, but look what happens when all I ask is "What makes you think you are entitled to the money other people earned?"

What he said seems to be self-evidently true to me, that not all wealth is earned. I mean who would argue otherwise?

There are all sorts of gotcha questions like that, by the way. For example: what makes you think you have the right to declare yourself the exclusive owner of a piece of land or property? That you bought it from someone else? Who did it to begin with and what right did they have? None, of course.

The idea that the government has a right to some of your earnings is based in the same thing that the idea that we have a right to exclude people from property is based in: nothing. We do it because it works.

 

[realibrad]

...

The idea that the government has a right to some of your earnings is based in the same thing that the idea that we have a right to exclude people from property is based in: nothing. We do it because it works.

So is the reason that its based on what we have found to work best? Its not an arbitrary system, if the system is the most useful of all systems.

 

[fskimospy]

So is the reason that its based on what we have found to work best? Its not an arbitrary system, if the system is the most useful of all systems.

I agree! What I meant was that neither had a basis in some sort of higher moral code or whatever.

 

[Rebel_L]

So is the reason that its based on what we have found to work best? Its not an arbitrary system, if the system is the most useful of all systems.

To give an answer to your question "What makes you think you are entitled to the money other people earned?"

The system is a community system, it is about working together for the benefit of all. Without some sort of system of interaction in place we would all be doing worse. The economic system could have some changes and a different set of people would emerge as the wealthy ones. The system will always favor some over other for no reason other than that is how the system works.

In the end the community and cooperation trumps all individual effort as it is the foundation of the system. No matter how brilliant you are at business without the market itself you would not succeed. As such there is inherent value in anyone part of the system and in adding as many people as possible to the system. With no moral backing behind who the system favors or harms there needs to be some redistribution of wealth from those the system favors to those it doesn't in order to keep the community and cooperation in tact.

 

[realibrad]

To give an answer to your question "What makes you think you are entitled to the money other people earned?"

The system is a community system, it is about working together for the benefit of all. Without some sort of system of interaction in place we would all be doing worse. The economic system could have some changes and a different set of people would emerge as the wealthy ones. The system will always favor some over other for no reason other than that is how the system works.

In the end the community and cooperation trumps all individual effort as it is the foundation of the system. No matter how brilliant you are at business without the market itself you would not succeed. As such there is inherent value in anyone part of the system and in adding as many people as possible to the system. With no moral backing behind who the system favors or harms there needs to be some redistribution of wealth from those the system favors to those it doesn't in order to keep the community and cooperation in tact.

I don't know of a way to put this that wont sound rude, but you don't understand economics. If you think wealth distribution is random as described by the system chosen, then you should research more.

Spy was saying that he did not run into the idea that the rich got their wealth through other means than being productive, but it keeps coming up again and again. You are saying that wealth is distributed as lottery in a random system.

Capitalism and free trade give wealth to those who engage in increasing utility of those around them. Wealth is created and is not a zero sum game. The reason some people get rich in capitalism, is because they earned it by giving people things they wanted.

 

[RickBean]

Guys, Live More Modestly!
>In December, Greene paid $24 million for the oceanfront mansion La Bellucia in Palm Beach
>Guys, Live More Modestly!
Wtf? Why man which live better than at least half of Americans, now teaching people how to live their life?