Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[realibrad]

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?

Can you believe some people tell others not to eat cake, but then eat cake themselves? "Oh, you should not eat cake, you have diabetes", so I am all like, "frig you".

Just because someone makes less money, does not mean they should live inside of their means. This billionaire is a total jack bag. He should be telling people to spend more money, and get into more debt. He is such a mean guy.

 

[boomerang]

Wtf? Why man which live better than at least half of Americans, now teaching people how to live their life?

You have a choice. You can choose not to listen to him.

Just a little something to ponder. I'm betting he doesn't post here. Is there a correlation? That's for you to decide.

 

[trenchfoot]

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?

Attitude. It's the attitude one gets from living in the top branches of the tree looking down at all the others.

I can't recall to credit the person who mentioned it, but it went something like "All the monkeys who live in the top of the tree look down and see the smiling admiring faces looking back up at them. All the monkeys living in the lower branches of the tree look up at the monkeys at the top and all they see is a bunch of assholes."

 

[glenn1]

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.

So the leftist solution to a rich guy not "earning" his wealth is to take it away from him; in order to give it to a poor guy who didn't earn it either.

 

[Bowfinger]

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 wasn't making an argument. I was laying a foundation, starting with a premise most people would accept as self evident. Barely a week goes by without some new business scandal. You will note, however, that I explicitly asked if you accept this premise. You didn't actually answer, as seen above.

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.

Which gets oh so close to recognizing one of my points, but doesn't quite get there. Congress writes laws for itself to legalize illegitimate behavior. Do you not also recognize the countless examples of legislation and agency rules, written at the behest of the powerful, to legalize their illegitimate behavior? To offer only one example, consider the former laws and regulations that would have prevented, or at least somewhat mitigated, the 2008 financial melt down. Do you not recognize the role powerful private interests played in removing those shackles?

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 myth of the free market is far too involved for this thread. It deserves a thread of its own, and even that will be superficial. There are literally volumes written about it. I don't have the time or the depth of expertise to recreate them.

I'll offer a couple of brief points, however. The utopian free market requires all parties to have perfect knowledge and to act rationally. Unfortunately, knowledge is power and is therefore often zealously guarded, and we all know human beings are often irrational. We will therefore never have a truly free market.

I also recognize the right wing dogma that government is why we don't have free markets, but that's a specious view. Government certainly corrupts the market, but it also protects it. Without government checks and balances, the market would be completely controlled by an ever-shrinking cartel of the uber wealthy. Not coincidentally, that is what we are seeing today. The government's role in capitalism is restraining harmful excess and protecting the many from the malfeasance of the few. Our government is increasingly failing that role.

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.

So, again, do you disagree that the system today has been corrupted by a relatively small number of rich and powerful, that they stack the deck in their favor?

 

[Bowfinger]

So the leftist solution to a rich guy not "earning" his wealth is to take it away from him; in order to give it to a poor guy who didn't earn it either.

Yawn. I wish I could control the straw market. I'd be rich beyond belief.

 

[bshole]

So the leftist solution to a rich guy not "earning" his wealth is to take it away from him; in order to give it to a poor guy who didn't earn it either.

The leftist solution is to have the rich guy contribute much more in the form of taxes in order to give those in the middle class a little tax relief. The middle class is dying a death by a thousand cuts and is in danger of collapse..... the monied class has NEVER been better in the history of America better even than when it was in the throes of unfettered capitalist exploitation in the early 1900s. They can give it up willingly or at the point of the gun, at this point those of us on the lower rungs no longer give a fuck....

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The leftist solution is to have the rich guy contribute much more in the form of taxes in order to give those in the middle class a little tax relief.

Even if taxes are increased on the rich what makes you think anyone make over $60k a year will see any tax break. Once the politicians figure out how to spend the new resources there will be nothing left over for the average joe.

 

[piasabird]

He worked as a busboy and waiter to get through college.

 

[piasabird]

People that are rich can relocate.

If you want to hate this guy because he is telling the truth go right ahead. It will not change things.

You think you have it bad?

http://news.yahoo.com/africas-quiet...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTkxMV8x

Over the weekend I read this article about solar power in India and Africa is really growing. The poor who live in many locations where there is no power were spending about $18 a month on kerosene to keep a light on at night. A solar company started delivering and hiring locals to install solar power installations in people's homes where they have no power at all. The price was $6 a month for 3 led lights and a transistor radio. Not much in the way of power, but they saved money on kerosene and they did not have the messy fumes to deal with or the smell.

http://tinyhouseblog.com/

Maybe downsizing has some advantages? Lower Property value, lower taxes, Lower utility costs.

Well maybe not as small a house as Tiny. More like a small cottage.

 

[piasabird]

I cant really every remember receiving a benefit from a tax increase??? Have you?

 

[Rebel_L]

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.

Oddly enough I think the same about you. You seem to have this incredibly narrow view of how a part of a system functions while having lost the ability to zoom out and look at the big picture.

Nowhere did I say the wealth is distributed as a lottery, I said the system moves the wealth towards certain people. In our current system it moves most of the wealth towards those that have resources and are willing to risk them for the creation of more stuff that hopefully someone wants. Something like the patent/copyright system are in place to help some wealth go to the idea people. Minimum wages for instance are there to help ensure some wealth goes to the cogs that make things happen. You can even get a tiny bit of wealth at times by taking the time to let people know what kind of stuff you want (think focus groups).

Wealth at its core is having stuff other people want. In a vacuum bubble by yourself you can create zero wealth. Every person in our society contributes to the creation of wealth... even the homeless guy who wants a meal simply because he helps create a demand for an item.

So if everyone is involved in the creation of the current wealth how do we decide to split the wealth between us? Do we say that you should be rewarded by how much stuff you create?, how much you contribute to society?, and how do we measure that? Should people who put in the same effort be rewarded similarly regardless of results? Do we believe that being born into a situation with more resources to start with makes you more valuable to society or should the effort that people put in be something that should be rewarded? What kind of things do we value as a society and how can we move ourselves as a whole towards those values? Take for instance the value of personal rights and freedoms, in a way those are in direct opposition to the unequal accumulation of wealth as wealth is a form of control over others.

The question of what to do with the wealth that society creates is one that deserves careful and constant consideration. For me personally I hope that someday we as a society reach a state where the concept of wealth, in relation to things/possessions, will be an outdated concept.

 

[boomerang]

Maybe downsizing has some advantages? Lower Property value, lower taxes, Lower utility costs.

Perhaps, but what are the consequences that perhaps are not immediately realized? Reduced revenue from gas taxes comes to mind. Under the scenario you present, there are a ton more negative consequences. Now, if we want to change the system to one where those that sire children pay to educate those children, then one of those consequences is rendered moot.

 

[BoberFett]

even the homeless guy who wants a meal simply because he helps create a demand for an item.

Fail. Demand is not wealth. Supply is wealth. Wealth is created based on demand, but the demand itself is not the wealth.

 

[fskimospy]

Fail. Demand is not wealth. Supply is wealth. Wealth is created based on demand, but the demand itself is not the wealth.

Supply isn't really wealth either, as it only has value due to demand. I think wealth requires both.

 

[realibrad]

I wasn't making an argument. I was laying a foundation, starting with a premise most people would accept as self evident. Barely a week goes by without some new business scandal. You will note, however, that I explicitly asked if you accept this premise. You didn't actually answer, as seen above.

I did, but implicitly. I don't think all current wealth has been earned, and I do agree that some has been unjustly taken.

Which gets oh so close to recognizing one of my points, but doesn't quite get there. Congress writes laws for itself to legalize illegitimate behavior. Do you not also recognize the countless examples of legislation and agency rules, written at the behest of the powerful, to legalize their illegitimate behavior?

I do agree on this, which is why I said I did, and gave an example of such activity, so...

To offer only one example, consider the former laws and regulations that would have prevented, or at least somewhat mitigated, the 2008 financial melt down. Do you not recognize the role powerful private interests played in removing those shackles?

So this is wrong, as exampled by previous issues such as the S&L trouble. The "Laws" you are referring to were in place then, and seemed to do very little. Its a fun discussion to be had, so feel free to PM me, as its a very long complex issue that I dont think needs to be had on this topic. I do agree with your premise though, which is why I said that the government is corrupted, so I think we can move on.

The utopian free market requires all parties to have perfect knowledge and to act rationally.

You said a lot more there, but I think this is the main point of that part. It is also wrong. Milton Friedman put it best when he said people can act as if...
The point being that its not true that people "need" all information. In fact, its never possible to have ALL information. Being human means limited capabilities. That may seem like semantics, but truly its not. Nobody on either side has all the information, and they don't need it. The Free Market is very real, so long as you understand what Free Market means.

The Free Market is actors making choices to the best of their abilities, to maximize beneficial outcomes. As there is an opportunity to knowledge, and it may not be beneficial to have all knowledge if the cost is too high.

Without government checks and balances, the market would be completely controlled by an ever-shrinking cartel of the uber wealthy.

Tis true, just not likely to the extent you think it is. Find me 2 monopolies that exist in the world, that do not depend on government(s) to remain in power.

So, again, do you disagree that the system today has been corrupted by a relatively small number of rich and powerful, that they stack the deck in their favor?

Again, you need to define system. Are you talking about the government system? The economic system?

The economic system of Capitalism only says that when people are allowed to choose in their own self interests, that you will get outcomes better than any other system. Its not perfect, and it can be broken, but the underlying system is fine. The problem comes about when people and or governments meddle. You don't need to fix Capitalism, you need to fix those things which are meddling in it.

 

[realibrad]

Oddly enough I think the same about you. You seem to have this incredibly narrow view of how a part of a system functions while having lost the ability to zoom out and look at the big picture.

Nowhere did I say the wealth is distributed as a lottery, I said the system moves the wealth towards certain people. In our current system it moves most of the wealth towards those that have resources and are willing to risk them for the creation of more stuff that hopefully someone wants. Something like the patent/copyright system are in place to help some wealth go to the idea people. Minimum wages for instance are there to help ensure some wealth goes to the cogs that make things happen. You can even get a tiny bit of wealth at times by taking the time to let people know what kind of stuff you want (think focus groups).

Wealth at its core is having stuff other people want. In a vacuum bubble by yourself you can create zero wealth. Every person in our society contributes to the creation of wealth... even the homeless guy who wants a meal simply because he helps create a demand for an item.

So if everyone is involved in the creation of the current wealth how do we decide to split the wealth between us? Do we say that you should be rewarded by how much stuff you create?, how much you contribute to society?, and how do we measure that? Should people who put in the same effort be rewarded similarly regardless of results? Do we believe that being born into a situation with more resources to start with makes you more valuable to society or should the effort that people put in be something that should be rewarded? What kind of things do we value as a society and how can we move ourselves as a whole towards those values? Take for instance the value of personal rights and freedoms, in a way those are in direct opposition to the unequal accumulation of wealth as wealth is a form of control over others.

The question of what to do with the wealth that society creates is one that deserves careful and constant consideration. For me personally I hope that someday we as a society reach a state where the concept of wealth, in relation to things/possessions, will be an outdated concept.

Narrow down your points man. There are like 20 different topics to address there. Its totally unfair to be so unorganized and expect an answer.

I will say this. The system you choose for compensation is the one that gives the best outcomes overall.

Do we believe that being born into a situation with more resources to start with makes you more valuable to society or should the effort that people put in be something that should be rewarded

So, is being born rich fair? Nope. If you are born rich, do you tend to do better? Yep. Should we pay people for effort? Nope.

The reason you pay people for outcomes, and not attempts is to create the best situation for society.

I'm going to give a batshit crazy example, to help illustrate my point. A guy who goes around killing Jews to rid the world of the Jewish problem is working hard. Should we pay him for his effort? Nope. Work is wasted if the outcome is useless. You want to incentivise people to do the best job they can, which is to say, produce the best product possible. Someone who works 3 hrs and produces 3 quantity of product x should not get paid as much as someone who works 3 hrs and produces 4 quantity of product x. You want the 2nd person to get paid more, as they are better at it. That is not arbitrary.

If you have people wasting time working on things that are unproductive, a lot of people will suffer.

So no, you don't understand the fundamentals of economics. What I just said is not a political statement. Spy and I are on different sides of many issues, but I would bet that he does not disagree with much of what I just said if any of it.

 

[bshole]

Supply isn't really wealth either, as it only has value due to demand. I think wealth requires both.

I think I agree with you Eski.

As an analogy:
1. there is a great DEMAND for wit on the this forum
2. Boberfett has zero SUPPLY
therefor
3. Boberfett has no WEALTH of wit.

OR
1. there is no DEMAND for wit on this forum
2. bhsole has an infinite SUPPLY
therefor
3. bshole has no WEALTH of wit

When I think of it in these terms, your point strikes me as competely sound and defensible.

 

[realibrad]

I think I agree with you Eski.

Blah Blah Blah stuff and what not

I was just talking to Spy about what it means to have wealth. Its actually very complex.

Ask a person who makes minimum wage are they wealthy, and they say no. Ask a person who is poor in Africa if that same person is wealthy, and they would say yes. Who is right? Answer, yes, but only on days I wont shower.

 

[werepossum]

How many midwives were lost when condoms became popular?

Seems just as relevant.

lol

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?

If you could get past your hate and envy, you'd see that this man is simply recognizing a situation that we all as a society have created.

Honestly, I don't see why people like you worship millionaires in Congress saying the same thing yet get so bent out of shape when a self-made billionaire says it.

Oddly enough I think the same about you. You seem to have this incredibly narrow view of how a part of a system functions while having lost the ability to zoom out and look at the big picture.

Nowhere did I say the wealth is distributed as a lottery, I said the system moves the wealth towards certain people. In our current system it moves most of the wealth towards those that have resources and are willing to risk them for the creation of more stuff that hopefully someone wants. Something like the patent/copyright system are in place to help some wealth go to the idea people. Minimum wages for instance are there to help ensure some wealth goes to the cogs that make things happen. You can even get a tiny bit of wealth at times by taking the time to let people know what kind of stuff you want (think focus groups).

Wealth at its core is having stuff other people want. In a vacuum bubble by yourself you can create zero wealth. Every person in our society contributes to the creation of wealth... even the homeless guy who wants a meal simply because he helps create a demand for an item.

So if everyone is involved in the creation of the current wealth how do we decide to split the wealth between us? Do we say that you should be rewarded by how much stuff you create?, how much you contribute to society?, and how do we measure that? Should people who put in the same effort be rewarded similarly regardless of results? Do we believe that being born into a situation with more resources to start with makes you more valuable to society or should the effort that people put in be something that should be rewarded? What kind of things do we value as a society and how can we move ourselves as a whole towards those values? Take for instance the value of personal rights and freedoms, in a way those are in direct opposition to the unequal accumulation of wealth as wealth is a form of control over others.

The question of what to do with the wealth that society creates is one that deserves careful and constant consideration. For me personally I hope that someday we as a society reach a state where the concept of wealth, in relation to things/possessions, will be an outdated concept.

Weird, sometimes I imagine you have an actual point hidden somewhere within all that fail . . .

 

[realibrad]

lol

I really am quite funny. Humble as F**K to boot.

 

[boomerang]

Honestly, I don't see why people like you worship millionaires in Congress saying the same thing yet get so bent out of shape when a self-made billionaire says it.

They like hearing their politicians lie. They feel arousal when someone like Elizabeth Warren who lives in a home valued at $2.4 million and whose net worth is estimated to be $14.5 million tells them she's looking out for them. She pushes their buttons very well and how she made her money is immaterial to them. She's a capitalist through and through that manipulates people by talking like she's a socialist. She's in it to further feather her nest just like the majority of those who seek political office.

Weak minds are swayed by mere words.

Edit: Hmm, that's interesting. I quoted werepossum, but it is attributed to you realibrad. I'll let you both share it and I too laughed at your condom comment. :thumbsup:

 

[realibrad]

They like hearing their politicians lie. They feel arousal when someone like Elizabeth Warren who lives in a home valued at $2.4 million and whose net worth is estimated to be $14.5 million tells them she's looking out for them. She pushes their buttons very well and how she made her money is immaterial to them. She's a capitalist through and through that manipulates people by talking like she's a socialist. She's in it to further feather her nest just like the majority of those who seek political office.

Weak minds are swayed by mere words.

Edit: Hmm, that's interesting. I quoted werepossum, but it is attributed to you realibrad. I'll let you both share it and I too laughed at your condom comment. :thumbsup:

You probably cut out the wrong part, so it gave it to me. Or maybe the system thought I was more awesomer than war, and figured I should get the credit.

 

[nickqt]

They like hearing their politicians lie. They feel arousal when someone like Elizabeth Warren who lives in a home valued at $2.4 million and whose net worth is estimated to be $14.5 million tells them she's looking out for them. She pushes their buttons very well and how she made her money is immaterial to them. She's a capitalist through and through that manipulates people by talking like she's a socialist. She's in it to further feather her nest just like the majority of those who seek political office.

Weak minds are swayed by mere words.

Edit: Hmm, that's interesting. I quoted werepossum, but it is attributed to you realibrad. I'll let you both share it and I too laughed at your condom comment. :thumbsup:

So, Warren's crime is being a class traitor.

It is possible for someone with wealth to come out in favor of helping the majority of people who aren't wealthy.

My buttons get pushed by people who make arguments for helping society, and not just themselves, whether its from the middle class guy saying it, or a wealthy woman saying it.

 

[Jhhnn]

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 entitles our financial elite to "earn" it in the fashion & amounts that they do? Granted leadership of the national economy & great power, are they not personally responsible, accountable, for how that power is used? Is their profit utterly more important than the millions of Americans who depend on their leadership?

In times past, it was perfectly legal to be a slaver, for example, or to charge incredible interest rates. Prior to New Deal regulation, a whole variety of financial flimflams were perfectly legal. Obviously, they've dreamed up new ones in the meanwhile.