Billionaire Tells Us We Need To Live More Modestly

[Rebel_L]

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.



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.

We seem be talking about something with rather different end goals in mind

What is the best or most desirable outcome of the economic system for a society?

My answer would be an increased standard of living for all participants, what is yours?

 

[Matt1970]

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.

Go home fool. You started foaming at the mouth when all I asked was why someone thought they had the right to something someone else earned. It's not my fault you showed everyone what you are truly made of. If you didn't believe the majority of wealthy people got it by ill gotten gains you wouldn't have even responded to my post. You are as pathetic as the day is long. The thread wasn't about ill-gotten gains, it was just about gains. YOU decided to make it about that and then if everyone doesn't follow your lead they are dodging or diverting.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

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

That's the straw you created. I didn't think fail could be stacked as high as you seem to be able to do.

 

[Bowfinger]

Go home fool. You started foaming at the mouth when all I asked was why someone thought they had the right to something someone else earned. It's not my fault you showed everyone what you are truly made of. If you didn't believe the majority of wealthy people got it by ill gotten gains you wouldn't have even responded to my post. You are as pathetic as the day is long. The thread wasn't about ill-gotten gains, it was just about gains. YOU decided to make it about that and then if everyone doesn't follow your lead they are dodging or diverting.

I asked you a simple question about your post, a question anyone with even an ounce of honest intelligence should be able to answer. Yet you could not. You failed because all you can do is parrot talking points. But, you had nothing, and are too full of yourself to just shut up and crawl away. So you did, in fact, dodge and duhvert, and generally make a fool of yourself. Again. As for the rest of your self-deluding babbling above, get help. Buh bye.

 

[Matt1970]

I asked you a simple question about your post, a question anyone with even an ounce of honest intelligence should be able to answer. Yet you could not. You failed because all you can do is parrot talking points. But, you had nothing, and are too full of yourself to just shut up and crawl away. So you did, in fact, dodge and duhvert, and generally make a fool of yourself. Again. As for the rest of your self-deluding babbling above, get help. Buh bye.

You don't get to set the direction and then claim everyone else not following is diverting. When you learn that, come back and have an honest debate. Until then, enjoy being the fool.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's the straw you created. I didn't think fail could be stacked as high as you seem to be able to do.

I said not a single word about giving anything to the poor. That is a dishonest straw man. I might have had you answered the question. We could then have had a productive discussion about the extent of the issue and potential ways to address it. We never got that far because you wussed out. You might have had to think for yourself and intelligently support your ideology. We all know that's not happening.

 

[Bowfinger]

You don't get to set the direction and then claim everyone else not following is diverting. When you learn that, come back and have an honest debate. Until then, enjoy being the fool.

I can do any damn thing I want. I challenged a point you made. That you choose to respond with duhversions is all on you.

 

[Matt1970]

I can do any damn thing I want. I challenged a point you made. That you choose to respond with duhversions is all on you.

You were the one who diverted. Go start your own thread about how you think the rich don't earn their money.

 

[Bowfinger]

You were the one who diverted.

Repeating the same lie over and over still doesn't make it true.

Go start your own thread about how you think the rich don't earn their money.

No, thank you. I'll just continue to challenge your talking points, if and as I feel like it. Your resulting buffoonery is an entertaining way to demonstrate how empty those points are.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[realibrad]

We seem be talking about something with rather different end goals in mind

What is the best or most desirable outcome of the economic system for a society?

My answer would be an increased standard of living for all participants, what is yours?

A system that pays for outcomes. Focusing on standard of living is putting the cart before the horse here.

If you look at a base standard of living, you would have the incentive to take from the top to give to the bottom. It would hold back progress, and the bottom would get stuck at your base minimum. If you have a system that pays for outcomes, then the bottom gets things to improve their life at cheaper costs.

Its far more complex than that, and I am going to be busy today at work, so feel free to PM me if you want a better description.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

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.

Everyone wants to shoot the messenger, instead of analyzing the message.

Shouting hypocrite does not progress the discussion.

I have seen surveys where a shocking number of respondents said they will have to work until they die. A bed of their own making. E.G. I personally know people that live at the edge of, or beyond, their income, month after month. Even if real wages were not stagnant, they would just spend it i.e. make more, spend more.

Early in the thread there was a comment about how hard it is not to keep up with the Jones'. Why is it hard? That insecure about who you are, your worth as a person? How others perceive you? Fear of being ostracized? Afraid they are having more fun than you? Or is it driven by a need to compete in some sense? I honestly do not know what would make it hard. Other than perhaps, that it is likely driven by the same impulses that drive all addictive behavior.

The man is correct. Because beyond a certain income to cost of living ratio, what you do with your money, is one of the most important deciding factors in what your future financial security will be like. Live modestly, save and invest the extra, and life stops being hard.

Keep racking up bills that put a lean on future earnings or prevent you from saving and investing, and it is no ones fault but your own if you are forced to work well into retirement years. Or if you suffer catastrophic financial hardship should your revenue stream fail for any reason and length of time.

That a man living a life kings of the past would envy, told you to do it, should not be at issue. That what you are being told is sound financial advice is what the take away should be.

 

[realibrad]

Everyone wants to shoot the messenger, instead of analyzing the message.

Shouting hypocrite does not progress the discussion.

I have seen surveys where a shocking number of respondents said they will have to work until they die. A bed of their own making. E.G. I personally know people that live at the edge of, or beyond, their income, month after month. Even if real wages were not stagnant, they would just spend it i.e. make more, spend more.

Early in the thread there was a comment about how hard it is not to keep up with the Jones'. Why is it hard? That insecure about who you are, your worth as a person? How others perceive you? Fear of being ostracized? Afraid they are having more fun than you? Or is it driven by a need to compete in some sense? I honestly do not know what would make it hard. Other than perhaps, that it is likely driven by the same impulses that drive all addictive behavior.

The man is correct. Because beyond a certain income to cost of living ratio, what you do with your money, is one of the most important deciding factors in what your future financial security will be like. Live modestly, save and invest the extra, and life stops being hard.

Keep racking up bills that put a lean on future earnings or prevent you from saving and investing, and it is no ones fault but your own if you are forced to work well into retirement years. Or if you suffer catastrophic financial hardship should your revenue stream fail for any reason and length of time.

That a man living a life kings of the past would envy, told you to do it, should not be at issue. That what you are being told is sound financial advice is what the take away should be.

For me, I don't think anyone should talk about a subject, unless they have first had experience about the subject. This is why when I need to get a broken bone fixed, the Dr needs to have broken his arm, or else his opinion is invalid. Male OBGYN should not even be allowed. Those things are far too complicated to ever understand unless you have one.

 

[Rebel_L]

A system that pays for outcomes.

What kind of outcomes and who decides which receive pay? (The guy running around killing Jewish people is producing outcomes too) Even failure can be the outcome of an attempt.

 

[realibrad]

What kind of outcomes and who decides which receive pay? (The guy running around killing Jewish people is producing outcomes too) Even failure can be the outcome of an attempt.

Now we are getting to the fun part.

So, if a society pays for outcomes that are bad, such as the killing hypothetical, then that society would either be held back, or destroyed internally. A society that pays for good outcomes will out grow less effective societies.

You don't need to really decide what outcome is moral, as the market will do much of that. Now, moral people can speed things up, and its nice when they do, but you should not depend on good people doing good things in terms of top down decision making.

What you ultimately want is a system that rewards people for doing good, and does not reward people for doing bad. The effort put into any attempt should not be paid for collectively, unless those people choose to invest willingly.

Good intentions can lead to horrific outcomes. Nobody should care about intentions when we get good outcomes.

 

[Rebel_L]

Now we are getting to the fun part.

So, if a society pays for outcomes that are bad, such as the killing hypothetical, then that society would either be held back, or destroyed internally. A society that pays for good outcomes will out grow less effective societies.

You don't need to really decide what outcome is moral, as the market will do much of that. Now, moral people can speed things up, and its nice when they do, but you should not depend on good people doing good things in terms of top down decision making.

What you ultimately want is a system that rewards people for doing good, and does not reward people for doing bad. The effort put into any attempt should not be paid for collectively, unless those people choose to invest willingly.

Good intentions can lead to horrific outcomes. Nobody should care about intentions when we get good outcomes.

So good is decided by societal majority? And if different societies disagree they fight it out and the winner is the one that was right?

 

[realibrad]

So good is decided by societal majority? And if different societies disagree they fight it out and the winner is the one that was right?

First part, YES.

2nd part, what?

If you think scary things happen when morality is decided by the collective actions of the people, then you will be even more afraid when morality is dictated by a the few.

"Fighting" is not the only way to solve issues. I will admit that its in human nature to go to war. Civil minds will try and debate, but even that will fall apart sometimes, and it can be sad when it does.

Again, if a society chooses a system that is not grounded in increasing utility, then you will it grow slower or even fall apart. Its simply a dream to think morality is chosen any other way, but that is getting away from the point.

An economy that is based on people who are free to choose for their own self interests while paying for 3rd party impacts either in the positive or negative will be far more successful than any other system. If you can show otherwise, then you will get a lot of money and a nice medal from some Swedish and Norwegian peoples.

 

[Nebor]

For me, I don't think anyone should talk about a subject, unless they have first had experience about the subject. This is why when I need to get a broken bone fixed, the Dr needs to have broken his arm, or else his opinion is invalid. Male OBGYN should not even be allowed. Those things are far too complicated to ever understand unless you have one.

Men (exclusively) built the supercollider at Cern, but they can't figure out lady parts. LOL OK. :thumbsup:

 

[realibrad]

Men (exclusively) built the supercollider at Cern, but they can't figure out lady parts. LOL OK. :thumbsup:

You did know I was joking right?

 

[Nebor]

You did know I was joking right?

Nope, I missed that one. :|

 

[realibrad]

Nope, I missed that one. :|

No worries.

 

[1prophet]

Now we are getting to the fun part.

So, if a society pays for outcomes that are bad, such as the killing hypothetical, then that society would either be held back, or destroyed internally. A society that pays for good outcomes will out grow less effective societies.

You don't need to really decide what outcome is moral, as the market will do much of that. Now, moral people can speed things up, and its nice when they do, but you should not depend on good people doing good things in terms of top down decision making.

What you ultimately want is a system that rewards people for doing good, and does not reward people for doing bad. The effort put into any attempt should not be paid for collectively, unless those people choose to invest willingly.

Good intentions can lead to horrific outcomes. Nobody should care about intentions when we get good outcomes.

System is just an abstract people use to hide the little conscious they have left while making decisions to avoid guilt, people reward or punish, people do good or bad, so no matter how foolproof of a system you think you can come up with people can and will change or bring it down if it gets in the way of their personal selfish desires.

Glass-Steagall was a system that got in the way and we all know what happened to it and the eventual outcome.

Shitting in your neighbors yard because you can is not an intention you shouldn't care about because the good outcome is it helps keep your yard clean.

 

[realibrad]

System is just an abstract people use to hide the little conscious they have left while making decisions to avoid guilt, people reward or punish, people do good or bad, so no matter how foolproof of a system you think you can come up with people can and will change or bring it down if it gets in the way of their personal selfish desires.

Glass-Steagall was a system that got in the way and we all know what happened to it and the eventual outcome.

Shitting in your neighbors yard because you can is not an intention you shouldn't care about because the good outcome is it helps keep your yard clean.

I dont know why you quoted me if you are going to ramble on about things that have nothing to do with what I said.

Also, try doing some learn'en and look this up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

It really amazes me that people think that free market and capitalism means you can shit on your neighbors yard and everything will be fine. It really is sad that people have little to no understanding of economics. The fact that you think that is even close to being possible shows how little you know.

 

[Bowfinger]

I dont know why you quoted me if you are going to ramble on about things that have nothing to do with what I said.

Also, try doing some learn'en and look this up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

It really amazes me that people think that free market and capitalism means you can shit on your neighbors yard and everything will be fine. It really is sad that people have little to no understanding of economics. The fact that you think that is even close to being possible shows how little you know.

Did you actually read your link? I'm no expert on Coase, but if Wikipedia is accurate, even Coase acknowledges his theorem rarely applies in the real world.

 

[werepossum]

Did you actually read your link? I'm no expert on Coase, but if Wikipedia is accurate, even Coase acknowledges his theorem rarely applies in the real world.

His point was that assuming more freedom is bad and less freedom is good is simply stupid. I'm a big fan of Glass-Steagall and not a fan of the Coase theorem, but his point is absolutely correct. Regulation and oversight are necessary to keep the free market truly free (e.g. prevent one party from cornering the market on a necessary or desirable commodity) but in general, greater economic freedom means greater societal prosperity and less means less.

 

[Bowfinger]

His point was that assuming more freedom is bad and less freedom is good is simply stupid. I'm a big fan of Glass-Steagall and not a fan of the Coase theorem, but his point is absolutely correct. Regulation and oversight are necessary to keep the free market truly free (e.g. prevent one party from cornering the market on a necessary or desirable commodity) but in general, greater economic freedom means greater societal prosperity and less means less.

Fine, but what does that have to do with citing someone who admits his own theorem rarely applies to the real world? The citation seems irrelevant, at best, and potentially deceptive.