Do the rich earn their income?

[dblack]

I'm simply observing that we have a legal and economic system in which the people who create value turn over a substantial part of that value to people who own things.

Sure. But I'm pointing out that your observation is overly 'simple'. Owning things isn't the passive activity you're suggesting it is. It's a vital function of an economy and people who take on the responsibility have a reasonable expectation to earn money for doing so.

Suppose someone gets rich from cornering the market in silver. What law prevents him from enriching himself at the expense of others?

Suppose someone finds a way to make a mint by selling crappy securities to gullible investors. Is there a law that prevents him from doing that?

Or suppose someone establishes a de facto monopoly in an operating system. Isn't it the law that makes that possible?

If you want to get into a discussion of all the ways the current market is fucked up, i'll be happy to join you. I, for one, think the entire body of corporate law needs to be reconsidered. What I'm addressing here is the common myth that investment profit is 'money-for-nothing', or that business owners earn money by 'exploiting' workers, etc...

If I decide to sell Coke and buy IBM, what difference does that make to anybody but me?

In aggregate, it makes a very real difference. It means Coke won't have as much capital to do its thing, and IBM will have more. If lots of people make this same call (or if you're making a very large trade) it can significantly alter the production of both Coke and IBM in the coming months. This is what I keep referring to as resource allocation. It's a crucial - and often overlooked - function in any large economy. Even in a non-capitalist economy, these decisions must be made someone. And how well they are made determines whether consumers get the things they need, or whether stores are overstocked with a bunch of junk no one wants.

 

[editec]

Do we really have a FREE MARKET?

Good that means I can turn my harvest in the alcohol and sell it, right?

That means I can grow my own mariijuna, too, right?

That means I do not have to insure my car, right?

You folks who think we live in a FREE MARKET capitalistic society are dumber than bricks.

And those of you who think this is a socialist society are also dumber than dumb bricks.

We have the society we have, regardless of what we call it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do we really have a FREE MARKET?

Good that means I can turn my harvest in the alcohol and sell it, right?

That means I can grow my own mariijuna, too, right?

That means I do not have to insure my car, right?

You folks who think we live in a FREE MARKET capitalistic society are dumber than bricks.

And those of you who think this is a socialist society are also dumber than dumb bricks.

We have the society we have, regardless of what we call it.

You are free to go to some states where you can grow your own and sell your alcohol.
Your are free to drive your car on YOUR OWN property without insurance. Enter into the public roads you must obey the law.
Your skills are what you market and you are FREE to do as you wish with them.
Don't call us dumb if you do not know that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'd say it's something that requires some physical or mental effort (or at least time), is related in some way to creating some sort of good or service, and is ordinarily done for compensation.

So in your alleged mind, a person who digs a hole, then fills it in should be paid, where a man who invests money in a company allowing that company to leverage the capital, and expand, should not be paid, right?

Value is a concept the left cannot grasp.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In free market capitalism, yes, the rich earn their income. In our bizarre corporatist/socialist mixed economy, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

When people gain more wealth by pull than by innovation and work, then your society is doomed. - Ayn Rand

The AIG and Goldman Sachs scum who are handed hundreds of billions by Obama are not those who we Capitalists defend. They are a cancer in the market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

T
Corporatism is not, as it is often popularly misconstrued, 'rule by corporations'. It's a mode of government whereby power is distributed by the state to various organized power blocks in society.

It is then, fascism.

What you would term "corporatism," the merger of federal and corporate power structures such as Blue Cross and Kaiser becoming effective arms of the federal government with the IRS acting as enforcement for the forced purchase of their product by the American people; I simply term "Fascism."

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini

Barack Obama is a fascist and seeks a fascist state. This isn't an insult, it is a statement of irrefutable fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every free market has to have some controls on it to protect consumers, employees, and other businesses.

The ONLY legitimate controls on the market are that fraud and coercion are not tolerated in any form.

Nothing else is legitimate.

 

[Texanmike]

But, since you are obviously a low to middle class dolt with minmal skills and education, or less, you would not have ANY idea what "interest, dividends, and capital gains" are.

Not to pick a fight, I'm still getting to know people's opinions around here, are you suggesting that because I am in the low to middle class I have minimal skills and education?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure you, from what I've read so far, that you and I will agree on the majority of issues. I don't know that the technique you're using here will provide the desired effect. (LBH, we're here to educate)

Mike

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, actually they didn't actually write it. They bought it from a guy named Patterson, who in turned copied it from a guy named Kildall. They did rename it though - MSDOS was originally QDOS = "Quick and Dirty Operating System".

The problem with this myth is that all of the early microcomputer OS's were derivative. Paterson no more "copied" QDOS AKA DOS-86 than Digital Research did. C/PM was coded from the look and feel of the PDP-11. So BLATANT was DR about the rip-off, that they named their company "Digital Research" to tie into "Digital Equipment Corporation" (DEC) from whence they copied. DEC never seemed to care, they didn't view microcomputers as a threat - damn did they miss that boat.

Further, Paterson heavily used the Gate/Allen code base, as BASICA was foundations to the command processor of PCDOS - it took until DOS 2.0 before BASICA was replaced with a more robust system. It was okay, that was the agreement. It was this relationship that made Paterson part of the team.

What makes you think I think Bill Gates made his fortune at my expense?

Your claim is that "the rich make they're money at the expense of everyone."

What makes you think I'm jealous?

Every post you put on the board.

If you're sweating and working nights and weekends, it doesn't sound like you're one of the people I'm talking about.

No one is, you're spewing leftist bullshit to support your jealousy. No one "just collects rent."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm arguing it's mostly not the rich who're doing the resource allocating. It's managers, vice-presidents, advisers, CEOs, etc. In other words, the people they hire to do it for them are the ones who are doing it.

I understand you to be saying that the rich are contributing by deciding which hedge fund to invest in, or which financial adviser to hire.

I would argue that their income comes mostly from owning things, not from settling on a particular adviser.

Finally, I'd also argue that there is not a clear and necessary connection between increasing the wealth of the wealthy, and increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole; and that hedge funds are trying to do the first, and not the second; and that it is possible to make yourself or your client rich(er) at the expense of everyone else.

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real.

Where should I be looking? What is it that prevents the rich from enriching themselves at the expense of everyone?

What prevents YOU from enriching yourself at others' expense? From committing crimes and doing harm to others? Is it just lack of opportunity? Would you do it if you could? Or is there something else that keeps you from it?

What is a good decision? Is it one that enriches the investor, or one that benefits the country as a whole?

It's not the job of individual businesspeople to worry about "benefiting the country as a whole". What a bunch of bullshit. One makes business decisions that, hopefully, will expand and grow the business, provide a return for investors, provide good wages and benefits to the employees, provide employment to more people, and comply with the applicable laws and regulations. That's really all the "benefit to the whole" that any individual citizen can be expected to concern himself with.

When you make decisions in your personal life, say in regards to your children and family, do you make them based on "what benefits the country as a whole", or do you make them based on what's good for you, your spouse, and your kids, and what's legal and ethical?

Does contributing to famine relief increase or decrease one's wealth?

Depends. Businesses contribute to charities for two reasons: one, because businesses are made up of individual human beings, who are just as susceptible to compassion as any human; and two, because it's good for the company's image and relationship with the community, which makes it good advertising.

What about establishing a monopoly?

What about it? There's ain't no such thing in a free market, no matter what urban legends you've been told.

 

[ShackledNation]

Well, I'm really pissed cuz I don't have a major or even minor interest group looking out for me. So many people and groups getting bailed out or special deal, but I'm the one stuck with the bill. Who the hell is going to bail me out, where's my deal?

You and me both, believe me.

I don't think we have a corporatist system, we have a free market economy and a corporatist gov't. Which is one damn good reason every last one of you oughta be a Tea Party activist to change that gov't. Cuz it ain't working for people like me and you.

It is not possible at all to call our economy a free market economy.There are government mandates on what can or cannot be produced, who can or cannot buy what, who gets tax breaks, who gets bailed out, who gets subsidized, and countless other corporatist policies. We have a central bank that is in complete control of the money supply, manipulates the prices (interest rates), and monopolizes currency. We have rampant welfarism, strong unions, and laws mandating that we buy healthcare.

There are elements of the market, yes, but it is severely restricted and convoluted. Critics of our current economy mistake it for the free market, and point to the many problems throughout it as reason to abandon the free market. But what they see is corporatism and semi-socialist policies. We need to return to a free market economy, which hasn't existed since Keynes General Theory corrupted the history of economic thought.

Every free market has to have some controls on it to protect consumers, employees, and other businesses. Certainly we have gone too far, to the point where the gov't is requiring me to purchase a health insurance policy or pay a penalty. Or is it a tax? Pretty much though, I still have the right to spend my money as I see fit, and businesses have the right to sell at whatever price they want. If I want to quit my job for whatever reason, I can do so whenever I choose. As an employer I can decide when to hire and fire, within the bounds of the law when it comes to discrimination. Or go out of business and head for Canada.

Sooo - while I agree with much of what you're saying, we still basically have a free market economy IMHO. The gov't is dorking it up big time, has done so for quite some time (decades), we always seem to swing from too much control to too little. But when I see such wild swings in the stock market up and down, mostly down lately, I gotta question just how much power the corporatists have over our economy.

Free Market Capitalism is a system of economics that minimizes government intervention and maximizes the role of the market. Government intervention is far from minimized in our economy. It is a hard reality to face, and it has happened gradually, but our economy is not a free market economy anymore. You do not have the right to spend your money completely as you see fit. Regulation ban the sale of certain products, and prevent the sale of them as well. Employers cannot always decide who to fire, for unions often prevent such actions and heavily control the market with collective bargaining. Workers and employers cannot negotiate whatever wages they want, due to both minimum wag restrictions that hurt unskilled workers and powerful unions always demanding higher than necessary pay. Our entire monetary policy is controlled by a central bank, a tenet of Marxism. This bank monopolizes currency, can create money or destroy it at will, and sets price controls on the rate of interest.

Government bans the sale of certain goods and regulates nearly everything. Employers and workers are restricted in the contracts they can make because of unions and minimum wage laws. Our monetary policy and banking system follows the tenets of Marxism and Keynesian central economic planning. Insurance companies are mandated to cover procedures that are certain, defeating the purpose of insurance and raising the price. Energy industries are heavily subsidized, and free market competition is replaced by government favoritism. Government grants ridiculous patents to big corporations, allowing them to monopolize the market and reduce competition, and thus preventing small businesses from innovating. Congress spends hundreds of billions bailing out corporations and banks, and virtually took over GM. We have a welfare-warfare state the brings massive indebtedness to our nation and harm to those we claim to help.

You call this free market capitalism? Such a claim is a complete distortion of reality.

The reason the stock market is swinging is because of government intervention and corporatist policies, not in spite of it. Elements of the free market simply bring the disastrous effects of the corporatist policies to light.

 

[Sundial]

If left wingers spent half the time they use complaining about rich people trying to actually become rich then maybe they would actually become rich hahaha!

There are lots of ways to get rich. But complaining about others being rich isn't one of them. Stop hatin', start workin'.

Maybe we could all get rich! Then we could all stop working and... oh. Wait a minute...

 

[Cecilie1200]

If left wingers spent half the time they use complaining about rich people trying to actually become rich then maybe they would actually become rich hahaha!

There are lots of ways to get rich. But complaining about others being rich isn't one of them. Stop hatin', start workin'.

Maybe we could all get rich! Then we could all stop working and... oh. Wait a minute...

No, it's an impossibility for everyone to get rich, if only because there will always be Negative Nellies who would rather sit around and complain about everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Problem is renters generally don't pay taxes..

Not directly, no. But the property taxes for the apartments are factored into their rent.

But renters have no idea what taxes are because its factored into their rent.

So in short renters are ignorant when it comes to taxes...

Very true. It's always a dangerous proposition when you put paying for things at one - or more - remove from the consumer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know what the problem is...

. there is a total disconnect here.

No one gives a shit how much money another person makes. Not ONE OF US. All we ask is that if you love the "Free Market" and "Competition", you would make more of an effort to support that ideology and the idea that Community is just as important as personal wealth. You are greedy fucks that make themselves feel OK with what you have accumulated by tithing to your church.

BTW... if Christ was here... he'd spit in your faces.

Seriously? Possibly you would, but Christ? No

Let's see... which side runs on a Christ-like platform(Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc.) talking about their religion and suckering the Fundies in, then in the next breath talks about killing plans that our own people have paid into, programs that help the poor, cutting education, Privatizing prisons.

Yeah... I think he would treat them in a similar fashion as he did the moneychangers in the temple.

Way to misquote the Bible and take it out of context. Please point me to the verse that suggests to you that the moneychangers in the temple ran afoul of Christ for advocating cutting government entitlement programs?

And no one is "suckering Fundies in". Unlike liberals, who are not only routinely lied to by their leaders but actually PREFER it and admire them for being good liars, Christian conservatives know exactly what the Bible teaches, and know perfectly well which politicians are really toeing that line, and which ones are carrying nine-pound Bibles to church for photo ops.

 

[Texanmike]

If left wingers spent half the time they use complaining about rich people trying to actually become rich then maybe they would actually become rich hahaha!

There are lots of ways to get rich. But complaining about others being rich isn't one of them. Stop hatin', start workin'.

Maybe we could all get rich! Then we could all stop working and... oh. Wait a minute...

No, it's an impossibility for everyone to get rich, if only because there will always be Negative Nellies who would rather sit around and complain about everyone else.

Actually, its impossible because that's already been tried. That is called communism.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

Maybe we could all get rich! Then we could all stop working and... oh. Wait a minute...

No, it's an impossibility for everyone to get rich, if only because there will always be Negative Nellies who would rather sit around and complain about everyone else.

Actually, its impossible because that's already been tried. That is called communism.

Mike

No, its impossible because the concept of "rich" is relative. The poor today would be considered rich in ancient times. But the definition of rich is always changing.

 

[Texanmike]

No, it's an impossibility for everyone to get rich, if only because there will always be Negative Nellies who would rather sit around and complain about everyone else.

Actually, its impossible because that's already been tried. That is called communism.

Mike

No, its impossible because the concept of "rich" is relative. The poor today would be considered rich in ancient times. But the definition of rich is always changing.

Well I agree about the evolution of the meaning of rich.

I was trying to be funny (while true) and failed.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

Actually, its impossible because that's already been tried. That is called communism.

Mike

No, its impossible because the concept of "rich" is relative. The poor today would be considered rich in ancient times. But the definition of rich is always changing.

Well I agree about the evolution of the meaning of rich.

I was trying to be funny (while true) and failed.

Mike

I know you were trying to be funny lol. I guess you can say that socialists tried to make everyone equally rich, and that obviously failed because it made everyone equally poor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The wealthy I know earned their money by working, risked their money by investing in others and by doing so with the money they earned and risked put millions of Americans to work so that they too have the opportunity to succeed.

Here's some people I know (of):

Samual Israel: $450 million, 20 years
Marc Dreier: $700 million, 20 years
Kenneth Lay: $1 billion, died before trial
Scott Rothstein: $1 billion, pending
Richard Scrushy: $2.87 billion, six years and 10 months
Tom Petters: $3.65 billion, pending
Allen Stanford: $7 billion, pending
Jérôme Kerviel: $7.36 billion, pending
Bernie Ebbers: $11 billion, 25 years
Bernie Madoff: $65 billion, 150 years

Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.
--Honore de Balzac

Yes, because in a nation of 300 million + people, THOSE are the only rich people in existence/representative of EVERY millionaire in the country.

This is like saying white prison inmates in America are representative of all white American mailes. THEY are actually a bigger percentage of that group than your shitty little list is of rich people.

Epic envy fail.