Do the rich earn their income?

[Cecilie1200]

Dilbert, a cartoon?

What is the Great Wall, a pile of bricks?

Do you comprehend that Scott Adams is a die hard conservative Libertarian?

Tell you what, you don't pretend that Dilbert supports your idiocy, and I won't pretend that "Tom Tomorrow" supports capitalism (or is funny, witty, poignant or meaningful.....)

Go here: The official Dilbert website with Scott Adams' color comic strips, animation, mashups and more!

Read any hundred strips, in any order, and tell me Dilbert isn't a critic of capitalism.

I dare you.

Who cares? It's a fucking comic strip.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

We're already all rich.

We live lives that Henry the VIII would have killed a dozen more wives to have lived. Our welfare recipients have luxuries that Julius Cesar never dreamed, air conditioned houses, refrigerated foods, microwaves, cellphones and cars. Foods from around the world are within miles of our homes

We are all filthy rich - many of us are just too spoiled to grasp the fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Go here: The official Dilbert website with Scott Adams' color comic strips, animation, mashups and more!

Read any hundred strips, in any order, and tell me Dilbert isn't a critic of capitalism.

I dare you.

No idiot, it has nothing to do with capitalism. It has to do with corporate structures and office politics.

The Dilbert Principle "Managers are promoted to the position where they can do the least damage to the organization." It mocks corporate life, not capitalism.

 

[Texanmike]

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

Oh oh, can I play this game too? Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

 

[dblack]

...Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

Man! I'm never having kids!..
Oh, wait. Shit!

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I'm asking you to look a little closer, because the connection is very real. It's not about 'increasing the wealth of the wealthy', as you phrased it, but it is about increasing the wealth of investors who make good decisions, and decreasing the wealth of those who don't. That has a vital impact on the prosperity of the country.



You've mentioned that you believe the rich get most of their income from 'owning' things, and I'd actually agree with that. But what does 'owning' something really mean? Ownership is about control. If you own something, you have the final say in how it gets used, right?

So, in your example, the 'guys' who own the land would be deciding what is done with that land. Let's say one of them decides it would be a good idea to grow tobacco and he convinces some of the other people on the island to help him plant and harvest the tobacco (perhaps by offering them partial ownership of the end product). Another decides to plant rice, and persuades some of the other islanders to join him in the effort. The third guy can't be bothered. He just hangs out on the beach, partying with his friends.

Hopefully you get the point of my clumsy allegory: The decisions these guys make will affect the future prosperity of the island. That's what their 'ownership' contributes to production.

Your contention seems to be that there is no justification for pure 'profit' - at least not the kind that comes from investment. You write off investment profits as income from 'owning things' - as though that's inconsequential. But owning something IS an activity. It entails the responsibility to decide how the things you own are used. Those kinds of decisions, especially at the scale of capital investment, have a tremendous effect on all of us. It's crucial that they're made well.

WAIT A MINUTE!

You just started another thread claiming debt was a good thing, and here you are claiming people who use money and wealth to make more money and wealth are not earning their money and wealth.

SERIOUSLY???

Dude, I don't know if you are just unable to grasp that your arguments contradict one another or you are just blindly posting nonsense for effect and attention.. Which is it?

DEBT is the very essence of using money to create money. Jesus man, wake up...

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

Of course, this argument is based on all of us accepting your PREVIOUS premise that "merely existing" is all the rich do, and we don't accept it.

So please decide if you're arguing that the rich are all worthless drones, doing nothing but breathing in and out and consuming, or if you're arguing that BECAUSE that's all they are and we all accept that, they THEREFORE contribute nothing.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm getting tired of watching you flop back and forth between them like a gaffed fish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

And if they're just hanging out on the beach, without ever spending any time or effort monitoring and managing their money and their employees, they're not going to be rich long, because SOMEONE is going to be slacking off or ripping them off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the rich work, then they're working. I'm not arguing that money is a bad thing. I'm arguing that the rich don't contribute merely by existing.

You seem to be arguing that they get richer 'merely by existing'. But that doesn't hold up. If they don't do something useful with their money, if all they do is hangout on the beach, they won't get richer. They might be able to coast on their cash for a while, but if all they do is spend or hoard their money, their wealth will eventually be depleted.

If the rich hire someone else to manage their wealth, they can get richer without trying. Whether they're on the beach, or someone else.

Nice daydream, dumbass, but only fools who will never be rich, or acquainted with anyone rich, really think you can get away with handing all your money and financial matters over to someone else and retiring to the beach to surf and cash dividend checks.

In the real world, you're still required to stay on top of and involved with your financial matters, and the more you have, the more involvement there is . . . that is, unless you WANT to be robbed blind. Any financial manager who encourages you to blow things off and let him handle them, don't worry your little head about them, is planning to steal everything you have, or is utterly incompetent. Any reputable financial manager is going to INSIST that you become educated and be involved.

 

[Gadawg73]

What amazes me are the folks that do not know that having a shit load of rich folk living around them IS A DAMN GOOD THING for everyone.
Especially the POOR.

 

[Sundial]

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.

When you buy IBM, the money goes to the former owner of the shares, not to IBM. It's a zero -sum game between spec... I mean investors. It has nothing to do with IBM's capital, or IBM's decisions about how many computers to make.

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...

"Exploitation" is a strong word. "Lawful appropriation" might be better.

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.

You're making owning stuff sound like a burden.

When you say "reasonable expectation" do you mean they expect to earn a reasonable amount? Or that however much they earn is reasonable?

Because even if having great wealth is great responsibility, I'd argue it'd be better if the responsibility were shared more widely.

Imposing so much responsibility on such a small group is not only unfair, it's inefficient.

When ordinary people can't afford to buy stuff anymore, production shuts down, resulting in unemployment. Unemployment, in turn, restricts the the spending power of ordinary people still more.

Even the rich themselves might be affected, eventually.

 

[Sundial]

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.

Digging holes and filling them up doesn't create goods or services, and it's not ordinarily done for compensation.

 

[Texanmike]

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.

Digging holes and filling them up doesn't create goods or services, and it's not ordinarily done for compensation.

I think his point is that labor, just for the sake of doing labor is not a job. Demand for labor creates a job.

Mike

 

[Charles_Main]

Do the rich earn their income?

The Fact that you people have the audacity to ask questions like this. Is why the Left is losing Power and will continue to. The Average American is not rich, but you know what, They would like the chance to be rich Some day. It is the possibility of Making big and getting rich that has driven American Innovation and Growth since the Day we became a nations. You Liberals and your Class Envy BS are destroying your own chances of holding Power. Especially when you call anyone who earns over 200k a year, Rich. Which is exactly what Obama and the Dems do all the time. They call them Billionaires and Millionaires yet 80% of the people in the Tax Bracket they are talking about, are actually not Millionaires. The make just over 200k a year, or 250 for a couple.

Me, I am not rich, hell right now probably not even middle class, But you know what. I have dreams, and I want to live in a country where it is still possible to realize them, and not in one that Demonizes anyone who makes it.

 

[Sundial]

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.

It's impossible because... somebody has to do the work.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

It's impossible because... somebody has to do the work.

BAMM!! you just hit the nail on the Head.

The Truth is Socialism can not make us all equally Rich, It can only make us all equally poor. If you do that, and remove the drive to get richer, and live better. You destroy innovation and growth. Game over.

I love these libs that Hate the Rich. Watch how they would starve, and kill each other in the streets over scraps of food, if we had no Rich in this country.

Being in the Home Improvement business I can tell you this. 80% of them work we get, is from people Liberals in here consider "the Rich"

We offer Financing, and are happy to do work for those with less money as well, But most of them will do the work themselves, or hire some unlicensed and uninsured person to do it for them, Because they can't afford it.

Take away the "rich" (people making over 200k a year) and the industry I work in would not exist, Along with many others.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

It's impossible because... somebody has to do the work.

BAMM!! you just hit the nail on the Head.

The Truth is Socialism can not make us all equally Rich, It can only make us all equally poor. If you do that, and remove the drive to get richer, and live better. You destroy innovation and growth. Game over.

I love these libs that Hate the Rich. Watch how they would starve, and kill each other in the streets over scraps of food, if we had no Rich in this country.

Being in the Home Improvement business I can tell you this. 80% of them work we get, is from people Liberals in here consider "the Rich"

We offer Financing, and are happy to do work for those with less money as well, But most of them will do the work themselves, or hire some unlicensed and uninsured person to do it for them, Because they can't afford it.

Take away the "rich" (people making over 200k a year) and the industry I work in would not exist, Along with many others.

Charles, Sundial is insinuating that the rich do not do any work, and that is why everyone cannot be rich (because that would mean nobody is doing work).

He was responding to my statement, in which I was saying that some people will always be less rich than others, but the poor today are actually very well off because of capitalism compared to the poor of yesterday.

 

[Sundial]

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.

We're already all rich.

We live lives that Henry the VIII would have killed a dozen more wives to have lived. Our welfare recipients have luxuries that Julius Cesar never dreamed, air conditioned houses, refrigerated foods, microwaves, cellphones and cars. Foods from around the world are within miles of our homes

We are all filthy rich - many of us are just too spoiled to grasp the fact.

We're all very fortunate in this country. It's one of the reasons I feel blessed.

Of course, some people are more fortunate than others. And it's weird how sometimes the most privileged are least willing to express gratitude for what they have. Or to admit to being fortunate.

I've never quite had the word for it. It's worse than ingratitude. It's more like spitting in the face of fate.

 

[Sundial]

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

Oh oh, can I play this game too? Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

as for your point, well, I have no idea what you thought the point was.

I like how you found a quote by Balzac, though.

 

[ShackledNation]

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

Oh oh, can I play this game too? Kids cause jail too!

Julia Prince: 3 children, 12 years.
Amber Taylor: 4 children, 22 years
Andrea Yates: 5 children, death penalty

A mother who is really a mother is never free.
--Honore de Balzac

Is mine as irrelevant and meaningless as yours?

Mike

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

as for your point, well, I have no idea what you thought the point was.

I like how you found a quote by Balzac, though.

SOME rich people get rich by fraud. Not all, and not most.

 

[dblack]

You missed the point. The point was that people get rich by fraud, deceit, and other nefarious means, despite the fact that everyone everyone knows on this board got rich by being paragons of virtue.

Sure they do. And we should do everything in our power to put a stop to it. But that's a dodge. Your original point was the notion that investment income is 'unearned', that it involves no work, and provides no value. Are you backing off on that stance?