Do the rich earn their income?

[bripat9643]

No. But my original point was that most of the income of the super-rich is unearned, and unearned income is income you don't have to work to get.

Only idiots believe that the IRS term "unearned" means the recipient isn't entitled to it.

I agree with you that an active investor is doing work (which may or may not have any social value). But I countered that the fact that it is work is why there's an industry devoted to doing it - so the rich don't have to.

As I have discovered through painful experience, anyone who trusts others to make their investment decisions for them will soon be parted with their money.

The other thing was just a response to "My friend got rich through hard work and sacrifice." I don't doubt some people get rich that way. But plenty of others don't.

Wrong. There are very few people who got rich by letting others make their investment decisions for them. In fact, I would say almost no one.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Some apodictic truth is just worth repeating.
Sundial just gave us an example of that.

What Sundial did is create fly paper for morons. Anyone who thinks that statement is profound is a moron.

 

[editec]

The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Some apodictic truth is just worth repeating.
Sundial just gave us an example of that.

What Sundial did is create fly paper for morons. Anyone who thinks that statement is profound is a moron.

Truth is often not profound.

Why does the truth upset you so?

If the bottom 99% of the socioeconomic population vanished, who would take out the garbage?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Digging holes and filling them up doesn't create goods or services,

So then, WORK isn't the key? You had claimed WORK, labor is what's important. Now you're claiming that the creation of goods and services is... Which is it? Do we need to pay people for work, or for creating goods and services?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You missed the point.

No

He certainly didn't. He nailed you to the wall. I sincerely hope that you're sharp enough to grasp that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

In almost all cases where people get rich by fraud, government is involved in the scheme.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only one vague here is you. I know a few rich people who haven't worked a day in their god damned lives. Also those who have got rich off the backs of others while doing little or nothing themselves.

Yeah, bullshit.

You are just reciting talking points from KOS or other hate sites, and assume we are all so stupid that we won't question when you attempt to personalize the BS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Yeah, what fun is it being rich if I don't have a poor person to pull me around town in a Rikshaw? Oh wait, I have a FUCKING CAR. Some capitalists (Karl Benz) invented a machine that can transport me. What fun is it being rich if I don't have poor people to clean my pool? Oh wait, I have a Dolphin robot that cleans it. What about the dishes? I have a dishwasher...

Capitalists invent labor saving devices that benefit everyone. I notice that you socialists don't shun them. Shouldn't you be like the Amish and refuse to use devices that don't require human effort?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now, please give us your idea of "rich" and "wealthy" by numbers........Since you claim the "rich" are not "wealthy", what are your guidelines as far money in the bank, hard assets, etc.

The "rich" are good, they vote democrat. The "wealthy" are evil, they vote Republican.

Soros good, Murdoch bad - simple (minded) as that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Some apodictic truth is just worth repeating. Sundial just gave us an example of that.

Some people are just fucking retarded. You just gave us an example of that.

 

[Sundial]

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

 

[Sundial]

They have to decide what to do with their money. There's no way around that. If they put it to good use, they'll profit, if they don't, they'll lose it. Which part of that eludes you?

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

Investors, acting in their own self interest, will be forced to invest in industries that will benefit everyone else, for it is those industries that will be successful and earn them more profit.

I realize this is like an article of faith. But can you really not think of any real-world examples of investors who've profited without benefitting others? Not one example of capitalists profiting by harming other people?

Not one?

Without the rich acting as investors, you cannot fund these industries.

Of course you can fund industries without rich people. Banks? Money markets? Mutual funds? Public offerings?

What do you think those things are for?

The poor get no work, and are even poorer. You act like this is some zero-sum game. Workers benefit from their employers by obtaining a salary. Employers benefit from workers by obtaining their services.

Workers benefit from employers in the same way that a host benefits from a parasite; they're allowed to keep some of the value of the goods and services they produce.

I am not sure if your immeasurable ignorance of reality is amusing or frightful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

Investors, acting in their own self interest, will be forced to invest in industries that will benefit everyone else, for it is those industries that will be successful and earn them more profit.

I realize this is like an article of faith. But can you really not think of any real-world examples of investors who've profited without benefitting others? Not one example of capitalists profiting by harming other people?

Not one?



Of course you can fund industries without rich people. Banks? Money markets? Mutual funds? Public offerings?

What do you think those things are for?

The poor get no work, and are even poorer. You act like this is some zero-sum game. Workers benefit from their employers by obtaining a salary. Employers benefit from workers by obtaining their services.

Workers benefit from employers in the same way that a host benefits from a parasite; they're allowed to keep some of the value of the goods and services they produce.

I am not sure if your immeasurable ignorance of reality is amusing or frightful.

Dipshit, if there's not someone willing to pay for their services (because that's all workers are really selling is their services) then those services HAVE no value. So what is this "allowed to keep some of the value" crap? The only value one's services have is how much someone ELSE is willing to pay for them. And the workers are getting to keep all of that, minus what they're paying to the government in taxes.

 

[Sundial]

...Which part of that eludes you?

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

So, all of it then?

Listen, I've been over all this stuff multiple times. Yet each time you ostrich up and continue with the platitudes. If you really don't get it (and want to), you should do some reading and learn how capital investment works as a mechanism of resource allocation in a free economy. It's not really all that complicated.

You continue to repeat yourself when I challenge your beliefs, instead of examining whether your theories match up to what actually happens in the world.

 

[ShackledNation]

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

Who pays the wages then? Let us set up a scenario in which everyone has $50,000. If everyone makes $50,000 then that means employers also make $50,000. So any given individual would only be able to hire one worker, and he would not have any money left over afterwords. That would defeat the purpose of him being an employer, for he would not gain a profit from giving workers jobs.

I feel like the following question is necessary to ask, for the sake of understanding your mind. It is clear there is some type of underlying fallacy to all of this reasoning which makes you believe it is rational. I am taking a wild guess it has to do with how you feel prices and value are determined. So let me now ask you: Where does an object receive its value? Do you believe the labor theory of value? What theory do you believe to be correct? Also, to understand where you are coming from, what economic school of thought to you follow, and what economic system do you support?

You arguments seem to follow unsound reasoning, but it may be there is just one huge unsound theory you are basing all your arguments on. What you say is full of logical fallacies. It is concerning that you do not see how blatantly irrational they are, so I can only assuming you are mistaken at a deeper level that provides justification for your fallacious arguments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

You're a retard. It doesn't matter if there are ordinary poor shitheads out there dying to buy products (which, by the way, poor laborers wouldn't be able to produce if their evil, wealthy, non-working bosses didn't buy the supplies and tools and machinery for) or services if no one is willing to fund the business to pay the laborers to provide them. Exactly how many fucking salaries do you think you personally are going to be able to provide, anyway?

Just try creating an economy, like ours without all that filthy lucre concentrated into central places to facilitate the creation of goods. I dare you. Maybe YOU want to return to the 1890s (which still contained companies like Montgomery Wards, Sears, and Standard Oil), but I prefer the 21st century standard of living, thanks so much.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I believe this Sundial character is the new version of Dr smith.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point. Are you saying the decision itself constitutes work? That the decision itself creates goods and services?

And what is good use, anyway? Is it what's good for the investor? Or what's good for the country?

And what is bad use? Is it Treasuries? Gold? How would one know? Do you just have to wait and see?

Or do you just mean a that a use that turns out to be profitable, is profitable?

So, all of it then?

Listen, I've been over all this stuff multiple times. Yet each time you ostrich up and continue with the platitudes. If you really don't get it (and want to), you should do some reading and learn how capital investment works as a mechanism of resource allocation in a free economy. It's not really all that complicated.

You continue to repeat yourself when I challenge your beliefs, instead of examining whether your theories match up to what actually happens in the world.

You continue to repeat yourself, in these blank vagueries, instead of examining whether your bullshit bears even the slightest resemblance to the real world.

Let me help you out. Instead of airily generalizing about how "rich people" don't work, and just sit around consuming without contributing anything, I'd like you to name me some specific rich people who do nothing but consume. And don't even bother with your tired list of criminals. Aside from the fact that they DID, at some point, decide to break the law, every single one of them DID, in fact, go to work every day, rather than sitting around the beach surfing or whatever the fuck you think rich people do all day long. Breaking the law while you're at work does not negate the fact that you DID go to work.

So name me some useless, consuming drones and let's talk specifics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, either the rich would have to learn to fill potholes and frame houses, or else do without roads and homes.

Either way, it sort of takes the fun out of being rich.

It was a question about what would happen if everyone was rich. The point is there's not much point in being rich, if there's no poor people to do the work.

Only poor people work?
I work. I am not poor.
If I worked and I was poor after a great length of time, I would have to re-evaluate my career path.
This is precisely the argument against the so -called living wage.
All those who find themselves working and not advancing themselves often are the victims of their own actions or inactions.
This is not blaming the poor for being poor. This is pointing out the fact that people who cannot get out of the low wage arena fail to apply themselves, often believing that an employer owes them something
This is the common refrain we hear from union members when they go on strike.

 

[Sundial]

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

Who pays the wages then? Let us set up a scenario in which everyone has $50,000. If everyone makes $50,000 then that means employers also make $50,000. So any given individual would only be able to hire one worker, and he would not have any money left over afterwords. That would defeat the purpose of him being an employer, for he would not gain a profit from giving workers jobs.

I feel like the following question is necessary to ask, for the sake of understanding your mind. It is clear there is some type of underlying fallacy to all of this reasoning which makes you believe it is rational. I am taking a wild guess it has to do with how you feel prices and value are determined. So let me now ask you: Where does an object receive its value? Do you believe the labor theory of value? What theory do you believe to be correct? Also, to understand where you are coming from, what economic school of thought to you follow, and what economic system do you support?

You arguments seem to follow unsound reasoning, but it may be there is just one huge unsound theory you are basing all your arguments on. What you say is full of logical fallacies. It is concerning that you do not see how blatantly irrational they are, so I can only assuming you are mistaken at a deeper level that provides justification for your fallacious arguments.

The problem - well, one of them, anyway - is that we disagree about the nature of money.

As far as value goes... market price is determined by the market. Value, on the other hand, is subjective. That's why there is a market. Because some people value things more than the market, others less. I do believe that goods and services are created by labor, not by ownership of things.

I don't follow any particular school. However, at least in terms of money, my views are similar to MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

I think that the Austrians and Monetarists are dangerously wrong. I suspect I have a lot in common with Keynes.