The real “takers” in America are the unproductive, rent-extracting rich

[KnobbyWalsh]

Circle jerk go bad last night? Anyway, yea, the government is involved because they're the ones who donate huge to getting "their" candidates elected. When you have the government tilting the playing field in your favor, you're off and running.

I don't know where the fuck you are getting "acquiring someone else's property by force." "The People" are not doing that. The people you glorify ARE, and that's why the 1% are the only ones enjoying this "golden age" for them. What's a hedge fund manager produce, besides more wealth for the already wealthy? Nothing.

I get that this subject is way over your head, and that's why the likes of you and Stephony want to drag it down to a simplistic partisan fight, like everything else you sheep are trained to do.

No one needed to drag it down. The article you are discussing already did that. Hedge fund managers do not produce wealth, they transfer it around from one wealthy entity to another wealthy entity, and none of it need bother your pointy little head. It is not your money they are playing with.

Hedge fund managers do not take any wealth by force. Only government and armed thugs can get away with that.

If you are not enjoying this golden age, it is nobody's fault but your own. All you have to do is start a solar energy company, and Obama will throw money at you. Money taken by the power of government from someone who didn't want to give it up.

I really am curious to understand why and whom talked obama into thinking we could automaticaly compete with china on solar panels? just like the new manhatten project I read obama is throwing cash at some nerds in illinois to develope a new car battery.... pie in the sky.

I'm not on board with the government handing out "research money." I don't think Bill Gates got any.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

The problem with the thread and the article, well, one of the many problems, is that the label "takers" implies that they simply take. That is completely wrong. The "Takers" are those who produce nothing yet demand to recieve. The welfare brood mares and the rest of the paracites.

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

Ah, the bottom line. The evil billionaires are the ones who are not sharing their wealth sufficiently to satisfy the left wing loons. They don't provide enough jobs, and the jobs they do provide don't pay enough.

Poor, sad, greedy, little pointy headed liberal/socialists, ain't getting their fair share.

That's not the bottom line of this conversation. The bottom line as I see it is we need to compete globally or we're going to continue to slip behind educationally and economically. It takes more than war to make America a world leader. Some do reinvest in America and I applaud them.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Yea knobby, I do know alot of people are making money by just flipping something. but sometimes those flippers get bored of it, move up and use that cash to start a brick and mortar company like the guy I work for now. we have 38 employess now, when I just started there was just 8 of us last september.

Cool, but those are not the people we are talking about here. People like your boss are salt of the earth types we can all relate to and still have the ability to be if we aspire. One of my daughters is married to a guy who, with his dad, made a multi-million dollar business installing sprinkler systems for fire prevention. When the old man started, he was the only show in the state until others caught on. Those people work their asses off and enjoy their "creature comforts," but they work killer hours.

What we're talking about here goes way beyond that and your boss because your boss like my daughter's husband's business EMPLOY people at a reasonable wage (I'm assuming in your case too). We're not even talking about the 1% anymore. We're talking about the 0.01%. While it's true that includes guys like Bill Gates and some others who are directly related to jobs being created in this "new" economy, it's amazing the % in that group that get rich in their sleep just moving other people's money.

We simply need these people, more of them, reinvesting back into America. They got the clout and political connections to get that done. It's a global economy now and like the link above shows, other nations are catching up with us economically. Shouldn't that concern the people who could really do something about it?

If you want those people reinvesting in America, then it behoves you to help create an economic environment that draws their investments back to America. None of them owe you or me any consideration, nor do we have any moral justification to call for them to do something that is not in their best financial interest.

Well, the plutocrats in India are investing in India, the plutocrats in China are investing in China. People at the top run things, the economy and politics. Why is it so unreasonable to invest in America? If you don't have a vibrant middle class, we'll continue to fall behind. I really could care less what these people do with their money - it's their money. But as a patriot, I don't see how anyone can reconcile investing their money in China or India when they are Americans.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No, you see the "takers" as the welfare queens raising 5 kids by 5 different dads with a check that wouldn't even fill up a big pickup truck with gas. The new "takers" of today ARE true takers who do nothing to provide jobs and when they do, they are so poorly paying as to not afford the worker the opportunity to invest BACK into the economy. Now we're talking the REAL wealthy - the new breed of billionaires who make money in their sleep. So as to not get it fucked up, we're NOT talking about the guy who owns the book publishing company of 50 people, for example. We're talking WEALTHY. Shaq is rich - Bill Gates is WEALTHY.

Ah, the bottom line. The evil billionaires are the ones who are not sharing their wealth sufficiently to satisfy the left wing loons. They don't provide enough jobs, and the jobs they do provide don't pay enough.

Poor, sad, greedy, little pointy headed liberal/socialists, ain't getting their fair share.

That's not the bottom line of this conversation. The bottom line as I see it is we need to compete globally or we're going to continue to slip behind educationally and economically. It takes more than war to make America a world leader. Some do reinvest in America and I applaud them.

kudos on this post... it seems to me the left dont want an educacted america, they just want votes. and the right dont want an educated america either because they would have to pay them what they are worth.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Ah, the bottom line. The evil billionaires are the ones who are not sharing their wealth sufficiently to satisfy the left wing loons. They don't provide enough jobs, and the jobs they do provide don't pay enough.

Poor, sad, greedy, little pointy headed liberal/socialists, ain't getting their fair share.

That's not the bottom line of this conversation. The bottom line as I see it is we need to compete globally or we're going to continue to slip behind educationally and economically. It takes more than war to make America a world leader. Some do reinvest in America and I applaud them.

kudos on this post... it seems to me the left dont want an educacted america, they just want votes. and the right dont want an educated america either because they would have to pay them what they are worth.

I feel what you are saying and want to agree, but I'm not so sure that's totally true. I'll have to think on that but I certainly see what you mean.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

We went from 1st to 7th. How America will reinvent and reinvest itself is the salient point.

Why the U.S. is Falling Behind Other Countries - OPEN Forum :: American Express OPEN Forum

 

[Mac1958]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of thin air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based). Either the author of this piece (a) doesn't realize this, or (b) is choosing to ignore it. Either way, that doesn't say much for the author.

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of think air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based).

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

 

[PredFan]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of think air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based). Either the author of this piece (a) doesn't realize this, or (b) is choosing to ignore it. Either way, that doesn't say much for the author.

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

Can you hear that? That's the sound of liberal and occutard's heads exploding.

Good job of boiling it down to it's core.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Private sector parasites - Salon.com

Labor unions are rent extractors too according to that article.

Now that i agree with.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of thin air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based).

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

 

[PredFan]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of thin air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based).

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

His post is dripping with envy.

 

[initforme]

"Labor unions are rent extractors too according to that article.

Now that i agree with."


I dont have a problem with the uber wealthy. its their money. The problem is the growing trend that the uber wealthy want to see the little guy get "littler" as they get richer. For all the squawking and crying about taxes the uber rich do you would think they are being tortured or something. If you are a millionaire why would you care? Why do the rich not like hard working middle class people?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

.

The piece on which this thread is based is part (please note bold print) of the problem.

Most (please note bold print) "rentiers" had to take significant risks -- financial and often personal -- to accumulate enough capital to purchase the properties they're renting out. The properties didn't just appear out of thin air and fall into their lap. They also continue to face risks as they own those properties, such as demand, competition, rising costs of doing business, recessions, new regulations, changing regulations, bad luck. Yet they're willing to take those risks and, as a result, create new opportunities for others.

These people aren't asking for medals or a pat on the back or a party or thanks or some other form of recognition. But some (please note bold print) people have chosen to completely ignore the effort these people have put out and the risks these folks have taken in a weird campaign to demonize them (see piece on which this thread is based).

It's certainly anyone's right to do this, but it's becoming less intellectually honest for them to complain when the business community (a) questions their motives and (b) chooses not to take further risks (i.e. hiring, capital expenditures) in this climate.

.

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

"Labor unions are rent extractors too according to that article.

Now that i agree with."


I dont have a problem with the uber wealthy. its their money. The problem is the growing trend that the uber wealthy want to see the little guy get "littler" as they get richer. For all the squawking and crying about taxes the uber rich do you would think they are being tortured or something. If you are a millionaire why would you care? Why do the rich not like hard working middle class people?

Again, the global opportunities have to be attractive and many invest overseas instead of here. It has to be attractive to do so, and I applaud those who still do. I think it will come around slowly once they learn a vibrant middle class here at home is what really props their fortunes up.

 

[Mac1958]

Interestingly, in the book I'm reading, their job security is actually more volatile than for most of the rest of us. Yea, it is a big gamble.

On the other hand, where I think you missed a point is that they have high-dollar parties and such where they all get together and stroke each other's egos. They want recognition. They're ego driven like most successful people no matter the field. There's nothing wrong with that either. Your last paragraph, by the way, is spot on!

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

This could easily be accomplished via tax law. Money (regardless of whether it's Trump or some guy in Hong Kong) is going to follow the path of least resistance every time.

If we lowered corporate tax rates to 10% and created better regulatory effiencies, you'd see a flood of capital pour into this country from every corner of the planet faster than you could blink your eyes. But it won't happen.

.

 

[PredFan]

"Labor unions are rent extractors too according to that article.

Now that i agree with."


I dont have a problem with the uber wealthy. its their money. The problem is the growing trend that the uber wealthy want to see the little guy get "littler" as they get richer.

What? What proof do you have of that? Or is that just something you believe?

For all the squawking and crying about taxes the uber rich do you would think they are being tortured or something.

It is about the ramifications to US, the middle class, that concerns us.

If you are a millionaire why would you care?

Who says they do? To my knowledge, I haven't heard a single one of the Uber Rich who's come out and said; "Hey don't tax me any more." Have you?

Why do the rich not like hard working middle class people?

Again, who says they don't like them? I mean besides the MSM and the Democrats?

 

[initforme]

Again when billionaires come out against laborers and those middle class people who work hard, dont receive any assistance to barely make it they give themselves a bad name. Like the wages those people make are too much. Their benefits must be cut, their wages must be lowered. When it is observed in that sense Plutocracy would fit the bill.

 

[PredFan]

No doubt some of the mega-entrepreneurs have egos the size of politicians', and business owners in general have to have significant self-confidence to weather the various storms. I would say, however, that many of them (Trump springs immediately to mind) do much of their showbiz as a marketing tactic, and it works.

.

My basic premise is that I just wish the American mega-wealthy would be more interested in reinvesting in America. I realize the temptation in this new global economy to invest overseas for higher profits has got to be attractive. But you'd think since they use their money-clout to buy politicians to rig the playing field their way, they'd want to also twist those politician's arms in making it more profitable to invest here in the states as opposed to Hong Kong.

This could easily be accomplished via tax law. Money (regardless of whether it's Trump or some guy in Hong Kong) is going to follow the path of least resistance every time.

If we lowered corporate tax rates to 10% and created better regulatory effiencies, you'd see a flood of capital pour into this country from every corner of the planet faster than you could blink your eyes. But it won't happen.

.

This^

 

[PredFan]

Again when billionaires come out against laborers and those middle class people who work hard, dont receive any assistance to barely make it they give themselves a bad name. Like the wages those people make are too much. Their benefits must be cut, their wages must be lowered. When it is observed in that sense Plutocracy would fit the bill.

Please show us where the Billionaires have come out against them.