The Wealth (possibly political, hopefully not)

[Katyusha]

I'm getting irritated with a couple of people in my family about this. Does anybody here believe it's immoral to accumulate excessive wealth because it leaves people struggling? Does anybody here believe it's merely what's DONE to acquire said wealth and what's done WITH it once it's acquired that causes others to struggle? Does anybody here believe that only YOU can cause yourself to struggle and nobody else has any effect on that whatsoever?

 

[off2bed]

I don't know about here, but I've heard plenty of people say exactly that. They are merely jealous and greedy because they aren't the ones with the wealth, and bitter because they think they haven't the skill or talent to earn it. Not a good basis on which to form government policy, if you ask me.

 

[Xelebes]

Wealth is capital, not money as it is fleeting as it is quick to shore up. Wealth is the ability to offer something for cash. That's probably the best definition for wealth. To have all your wealth as cash and expendable assets is what one could call fool's wealth.

What you are talking about, I'm sure that this is what you are refering to, is luxury. And yes, there can be too much if it is disproportionate to wealth.

 

[rgraham666]

Avarice isn't a Deadly Sin because it sounds cool.

 

[Weird Harold]

...Does anybody here believe that only YOU can cause yourself to struggle and nobody else has any effect on that whatsoever?

If they do, they're wrong.

Personal fiscal responsibility can go a long way to avoid struggling, but if those who have the wealth aren't hiring people with your skills, then you're going to struggle no matter how loudly lincoln screams when you pinch a penny.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Of your three possibilities, this one comes closest to my ideas;

Does anybody here believe it's merely what's DONE to acquire said wealth and what's done WITH it once it's acquired that causes others to struggle?

It's pretty difficult to find a principled way to acquire great wealth, and although I have my own sense of where the limit is beyond which wealth is excessive, other people will think I'm greedy, or impoverished in my standards.

And yeah, I can think of ways to use my (totally hypothetical haha) wealth that would make me feel more or less virtuous...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's always been a kind of American thing. To work hard and get great wealth is admirable and then you're supposed to give it away. Funny thing is that we often do, much more so than in other countries. Its an admirable trait, this giving away, but as Stella pointed out, some of the ways people got the money in the first place are questionable. Getty is the first name that comes to mind. Norton Simon was another slimeball.

 

[Edward Teach]

Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that he doesn't think the kind of wealth he has should be left to his heirs. I tend to agree. It is far too much power to pass along. It is almost a certainty that someone through the generations will misuse it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that he doesn't think the kind of wealth he has should be left to his heirs. I tend to agree. It is far too much power to pass along. It is almost a certainty that someone through the generations will misuse it.

Warren Buffet feels the same. It's an old traditional idea going back to Andrew Carnagie who probably was heavily influenced by John Calvin.

 

[Katyusha]

I don't know about here, but I've heard plenty of people say exactly that. They are merely jealous and greedy because they aren't the ones with the wealth, and bitter because they think they haven't the skill or talent to earn it. Not a good basis on which to form government policy, if you ask me.

I don't know if I would call it jealousy and greed on their part. People who are wealthy took some kind of risk somewhere in their lives to get that way. Many people used "questionable" (and I use that term loosely) methods to acquire it but some did not. What I see is people who don't want to or are afraid take the kind of risk it takes to really make money and blame others for that reticence on their part.

Wealth is capital, not money as it is fleeting as it is quick to shore up. Wealth is the ability to offer something for cash. That's probably the best definition for wealth. To have all your wealth as cash and expendable assets is what one could call fool's wealth.

What you are talking about, I'm sure that this is what you are refering to, is luxury. And yes, there can be too much if it is disproportionate to wealth.

I'm talking about money, fat bank accounts, etc. Personal wealth, and corporate wealth as well. Many corporations hurt the people they depend on in order to fatten their own bottom line (the company I work for is a truly first-rate example of that). People with personal wealth...what they do with it often depends on how they got it IMO.

If they do, they're wrong.

Personal fiscal responsibility can go a long way to avoid struggling, but if those who have the wealth aren't hiring people with your skills, then you're going to struggle no matter how loudly lincoln screams when you pinch a penny.

Ah...but having a "job" isn't going to make many people rich anyway. Fiscal responsibility isn't going to make you wealthy. Getting rich generally requires some kind of risk that you're going to have to take on your own. I'm not telling everyone they have to be willing to do that in their lives, just that they have to be willing to do it if they want to be one of the few in this country with a fat account; many of us would much, much rather play it safe because you CAN lose everything, and "everything" isn't all material.

Of your three possibilities, this one comes closest to my ideas;
It's pretty difficult to find a principled way to acquire great wealth, and although I have my own sense of where the limit is beyond which wealth is excessive, other people will think I'm greedy, or impoverished in my standards.

And yeah, I can think of ways to use my (totally hypothetical haha) wealth that would make me feel more or less virtuous...

That's about where I am.

It's always been a kind of American thing. To work hard and get great wealth is admirable and then you're supposed to give it away. Funny thing is that we often do, much more so than in other countries. Its an admirable trait, this giving away, but as Stella pointed out, some of the ways people got the money in the first place are questionable. Getty is the first name that comes to mind. Norton Simon was another slimeball.

In regards to giving it away, someone gave me an interesting viewpoint privately earlier. I had mentioned something about those who think it's sickening how the rich flaunt their money and I agreed with them until I got this email. The guy said that when *he* sees these huge mansions, he thinks of the architect who had to be paid, and the builder and his crew that had to be paid, in order to build that house. He sees their ridiculously expensive clothes and thinks of the salespeople who can pay their rent because of those sales. He hears about them paying $1000 or more every other week to have their hair and nails done and thinks about the stylist who can put food on the table for her kids. He sees all these excesses and he sees money going into the economy. Without those extravagant purchases, without these stores and firms and spas that cater to the rich, a lot more people would be out on the street.

I hadn't thought of it that way. He makes a point, it would be a lot worse for "the little people" if the rich hoarded all their money and lived in shanties, or went survivalist.

Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that he doesn't think the kind of wealth he has should be left to his heirs. I tend to agree. It is far too much power to pass along. It is almost a certainty that someone through the generations will misuse it.

Warren Buffet feels the same. It's an old traditional idea going back to Andrew Carnagie who probably was heavily influenced by John Calvin.

Conrad Hilton felt that way as well. From what I understand his family went through some type of lengthy court battle to overturn his will because he didn't leave his fortune or his hotel empire to them. Now we have three generations of Hiltons who, for the most part, have never worked a day in their lives. He didn't want that, and he didn't want anybody to misuse that empire.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Conrad Hilton felt that way as well. From what I understand his family went through some type of lengthy court battle to overturn his will because he didn't leave his fortune or his hotel empire to them. Now we have three generations of Hiltons who, for the most part, have never worked a day in their lives. He didn't want that, and he didn't want anybody to misuse that empire.

The Kennedy's are the same way. Fuck old money with no integrety.

 

[jomar]

Ah...but having a "job" isn't going to make many people rich anyway. Fiscal responsibility isn't going to make you wealthy. Getting rich generally requires some kind of risk that you're going to have to take on your own. I'm not telling everyone they have to be willing to do that in their lives, just that they have to be willing to do it if they want to be one of the few in this country with a fat account; many of us would much, much rather play it safe because you CAN lose everything, and "everything" isn't all material.

This book may be of interest: The Millionaire Next Door

 

[rgraham666]

Ah...but having a "job" isn't going to make many people rich anyway. Fiscal responsibility isn't going to make you wealthy. Getting rich generally requires some kind of risk that you're going to have to take on your own. I'm not telling everyone they have to be willing to do that in their lives, just that they have to be willing to do it if they want to be one of the few in this country with a fat account; many of us would much, much rather play it safe because you CAN lose everything, and "everything" isn't all material.

Unfortunately, many of the wealthy these days do not run a risk. At least not with their own money. What Paul Krugman calls the 'Imperial CEOs' are pretty much paid just for showing up. As the recent insistence by the upper management of failed banks that they receive their bonuses shows they think they deserve their wealth no matter how badly they fuck up.

It's understandable though. Those people are severely deluded. They think they're capitalists when they're really just technocrats. Many of us share that delusion though.

In regards to giving it away, someone gave me an interesting viewpoint privately earlier. I had mentioned something about those who think it's sickening how the rich flaunt their money and I agreed with them until I got this email. The guy said that when *he* sees these huge mansions, he thinks of the architect who had to be paid, and the builder and his crew that had to be paid, in order to build that house. He sees their ridiculously expensive clothes and thinks of the salespeople who can pay their rent because of those sales. He hears about them paying $1000 or more every other week to have their hair and nails done and thinks about the stylist who can put food on the table for her kids. He sees all these excesses and he sees money going into the economy. Without those extravagant purchases, without these stores and firms and spas that cater to the rich, a lot more people would be out on the street.

I hadn't thought of it that way. He makes a point, it would be a lot worse for "the little people" if the rich hoarded all their money and lived in shanties, or went survivalist.

There is a point, but it's a small one. The number of architects, salespeople etc. that serve the rich is not a big part of the economy. What this man is saying is that 'trickle down' works. Which I do not believe it does.

But most of the wealth in a modern society is in the middle class. Hundreds of millions of people engaged in economic activity is much healthier than a few hundred multi-billionaires and their servants doing the same.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Obtaining wealth is part of the American dream. I have no problem with that.

BUT...if you fuck people over to get that wealth and continue to fuck people over to maintain that wealth ...I have a problem with that. I guess that's one reason why I will never be wealthy.

I also believe that giving back to society via charity is something that everyone should do. Wealthy and those just getting by. But I don't belive one should do so cuz they have a "gun" pointed at their head. See...I also believe in karma.

 

[DesertPirate]

The Kennedy's are the same way. Fuck old money with no integrety.

Old money hell! If todays criminal enterprise laws were retroactive they would have it all stripped away. More than half was from Joe being the only importer of scotch during prohibition. Since there is no way to probe what came from where they would loose it all just like a drug dealer today.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ah...but having a "job" isn't going to make many people rich anyway. Fiscal responsibility isn't going to make you wealthy. Getting rich generally requires some kind of risk that you're going to have to take on your own.

But "not struggling" is not the same as "rich" and your original statement said that other people had no bearing on whether someone "struggles" or not. Getting "rich" is an entirely different problem from "not struggling."

Even there, previously established positions in the market have a great deal of bearing on the ability of a new entrant in the market becoming "rich." A mediocre craftsman in an exclusive market can get rich while more competent craftsmen can starve in a competitive market and an individual doesn't always have much control over whether they're a big frog in a small pond or a tadpole in the ocean.

 

[DesertPirate]

Obtaining wealth is part of the American dream. I have no problem with that.

BUT...if you fuck people over to get that wealth and continue to fuck people over to maintain that wealth ...I have a problem with that. I guess that's one reason why I will never be wealthy.

I also believe that giving back to society via charity is something that everyone should do. Wealthy and those just getting by. But I don't belive one should do so cuz they have a "gun" pointed at their head. See...I also believe in karma.

I have noticed when collecting for Special Olympics that I get better results in the poorer neighborhoods.

 

[R. Richard]

Old money hell! If todays criminal enterprise laws were retroactive they would have it all stripped away. More than half was from Joe being the only importer of scotch during prohibition. Since there is no way to probe what came from where they would loose it all just like a drug dealer today.

Old Joe was the only booze importer of real size on the East coast back in his day. The reason was 1) he had contact with the exporters. 2) if old Joe caught others trying to import booze, he gave then a free cement swim suit.

As to getting caught, two words: 'for' and 'getit.' The scumbags, including federal scumbags are allergic to cement swim suits. [The younger Kennedys were kinder and gentler, although, in Ted's case the difference was slight.]

 

[R. Richard]

One thing that has been overlooked in this discussion is the reasons why some people earn obscene amounts of cash. Bill Gates earned his by selling software and finding ways to collect from the would be software pirates. Joseph CEO is normally hired because of his business contacts and you damn well better hope that you work for a Joseph CEO, because his contacts are a large part of why the reason you have a job. [I worked for a place where an unethical, scheming CEO was replaced by a squeaky clean CEO with no contacts. In a short time most of us were looking for new jobs after a massive layoff. I'm speaking form personal observation here, as I sat and watched the first guy bring customers into a dive that only a total degenerate would even know existed.]

 

[DesertPirate]

Old Joe was the only booze importer of real size on the East coast back in his day. The reason was 1) he had contact with the exporters. 2) if old Joe caught others trying to import booze, he gave then a free cement swim suit.

As to getting caught, two words: 'for' and 'getit.' The scumbags, including federal scumbags are allergic to cement swim suits. [The younger Kennedys were kinder and gentler, although, in Ted's case the difference was slight.]

You are too kind to them. The acorns don't fall that far from the tree. Bobby could be a vicious little prick.

 

[trysail]

Unfortunately, many of the wealthy these days do not run a risk. At least not with their own money. What Paul Krugman calls the 'Imperial CEOs' are pretty much paid just for showing up. As the recent insistence by the upper management of failed banks that they receive their bonuses shows they think they deserve their wealth no matter how badly they fuck up.

It's understandable though. Those people are severely deluded. They think they're capitalists when they're really just technocrats. Many of us share that delusion though.

Yeah, right. Check your facts and try acquiring some knowledge of the world beyond the confines of your bedroom and what you read on the Internet. Your assertion is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind.

You will discover that you need to add a host of actors, professional athletes, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and mass tort lawyers to your tunnel-vision version of the world.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/16/fo...s-400list08_cx_mn_0917richamericans_land.html

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This book may be of interest: The Millionaire Next Door

I own it. I read it. I believe it. And I suspect that by the time I retire in two years, I will have attained it. "Merely Rich" is such a sweet title.

 

[DeeZire]

I see great wealth as inversely proportional to integrity.

I see the American dream of 'anyone can get rich' as BS. It's all about being in the right place at the right time. Over 90% of start up businesses fail. The deck is stacked against those who try to pursue their wealth honestly because they end up getting kicked out of the way by those who will do anything to win.

Of course there are exceptions, but there's a reason why the business world is considered 'cutthroat'. It's a war, contrary to Ami's assertion that capitalism brings out the best in people.

I think it's great that a guy like Obama can claw his way to the top, but the spots at the top are limited. Assuming anyone can do what Obama did, or what Bill Gates did, is totally unrealistic, unless you add in the odds, which would be something like one in a million.

So, anyone can get rich, if they happen to be that lucky one-in-a-million person. The other 999,999 are going to be SOL, no matter how hard they try.

Okay, I'll back track and admit that trying harder improves the odds, but they're still really shitty odds.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, it was easier at the start of America, because there was less of an establishment in place to manipulate the market. Laissez-faire was more of a reality back then, in both good and bad ways, but it worked more because the government didn't actively support the rich the way that it does today.

In a world where the politicians and corporate executives attend the same Ivy League schools, where the jump from politician to lobbyist is just a lost election away, and where businesses use taxpayer money to line their own pockets repeatedly while spouting platitudes that they themselves violate, the notion that laissez-faire is a real option is a joke. A sick one.

Not that I hate capitalism. I just want to see some balance. What TR called a "Square Deal". On balance, his vision is vastly superior to the Philip Dru socialism advocated by Edward M. House and the others who masterminded Woodrow Wilson. It's a genuine push for practical, effective, and yet reasonably limited government. Not as limited as the Reaganites would like, but they are living in the fantasies of their ideology. I should know, having subscribed to the same world-view not too long ago.

The answer is an amount of carefully dosed regulation and necessary social services, balanced by respect for the need to conduct business and encourage personal risk-taking and initiative. Private enterprise with reasonable exceptions, as I once remarked to the Earl. Debt should be more limited than it is today and thrift encouraged once more.

The states are necessary partners in this, as is the Federal Government. Each, within their Constitutional spheres, can do their part to regulate, tax, and spend as necessary, but not to excess. To provide those functions required for a modern civilization to thrive and not those which will stifle the work ethic and penalize well-deserved success.

This is a far better idea than simply to "let alone". I don't know about you, but I'm not really good at "letting alone", as it turns out. I guess that my days as a Libertarian were always numbered, by virtue of my personality. I want to do things to improve the world, not just leave it be.

 

[Boota]

I think very few people have a problem with the wealthy. It is the socially irresponsible wealthy who really bother people. The people who feel no moral obligation to the society that was good enough to provide them with the means to attain their wealth. The people who find ways of paying less than their fair share of the tax burden while the middle class and poor get financially raped. The AIG's of the world, who spend the money of a billions of dollars bail out to throw an extravagant party for themselves.

Most of America's super rich are socially responsible people who see beyond their own luxury and that is a very good thing. The upper-upper middle class who aspire to great wealth are often the most vocal against social responsibility. Paying their fair share of taxes keeps them from attaining that elusive "next level" to true wealth. It's the poor who take away their third Beamer. That's the kind of thing I find more offensive concerning wealth.