Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[anglolawyer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryn...straps-billionaires-who-started-from-scratch/

You were saying?

Well, this, actually:

I can with no less authority assert that most stinking rich people did nothing remotely proportionate to merit the wealth they ended up with.

And, oddly enough, I am still saying it notwithstanding your link. First, there are 127 in the top 400 who did nothing worth mentioning, proving it is possible to acquire immense wealth without displaying any entrepreneurial talent or being of benefit to society and, second, you and I probably have different understandings of the word 'proportionate'. Where I mean something that deserves to be rewarded by staggering wealth (I looked up Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in that list - both have given away billions, proving to you, no doubt what great guys they are but, to me, that capitalism rewarded them far beyond what was necessary to incentivise them to do whatever it is they did) your meaning is probably measured in dollars and is accordingly tautological and, well, meaningless.

Any system is going to have the rich and the poor. Even communism have the ultra powerful and wealthy, it's just that the path to get there is littered with bodies (millions of them in the case of Stalin and Mao).

No ****, grasshopper. Where we find widespread poverty in an immensely rich society like the USA (a country built on conquest and genocide, since we are allowed to talk about atrocities) we should begin to ask questions about how successful capitalism is at distributing resources.

Now then, given that link and what it says you need to cite how "Most" wealthy people did nothing "Remotely proportionate" to merit their wealth. Most poor people remain poor because of poor decisions on their part. They committed crimes in their youth, they chose to not work hard at school and a host of other poor choices that set them up to fail later on in life. There are plenty of people that came from the exact same background right down to the same neighborhoods and public schools that are now in the middle to upper middle class. I've already said that there are "Some" wealthy people who inherited their wealth but even they had someone in their past who originally started off poor, worked hard and got rich. Very few Americans came to these shores already rich.

Could you dig up a cite for the highlighted bit please? Proof that crime levels are highest among the poor will not count unless you can show which is cause and which effect. It always stuns me when you moral capitalists come out with this stuff, as though it's an ethical system. Do you really think the population of Detroit one day all said 'ah, **** it, can't be bothered anymore. Let the place go to rot!'? I would love to drop a few of you guys into a ghetto somewhere (at birth) and see you make all those brilliant choices that scoot you to the top of the pile. It's like the guy who managed to climb out of the black hole of Calcutta somehow proved it wasn't so bad down there after all.

 

[sunmaster14]

Complete absence of citation to support this. Everybody can pick some apparently worthy example of some bright spark getting rich. We've had a few on this thread. I can with no less authority assert that most stinking rich people did nothing remotely proportionate to merit the wealth they ended up with. The true defence of capitalism is that it's better than the alternatives, not that it's some kind of wunnerful meritocracy. It is thus part and parcel of the system that there be grindingly poor people as well as undeservedly rich ones.

No, it's not, unless you redefine "grindingly poor" to mean the bottom 10% of the distribution, regardless of their standard of living. Since wealth creation is not a zero sum game - far from it in fact - it is not necessary for some people to become poor so that others can become rich. And for the most part it doesn't happen. Generally, the rich do not get rich by taking advantage of the poor. On the contrary, the rich get that way by providing goods and services more efficiently and cheaply than had been done before.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, this, actually:

I can with no less authority assert that most stinking rich people did nothing remotely proportionate to merit the wealth they ended up with.

And, oddly enough, I am still saying it notwithstanding your link. First, there are 127 in the top 400 who did nothing worth mentioning, proving it is possible to acquire immense wealth without displaying any entrepreneurial talent or being of benefit to society

So what? Why would I give a rat's ass if somebody is rich who doesn't deserve it? Some of the people who deserve it are far more annoying actually. Bill Gates' ego could be a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.

and, second, you and I probably have different understandings of the word 'proportionate'. Where I mean something that deserves to be rewarded by staggering wealth (I looked up Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in that list - both have given away billions, proving to you, no doubt what great guys they are but, to me, that capitalism rewarded them far beyond what was necessary to incentivise them to do whatever it is they did) your meaning is probably measured in dollars and is accordingly tautological and, well, meaningless.

Once again, so what? Any taxes or regulations aimed at curbing wealth accumulation is going to lead to distortions throughout the economy and at all levels of income and wealth. People are not static. They find a way to rearrange their businesses and finances so as to keep more for themselves, even if, in Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates's cases, it's to give it away to charity. You raise taxes, those distortions simply become worse and lead to a greater waste of resources.

No ****, grasshopper. Where we find widespread poverty in an immensely rich society like the USA (a country built on conquest and genocide, since we are allowed to talk about atrocities) we should begin to ask questions about how successful capitalism is at distributing resources.

Poverty in the US is a relative measure. The poor here are quite well-off by global standards.

 

[DavidJames]

So what? Why would I give a rat's ass if somebody is rich who doesn't deserve it? Some of the people who deserve it are far more annoying actually. Bill Gates' ego could be a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.



Once again, so what? Any taxes or regulations aimed at curbing wealth accumulation is going to lead to distortions throughout the economy and at all levels of income and wealth. People are not static. They find a way to rearrange their businesses and finances so as to keep more for themselves, even if, in Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates's cases, it's to give it away to charity. You raise taxes, those distortions simply become worse and lead to a greater waste of resources.



Poverty in the US is a relative measure. The poor here are quite well-off by global standards.

Another example of how conservatives differ from liberals. Liberals aren't satisfied with our poor being simply better off then some other countries poor. Pretty sad from those who insist we are a country of exceptionalism.

 

[Mitchell314]

This is a common misconception about wealth.

That is a common misconception about a so called common misconception about wealth, and no, I'm not being snarky. There be a thing called scarcity. No amount of hand waving and moving around numbers changes the fact that there is - at *EVERY* moment in time - a finite amount of leverage-able resources and services.

thus the rich can stay just as rich and the poor can still get richer

Except that we haven't seen that in the US since the 80s. The lower segments of the employed population have stagnated (and some cases, decreased) in both income and wealth accumulation, while cost of living has been increasing.

It takes about $15,000 to $20,000 (depending on location) to keep an average adult human clothed, in presentable condition for employment, housed in good health, with the minimum requirements of nutrition. When you're near the poverty line, there's not a whole lot of "creature comforts" to cut back on to invest in. Never mind that the amount left to save/invest is so laughable small that it would take multiple lifetimes to accumulate. And it's not like accidents or emergencies happen where those funds are needed elsewhere.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, it's not, unless you redefine "grindingly poor" to mean the bottom 10% of the distribution, regardless of their standard of living. Since wealth creation is not a zero sum game - far from it in fact - it is not necessary for some people to become poor so that others can become rich. And for the most part it doesn't happen. Generally, the rich do not get rich by taking advantage of the poor. On the contrary, the rich get that way by providing goods and services more efficiently and cheaply than had been done before.

Yes, it is.

 

[anglolawyer]

So what? Why would I give a rat's ass if somebody is rich who doesn't deserve it? Some of the people who deserve it are far more annoying actually. Bill Gates' ego could be a float in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.



Once again, so what? Any taxes or regulations aimed at curbing wealth accumulation is going to lead to distortions throughout the economy and at all levels of income and wealth. People are not static. They find a way to rearrange their businesses and finances so as to keep more for themselves, even if, in Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates's cases, it's to give it away to charity. You raise taxes, those distortions simply become worse and lead to a greater waste of resources.



Poverty in the US is a relative measure. The poor here are quite well-off by global standards.

Sweden has a higher per capita income than the US, higher taxes and less poverty*.





*Can't be arsed to find a link for this last so instead I offer to bet 100 ISF credibility units on it.

 

[ehcks]

*Can't be arsed to find a link for this last so instead I offer to bet 100 ISF credibility units on it.

This was easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

Sweden has the number one ranking. US is 17.

http://www.thelocal.se/20130304/46524

EU classifies 1 percent of Swedes as 'poor'
The EU average was 9 percent.

 

[SezMe]

It's okay to assume whatever you like, but in this case no such assumption was necessary.

The only assumption I made was that you wanted to know what a non-freedom based capitalist society looks like. Because you asked. Did you already have China in mind as the answer, when you asked the question?

No.

I'm all done with our little off-topic tête-à-tête.

 

[SezMe]

The poor may have to work a bit harder and sacrifice some creature comforts at first in order to invest in getting richer but there are plenty of examples out there of rich people who started off poor and did just that (such as Bill Gates, who didn't even have a university degree when he got started). Not one rich person lost money because Bill Gates got rich and that's because Bill Gates created his own wealth. He made a product and sold it at a price that people (both rich and poor) were willing to pay for it.

You're very generous to Gates. Gates didn't have the best OS when IBM picked Microsoft to bundle with their new PCs, thereby changing PCs from specialty items to commodities. Subsequently, he used Microsoft's position of nearly complete market share to leverage Office into the commercial sector. That's vulture capitalism.

Also, you cannot say rich people did not lose money because of Gates' success. Lots of companies that neither of us know about because of MS's monopoly position. For example, there was a company out of Kansas (cannot remember their name; this was decades ago) that had an bundled office suite that was really well ahead of the market. Gates bundled baby Word and baby Excel on top of his monopoly causing other firms to tank.

The likes of the Vanderbilt's, Kennedy's and Rockefeller's are not the norm. Most of the rich weren't born with a silver spoon. Hard work, skill and sometimes a bit of luck in the form of being at the right place at the right time is how the majority of the rich got to where they are today.

You're right but the trend is not favorable. I suspect the USA will return to the Gilded Age of the early 20th century when, in fact, inherited wealth was typical. Unless we change national economic policy, we'll go back there again. Then there will be another crash, a new New Deal and all the lessons of history will remain unlearned.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sweden has a higher per capita income than the US, higher taxes and less poverty*.

Better to use a PPP-adjusted measure. After all, it's real purchasing power that matters. Money itself is rather useless. You can't even roll around it like you used to.

Oh, by the way, the US is ahead of Sweden by this measure. By quite a lot actually (23% ahead).

 

[sunmaster14]

This was easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

Sweden has the number one ranking. US is 17.

http://www.thelocal.se/20130304/46524

Yeah, I'm not too impressed with such comparisons between demographically homogeneous populations and demographically diverse ones. The US really has more of a bi-modal distribution. The inequality is more properly described as an inequality between ethnic groups, and, if past experience is any guide, higher taxes and more social services don't appear to be very effective at mitigating that inequality.

 

[anglolawyer]

Better to use a PPP-adjusted measure. After all, it's real purchasing power that matters. Money itself is rather useless. You can't even roll around it like you used to.

Oh, by the way, the US is ahead of Sweden by this measure. By quite a lot actually (23% ahead).

Oh, so you think Sweden would somehow break apart if it were 23% richer, or that it could only get 23% richer by adopting a US type of socio-economic model? Do expand.

ETA - if we sliced off the top 10% in each case, would the U.S. still be top? What about the top 5% or 1%?

Yeah, I'm not too impressed with such comparisons between demographically homogeneous populations and demographically diverse ones. The US really has more of a bi-modal distribution. The inequality is more properly described as an inequality between ethnic groups, and, if past experience is any guide, higher taxes and more social services don't appear to be very effective at mitigating that inequality.

So does this mean it's the blacks' fault because they are all lazy and make bad choices?

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh, so you think Sweden would somehow break apart if it were 23% richer, or that it could only get 23% richer by adopting a US type of socio-economic model? Do expand.

You're the one that brought it up. What did you mean? To answer a question that you didn't ask but should have, Sweden would become richer if it allowed less fettered capitalism.

So does this mean it's the blacks' fault because they are all lazy and make bad choices?

LOL. It's always the same with lefties. When you run out of intelligent things to say, you start saying something else.

In any case, it's not a question of fault. It's a question of reality. I am not opining on the causes of such differences in economic performance (and there are many possible causes), but that such differences appear to be immune to the standard lefty prescriptions.

By the way, blacks fare worse in the UK than in the US relative to the white population in each, by a number of measures.

 

[anglolawyer]

You're the one that brought it up. What did you mean? To answer a question that you didn't ask but should have, Sweden would become richer if it allowed less fettered capitalism.

Prove it. And while you're at it, prove that Sweden's social problems would not increase too.

LOL. It's always the same with lefties. When you run out of intelligent things to say, you start saying something else.

Apologies, I was confusing you with Sam.I.Am whose view does seem to be that the poor basically deserve it.

In any case, it's not a question of fault. It's a question of reality. I am not opining on the causes of such differences in economic performance (and there are many possible causes), but that such differences appear to be immune to the standard lefty prescriptions.

Thanks for clearing that up. Its not my case here that lefty prescriptions work best in producing higher GDP but rather that they tend to achieve greater social justice and thus reflect what one would expect an enfranchised populace to pursue. That this does not happen in the US is suggested by the long term trend referenced in the OP which in turn suggests a dysfunctional democracy in which the two main parties fight out a fake battle for power that is mostly for show and doesn't have much bearing on wealth distribution.

By the way, blacks fare worse in the UK than in the US relative to the white population in each, by a number of measures.

Find me taking the position that the UK is somehow better or superior than the US (whether on this thread or any other) and I will accept the relevance of this observation to our discussion.

ETA , sorry, but reading your post again, why am I wrong on thinking you are implying that relatively high inequality is something to do with being black? Maybe you would explain your ethnicity point more clearly.

 

[sunmaster14]

Find me taking the position that the UK is somehow better or superior than the US (whether on this thread or any other) and I will accept the relevance of this observation to our discussion.

Well, I assumed that since the UK doesn't have quite the level of wealth inequality as the US, you thought the UK's economic model was doing something right. My point was that whatever the differences in the economic model, it is not doing anything to mitigate inequality across demographic groups and that perhaps if the UK had the same level of diversity as the US, the macro inequality numbers might actually look worse.

ETA , sorry, but reading your post again, why am I wrong on thinking you are implying that relatively high inequality is something to do with being black? Maybe you would explain your ethnicity point more clearly.

No, you weren't wrong about that. You were wrong to ascribe the inequality to a particular (and scientifically unsound) population stereotype. As I implied, the achievement gap between certain minority populations in the US and the majority is a statistical fact, and this gap persists in other developed countries. It is unknown what drives this gap - leftists might argue that it's due to racism and white privilege; conservatives might argue that it's due to culture, or to failure to assimilate, or to genetics. Whatever the reason, it appears to be a phenomenon which is not easy to address with the tax code and various redistribution schemes. These fixes have been tried in the US, and the gaps not only persist, but in some areas have gotten worse.

My broad point is that since the US is an ethnically diverse country, where the majority population is only 63% of the population, these differences in sub-population averages have a material effect on aggregate measures of inequality. But the differences in sub-population averages are not a direct result of the economic model and tell us very little about what the right economic model should be.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I assumed that since the UK doesn't have quite the level of wealth inequality as the US, you thought the UK's economic model was doing something right.

Well, your assumption was wrong. I make no claim to British superiority at all. In fact, our model (the so-called 'Anglo-saxon' model) diverges from European norms and closely resembles that of the US.

My point was that whatever the differences in the economic model, it is not doing anything to mitigate inequality across demographic groups and that perhaps if the UK had the same level of diversity as the US, the macro inequality numbers might actually look worse.

Understood.

No, you weren't wrong about that. You were wrong to ascribe the inequality to a particular (and scientifically unsound) population stereotype. As I implied, the achievement gap between certain minority populations in the US and the majority is a statistical fact, and this gap persists in other developed countries. It is unknown what drives this gap - leftists might argue that it's due to racism and white privilege; conservatives might argue that it's due to culture, or to failure to assimilate, or to genetics. Whatever the reason, it appears to be a phenomenon which is not easy to address with the tax code and various redistribution schemes. These fixes have been tried in the US, and the gaps not only persist, but in some areas have gotten worse.

Forgive me for conflating you with the more outspokenly conservative racist bigots posters here.

My broad point is that since the US is an ethnically diverse country, where the majority population is only 63% of the population, these differences in sub-population averages have a material effect on aggregate measures of inequality. But the differences in sub-population averages are not a direct result of the economic model and tell us very little about what the right economic model should be.

OK, so we give the US a pass because of all those intractable ethnic people and assume Sweden (or the UK) would fare no better if we injected a large minority ethnic, under-educated group but what about the American middle class? You know, the suckers white folks who actually vote in elections, salute the flag and work hard and take short, Amercan-style holidays. Aren't they, relatively speaking, faring poorly? If so, explain.

 

[xjx388]

To go back to the OP a little bit:

Reich specifically talks about wealth distribution so I will address that only. Wealth accumulation is the result of a lifetime of choosing saving and investing over consumption. Very few people in America choose to live within their means. Thus, the principal reason for wealth inequality is down to individual choices people make. Most of us choose to spend more than we make and we pay the price in lower net worth. We don't think about saving or investing. The few of us that do choose to invest and save instead of buy that fancy new curved screen TV are rewarded with higher net worth.

Even many Americans that make top incomes are not wealthy because they consume more than they save. I know doctors who make high six figures who are poor on paper because they spend their money on material possessions rather than investments. They want a collection of ridiculous cars and a stupidly huge mansion but can barely make the payments on either one.

Americans would never vote for wealth inequality in an election. It has, in fact, never been part of either party's platform in my memory. However, they vote for it in their everyday actions by spending more than they make. Until people start valuing saving and investing more than having stuff, the situation will not change.

I have heard the argument before that, "But the middle class can't save and invest; they are barely scraping by!" To that I ask, "Who is buying all the cigarettes, big screens, beer, sport tickets, designer clothes, movie tickets, drugs ad nauseum?" I think you will find that the people who move from poor to wealthy are those who, as Dave Ramsey might say it, "Live like no one else now so that they can live no one else later." IOW, they scrimp and save and avoid debt like the plague even if it means they can't keep up with the Joneses so that they can far exceed the Joneses later. When more Americans begin having that mindset, the situation will fix itself.

I think the government can help the situation, but not by simple redistribution schemes. I think incentivizing saving and investing is the way to go; in fact, we are already doing that by tax-favoring IRAs, 401Ks and by making the capital gains tax low. But so few Americans avail themselves of these tools.

 

[Distracted1]

To go back to the OP a little bit:

Reich specifically talks about wealth distribution so I will address that only. Wealth accumulation is the result of a lifetime of choosing saving and investing over consumption. Very few people in America choose to live within their means. Thus, the principal reason for wealth inequality is down to individual choices people make. Most of us choose to spend more than we make and we pay the price in lower net worth. We don't think about saving or investing. The few of us that do choose to invest and save instead of buy that fancy new curved screen TV are rewarded with higher net worth.

Even many Americans that make top incomes are not wealthy because they consume more than they save. I know doctors who make high six figures who are poor on paper because they spend their money on material possessions rather than investments. They want a collection of ridiculous cars and a stupidly huge mansion but can barely make the payments on either one.

Americans would never vote for wealth inequality in an election. It has, in fact, never been part of either party's platform in my memory. However, they vote for it in their everyday actions by spending more than they make. Until people start valuing saving and investing more than having stuff, the situation will not change.

I have heard the argument before that, "But the middle class can't save and invest; they are barely scraping by!" To that I ask, "Who is buying all the cigarettes, big screens, beer, sport tickets, designer clothes, movie tickets, drugs ad nauseum?" I think you will find that the people who move from poor to wealthy are those who, as Dave Ramsey might say it, "Live like no one else now so that they can live no one else later." IOW, they scrimp and save and avoid debt like the plague even if it means they can't keep up with the Joneses so that they can far exceed the Joneses later. When more Americans begin having that mindset, the situation will fix itself.

I think the government can help the situation, but not by simple redistribution schemes. I think incentivizing saving and investing is the way to go; in fact, we are already doing that by tax-favoring IRAs, 401Ks and by making the capital gains tax low. But so few Americans avail themselves of these tools.

I think you are wrong as to your assessment of how much better off we would all be if we all decided to behave responsibly with our money.
Without the majority of citizens acting foolishly, I think our economy would collapse to depths not seen since the Great Depression.

That doesn't make responsible spending any less important to an individual, but it does highlite a certain hypocrisy. If my livelihood is predicated upon others behaving irresponsibly, I am double dipping when I use that behavior to condemn them.

 

[xjx388]

I think you are wrong as to your assessment of how much better off we would all be if we all decided to behave responsibly with our money.
Without the majority of citizens acting foolishly, I think our economy would collapse to depths not seen since the Great Depression.

I think the economy would have to retool and that process could be difficult. But it would eventually adjust. And as more people have more financial freedom, spending would rise. The problem isn't with spending it's with spending beyond one's means.

I don't really care who is richer than who. I only care about freedom. A truly free society cannot ever hope to achieve true equality. I don't think any human society can ever achieve that. What it can do is ensure that every citizen has equal opportunity to accumulate wealth. If some, even the majority, choose not to, that is just a by-product of freedom.

That doesn't make responsible spending any less important to an individual, but it does highlite a certain hypocrisy. If my livelihood is predicated upon others behaving irresponsibly, I am double dipping when I use that behavior to condemn them.

The rich get rich because they know how to take advantage of things like over-consumption. I don't begrudge them this. Nor do I take any issue with people who spend beyond their means; that's their business. I make no value judgements either way. The problem I have is when those over-spenders come to me (in the form of government) and say, "Hey, this isn't fair! I have no wealth! Give me a handout!" Why should I take money from my hard-earned savings and distribute it to a bunch of people who are just going to spend it foolishly? They had the same opportunities I did to accumulate wealth and chose to spend instead; why am I penalized for their choices?

For the record, I have the same kind of problem when rich people take big, stupid risks and lose. I don't think we should have bailed out those "too big to fail," companies. They messed up and that should have been on them.