The role of wealth in achieving prosperity.

[Drifterwood]

Some will have noticed that I am not particularly interested in the sound bite stats about the Super Rich. I am interested in how they have become rich like the Waltons of Walmart and that may come up in the thread.

What I am interested in, is how significant an element of prosperity wealth is, and whether there are now more barriers of many different types in the way of individuals to achieve prosperity.

 

[keenobserver]

Interesting question. I guess it all depends on where you start to a very large degree. With more and more wealth being concentrated in fewer hands the pie available for the people of modest and less than modest means shrinks. Consider Trump. He was born into great wealth and he did manage to get wealthier through a combination of work and luck, bullshit and bluster. He had some setbacks, but it seems to have helped having a cushion of Dad's assets to help him. I'm guessing his kids will do well. Consider too the case of George Steinbrenner's heirs. Their Dad had the good grace to die in a year when the US was not collecting any inheritance taxes. So, not only did Dad leave them the NY Yankees, but in effect the US taxpayers kicked in 400 million dollars that they otherwise would never have seen. Pretty sweet. Again I think his grandkids will do well too.

Yes, history is littered with many who have started at zero and accumulated great wealth - tech guys, athletes, inventors, merchants. Sam Walton earned his and now his kids don't have to worry. Access to education is a factor. The GI Bill after WW2 opened the doors for millions to get an education that otherwise would not have been available - and many made the most of it. They might not have been millionaires, but they moved higher and farther than their parents.

For many - too many the opportunity to achieve may be swept away quickly. For others their hard work will pay off in ways they did not expect. I'm not sure it is harder now than it was 25 years ago. It is different in some ways and that makes a straight up comparison hard to make. Did Rockefeller have it harder than Beezos or Zuckerburg or Buffet? Tough one that.

 

[Drifterwood]

Thanks, Keen. It is not an easy question, but one IMO, that people need to consider before they talk about politics more generally. Otherwise they run the risk of having glaring double standards.

Interestingly the Brit who invented the Internet is not that well known compared to those who have exploited it. The famous names you mention tended to be in the right place at the right time with an innovation connected to a recent technological development. The difference today is that whilst Ford employed hundreds of thousands, Google employs maybe a few thousand.

The Waltons have created more poverty than almost anyone else I can think of.

 

[keenobserver]

Thanks, Keen. It is not an easy question, but one IMO, that people need to consider before they talk about politics more generally. Otherwise they run the risk of having glaring double standards.

Interestingly the Brit who invented the Internet is not that well known compared to those who have exploited it. The famous names you mention tended to be in the right place at the right time with an innovation connected to a recent technological development. The difference today is that whilst Ford employed hundreds of thousands, Google employs maybe a few thousand.

The Waltons have created more poverty than almost anyone else I can think of.

I agree. I would add that most people who became wealthy were in the right place at the right time. Timing is everything. Going too far, too fast is as bad as not going far enough.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Wealth plays no role in the prosperity of anyone other than the wealthy folks who have it.

Case in point. Recent tax policies favoring wealth have resulted in ZERO attributable economic activity, outside of the direct consequences of those people having more money. e.g. THEY buy more stocks, but that has zero effect on the performance of the companies they invest in.

For every dollar they spend that might create a job, the underfunding of government and political policies wealth promotes results in LOWER wages and fewer jobs in the larger economy.
So the net trend is downward for everyone who isn't in the portion of the market that has been rigged to be favored.

Contrast this with the period of LOWEST income inequality in the US, the 50s- when wealth was taxed as high as 93%, glas/steagal was fully in force and the SEC most active in prosecuting stock schemes and insider trading.
resulting in The largest growth in the middle class, and the greatest decline in poverty in world history.

The US government heavily deficit spent in investment in infrastructure in the form of the interstate highway system- which TRIPLED the GDP of the US.



Wealth is the negative extreme of capitalism. Every period you can point to in history in which income inequality is high, is a period in which the hot polo suffered poverty and injustices.

The problem with 'pure' capitalism ( free markets ) is that it is like HALF a water cycle. Like having rainfall and gravity- without evaporation. The water rolls downhill and for a while it LOOKS like things are working... but eventually it ALL collects in lakes and the ocean, and the land becomes sere and lifeless.

You HAVE to have re-distribution of water thru evaporation and weather systems to cause water to fall on the highlands- continuously, for the ecosystem to WORK.
Once its raining again in the dry places, water can continue to flow downhill and do work.
And the more of it that there is in the oceans, the less that is available to do productive work.


Wealth literally takes money OUT of the economic ecosystem. It waters the gardens of the wealthy- but it does nothing for the greater economic good.

Capitalism NEEDS the socialism of government taxation and targeted re-distribution in order to make sure that the wider economy can function and grow. And, yes, it makes the rich grow wealthier slower... but it makes their growth more stable, and enduring over a longer stretch of time because the entire economy grows, not just the fraction that caters to wealth.

 

[dandelion]

To be rich you need either luck or rich parents. Luck is not enough on its own, but it is definitely needed to turn someone averagely hard working into one of the wealthy.

As to creating prosperity, yes investment is needed. But people who today talk about investment usualy mean speculating on the price of some sort of valuable item. This does not create wealth, except in as much as it inflates the price of these items. Paper wealth which is potentially unstable and can suddenly disappear.

As a society we have moved to a model where most people are expected to borrow large amounts to purchase a home, which might be a valuable asset when they die, but they never get the benefit of spending that money, ever. Instead it accumulates in the hands of the bank... and then into the hands of the owner of the bank.

What is really out of fashion right now is investment by governments into national projects.

A great deal of societies wealth is concentrated into large multinational companies which are allowed to escape the control of national governments. This is exceedingly dangerous to society, because increasingly their profits are not being recycled to fund national projects.

 

[marinera]

Great posts guys. The water- capitalism metaphor is very suggestive. What can I add? The the West' wealth is for a big part an exploitation of African and Asians lands and people. So, prosperity for whom? 'Prosperity' basically means an increase in resources. The current economic doctrine isn't based on growing resources, but in creating new goods, even if more resources are loss somewhere else. That's what the gdp means. Then you wonder why everything is fucked up?

 

[Jason]

Some will have noticed that I am not particularly interested in the sound bite stats about the Super Rich. I am interested in how they have become rich like the Waltons of Walmart and that may come up in the thread.

What I am interested in, is how significant an element of prosperity wealth is, and whether there are now more barriers of many different types in the way of individuals to achieve prosperity.

I work on long contracts for three employers and also do one-off jobs for half a dozen others. I find the correlation between the time a job takes me and what I get paid for it is very weak indeed; the correlation between skills needed and time is similarly weak. The decision I have made is to do the jobs I want to do. An alternative decision would be to do the most lucrative jobs. My decision leads to a decent income and work I mostly enjoy; the alternative would seem to be the path that would lead to a bigger income, though not anything that equates to super rich. I think therefore I can see a route to greater income, but I haven't taken it, and that's a definite decision. However I can now see a possibility of me getting super-duper payment for the stuff I like doing. This isn't an idle comment - I can look at ways events are shaping this year and this really could just possibly be the outcome for 2016.

SO, here's my pennyworth. People who become rich don't actually want to become rich. They do what they want to do. They are good at what they want to do. Maybe they break out of the "normal" way of doing something. It's doing stuff that is fun and makes them get up in the morning. Getting rich is an accident. I don't think wealth (inherited? lottery win?) is important in itself, though maybe a certain level of financial security gives people the courage to do their own thing.

I think there is a possibility that I could end up rich. I'm calling this a possibility, not a probability. If it happens it will be because I'm really not bothered about getting rich.

 

[918177]

Education is key and not only that it's the kind of education.

The average joes aren't taught the rules and laws of wealth accumulation and the education system is geared towards churning out low to lower middle class blue collar workers who'll consume, get into debt and breed more blue collar workers.

Upper classes with wealthy and or successful parents are mentored and taught at their parent's knee.
Lower classes have to gain that education and mentoring themselves.

 

[dandelion]

I find the correlation between the time a job takes me and what I get paid for it is very weak indeed;

I find that unfortunately the more you charge for something, the more it is respected, almost regardless of quality.

SO, here's my pennyworth. People who become rich don't actually want to become rich. They do what they want to do. They are good at what they want to do.

Yep. And this is exactly why tax cuts and high wages for the already wealthy do no good for the economy whatever. Productive and dedicated people DO NOT CARE about their income, at least above a certain point. It is the poor who are motivated to do more by more pay.

though maybe a certain level of financial security gives people the courage to do their own thing.

I think Bill Gates is a classic example of someone who got lucky, but all credit to him for seeking to do something useful with the money he acquired, in areas which do not interest businesses or governments. (at last, not any of the governments which actually have any money)

I think there is a possibility that I could end up rich. I'm calling this a possibility, not a probability. If it happens it will be because I'm really not bothered about getting rich.

Please write this to your local Mp, the leaders of the conservative party, any other politicians you can think of, and since we are international here, every US politician.

 

[Jocksonly]

OMG, Didn't think there was any Democrats in the entire US left since the Trump and election carrousel started.
I'd say, being in a Scandinavian with socialism and god knows what, a majority of economic scientists says that equally spent wealth is most favorable for an prosperous society. Fortunes concentrated on few rich people is equal to communism. A very few people rule the entire society without democratic principals. Good luck America!

 

[Jason]

Yep. And this is exactly why tax cuts and high wages for the already wealthy do no good for the economy whatever. Productive and dedicated people DO NOT CARE about their income, at least above a certain point. It is the poor who are motivated to do more by more pay.

I don't think this conclusion follows. Maybe people really don't care about their income after a certain point, but they are likely to get drawn into the world of tax advisors. I (still) fill in my own tax return. The wretched thing is just horrible and takes ages. There are boxes I look at and think "what am I supposed to put here?" There's plenty of scope for me to make an honest mistake and get into trouble. If I need to ask the tax office a question about something I find I spend forever on hold. They are capable of making mistakes, so the result needs to be checked. Sooner or later I'm going to give up and pay someone to do my return for me. And suddenly we're into the mindset of the advisor finding enough savings to justify their bill. We're into (legal) tax avoidance. We're also very soon into the advisor saying that something doesn't have to be presented as income but can be presented as something which pays less tax. Productive people are not particularly motivated by income, but they are not going to pay tax for the fun of it when they are presented with a method for reducing it. The system ensures that high earners even if they do not seek it out will have someone telling them how to pay less income tax.

For the really rich, paying tax is pretty much something which is voluntary. The problem is with income tax. It worked in a world where just about everyone had a single employer and therefore single income, and where affairs were constant year after year. That world has gone. The easiest solution would be to have a top level of tax: £x is the most any one person can be required to pay in income tax. It would get rid of a whole industry around tax, including lots of costs in collecting it. Maybe people could have the option of volunteering an additional sum.

 

[dandelion]

Productive people are not particularly motivated by income, but they are not going to pay tax for the fun of it when they are presented with a method for reducing it. The system ensures that high earners even if they do not seek it out will have someone telling them how to pay less income tax.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Having said that people are not motivated to work harder by tax cuts, you seems to be saying that high taxes creates an industry of accountants. This is certainly true, but I dont recall any politicians arguing that 'trickle down economics' works because hordes of new accountants are being hired.

For the really rich, paying tax is pretty much something which is voluntary.

because they are the group with the greatest ability to influence tax law, and certainly you are correct in arguing the greatest likelihood to hire an expert to find those loopholes. Which does not mean this is inevitable, certainly not desireable. It means they taken control of the political and government systems to allow them to do this.

A significant part of this is the international aspect of wealth, and the ability to transfer your notional income to a different legal area where you can enjoy the best rates. The rich, and corporate entities such as companies, have exploited disunity between countries, and sought tax shelters. The way to deal with this is to abolish tax shelters, obviously, which requires international cooperation. On the one hand there are some countries who are keen to become tax shelters, because they see an opportunity to improve their own position whatever the cost to the rest of the world, but also on the other hand there are countries like the US, where the wealthy class have taken a massive hold upon the political system. US elections are bought by rich influence groups who make laws to suit themselves.

The problem is with income tax. It worked in a world where just about everyone had a single employer and therefore single income, and where affairs were constant year after year.

I don't see your point. The difficulty we now have is not with the complexity of tax affairs, nor even with people lying and getting away with this because of complexity, but because of the fundamental tax rules. Income tax rates in general are a fraction of what they were, and have been pushed steadily lower and lower because of a political philosophy that this benefits the wider economy.

That world has gone.

Yes indeed. Once we had tax rates approaching 100%, but with wide exemptions and allowances which brought this down. While the headline rates have disappeared, the allowances have grown. Now 100% does not make any sense, but nor does a headline rate so low there is obviosuly going to be little tax raised. Income tax was conceived as a tax on the rich, yet has become one on the poor.

 

[Drifterwood]

I agree with many of your opinions @Phil Ayesho, but I disagree with some of the major conclusions that you make. If all wealth is theft, how do you propose to pay for the public services?

I also know that many businesses are not bad. If you start making wholesome cakes and people like them, you can make a living. If a lot of people want to buy your cakes, you can make a lot of money despite reductions you can make in the price of your product.

I also disagree that globalisation is a benign force. I continue to have hands on experience in this field. Walmart destroys the prosperity of local businesses. Many studies will show you that if you spend $100 with local businesses then $80 stays in the local community. If you spend the same in global multi national, then $10 stays local. In the meantime you destroy all the local businesses.

I think that it is the great challenge we face to halt the Borg like advance of multi nationals. Of course when I spend my money in the predominantly US owned multi nationals, the profit helps to pay for your services.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I agree with many of your opinions @Phil Ayesho, but I disagree with some of the major conclusions that you make. If all wealth is theft, how do you propose to pay for the public services?

I also know that many businesses are not bad. If you start making wholesome cakes and people like them, you can make a living. If a lot of people want to buy your cakes, you can make a lot of money despite reductions you can make in the price of your product.

I also disagree that globalisation is a benign force. I continue to have hands on experience in this field. Walmart destroys the prosperity of local businesses. Many studies will show you that if you spend $100 with local businesses then $80 stays in the local community. If you spend the same in global multi national, then $10 stays local. In the meantime you destroy all the local businesses.

I think that it is the great challenge we face to halt the Borg like advance of multi nationals. Of course when I spend my money in the predominantly US owned multi nationals, the profit helps to pay for your services.

I am not saying that all wealth is theft.

I am saying that the PR is that wealth is the result of people who are smarter and work harder...and that that is a lie.

The majority of SIGNIFICANT wealth is either inherited, or the result of pre-existing connections related to family or position, or it is the result of unscrupulous actions.

For example... We now-a-days tend to forget that Bill Gates got to be the richest man on earth thru unfair trade practices that the government tried to prosecuted him for...and that he evaded that prosecution by supporting conservative agendas and candidates and stalling prosecution unto the GOP under Bush held total power... And they just let him off.
We tend to gloss over the fact that when IBM approached him to produce an OS for their PC...that he didn't HAVE an OS, nor the slightest idea how to create one... But that he DID KNOW of a local computer guy who HAD created an OS, who happened to be in dire financial straights... And so he Bought what would become MSdos for a trifle...without telling the guy about IBM...without offering him a position in the fledgling enterprise. The guy who actually created the OS ended up impoverished... But Bills old high school girlfriend, who he hired as his receptionist, ended up with hundreds of millions...

She was not rich because of her harder work ethic, and Bill Isn't rich because of his 'creativity' or innovation. Rather, she's rich because she was dumb lucky in her friendships...and Bill is rich because we was ruthless and took advantage of someone else who WAS creative and innovative.

And that is the story of wealth far more so than the narrative of individual enterprise.

Back in the day... The aristocrat's were nothing but the descendants of thugs. The men who were most brutal and most willing to extract ownership of land, and protection racket taxes from the peasantry thru force of arms... And ll they promised in return was to stop OTHER bands of thugs from swooping in and taking whatever they wanted.

And they 'became' the 'nobility' by telling the,selves and everyone else they had what they had by virtue of their superiority, their blood or their breeding.

Today... The warlords are the Titans of wealth. And their avarice has grown to the extent that they feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes... And they tell everyone a similar story of how they DESERVE to take fat more than their share of everything, and that people with nothing aren't poor because they all the taxes, or because the Titans who employ them won't PAY them a living wage... No, they are poor because they aren't hard working like the rich are.



Your example is specious because the person whose baking cakes folks like isn't Rich. They are barely scraping by and the vast majority of small businesses go under.

And I am not saying that business is inherently bad. I am am saying that we have ALLOWED wealth to develop a profound sense of entitlement. We have allowed the wealthy to abrogate their responsibilities to the communities and the workers that Made them wealthy.

The narrative of the magical power of the 'free market' is a CON. Because the first thing that goes on sale in a 'free market' Is political influence to rig the market in the buyers favor, and, of course, only the wealthy can afford to buy.


This is part of my recent tirades about the power of narrative to shape our reality.

We have allowed the narrative of 'every-man-for-himself' to become accepted. To celebrate the excesses of avarice, rather than the responsibility to community that we USED to celebrate.

Business CAN be very good. but it never is when the reasons for being in it are personal attainment of as much as you can grab.
When we laud selfish motives, we get selfish corporations acting selfishly.

Walmart has NOTHING to do with globalization. Its entirely AMERICAN conservatism in its paroxysms of pure avarice.


Here's the crux.... My father ran an entire division of a major retailer. The only division of that retailer to make a profit during the 12 years he ran it.

How he managed that was because of his idea of what business was about.
You see, for him, profit mattered ONLY because it was how you ensured the business would survive. The REAL objective of doing business was to provide meaningful livelihood for your employees.

In his view, the ONLY reason ANY society tolerates corporations or businesses at all, is to the extent that they provide meaningful livelihood to the Citizens of that society.

And because that was his personal narrative for guiding his actions... He strove to make his division profitable because his employees LOVED their jobs and WANTED to see their employer succeed.
Because of that attitude, he created a more humane work environment...and he looked at statistics as not merely representing dollars, but people.

After he retired, that division declined rapidly, and the entire retailer went bankrupt soon after. And why? Because new management only saw the bottom line as money carried thru to stockholders who actually had nothing to do with the company or its operations.



So you see... My beef isn't with business. It's with the narrative we allow to inform how business is done and what it is allowed to get away with.

Back when my father was a young man, the men who ran businesses felt differently than the men who run businesses today.
It wasn't about golden parachutes and hiding your millions in the caymans.



The notion that socialism is intrinsically 'bad' and capitalism overtly 'good' is why capitalism is getting away with stealing all the wealth. Workers have increased productivity in the west steadily over the past 15 years... But all the revenue that generates is being redirected to the ownership elite. When the rich DON'T PAY TAXES (the reason Romney never showed his tax returnswas because he didn't pay any taxes on 98% of his income ) but they get to BENEFIT from the infrastructure, military defense, and government subsidies for their 'businesses' then that IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Only not From the rich to the poor but, perversely, from the poor to the already rich.


Globalization is not the culprit. Because the only reason this whole house of cards hasn't collapsed yet is that the 'middle class' can still afford to buy goods whose inflation adjusted pricing keeps going down.

And I have seen with my own eyes the positive good that globalization has brought to what used to be the most desperately poor people on earth.


The culprit is what WE ALLOW the rich to do and how we allow them to operate.

Rich men who felt a duty to their employees can make profits, too. But their choices in what they would be willing to do to get them and what they would do with them would be more compassionate and less self centered.


It's the narrative that makes a thing accrue to our benefit or our detriment.

Believing that government is bad gets you bad governance.

Believing people are poor because they are lazy gets you growing ranks of ever harder working poor.


Social security is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. I PAID FOR IT in every check for 35 years of my life.

Entitlement is the rich thinking taxes shouldn't apply to them. Entitlement is their being allowed to imagine that they are wealthy because they 'deserve' it. That is just a new aristocracy.

 

[keenobserver]

I am not saying that all wealth is theft.

I am saying that the PR is that wealth is the result of people who are smarter and work harder...and that that is a lie.

The majority of SIGNIFICANT wealth is either inherited, or the result of pre-existing connections related to family or position, or it is the result of unscrupulous actions.

For example... We now-a-days tend to forget that Bill Gates got to be the richest man on earth thru unfair trade practices that the government tried to prosecuted him for...and that he evaded that prosecution by supporting conservative agendas and candidates and stalling prosecution unto the GOP under Bush held total power... And they just let him off.
We tend to gloss over the fact that when IBM approached him to produce an OS for their PC...that he didn't HAVE an OS, nor the slightest idea how to create one... But that he DID KNOW of a local computer guy who HAD created an OS, who happened to be in dire financial straights... And so he Bought what would become MSdos for a trifle...without telling the guy about IBM...without offering him a position in the fledgling enterprise. The guy who actually created the OS ended up impoverished... But Bills old high school girlfriend, who he hired as his receptionist, ended up with hundreds of millions...

She was not rich because of her harder work ethic, and Bill Isn't rich because of his 'creativity' or innovation. Rather, she's rich because she was dumb lucky in her friendships...and Bill is rich because we was ruthless and took advantage of someone else who WAS creative and innovative.

And that is the story of wealth far more so than the narrative of individual enterprise.

Back in the day... The aristocrat's were nothing but the descendants of thugs. The men who were most brutal and most willing to extract ownership of land, and protection racket taxes from the peasantry thru force of arms... And ll they promised in return was to stop OTHER bands of thugs from swooping in and taking whatever they wanted.

And they 'became' the 'nobility' by telling the,selves and everyone else they had what they had by virtue of their superiority, their blood or their breeding.

Today... The warlords are the Titans of wealth. And their avarice has grown to the extent that they feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes... And they tell everyone a similar story of how they DESERVE to take fat more than their share of everything, and that people with nothing aren't poor because they all the taxes, or because the Titans who employ them won't PAY them a living wage... No, they are poor because they aren't hard working like the rich are.



Your example is specious because the person whose baking cakes folks like isn't Rich. They are barely scraping by and the vast majority of small businesses go under.

And I am not saying that business is inherently bad. I am am saying that we have ALLOWED wealth to develop a profound sense of entitlement. We have allowed the wealthy to abrogate their responsibilities to the communities and the workers that Made them wealthy.

The narrative of the magical power of the 'free market' is a CON. Because the first thing that goes on sale in a 'free market' Is political influence to rig the market in the buyers favor, and, of course, only the wealthy can afford to buy.


This is part of my recent tirades about the power of narrative to shape our reality.

We have allowed the narrative of 'every-man-for-himself' to become accepted. To celebrate the excesses of avarice, rather than the responsibility to community that we USED to celebrate.

Business CAN be very good. but it never is when the reasons for being in it are personal attainment of as much as you can grab.
When we laud selfish motives, we get selfish corporations acting selfishly.

Walmart has NOTHING to do with globalization. Its entirely AMERICAN conservatism in its paroxysms of pure avarice.


Here's the crux.... My father ran an entire division of a major retailer. The only division of that retailer to make a profit during the 12 years he ran it.

How he managed that was because of his idea of what business was about.
You see, for him, profit mattered ONLY because it was how you ensured the business would survive. The REAL objective of doing business was to provide meaningful livelihood for your employees.

In his view, the ONLY reason ANY society tolerates corporations or businesses at all, is to the extent that they provide meaningful livelihood to the Citizens of that society.

And because that was his personal narrative for guiding his actions... He strove to make his division profitable because his employees LOVED their jobs and WANTED to see their employer succeed.
Because of that attitude, he created a more humane work environment...and he looked at statistics as not merely representing dollars, but people.

After he retired, that division declined rapidly, and the entire retailer went bankrupt soon after. And why? Because new management only saw the bottom line as money carried thru to stockholders who actually had nothing to do with the company or its operations.



So you see... My beef isn't with business. It's with the narrative we allow to inform how business is done and what it is allowed to get away with.

Back when my father was a young man, the men who ran businesses felt differently than the men who run businesses today.
It wasn't about golden parachutes and hiding your millions in the caymans.



The notion that socialism is intrinsically 'bad' and capitalism overtly 'good' is why capitalism is getting away with stealing all the wealth. Workers have increased productivity in the west steadily over the past 15 years... But all the revenue that generates is being redirected to the ownership elite. When the rich DON'T PAY TAXES (the reason Romney never showed his tax returnswas because he didn't pay any taxes on 98% of his income ) but they get to BENEFIT from the infrastructure, military defense, and government subsidies for their 'businesses' then that IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Only not From the rich to the poor but, perversely, from the poor to the already rich.


Globalization is not the culprit. Because the only reason this whole house of cards hasn't collapsed yet is that the 'middle class' can still afford to buy goods whose inflation adjusted pricing keeps going down.

And I have seen with my own eyes the positive good that globalization has brought to what used to be the most desperately poor people on earth.


The culprit is what WE ALLOW the rich to do and how we allow them to operate.

Rich men who felt a duty to their employees can make profits, too. But their choices in what they would be willing to do to get them and what they would do with them would be more compassionate and less self centered.


It's the narrative that makes a thing accrue to our benefit or our detriment.

Believing that government is bad gets you bad governance.

Believing people are poor because they are lazy gets you growing ranks of ever harder working poor.


Social security is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. I PAID FOR IT in every check for 35 years of my life.

Entitlement is the rich thinking taxes shouldn't apply to them. Entitlement is their being allowed to imagine that they are wealthy because they 'deserve' it. That is just a new aristocracy.

I generally agree with everything you are saying - it is very well said! The story about your father is also enlightening because it really dovetails with what I always thought business should be about. To find a hair to split - it is on Social Security - it is an entitlement. You are ENTITLED to draw from it because you paid into it. Food stamps are not an entitlement - no one pays into a food stamp fund - it is a benefit offered with restrictions that can be withdrawn at anytime. VA bnefits are also an entitlement - the qualified Vet earned them by virtue of meeting terms and conditions of service.

Commonly people have accepted that all government programs that aid people are entitlements, because politicos talk about cutting them as well as reigning in entitlements. It confuses the debate. Thus many tea partiers love social security but proclaim their hate for entitlements.

 

[185248]

The secret to keeping wealth is either to stay married or stay single. So a couple of old guys told me once. I've broken that advice a couple of times

Much of the worlds population does not have the ability to create personal wealth, much of their life is just having enough to exist.

We are told to work hard and reap the fruits, but from the first years of when I started in employment to now, it has just become so overly complicated for small businesses. Each time the government says it will simplify the tax system. You just know it is going to become more complicated, more expensive. Large multi nationals are continually and increasingly being caught out doing the wrong thing. As the years increase I think the feeding frenzy will multiply quickly as mega companies strive in a comeptition to tie up Earths food, water and natural resources.

Chinese companies, private and Chinese government owned over the past few years have been buying up Australian food and dairy companies at a worrying rate. Locking in supply for their aging population. 2 chairmen on the boards of a couple of these companies are ex Liberal (conservative) politicians. After leaving politics joined these companies, they know how to milk the system to their advantage (pun intended). Makes you wonder what deals where being done behind closed doors when they were supposedly looking after Australia's interests.

It's funny, once Australia would never have entertained the idea of accepting nuclear waste from other countries. We were steadfastly anti nuclear, most Aussies still are.. Now, councils, state governments are open to the idea of importing waste to try create revenue, while multi national mining companies hide multi millions in offshore Singapore banks to prevent paying tax. We sadly lack strong leadership and vision in our country these days.

I can't complain too much about life in Australia, it's a very lucky and beautiful place, and still a place for dreams to come true. But, I don't like the developments creeping in as they have over the past 20 years,

The carrot continues to be dangled in front of our faces, it seems to be getting further away though, or I'm not running as quick or jumping as high as I once did.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I generally agree with everything you are saying - it is very well said! The story about your father is also enlightening because it really dovetails with what I always thought business should be about. To find a hair to split - it is on Social Security - it is an entitlement. You are ENTITLED to draw from it because you paid into it. Food stamps are not an entitlement - no one pays into a food stamp fund - it is a benefit offered with restrictions that can be withdrawn at anytime. VA bnefits are also an entitlement - the qualified Vet earned them by virtue of meeting terms and conditions of service.

Commonly people have accepted that all government programs that aid people are entitlements, because politicos talk about cutting them as well as reigning in entitlements. It confuses the debate. Thus many tea partiers love social security but proclaim their hate for entitlements.

You need to STOP USING THAT WORD THAT WAY RIGHT THIS MINUTE

Because that is NOT what the word means... and the Rich spent a lot of money to get the whole country using that word to refer to your own pension funds...

The word entitlement means having a Right to something by virtue of priviledge or perogative.
The connotation is that it is unfounded or something you get 'for nothing'. Its origin is: Lords and Ladies are 'entitled' to better treatment by virtue of their Titles, Alone. Ergo- it is something DUE you by right or dispensation. Not something EARNED, But something negotiated.

The RICH KNOW that this is what the word implies and that is why right wing media refers to EVERY BENEFIT the poor or retired receive as an entitlement.
They are SPINNING the narrative to make it seem like those getting Social Security are getting something JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RETIRED or disabled. Or just because the pressured government into granting it.
They want to make sure no one is allowed to even THINK about Social Security as being an actual pension that you PAID FOR, IN FULL.

The reason they want to get you to think this way is to separate, even in your mind, the notion that you have a "right" to a privilege... from the notion that you shelled out hard earned money for a product that you have, at retirement, PURCHASED and paid for.

Because if they can trick you into thinking of it as a government bestowed privilege, then they can trick you into accepting the rhetoric that government can not afford it and has to shortchange you.

In fact, That is a lie. Government can EASILY afford Social Security. ONE nuclear missile sub- NOT built- would make Social Security solvent for the next ten years. And lets not forget that Social Security was PASSED, was sold to the electorate, as an REAL pensions fund. That the moneys were to be invested and accrue GAIN.
But the early 1960- the Social Security fund was the single largest pool of money in the entire world. And the US congress decided to RAID that fund. To change Social Security from an actual investment- into a scam whereby workers contributions today, paid retirement benefits- rather than investing anything.

But that is CONGRESS' fault. THEY JAILED Jimmy Hoffa for doing with the teamsters pension fund EXACTLY what Congress did with the Nation's pensions fund... Except every dollar Jimmy loaned the Mob got PAID BACK with interest.
And Congress has never repaid the money they raided from SS.


DO not fall for the conservative agenda of redefining terms.

For example- there was a huge media storm over the right complaining that Obamacare wanted to give women FREE birth control pills. And the sickening part was that even the democrats kept referring to this 'benefit' as FREE birth control.

Just their USING that term was all the right really was after- painting health care benefits as FREE STUFF.

But the truth is the diametrical opposite. EVERYTHING your insurance company provides YOU PAID FOR- IN ADVANCE!.

My obamacare policy costs $2000 per month. Thats $24,000 dollars I give to a health insurance company- EVERY YEAR. for decades of time. All the obamacare policy says is that for ALL of that money, ONE of the things it has to PAY for, for women, is birth control pills. The Negotiated cost for a years supply of the Pill costs the insurance company about $250. Which they simply take out of the $24,000 the insured person PAYS in premiums.

It should have been NO ARGUMENT. It WOULD have been no argument if the liberal side and the insured had simply REFUSED to ALLOW that provision to be referred to as the government GIVING them FREE STUFF.

It wasn't and it isn't. It is ALL paid for. BY YOU. STOP allowing the right to redefine words and get you to lie to yourself about what is yours, not by right, but because you PAID for it. You OWN it.

I know this might seem like quibbling... but this is the whole THING about NARRATIVE. Its JUST words. But the words we use to THINK about something with, DO Influence our opinions and our perceptions.

The right spends a LOT of effort and pays a lot of consulting fees over phasing and language. They DO market testing of different words and then test the people exposed to those differing terms to see how different words change perceptions, and conclusions.


Its WHY they keep calling the wealthy ownership elites "job creators"-

As a general rule of thumb... ANY TIME you hear the right wing media and GOP politicians refer to something with a very specific word or phrase ..over and over ... YOU ARE BEING PLAYED.

Stop and THINK about why they are picking THAT particular phrasing. About what they are Wanting you to think... because it IS a manipulation.

Entitlement is a word that ought ONLY to be applied to the wealthy and to actual Lords... to those who feel entitled to buy politicians, and evade taxation. Who feel entitled to 50 times more pay than their average employee.

DO not EVER use the words the RIGHT uses. Its a form of brain washing.

 

[keenobserver]

You need to STOP USING THAT WORD THAT WAY RIGHT THIS MINUTE

Because that is NOT what the word means... and the Rich spent a lot of money to get the whole country using that word to refer to your own pension funds...

The word entitlement means having a Right to something by virtue of priviledge or perogative.
The connotation is that it is unfounded or something you get 'for nothing'. Its origin is: Lords and Ladies are 'entitled' to better treatment by virtue of their Titles, Alone. Ergo- it is something DUE you by right or dispensation. Not something EARNED, But something negotiated.

The RICH KNOW that this is what the word implies and that is why right wing media refers to EVERY BENEFIT the poor or retired receive as an entitlement.
They are SPINNING the narrative to make it seem like those getting Social Security are getting something JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RETIRED or disabled. Or just because the pressured government into granting it.
They want to make sure no one is allowed to even THINK about Social Security as being an actual pension that you PAID FOR, IN FULL.

The reason they want to get you to think this way is to separate, even in your mind, the notion that you have a "right" to a privilege... from the notion that you shelled out hard earned money for a product that you have, at retirement, PURCHASED and paid for.

Because if they can trick you into thinking of it as a government bestowed privilege, then they can trick you into accepting the rhetoric that government can not afford it and has to shortchange you.

In fact, That is a lie. Government can EASILY afford Social Security. ONE nuclear missile sub- NOT built- would make Social Security solvent for the next ten years. And lets not forget that Social Security was PASSED, was sold to the electorate, as an REAL pensions fund. That the moneys were to be invested and accuse GAIN.
But the early 1960- the Social Security fund was the single largest pool of money in the entire world. And the US congress decided to RAID that fund. To change Social Security from an actual investment- into a scam whereby workers contributions today, paid retirement benefits- rather than investing anything.

But that is CONGRESS' fault. THEY JAILED Jimmy Hoffa for doing with the teamsters pensions found EXACTLY what they did with the Nations pensions funds... Except every dollar Jimmy loaned the Mob got PAID BACK with interest.
And Congress has never repaid the money they raided from SS.


DO not fall for the conservative agenda of redefining terms.

For example- there was a huge media storm over the right complaining that Obamacare wanted to give women FREE birth control pills. And the sickening part was that even the democrats kept referring to this 'benefit' as FREE birth control.

Just their USING that term was all the right really was after- painting health care benefits as FREE STUFF.

But the truth is the diametrical opposite. EVERYTHING your insurance company provides YOU PAID FOR- IN ADVANCE!.

My obamacare policy costs $2000 per month. Thats $24,000 dollars I give to a health insurance company- EVERY YEAR. for decades of time. All the obamacare policy says is that for ALL of that money, ONE of the things it has to PAY for, for women, is birth control pills. The Negotiated cost for a years supply of the Pill costs the insurance company about $250. Which they simply take out of the $24,000 the insured person PAYS in premiums.

It should have been NO ARGUMENT. It WOULD have been no argument if the liberal side and the insured had simply REFUSED to ALLOW that provision to be referred to as the government GIVING them FREE STUFF.

It wasn't and it isn't. It is ALL paid for. BY YOU. STOP allowing the right to redefine words and get you to lie to yourself about what is yours, not by right, but because you PAID for it. You OWN it.

I know this might seem like quibbling... but this is the while THING about NARRATIVE. Its JUST words. but the words we use to THINK about something with Influence our opinions and our perceptions.

The right spends a LOT of effort and pays a lot of consulting fees over phasing and language. They DO market testing of different words and then test the people exposed to those differing terms to see how different words change perceptions, and conclusions.


Its WHY they keep calling the wealthy ownership elites "job creators"-

As a general rule of thumb... ANY TIME you hear the right wing media and GOP politicians refer to something with a very specific word or phrase ..over and over ... YOU ARE BEING PLAYED.

Stop and THINK about why they are picking THAT particular phrasing. About what they are Wanting you to think... because it IS a manipulation.

Entitlement is a word that ought ONLY to be applied to the wealthy and to actual Lords... to those who feel entitled to buy politicians, and evade taxation. Who feel entitled to 50 times more pay than their average employee.

DO not EVER use the words the RIGHT uses. Its a form of brain washing.

The right word is entitlement. I am entitled to use my Visa card the way I want to you may not use mine, you're not entitled. If you get your own, you will be entitled to use yours as you see fit. The word has more than one definition. I am entitled to my Social Security benefit because I paid into it for 45 years. My friend who never held a job and did not pay into it was denied benefits because he is not entitled. It means what has been earned, not only what you might be due in a will or by accident of birth.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Bill O'Reilly worked damn hard for his money. Nothing was given to him. He never even had a stroke of luck blown in his direction. Even God wasn't on his side - believe you that!

I kindly ask: Don't bash success.