patrick.net

HydroCabron says

My definition of rich is having passive (non-labor) income somewhere north of
$500,000 per year. That's why surgeons, high-powered attorneys, most athletes,
and anyone else who sells their labor is not rich.

Lets take a look at stock like T. Current dividend yield 5.34%. To generate $500,000 in passive income requires amount X times 18.72. This results in required investment of $9,363,295 in order to sit on ass and generate $500,000 per year. Or for "safety" in can be any number of dividend paying stocks that average 5.34% annual yield. Yeah surgeons and most attourney most likely will never save over $9 million as well as average athletes, but elite athletes and lawyers should be able to with moderate discipline.

sbh says

Heraclitusstudent says

Americans spend their entire lives in vacuous pursuit of *money*

Even Aristotle recognized that the good life is impossible without a certain measure of wealth, let alone the virtuous endeavor of the moral agent. What virtue does one ask of a starving man?

"Wealth is a tool of freedom, but the pursuit of wealth is the way to slavery."

F. Herbert.

sbh says

I think thrift is virtuous.

The problem with the capital class is they think thrift is a vice because it decreases demand and thus GDP. A wiser economic system would convert thrift into safe investment which would increase GDP by shifting demand from pizzas to robots, but try explaining that to Keynesians.

sbh says

I think thrift is virtuous. That I ask myself to live a productive life is to also expect my stored labor to live a productive life so good can be done with it.

I didn't say there is anything wrong with taking practical decisions to make sure you have what you need to live well. It becomes a vice when money is the goal by itself, and when your only pride is the assets you sit on. And (Dan is wrong) that's regardless of how you earned these, even through grunt work and thrift.

Could you lose all you have tomorrow through a freak accident and still be proud of your life?
That's the question.

Heraclitusstudent says

It becomes a vice when money is the goal by itself, and when your only pride is
the assets you sit on

That is true - it seems to me that the a vast majority of arguments on this site in terms of buy vs rent and housing vs stocks is people ego tripping about net worth.

Most people run from responsibility - which is why most people are just about broke.

Rich people are willing to take on big responsibilities - which is why they get paid the big bucks.

Low responsibility = low pay
High responsibility = high pay.

Its that simple. Read the Millionaire Next Door. Those who don't read are at the same disadvantage as those who can't read.

H. Abe

Honest Abe says

Most people run from responsibility - which is why most people are just about
broke.

At the end of the day not being broke is about spending less than what you earn. And there are plenty of people who make good salaries that are broke since they spend all their money on all sorts of frivolous items. Of course some people have no choice but to be broke since all of their earnings are eaten up by taxes and necessities.

DH - Good points, I'm in 100% in agreement with you.

Honest Abe says

Rich people are willing to take on big responsibilities

What responsibilities did these take on?

http://www.businessinsider.com/forbes-billionaires-list-who-inherited-their-wealth-2013-3

Honest Abe says

Most people run from responsibility - which is why most people are just about broke.

Rich people are willing to take on big responsibilities - which is why they get paid the big bucks.

Low responsibility = low pay

High responsibility = high pay.

Its that simple. Read the Millionaire Next Door. Those who don't read are at the same disadvantage as those who can't read.

The problem with your assertion for this entire post is that its based almost entirely on gross generalization. Most people including myself do not care about rich people. There will always be people who are more wealthy than I. So what. I have other things to ponder.

Not all rich people got rich from hard work. Many simply inherited their money. Note I did not say ALL.

Not all poor people are lazy or lack ambition.

Not all rich people are wise with their money. Quite a few- just like the poor you discuss here- also go bankrupt.

So there are rich and poor people. So what? What else is new?

The issue I take with this post is that its entirely ideologically driven and doesn't stray one tiny bit from current GOP rhetoric. If so then they've done their jobs well. Do you wonder why the GOP and conservatives take this line of how the wealthy are idols we should all appreciate and adore? Ever wonder why even a whisper amongst the GOP that things might not be as fair as things might need to be when it comes to taxes and general financial obligation?

The reason is because that's what they want you to think. They want you to think that since these rich people are supposed geniuses whom naturally deserve every penny we've been told they sweated to get that we too should feel humbled by their very presence and that so when it comes to things like drilling wells, installing pipelines, or discussing things like environmental regulation, taxes, or otherwise other pieces of legislation then naturally those whom have been spoon-fed that all wealth is totally deserved and earned by honest sweat of the brow that they will never-ever question ANYTHING that gets in the way of putting more money into the pockets of the very people that they have been taught are the epitome of success.

Then they cleverly turn your attention to the "real" problems, which of course are people like environmentalists ( who get in the way of oil profits) or liberals- who like things like healthcare and other social programs which eat into the profits of the industries tied to those. They want you to please not pay attention to the actual problems here but instead simplify it all down to one thing, and that is to blame it all on the liberals. Yes- it is alllll their fault.

That's really what this is about. Its about purposely driven, money-backed political ideology meant as a distraction.

Honest Abe says

Most people run from responsibility - which is why most people are just about broke.

Yep It's well known that Euclid, Mozart, Einstein, Leonardo and St Augustine all took up huge responsibilities.

That's why they are remembered now.

God, I hate this mindset.

John Bailo says

Rin says

Nikola Tesla

He did cool stuff but went from obscurity to being a bit overrated.

A/C was his most productive invention and as good as it was, it left us with a legacy of centralized high voltage generation, even though most of our needs are DC.

However, we are now moderating some of that with local generation through fuel cells.

Testa's later stuff was also interesting, but never implemented or proven to work.

Legacy of centralized high voltage generation? He cut everyone's power bill by a factor of a 100. The only viable transmission of power from one location to another is through high voltage. I'm not quite sure why you think it matters that household items need DC. It's not hard to convert at all.

And his accomplishments and impacts far exceed the AC generator.

Tesla's patents would have earned him the equivalent of a trillion dollars today. He unselfishly gave up his patents so Westinghouse wouldn't go bankrupt for the good of society. Westinghouse, being the selfish pricks they were, forgot about him. The only thing they did was buy him an apartment after it made national headlines that the poor guy was almost homeless.

Tesla is a classic example of someone who does all the hard work and watches everyone else get rich from it. There are multiple examples of individuals taking gross advantage of him outside of the Westinghouse deal.

Responsibility relates to obligation and or being accountable. The group stated above is a bunch of theoretical physicists, artists and theologians. None of which are held "accountable" or are under any obligation. FAIL.

Honest Abe says

Responsibility relates to obligation and or being accountable. The group stated above is a bunch of theoretical physicists, artists and theologians. None of which are held "accountable" or are under any obligation. FAIL.

I'm talking of people who are remembered as geniuses and whose accomplishments not only marked their own domain but define human civilization.
But obviously for some people it doesn't even register.

Heraclitusstudent says

Honest Abe says

Responsibility relates to obligation and or being accountable. The group stated above is a bunch of theoretical physicists, artists and theologians. None of which are held "accountable" or are under any obligation. FAIL.

I'm talking of people who are remembered as geniuses and whose accomplishments not only marked their own domain but define human civilization.
But obviously for some people it doesn't even register.

America never really cared about academics and arists, definitely not at the level that europeans do. The lack of respect for knowledge is also demonstrated in how we treat our elderly - we don't learn from their wisdom, we consider their past to be a form of obsolescence and thus we store them in a nursing home, a truly wonderful form of being put out to pasture!

theoakman says

A/C was his most productive invention and as good as it was, it left us with a legacy of centralized high voltage generation, even though most of our needs are DC.

DC was the system that Edison proposed first. With DC you can only go so far from the generating source before the current drops to an unusable level. The result was that the very earliest Edison DC power systems required a generating station every few miles. With AC, the current drop is reduced via the effects of the now standard 60 cycle Alternating current system where power can be sent sometimes 100's or 1000's of miles from the generating source.

In other words, you talk about legacy of centralized high voltage power generating plants- which should be seen as the triumph of AC, which are nothing compared to the many 100's of thousands of plants we would have had to use a DC system. AC is superior to DC in a VERY big way. Simply put, a DC system would never work and be practical.

dublin hillz says

America never really cared about academics and arists, definitely not at the level that europeans do.

Yes, but my point is not that Americans don't care for knowledge or elderly. Some people are good artisans for example and focus on that. No studies, no knowledge, and that's still valuable.
It's this attitude where nothing at all has any value except money and how to get it - and how to blow it.

Some people asked on other thread: 'what is spirituality?'.
Well, I can tell you what it's not right there: It's not this attitude.

Honest Abe says

Rich people are willing to take on big responsibilities - which is why they get paid the big bucks.

Low responsibility = low pay

High responsibility = high pay.

The entire subprime mortgage meltdown that caused the Second Great Depression completely and utterly disproves your theory. A lot of people made a lot of money doing things that were utterly irresponsible and none of those people were held accountable.

In fact, corporate America is built on shirking responsibilities, taking huge risks with other people's money, skimming off the top, playing zero-sum games, and getting bailed out by tax-payers because you're too big to fail.

Heraclitusstudent says

Some people asked on other thread: 'what is spirituality?'.

Well, I can tell you what it's not right there: It's not this attitude.

I agree with you and others here who have pointed out the sadly American view that , greed is good, money and material things are everything point of view. Abe saw how sad his view is, so he tried to make it more about responsibility and accountability. That's pretty weak. I get it though, that in many cases, people's singleminded pursuit of money making is driven by what they want to do for their family. I get that, and I can see that for many that is what makes the empty pursuit of money tolerable.

Still, I admire people who at least have work that is interesting and challenging for them in ways that aren't about the money making per se. Better if money just happens to follow. Unfortunately, many important service jobs, or research jobs don't pay all that well. I guess in a sick way, it makes sense that the "market" pays the most for work that has less redeeming value. But at the same time, this seems like a flaw in the way incentives work in our system. Incentives in politics are way out of whack too.

Really when you think about it, so many Americans are primarily hung up on survival. In some cases this means truly being barely above just surviving with most of ones attention and energies being directed towards rising above poverty level. For many other more successful people, they have gotten themselves hooked on a much higher lifestyle plane of survival. Paying for all the accouterments of an upper middle class lifestyle. Maintaining this (i.e. what Abe calls responsibility) becomes an all encompassing lifelong task. And sometimes people feel they must do whatever it takes to achieve and maintain it.

But some decide it's not doable or the cost is too high. Hence the trend towards smaller homes, smaller footprint and other priorities. Most Europeans have been way ahead of us on this. For example having much higher priorities regarding holidays (vacations).

Dan8267 says

In fact, corporate America is built on shirking responsibilities, taking huge risks with other people's money, skimming off the top, playing zero-sum games, and getting bailed out by tax-payers because you're too big to fail.

and that is not capitalism

smaulgld says

Dan8267 says

In fact, corporate America is built on shirking responsibilities, taking huge risks with other people's money, skimming off the top, playing zero-sum games, and getting bailed out by tax-payers because you're too big to fail.

and that is not capitalism

It's lemon socialism, privatizing gains while socializing losses.

smaulgld says

Dan8267 says

In fact, corporate America is built on shirking responsibilities, taking huge risks with other people's money, skimming off the top, playing zero-sum games, and getting bailed out by tax-payers because you're too big to fail.

and that is not capitalism

Whether or not you call it capitalism, it is what our economy is.

Dan8267 says

Whether or not you call it capitalism, it is what our economy is.

It matters what you call it because if blame is to be assigned it need to be placed where it belongs.

smaulgld says

Dan8267 says

Whether or not you call it capitalism, it is what our economy is.

It matters what you call it because if blame is to be assigned it need to be placed where it belongs.

Then I would say I have no problems with the fantasy "capitalism" that has never been implemented, but since it's not an option, I say we implement something else than what we're currently using at least until "capitalism" is a viable option, because the current system sucks ass.

sbh says

For starters, what would we call it?

I wouldn't care as long as it's distinct from everything else. It makes no sense to call it "capitalism" since that term is used to describe a system that is entirely different. Like it or not, the word capitalism means something different today than it did a hundred years ago. When choosing nomenclature, one should avoid using terms that might be misinterpreted. All it does it makes communication more difficult.

Dan8267 says

When choosing nomenclature, one should avoid using terms that might be misinterpreted. All it does it makes communication more difficult.

That's been the right's strategy for at least the last 40 years. Confuse the issue by calling greedy pigs "job creators".

Fine Hoe, if you were smart enough to create a successful business, would YOU be a GREEDY PIG ???

finehoe says

Confuse the issue by calling greedy pigs "job creators".

How are jobs created and who creates them?

Dan8267 says

sbh says

For starters, what would we call it?

I wouldn't care as long as it's distinct from everything else. It makes no sense to call it "capitalism" since that term is used to describe a system that is entirely different. Like it or not, the word capitalism means something different today than it did a hundred years ago. When choosing nomenclature, one should avoid using terms that might be misinterpreted. All it does it makes communication more difficult.

How about instead of a capitalism- Regulated free markets.
Where the government acts as referee -not as a participant granting subsidies, waivers and bail outs- and acts to detect and prosecute fraud.

This would in the words of the President- level the playing field where everyone plays by the same set of rules.

finehoe says

Dan8267 says

When choosing nomenclature, one should avoid using terms that might be misinterpreted. All it does it makes communication more difficult.

That's been the right's strategy for at least the last 40 years. Confuse the issue by calling greedy pigs "job creators".

That's called Newspeak. The misuse of the word inflation is a perfect example. The invention of the word recession is another.

smaulgld says

How are instead of a capitalism- Regulated free markets.

Where the government acts as referee -not as a participant granting subsidies, waivers and bail outs- and acts to detect and prosecute fraud.

A system is never based on an ideal situation. A system is always the result of the strife between various power groups: corporations, public unions, environmentalists, etc, etc...
I'm afraid this was always like this. There was never a pure capitalism and big corporations always had outsize influence. Though it is may be "institutionalized" now more than ever.

sbh says

Well, let's keep some of history intact and consider using a term that is maximally divisive.

I'd be all for that if you can get the media and everyone else to stop using the term "capitalism" to describe our economy. Good luck.

I've tried that with the word "inflation", which means to increase the money supply; it does not mean increases in prices. I had no such luck in informing the ignorant. So now I say don't use the word at all. I use the terms "currency debasement" and "prices increases" or "cost of living increases" (coli). Makes it clear what I'm talking about. Then whenever someone uses the word inflation, I make them clarify what they mean by using one of those terms. I keep doing that, at their annoyance, until they never use the word inflation again.

Heraclitusstudent says

There was never a pure capitalism and big corporations always had outsize influence. Though it is may be "institutionalized" now more than ever.

yes, the only way to avoid influence is to make the government smaller so they have less influence to peddle

smaulgld says

yes, the only way to avoid influence is to make the government smaller so they have less influence to peddle

Unfortunately what is meant by that is deregulation, which results in lawless behaviors such as massive fraud. This argument was probably designed by those that would profit from such situation.
You can't escape power group influences when your arguments are designed by them.

Heraclitusstudent says

Unfortunately what is meant by that is deregulation, which results in lawless behaviors such as massive fraud.

Not at all!

Regulation in its current form now acts to keep small competitors out- witness how banks are regulated-sure they get fined but they pay -there was a story on this today-$100 billion in compliance costs and fines!

Guess where that money goes? back to the regulatory agencies

No one gets in trouble they just pay big money to try and comply and if they don't they pay big money to keep out of trouble.

The current structure is why we only have a few big banks and no competition creating the too big to fail environment.

sbh says

but you need to fund that regulation

We already spend a fortune on SEC and other regulatory bodies and they have proven ineffective.
Until lobbyists don't control "lawmakers" spending more money on regulation won't solve anything.

The young turks covered it well here
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mLKU8iw5fSs

Both government and big business grow together and the same people move from the board room to positions in government or to lobbyist's positions.

smaulgld says

Both government and big business grow together and the same people move from the board room to positions in government or to lobbyist's positions.

Yep.

Both big business and big government should be cut down to a manageable size. For government that would be "limited, consititutional government", and big businesses should simply be allowed to fail.

And BTW, what's the opposite of Think and Grow Rich? Stay dumb and remain poor???