patrick.net

marcus says

Peter P says

marcus says

That's about as true as saying that many poor people are poor because they aren't narcissistic or psychopathic enough.

That's just another way to say that wealth is a sin (or a mental illness).

Did you miss that I was implying that it's generally false, just like your thesis above ? (but also true for many individual cases)

No, I did not miss that. Yes, these are character flaws at the group level in a negative feedback loop.

My dear sir, the solution to the poverty problem is to bleed them aggressively to cure them of their sanguine temperment followed by a dozen lashes over a barrel.

Bleeding and Discipline. These are things the lower classes need, sir. Not kindness and frippery: Spare the rod and spoil the child, I say.

Laziness is not necessarily bad. Sometimes it incentivizes the creation of new technologies.

Choosing to believe that wealth is evil, on the other hand, stops you from improving.

The solution to the poverty problem is to emphasize the piety of wealth.

If people want to live better, they must have the right belief systems. It is no accident that Calvinists and Reform Jews tend to be wealthier.

jazz music says

debyne says

survival of the fittest.

You are welcome to your opinion, you should realize that doctrine of "survival of the fittest" favors uninjured adult male in prime condition, age and health, and low long do you think you can fill those shoes before you go running off to your mommy? Also this doctrine is central to satanism. So never claim to be any sort of Christian. Another key tenant is "do what thou wilt." So um knock yourself out there tarzan and good luck to you. You may find out that the fittest was 3rd generation heir to a billion dollars worth of war bucks.

Luck has nothing to do with it. I never said there were no rules and that the strong could hurt, rob or inflict suffering upon the weak...that's probably more of what you're referring to with regard to your Satanic religion. I'm saying that government's role is to protect individual rights and freedoms, and then let the strong succeed and the weak fail...it's the natural order of things and you can't stop it no matter how hard you pray.

debyne says

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Luck has everything to do with it. However, luck is simply the art of taking chances. It can be mastered.

Genghis Khan was dealt a terrible hand, yet he went on to become the greatest emperor ever lived. All it took was a opportunistic and determined spirit.

Peter P says

The majority of poor people think wealth is a sin.

Nobody believes that.

What people believe is that acquiring wealth by destroying other people is a sin, getting rich by stealing (whether legally or not) wealth from masses of other people is a sin, making vast sums of money by destroying livelihoods and the environment is a sin.

Wealth should be obtained through one's productivity, not by exploiting others and wrecking the Earth.

Do you disagree?

Peter P says

Poverty exists because of bad values.

Yes, precisely the value that it's good to exploit other people.

The opulent lifestyle of the top 0.1% can only exist if there are multitudes of poor to do all the disgusting, difficult, and dangerous work. Kill off the bottom 99.9% and the top 0.1%'s lifestyle will come crumbing down.

This is why the laws and infrastructure of our society are designed to keep masses of people in poverty.

debyne says

Luck has nothing to do with it.

It does not matter what subject matter you are discussing, luck always plays a part in it. Our species wouldn't even exist if not for a very long series of lucky accidents including the one where an asteroid killed off all the dinosaurs. You, personally, would not exist if your father had been sick the day he met your mother and as a result didn't meet her. Everyone's very existence is largely due to luck, like it or not.

Dan8267 says

What people believe is that acquiring wealth by destroying other people is a sin, getting rich by stealing (whether legally or not) wealth from masses of other people is a sin, making vast sums of money by destroying livelihoods and the environment is a sin.

Wealth should be obtained through one's productivity, not by exploiting others and wrecking the Earth.

Do you disagree?

There is a saying, everyone else must fail. It served Genghis Khan (and perhaps Larry Ellison) very well. I am still reflecting on this.

Exploitation is a type of productivity, as a form of arbitrage against inefficiency.

Peter P says

If Europeans have higher social mobility, where are their Larry Page and Larry Ellison?

You mean rich people? if you take France as example:
Bouygues, Dassault, Lagardère, Bettencourt etc... Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Heraclitusstudent says

You mean rich people? if you take France as example

You just proved my point. How many them started from nothing? How many of them inherited a fine company?

In Europe, wealth-building is a multi-generation effort. In America, one can go from zero to a billion in a few years. This is the mobility I am talking about.

I love those Frenchmen you mentioned. LV bags, Falcon business jets. Finest products in the world.

Peter P says

How many them started from nothing? How many of them inherited a fine company?

All of these companies were started from nothing and became leaders in 1 generation.

An excessively democratic society will invariably degenerate into a nihilistic hell described by Nietzsche.

Most of the great things in continental Europe were built when they still valued excellence.

Peter P says

In America, one can go from zero to a billion in a few years.

If you're talking of people like Suckerberg: he went from rich kid in an expensive school to an inflated bubble company, while 80% of the population is stuck with no horizon.
Great example.

Heraclitusstudent says

All of these companies were started from nothing and became leaders in 1 generation.

I guess they used to respect capitalism.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you're talking of people like Suckerberg: he went from rich kid in an expensive school to an inflated bubble company, while 80% of the population is stuck with no horizon.

I am not a fan, but he certainly took the opportunity. Unlike those who believe doing the same work will somehow make them richer. This is the greatest divide between winners and whiners.

Peter P says

This is the greatest divide between winners and whiners.

This is a divide between people with the education baggage to create Facebook, and people who can barely read and add, and don't see any other path than flipping burgers.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is a divide between people with the education baggage to create Facebook, and people who can barely read and add, and don't see any other path than flipping burgers.

Education is overrated. Most people with a computer science degree cannot even write code.

Public education provides more than enough skills for the curious to seek knowledge in the public domain. The lack of drive and/or curiosity is a different matter. But people cannot succeed if they think it is wrong to do better.

Peter P says

Education is overrated. Most people with a computer science degree cannot even write code.

Education is degrees are overrated. Most people with a computer science degree cannot even write code.

Dan8267 says

It does not matter what subject matter you are discussing, luck always plays a part in it. Our species wouldn't even exist if not for a very long series of lucky accidents including the one where an asteroid killed off all the dinosaurs. You, personally, would not exist if your father had been sick the day he met your mother and as a result didn't meet her. Everyone's very existence is largely due to luck, like it or not.

Why focus on something so meaningless? No luck, some luck, all luck...doesn't matter. The principles I mentioned remain the same.

jazz music says

I met some Germans at a party that laughed like hell when we elected Schwarzenegger.

They explained that once they elected an Austrian and things didn't go too well for them.

They also said where is the freedom here when you can't even go to a park or a beach and have a beer?

That's why I'd rather go to our association pool. I can bring my beer, sit back, and watch the kids have fun. #Summertime

debyne says

Why focus on something so meaningless?

False dichotomy. You stated that luck plays no part and therefore the rich are morally and intellectually superior. That statement is false and easy to demonstrate so.

Los Angeles is full of physically attractive people who can act. But there are damn few slots available for celebrities. So, most of the people fail to make it in Hollywood. The ones that do have talent and looks, but also mainly got lucky since for each of them that made it there were a hundred others just as talented and good looking.

If we killed off every CEO of every fortune 500 company, the very same day there would be millions lined up to replace them. After replacing the dead CEOs, nothing would change. Business would run as usually. We can then repeat this process hundreds of times and the result would always be the same. There is a shortage of CEO positions available, but there is no shortage of people to fill them.

As I stated earlier in this reply, your proposition that it's either all luck or none is a false dichotomy. No one has ever said that financial success is all luck. The two examples I give above demonstrate this fact.

But it is wrong to equate financial success with merit or even productivity. Capitalism does not reward productivity, merit, innovation, invention, hard-work, or moral backbone. Capitalism rewards one and only one thing: bargaining power.

In another thread, I proved that the average Walmart employee produced over $100k/yr in wealth, yet receives only 27% of his wealth production even before the government takes a penny. That's right, Walmart the corporation taxes 73% of its employees wealth production before the government levies any tax.

Why is this possible? Because the corporation has all the bargaining power and the workers have none. And this is why your argument that the rich deserve to be rich is false for the vast majority of the top 0.1%. The rich are not rich because they produce more but because they siphon the productivity of others.

The fact is that our economic system allows some benefit to being hard-working and intelligent. A person who works damn hard (70 to 90 hours a week, like I do) and is damn intelligent can make a low-six-figure salary, which I have since graduating from college. But there is no way that I, or other hardworking and productive people, can become billionaire. None.

The rich in our society do not become reach by producing wealth because an individual can only create so much wealth and the actual wealth creators like myself are taxed heavily by the corporations that "employ" us.

No, the only way to become a billionaire is by winning zero-sum games in which you hurt other people to gain for yourself. That is how the opulently rich are created. To say otherwise is simply a lie.

Unfortunately, this means of wealth accumulations requires multitudes of victims who are worse off as a result of zero sum games that they didn't even agree to play. And it is precisely because the uber-rich make their money by stealing ours and hurting us that we resent them.

People don't resent others for being rich. People resent others for getting rich at their expense.

If our economic system was as just as you'd like to believe, the richest man in history would be Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW and the person most singularly responsible for all the wealth generated by the Internet. Yet he made nothing off his innovation. Instead assholes like Mark Zuckerberg, who produced nothing, are billionaires. There were thousands of social networking and build your own homepage sites that did everything Facebook did an more. If our economic system rewarded the true wealth producers, Berners-Lee would be a trillionaire and Zuckerberg would be working at McDonald's.

I say sir, as a member of a Reformed Church, that God has elected me because of my thrift and diligence.

Dan8267 says

The opulent lifestyle of the top 0.1% can only exist if there are multitudes of poor to do all the disgusting, difficult, and dangerous work. Kill off the bottom 99.9% and the top 0.1%'s lifestyle will come crumbing down.

Peter P says

It served Genghis Khan (and perhaps Larry Ellison) very well.

An example of what Peter P and I are describing...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mIO9cT2BBN8

Quigley says

jazz music says

I met some Germans at a party that laughed like hell when we elected Schwarzenegger.

They explained that once they elected an Austrian and things didn't go too well for them.

They also said where is the freedom here when you can't even go to a park or a beach and have a beer?

That's why I'd rather go to our association pool. I can bring my beer, sit back, and watch the kids have fun. #Summertime

Marco Polo!

Larry Ellison, the only US top 10 Forbes guy who really was self-made. And in the right place (Defense Industry) at the right time (Space Race and first electronic databases).

Everybody else in the top 10 was a born 1%er.

1 Gates - born into 1%er family of corporate lawyers and long line of Harvard Alums.
2. Warren Buffet - 1%er family, long line of Harvard Alums, Congressman parent who hated FDR
3. Ellison - the sole non-1%er
4 & 5. Koches - inherited from Father. Spent a lot of time suing each other over inheritance control. Father did of business with the Soviet Union, despite hating Communism and of course FDR.
6-9. Waltons - inherited. Grandparents - Sam Walton's father - was a Farm Repo man during the Great Depression, kicking families off farms that couldn't pay due to depressed farm prices.
10. Bloomberg - father a 1% Real Estate Agent in the always exclusive Brookline, MA neighborhood.

thunderlips11 says

Larry Ellison, the only top 10 guy who really was self-made.

I'd disagree with that. Being born poor or middle class and becoming rich by exploiting others is not being a "self-made" man. Yes that happens occasionally, but it's not a blueprint for success.

Larry Ellison exploited, used, and discarded a multitude of actual hard-working, wealth-producing software engineers to make his money.

Larry Ellison wrote no code, invented no idea in databases, stole the idea of an actual innovator, Edgar F. Codd, and made billions off of it.

The multi-billion dollar fortune of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, stands testament to the importance of Codd's work, but long-time colleagues bemoan the fact that, in contrast, Codd saw little more than recognition for his breakthrough.

"The sad thing is that Ted never became rich out of his idea," business associate and fellow researcher Chris Date told the New York Times. "Other people did, but not Ted." But his legacy is guaranteed, says Date: "A hundred years from now, I'm quite sure, database systems will still be based on Codd's relational foundation."

If you think the lazy should be poor and the productive people rich, then this story and our entire economic system should make you sick. The story of Ellison and Codd exemplifies everything that is fundamentally wrong with capitalism. If capitalism worked like its advocates say, Codd would be the billionaire and Ellison would be living in a small, middle-class house at best.

Dan and Jazz, I accept your criticism and change my thesis to:

"90% of the top 10 billionaires were born into the 1% (if not .1%). The sole exception being Ellison."

It's odd that Berners-Lee who invented the core of the internet certainly isn't poor but is far from a billionaire, is poorer than Zuckerberg, who attempted to steal his friends' concept for Facebook (and later settled out of court).

Meritocracy? Bullshit.

jazz music says

I respect the man's good work

Ah, but the point is, it wasn't his work.

thunderlips11 says

Dan and Jazz, I accept your criticism and change my thesis to:

"90% of the top 10 billionaires were born into the 1% (if not .1%). The sole exception being Ellison."

That is a correct statement. But I cannot give credence to the idea that Ellison actually contributed anything to society himself -- and no, donating money that he acquired by exploiting others does not count.

Ellison was a god-damn Ferengi.

Anybody follow Zuckerberg's Sister? She is a laugh riot. The ultimate JAP who thinks she can sing and do marketing and so forth. If she wasn't a 1%, she'd be a nice Jewish Doctor/Lawyer's wife with nannies.

Capitalism rewards strength, as it should.

Almost all significant monuments in the world were created for, or by, the exceptional individuals.

Productivity itself is overrated. Without an artistic goal we just go in circles faster.

I am a huge fan of Larry Ellison. He is a contemporary example of significant individuals.

thunderlips11 says

It's odd that Berners-Lee who invented the core of the internet certainly isn't poor but is far from a billionaire, is poorer than Zuckerberg, who attempted to steal his friends' concept for Facebook (and later settled out of court).

Ah, but that is quit typical. Hard-work, intelligence, and perseverance will get you into the upper middle class, but no farther in our society. To become a "success", you almost have to do evil.

According to the disciples of capitalism -- which is a religion -- people like Zuckerberg and Ellison are heroes while people like Berners-Lee and Codd are lazy, stupid, losers.

I'm especially pissed off at this attitude because as a great software developer I actually understand fully the immense significance of both Berners-Lee's work and Codd's work. Hyperlinks, the WWW, HTML markup, and relational databases were gigantic innovations that have changed the world as much as the printing press. It's mind-blowing how significant these inventions are when you understand what they truly do and what things were like before them.

This is why the premise that capitalism rewards the best and brightest who work hard with riches is so unbelievably fucking ridiculous. A person has to be insane to believe that.

jazz music says

You focused on it

I said nothing about allowing crony capitalism to flourish. Of course we have to fend off monopolies, rout out and eliminate corruption, and limit gov't as much as possible. Irrespective of all of that, I'm talking about taking from the strong to give to the weak...affirmative action is a great example along with our ridiculously progressive tax system. I'm actually ok with taxing the super rich more, but not people making $250K per year in CA. It's more about enabling and propping up the weak that bothers me.

Hmmm... Grand Central Station? The Chunnel? The Statue of Liberty? The Nordstream Pipeline? The Museum of Natural History? London Bridge?

I'll take an Apollo Mission over some Pyramid or Vanderbilt Mansion anyday.

Dan8267 says

This is why the premise that capitalism rewards the best and brightest who work hard with riches is so unbelievably fucking ridiculous. A person has to be insane to believe that.

There is some kind of "hero" worship taken to an extreme by some of the comments here.

I find the idea that Jobs is superior to Wozniak because he was a "strong" "hero" (aka more of a sneaky asshole than productive) bizarre.

Dan8267 says

According to the disciples of capitalism -- which is a religion -- people like Zuckerberg and Ellison are heroes while people like Berners-Lee and Codd are lazy, stupid, losers.

Peter P says

I am a huge fan of Larry Ellison. He is a contemporary example of significant individuals.

Case in point.

Peter P says

Capitalism rewards strength, as it should.

Almost all significant monuments in the world were created for, or by, the exceptional individuals.

Productivity itself is overrated. Without an artistic goal we just go in circles faster.

Ayn Rand, is that you?