Would killing the rich solve economics issues in times of crisis?

[Genecks]

I sometimes wonder if killing the rich is the answer. Sure, people shouldn't support murder because it's illegal, unethical, immoral, against religion, etc...

 

But would it work to help solve economic problems?

Would killing certain individuals work to solve economic issues?

 

I like to think back to before World War I and the Black Hand Society. You had a bunch of young people with a hitlist. And this killing the people on the hitlist was suppose to make their living vicinity a better place. For the Black Hand Society, it ended up causing, if I remember correctly, rival countries to feud and create war amongst them. So, it backfired in a sense. The Black Hand Society was, nonetheless, against anti-imperialism.

 

In a lot of places in the world, there are "stupid rich" people. I would like to consider these people similar to monopolists. And if you kill the monopolists, you free a lot of money back into the republic. I'll equate it to AT&T. AT&T was considered a monopoly, but when it was broken apart, a lot of money went back into the economy and other businesses were allowed to start; and other telecommunication industries sprung up. The general idea is that money was freed into the economy.

 

If the rich were killed, let's say that magical "1%" that controls America, would that fix the economy? Then again, that's like... ~300,000 people at most, right? That would be quite the number to declar war against, especially with a secret organization. Even if the number were 60,000, it'd be a large task, and I suspect a national guard and the marines would be called out to deal with the issue.

 

But would it solve the issue? Would killing the "stupid rich" solve the issues? Wouldn't the money at least be returned to the U.S. government, thus resolving the U.S. government of varying amounts of debt?

 

And if so, why wouldn't the U.S. government bother killing off these people? I mean, it would make sense if it was the governing body. I'm not sure if other nations would oppose, though.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Genecks
*smirk* 666th post.

[jackson33]

Genecks; The top 300,000 people, assume you mean in the world and with the most wealth (opposed to annual earnings) are also the top investors in anything requiring capital. You wouldn't have to kill anybody, just somehow confiscate, take their wealth and get the same result, total financial chaos around the world, for maybe 50 years, while another group of 300,000 (probably going to be the current 300,000 to 600,000) worked their way up to the top.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that the effect would depend more on how they acquired the money, rather than how rich they are. Some people create no wealth; they just accumulate money by leaching in some way from others. Some people do create wealth, but by far not proportional to the money they make. These parasites are unnecessary and even harmful (think day-traders, evil monopolists, maybe also lawyers and tax preparers). However, some people get rich because they are very good at creating wealth. These, you really don't want to kill.

 

I think the government of Zimbabwe tried something similar, albeit confiscation rather than murder.

 

Now, our rich folks do have a lot of money, but they also pay the lion's share of the taxes. Why would the government want to bite the hand that feeds it? Better to build up a few rich people and tax the $#!% out of them, keep everyone else poor and then give them stuff, and everyone is happy.

[Genecks]

Yes, I agree, Mr. Skeptic.

There are the people who have money in the bank vs. money tied to assets.

 

I suspect people who are millionaires yet have all their money tied to assets are not millionaires in the sense that they would be able to liquidize everything in a heartbeat and put $1M USD into the bank.

 

However, I do suspect there are people whom are easily millionaires if not billionaires without the majority of their money tied into assets, thus it would be these people who would be targeted. And in reference to such people, if they were killed, then I suspect the money would be released back into the economy. The only problem would be if the person had a Will, thus giving the money right to someone else, and it would be almost impossible to stop the rich if there was a fool-proof perpetual redirection of the money from one person to the next. I don't think people have thirty people in line, though, in a Will, in order to make sure the government nor the republic ever get the money.

 

I don't think confiscation would work, on an individual level, as that would mean I'd have to become U.S. President or a high-ranking military commander (like Apis, which I would more than likely be quickly shut down unless the plan was effective). As such, I think the republic would have it easier if they could make a hitlist, as the Black Hand Society did, and then carry it out.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Genecks

[jackson33]

I think that the effect would depend more on how they acquired the money, rather than how rich they are. Some people create no wealth; they just accumulate money by leaching in some way from others. [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; First, we have laws to keep people basically honest, those that break law or effectively cheat to acquire wealth are in or have been in prison or due to be caught. Then I believe the figure in the US is 80% of the richest, were self made, honest, hard working folks with ideas and a little luck, that achieved the wealth, the other 20% living life off those with the these qualities.

 

Some people do create wealth, but by far not proportional to the money they make. These parasites are unnecessary and even harmful (think day-traders, evil monopolists, maybe also lawyers and tax preparers). [/Quote]

 

I understand your point and we all have crossed paths with some dishonest business folks in our life and would myself place Auto Repair Shops near the top of the list. However, I seriously doubt many of these will ever make the wealthiest 1000 Americans.

 

Since, I am familiar with "Day Trading", do some on my own, I believe your mixing us with Hedge Fund Operations, or maybe those that deal in 'naked short selling', which is only seemingly dishonest. Without going back over all this, they establish artificial bottoms in any market, during a downturn, slowing the decline, often stopping a decline in its path, if emotionally driven. I'll add, it's extremely risky and a good many fail, losing everything. There are some that achieve wealth and in a short time period, Soros, shorting the British Pound, several correctly guessing downturns in a Company or an economy (Savings and Loans/Tech Stocks/Housing), just a few. These people however, don't come close to the numbers, that achieve wealth through stardom, in the entertainment field, sports, entertainment and the like.

 

Better to build up a few rich people and tax the $#!% out of them, keep everyone else poor and then give them stuff, and everyone is happy.[/Quote]

 

Yes, we should punish achievement(?), makes sense and creates an incentive for the poor to actually go out and achieve something for themselves.

 

I suspect people who are millionaires yet have all their money tied to assets are not millionaires in the sense that they would be able to liquidize everything in a heartbeat and put $1M USD into the bank. [/Quote]

 

Genecks; Wealth is determined by assets, not dollars in their checking account. The 2 wealthiest Americans (2-3 in the world) are Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Warren Buffett, through stock owned in Berkshire-Hathaway a multi business and investment Corporation, both around 50 Billion$ each (that's 1000 million for each billion or equal to 50,000 other millionaires, for each of them) and I doubt either keeps more than 20,000 dollars in their checking account.

 

As such, I think the republic would have it easier if they could make a hitlist, as the Black Hand Society did, and then carry it out. [/Quote]

 

Normally I wouldn't entertain such thoughts (reply), but out of curiosity, exactly what, how or why, do you think killing anyone that has worked hard and achieved wealth, is going to benefit society or you? I'll be a little more direct, do you think killing Opra Winfrey (Highest paid TV personality) or Tiger Woods (Highest paid athlete) will in any way benefit you or society in general?

[Genecks]

The general idea I have is that if individuals are killed, their money is released back into the economy. If Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey are such persons with massively accumulated wealth, then they would be prime targets. As I have said before, the idea is to release the money back into the economy rather than have certain individual accumulate massive amounts and not allow it to flow back into the economy.

 

I've talked to this idea before, and some people comment that one reason the U.S. government prints money is because some individuals accumulate the wealth, never spend it, and thus the U.S. government believes it can attempt to bring money back into the economy as long as those people never do spend their money.

[Mr Skeptic]

jackson33, I'm not just talking about illegal activity, I'm talking about activity that produces no wealth. Tax preparers don't create wealth,; they get paid to redistribute money, which, while a valuable service for the people they are saving money for, does not actually generate wealth. It's a legal job, even a valuable job, but it leeches from the economy.

 

As for our celebrities, perhaps you should consider the value of the material they generate, before saying they're overpaid. Personally I don't much care about them, but it seems other people do, and are willing to purchase their products.

 

Genecks, unspent money really isn't much of a problem. All it does is cause deflation, increasing the value of the money other people have. If unspent money is a problem for you, the solution is simple: just print more. I guarantee that will be more popular than slaughtering rich people and taking their paper.

 

Regardless, rich people tend to have a large portion of their wealth in non-money form (a higher percentage than poor people according to Wikipedia), and store most of their money in the bank where it is available to be loaned. Some of the non-money wealth is resources that would be useful to others, but some of it is excessive spending on new technology or high quality goods. However, even some of this spending is actually good, as new technology is expensive and needs a few buyers before it can be refined and cheapened and mass-produced.

 

And remember, some people are rich because they know how to make money (and/or are really good cheaters). Perhaps a 100% inheritance tax would be a more appropriate solution.

[padren]

The general idea I have is that if individuals are killed, their money is released back into the economy. If Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey are such persons with massively accumulated wealth, then they would be prime targets. As I have said before, the idea is to release the money back into the economy rather than have certain individual accumulate massive amounts and not allow it to flow back into the economy.

 

Why would the money go back into the economy if the inheritor just keeps the financial portfolios "as is" instead of spending it? Also, a huge amount of money is tied up in corporations, that cannot be killed. To add to this, if people didn't know why these people were being killed, just that they were, it could lead to even more paranoia on the part of people who otherwise would invest in the economy. Just by killing a few of these people, you change the financial landscape, change usually means volatility and thus less money invested. So it could have the opposite effect.

 

For fun though:

[padren]

Skeptic; First, we have laws to keep people basically honest, those that break law or effectively cheat to acquire wealth are in or have been in prison or due to be caught. Then I believe the figure in the US is 80% of the richest, were self made, honest, hard working folks with ideas and a little luck, that achieved the wealth, the other 20% living life off those with the these qualities.

 

Well, I am pretty skeptical of those figures. I would suspect most started out at the very least middle class (with parents that could at least help with college, etc) and a fair amount had significant advantages due to family assets and standing. Not that I think this is wrong - the world is a first come first serve kinda place.

 

If 80% of the richest people today are self made (ie, from humble origins) than the number of wealthy families must have increased 5x, or a whole lot of old money collapsed in that time. That could be true - it just seems unlikely, do you have any figures on that?

[Severian]

There are only two ways to become very rich (i.e. not just well-off). Either you are extremely lucky (e.g. win the lottery, or are born into wealth) or you steal it (morally speaking if not legally). No-one becomes very rich by working hard and being a nice guy.

[padren]

There are only two ways to become very rich (i.e. not just well-off). Either you are extremely lucky (e.g. win the lottery, or are born into wealth) or you steal it (morally speaking if not legally). No-one becomes very rich by working hard and being a nice guy.

 

What makes you say that? It may be less common but I don't think there is any literal barrier, and I am sure survival itself has a component of luck, so naturally success of any kind would to, but I'm sure there's morally sound self made very wealthy people. I'm not sure how much help he had early in life, but I think Dean Kamen seems to be a good example of someone who has amassed a fortune with his moral integrity intact.

 

I mean, unless of course there are dark secrets I don't know about.

[Pangloss]

The general idea I have is that if individuals are killed, their money is released back into the economy. If Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey are such persons with massively accumulated wealth, then they would be prime targets. As I have said before, the idea is to release the money back into the economy rather than have certain individual accumulate massive amounts and not allow it to flow back into the economy.

 

I'm confused by this. Do you feel that it's sitting under a mattress, or somehow locked away? You know financial institutions don't keep all that money in vaults, right?

[jryan]

Well, since the OP is honestly wanting to discuss killing people as an economic strategy I have to question how well they understand economics or history.

 

I mentioned in an earlier thread that discussing the evils of rich people and the benefits of death taxes can only lead to one rather unseemly discussion... and this is it.

Edited April 27, 2010 by jryan

[jackson33]

Well, I am pretty skeptical of those figures. I would suspect most started out at the very least middle class (with parents that could at least help with college, etc) and a fair amount had significant advantages due to family assets and standing. Not that I think this is wrong - the world is a first come first serve kinda place. [/Quote]

 

padren; While I did hear that figure on a TV show promoting some book, I didn't question that figure, didn't bother to catch a name or even which station I was listening to (rarely watch TV during the day). However I've found the following under a google check, then a list of the wealthiest in the US and knowing a good share of their names (business related), would say validates that 80% figure. I would strongly suggest, no person worth 2.3B$ was not born into anything close to that figure.

 

More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth." [/Quote]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

 

Here is a list of Richest Americans (104), think may be an older one but are all over 2.3B$. The vast majority, I would say are 1st Generation Rich, but not necessarily, coming from a "POOR" backgrounds, which by the way I didn't say or infer.

 

http://www.turnto23.com/money/144223/detail.html

 

As for the increase in American and especially worldwide MILLIONAIRS, or the increase, you need to establish what's wealthy and a time frame for expansion. While in the US these numbers have been decreasing in recent years, since about 1950 they have increased, certainly five times over, including the differences in a dollar value. There is over twice the number of people. Last I heard, Russia, India, China and Brazil have the highest percentage increases of NEW millionaires over the past 10/20 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

 

I'm not just talking about illegal activity, I'm talking about activity that produces no wealth. Tax preparers don't create wealth,; they get paid to redistribute money, which, while a valuable service for the people they are saving money for, does not actually generate wealth. It's a legal job, even a valuable job, but it leeches from the economy.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic, if you go over the list of 104 Richest Americans and there are list of a thousand, you will find Business Activity, has been the greatest contributor to Wealth, not only in the US, but around the World, followed by those that participated in one or more dreams of others (invested). Sam Walton's little 'Five and Dime' dream in small towns (opposed to the then idea of big towns only) has no doubt created a thousand millionaires, or 'googles' dream to sell 10 cent advertising while providing a service (Tiger Woods/Al Gore, the most notable). There is nothing illegal, dishonest or corrupt in any of this or 99.9% of others that worked hard to achieve wealth in a Capitalist Society.

 

I don't understand "tax preparers", but they have nothing to do with wealth distribution. If you talking about 'Estate Planners', generally lawyers that give advise on how to use 'Tax Codes', they actually advise on what IS legal and against what's NOT legal.

 

And remember, some people are rich because they know how to make money (and/or are really good cheaters). Perhaps a 100% inheritance tax would be a more appropriate solution. [/Quote]

 

Here again, your advocating punishment for achievement, not only to a deceased/dead person, but those he/she leaves behind. I wonder how far down the totem pole you think that 100% Tax should be imposed. The tax was and is based on the value of the deceased ASSETS, which may mean everybody has accumulated some. A modest home and contents, maybe a car, travel trailer or vacation home, can take that to a 500k$ value in no time, meaning that dead persons family would have to rebuy (pay taxes) that 500k$ value or let government sell it off at Auction where all proceeds go to Government. That's sick itself. Then many people spend their life working a business or farm, have employees and even today often are forced to sell that farm/business just to pay those taxes, by the way that were bought from income, that had already been taxed....

 

I've talked to this idea before, and some people comment that one reason the U.S. government prints money is because some individuals accumulate the wealth, never spend it, and thus the U.S. government believes it can attempt to bring money back into the economy as long as those people never do spend their money.[/Quote]

 

Genecks; The Government is authorized to coin money and the Federal Reserve is charged with printing money. Somewhere around a half trillion actually exist and used for daily transactions of the public. Most printing of money, is used for replacing old money, which deteriorate in different time lines. If government claimed all assets of people on their death, it would simply be sold and those dollars thrown into the general fund, no additional currency required or printed.

 

People, just don't throw their CASH under the mattress, they buy things, invest, or place in any number of liquid assets all of which is used by those that sold the items for other purposes and create an economy.

 

There are only two ways to become very rich (i.e. not just well-off). Either you are extremely lucky (e.g. win the lottery, or are born into wealth) or you steal it (morally speaking if not legally). No-one becomes very rich by working hard and being a nice guy. [/Quote]

 

Severian; I wouldn't know where to begin with your comments...But what your preaching is disingenuous to any young mind reading it. I'd suggest the exact opposite, that any person in the US, your UK or most anyplace on this planet, can achieve any goal they want, by honest and honorable means, regardless of current age, culture, education or background.

[padren]

padren; While I did hear that figure on a TV show promoting some book, I didn't question that figure, didn't bother to catch a name or even which station I was listening to (rarely watch TV during the day). However I've found the following under a google check, then a list of the wealthiest in the US and knowing a good share of their names (business related), would say validates that 80% figure. I would strongly suggest, no person worth 2.3B$ was not born into anything close to that figure.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

 

Here is a list of Richest Americans (104), think may be an older one but are all over 2.3B$. The vast majority, I would say are 1st Generation Rich, but not necessarily, coming from a "POOR" backgrounds, which by the way I didn't say or infer.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to misconstrue your assertion. If someone gets into a better college with help of a family that has above middle class assets, I wouldn't consider them "self made" regardless of how many billions they ended up with. They had to put in real effort to seize the opportunity, but they started out with opportunities most people don't have.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the real issue on the table is that while the very wealthy do contribute to society in exceptionally vital ways from which we all benefit, there is a suspicion (often warranted) as to how much of that wealth comes by twisting people up into lower quality lives.

 

Walmart makes a ton of money and is an economic powerhouse, it also increases it's profits with the "two part-time vs. 1 full time" model that is literally designed to lower the quality of their employees' lives. They saw that they could not outright cut benefits and wages, but realized people are "used to" the caveats that come with part-time work: so they built a model around getting people to accept less. You wouldn't know on the surface that when you asked about full-time work that the answer "We don't have any right now" meant something different than any other place... but it does, because there you will not move up.

 

We have lots of different ideas of what is "fair" and what is "cheating" an employer or employee. We often feel like unions are exploitative, or that employers are exploitative - usually centered around the idea of differing views of what's fair. When a union uses leverage to gain an unfair advantage, it's leeching. When employers do it, it's cheating. It all may be legal to the letter of the law but in both cases you can't help but to see the exploitative party as parasitic regardless of their other contributions.

 

I think that is the genus from which this topic has sprung.

[jryan]

I really, really, really don't understand that mindset Padaren. But then I really don't understand the the mindset of the original poster either.

 

I was born into a low/middle class family as one of seven sons. As we were a large family, my parents could not afford to pay everyone's way through college, so they paid no ones way through college.

 

At the same time the instilled in their children the importance of a higher education, and pressed us hard academically throughout school. So instilled was I in the importance of an education that when I graduated high school I enrolled in a local college and literally shoveled shit every summer to pay for the following year of school. By the third year I had progressed enough to start landing some internships in the summer so I didn't have to shovel shit anymore, and the 9-5 desk jobs allowed me enough energy at night to take up a second job as needed if I wanted spending money.

 

Once I graduated college I took a job as a social worker which, looking back, was a poor choice on my part. I should have realized that when all of my coworkers were married to a spouse with the real job.

 

Anyway, I stuck it out in social work for 7 years, but about half way through I decided that it was time to work on an exit strategy so I went back to school and got myself a degree in IT. Once I had those bonifides I cashed out my retirement from my social work job and hit the trail to dig up a job in IT.

 

I started as a help desk technician making about what I was making as a Social Worker (a little less), and busted my ass at that job until the company moved and left me jobless.... so I hit the job market again and in a month had a job that paid a little more, with more responsibility, and a chance to double my pay within a year... which I did.

 

Soon after the company folded, and I went back to the job market with more skills and fund a job making slightly more than I made before losing my previous job. I then busted my ass to learn all I could at that employer... at which point I had a serious skillset that I parlayed into my current job (which I left and came back to once, doubling my salary again).

 

At this point I make roughly five times what I made as a Social Worker and I did so through my own hard work, and never once did I ever resent a single person who hired me... from the property yard that paid me to clean sewage pumping stations to my current employer who benefits greatly from my work for them.

 

The next step is to hang out my own shingle and work for myself, and God willing start paying other people to work for me. When I do so I will not take kindly to any employee that bitches about their poor mans burden because I will know immediately that they have no real will to succeed. Who would want such troublemakers working for them? Hell, I'd rather employ someone intent of taking over my company than someone who accepts a paycheck with resentment. The former at least is working toward a goal in life.

 

So yeah, I don't resent Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's success... nor would I resent their children if they received all their money in inheritance... though I hear they both plan to give it all away anyway. But it is their money, they earned it.

 

I don't wish them ill, nor do I bitch and moan about their fortunes and wish that the Federal Government would take a little more of it from them so that I might get a bigger hand out. When I was dirt poor and living off of rice and ramen noodles I never once considered how much better my life would be with other peoples money... I spent my time dreaming of how much better my life can be with my own hard work.

 

I know this is all sort of off topic but to heck with this topic.. it's obscene.

Edited April 27, 2010 by jryan

[Pangloss]

I think the real issue on the table is that while the very wealthy do contribute to society in exceptionally vital ways from which we all benefit, there is a suspicion (often warranted) as to how much of that wealth comes by twisting people up into lower quality lives.

 

Walmart makes a ton of money and is an economic powerhouse, it also increases it's profits with the "two part-time vs. 1 full time" model that is literally designed to lower the quality of their employees' lives. They saw that they could not outright cut benefits and wages, but realized people are "used to" the caveats that come with part-time work: so they built a model around getting people to accept less. You wouldn't know on the surface that when you asked about full-time work that the answer "We don't have any right now" meant something different than any other place... but it does, because there you will not move up.

 

We have lots of different ideas of what is "fair" and what is "cheating" an employer or employee. We often feel like unions are exploitative, or that employers are exploitative - usually centered around the idea of differing views of what's fair. When a union uses leverage to gain an unfair advantage, it's leeching. When employers do it, it's cheating. It all may be legal to the letter of the law but in both cases you can't help but to see the exploitative party as parasitic regardless of their other contributions.

 

I think that is the genus from which this topic has sprung.

 

There's a lot of wisdom in the above, especially with regard to perception. But I don't see the case against the wealthy, I only see the emotion.

 

IMO the outcome of Walmart not offering part-time jobs is fewer part-time jobs, not more full-time ones. Wealth doesn't "come by twisting people up into lower quality lives", it comes by motivation and opportunity. Conversely, lack of success comes from lack of motivation and inability to spot opportunity. Of course there's also accident and bad luck, but that isn't the fault of the rich either. And society has constructed safety nets specifically designed to help people out when bad luck befalls them. We may even build more of them as needed.

 

And bad luck happens to the motivated-to-become-wealthy person too. Half of all businesses fail within five years. Fail. The people that entrepreneur employed just nod in empathy and go on to work elsewhere. But the entrepreneur may lose everything. Given that such a large portion of the workforce work for small businesses (some realistic numbers here), do we really want to discourage them from trying again? And it's not as if these businesses use slave labor -- employees are paid, and don't have to work there.

 

There's more to life than making money. Why lament the fact that you haven't become wealthy and that other people have? If you're doing something you love and you have what you need then what is the problem, exactly? If you want a Ferrari, do what it takes to get a Ferrari. If you don't care about Ferraris, that's fine too. The grass is green on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

It's that simple. And, by the way, that represents a degree of freedom not seen very often in human history. That's something to celebrate, not lament.

[padren]

I really, really, really don't understand that mindset Padaren. But then I really don't understand the the mindset of the original poster either..

 

I understand your position and for the record, I am not denouncing wealthy people. I don't have any particular problem with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Microsoft pushed a few unethical practices now and then, but I'd have to look deeper than the general complaints and they haven't worried me too much.

 

It's also worth noting that the "poor man's burden" may reflect on a self-defeatist attitude, but it can also simply reflect reality. Is it a magical confluence that most people born into poverty remain there? We are all individuals, with free will and our unique makeup - are the middle class and up simply "getting lucky" with good hard working people? Did you get where you are today because of some natural spark you had to succeed, or did it have something to do with your parents and others' outlook impact on your youth? If you're parents were jaded and defeated by the time you were born, do you think your chances would have been so high? And yes, there are examples of people making it despite such obstacles, but then there are examples of people winning the lottery too.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I believe in being able to make it big through hard work. I went from being homeless to a desk job to breaking 6 figures without any college in under two years... I also feel very fortunate for the opportunities I've been given to prove my worth. None of that changes the fact though that we live in a free market society where market pressures drive the profit incentive. That's a good thing and a necessity, but it also applies pressure from management to reduce labor costs, with no regard for ethics. It's the same market pressures that drive companies to dump toxic waste in our rivers, which has been proven will happen unless we apply counter pressure.

 

Why should it be different with labor? The "poor man" may be burdened but the person you describe as resenting you is not a poor man, but a broken one. I wouldn't want a broken person working for me either and I have no idea what gets people out of that state, but being aware that the poor are the least able to protect themselves from exploitation doesn't qualify as being broken, it's a pragmatic truth.

[jryan]

Well, if we can divert this topic away from the thought of murdering people to solve an economic crisis, there was a good article the other day that does a pretty good job I think of spelling the role of Government in a capitalist society.

 

Don't let the source fool you, I think there is enough truth in it for us to agree on before we start tearing at each other on the differences.

 

Capitalism -vs- Capitalists

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Why should it be different with labor? The "poor man" may be burdened but the person you describe as resenting you is not a poor man, but a broken one. I wouldn't want a broken person working for me either and I have no idea what gets people out of that state, but being aware that the poor are the least able to protect themselves from exploitation doesn't qualify as being broken, it's a pragmatic truth.

 

Supposedly Social Workers do... but I can tell you that that isn't true. Any Social Worker can tell you that you can tell who the successes will be on their first day in the office. But actually there is a point where people become so broken that they become open to the reality of their own personal responsibility. Unfortunately Social Workers aren't equipped to hasten that realization. Toward the end of my tenure I liked to say that most of my clients didn't need a social worker, they needed a drill sergeant.

Edited April 27, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Skeptic, if you go over the list of 104 Richest Americans and there are list of a thousand, you will find Business Activity, has been the greatest contributor to Wealth, not only in the US, but around the World, followed by those that participated in one or more dreams of others (invested). Sam Walton's little 'Five and Dime' dream in small towns (opposed to the then idea of big towns only) has no doubt created a thousand millionaires, or 'googles' dream to sell 10 cent advertising while providing a service (Tiger Woods/Al Gore, the most notable). There is nothing illegal, dishonest or corrupt in any of this or 99.9% of others that worked hard to achieve wealth in a Capitalist Society.

 

These people have created some wealth, but most of their wealth is wealth created by people working for them, not by the billionaire themselves. The majority of the wealth these people possess, was created by others.

 

I don't understand "tax preparers", but they have nothing to do with wealth distribution. If you talking about 'Estate Planners', generally lawyers that give advise on how to use 'Tax Codes', they actually advise on what IS legal and against what's NOT legal.

 

These people generate absolutely no wealth at all.

 

Here again, your advocating punishment for achievement, not only to a deceased/dead person, but those he/she leaves behind. I wonder how far down the totem pole you think that 100% Tax should be imposed. The tax was and is based on the value of the deceased ASSETS, which may mean everybody has accumulated some. A modest home and contents, maybe a car, travel trailer or vacation home, can take that to a 500k$ value in no time, meaning that dead persons family would have to rebuy (pay taxes) that 500k$ value or let government sell it off at Auction where all proceeds go to Government. That's sick itself. Then many people spend their life working a business or farm, have employees and even today often are forced to sell that farm/business just to pay those taxes, by the way that were bought from income, that had already been taxed....

 

So you're saying that having rich parents is an achievement that shouldn't be "punished"? OK, please tell me what I can do to achieve having rich parents. Cause that's something I'd really like to have achieved.

[ecoli]

These people have created some wealth, but most of their wealth is wealth created by people working for them, not by the billionaire themselves. The majority of the wealth these people possess, was created by others.

Did you build your house?

[Mr Skeptic]

Did you build your house?

 

My purchases are an exchange of wealth I created and sold to my employers for less than the worth of that wealth, for wealth others have created. I have not bought any houses with wealth created by others.

[Dudde]

There can also be wealth created by people who are just more naturally skilled in industries that create more money than others. If you can do the work, and work the system (legally, morally, etc.) you can get pretty rich.

 

Currently, services are worth far more than production. Find a niche market that nobody else is good at, work your ass off to specialize, and offer services to those who need it. It's what I did, to an extent,

 

before I was 18 I could charge anything I wanted for merely coming to someone's house and installing some ethernet cables so they could game in multiple rooms, or have a surround sound system - because I was young, and didn't need all the fancy charges larger companies need, but I still made more than that company's employees individually. (I think if I were motivated by money, I could be quite well off by now..but alas...money bores me)

 

I certainly never wanted to kill anyone though, that definitely won't solve a money crisis...and could end up hurting those you wouldn't think about being affected at the same time

[padren]

Well, if we can divert this topic away from the thought of murdering people to solve an economic crisis, there was a good article the other day that does a pretty good job I think of spelling the role of Government in a capitalist society.

 

Don't let the source fool you, I think there is enough truth in it for us to agree on before we start tearing at each other on the differences.

 

Capitalism -vs- Capitalists

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Honestly I really find articles like that frustrating. First people try to solve a problem with a solution, and because it involves government some writer labels "socialist" followed by the inevitable "socialism fails as it inherently ignores human nature" with a few examples of bad government and hyperbole in solution scope, followed by how capitalism still has issues but is better because it's not socialism.

 

All government is when you break it down is a series of rules we decide are important so we can cope with the abstract aspects of our community: civil and criminal law, national defense, disaster response, infrastructure, property rights from private to public including environmental regulations, etc.

 

Whether those rules become cumbersome and or exploitative depends on the character of the people in the society. One of the major problems we are seeing today is a blurring of private interests and defacto national infrastructure - and it comes down to the old capitalist slogan "costs of a transaction are handled within the transaction, and not distributed to uninvolved third parties." If someone can sell goods cheaper by polluting the drinking water that others have to pay more to filter - that is anti-capitalistic.

 

There is nothing intrinsically sinister about people deciding what can and can't be dumped to the drinking water owned in common. That decision results in a series of rules, ie government - and there's nothing wrong with that. So why is it such a big deal for people to decide that polluting the economic infrastructure in a way that cost people who were not party (at least willing) to it a bad thing? It's not like we are blaming these companies for "causing a natural drought" and just taking it out on them - they engaged in reckless actions, dumped toxic assets, made a fortune, and collapsed the national (and a big piece of the global) economic infrastructure.

It hurt everyone involved or not.

 

Blanket statements like "The 'reform' coming down the pike will put bureaucrats in charge of investors. If bureaucrats were better than investors, they wouldn’t be bureaucrats." are insultingly trite - a few paragraphs up he's talking about how the government should be the referee, then blurs the definition to being "in charge of investors" as if the 'reform' means anything other than getting the teams together to work out some issues on the rules. It's like some imaginary line is crossed an a magical switch in his brain is flipped, and suddenly his own very statements no longer apply.

 

Supposedly Social Workers do... but I can tell you that that isn't true. Any Social Worker can tell you that you can tell who the successes will be on their first day in the office. But actually there is a point where people become so broken that they become open to the reality of their own personal responsibility. Unfortunately Social Workers aren't equipped to hasten that realization. Toward the end of my tenure I liked to say that most of my clients didn't need a social worker, they needed a drill sergeant.

 

I understand what you mean, and it is not an easy issue to solve. I definitely have seen my share of "there but for the grace of god, go I" experiences. No idea what I got growing up but I sure am glad I did.

 

That is a side tangent though to my real point on that topic: how is being aware of the fact that there are employers and organizations that will try to exploit anyone vulnerable (including the poor) somehow equate to having a "bad attitude" towards work?

Whenever two people engage in a transaction, there is a good chance the person paying the wage will try to exploit what they can to get the best deal, including the level of desperation of the employee. Likewise, when trying to find a someone who can do a desperately needed job, there's a good chance the employee will exploit the employer's desperation to get the best deal. In many cases, neither care if the exchange results in animosity as long as the profit is there. They don't care if they mislead the other party into a deal they would not otherwise make as long as it doesn't cross the legal line.

 

In this regard, either side can be exploitative and rationally called parasitic. To be aware and watchful of this, including how supply/demand in general effects the balance on the wider scale is not a bad thing. It's simply pragmatic and something to be watchful for. It's also why we have (as John Goldberg says) a "ref" on duty.

[ParanoiA]

It would make more sense to kill the poor. They're the ones that mismanage money. They're the weak link. Killing the rich would be killing those who manage money and direct it the most efficiently as measured by the public's mass capital trade for their product.

 

The housing crisis would have been prevented if poor people didn't exist.

 

If you kill the rich, then we kill off the most successful, the talented, the ones who are best fit to give the population what it wants the most. How do we innovate, and create new products and technology if we keep killing the winners of our society?

 

Makes more sense to kill off the losers. The ones dragging us down.

 

It's simple really. All humans are greedy, except for a select couple here and there. Particularly the people who bitch the most about the rich. We all pay the least amount of money we can for a product - that's the same as paying the least amount you can get away with for labor. We cancel and scale down services and monthly obligations when they get to be too much, or if we just want "more money", just like a corporation when they downsize or cut costs.

 

 

We all do the same things. So killing the rich is goofy, because others will take their place - like you. And you are a greedy, selfish little human. I mean that, with love, of course.