Rekna

filtherton hit my point exactly, just because people are willing to pay X amount of money for a service does not mean one should charge that much. I know I am different than the majority on this one but I think there is a difference between fair prices and demand driven prices.

I don't think a 3 night stay in the ICU should cost $100,000. I don't think doctors and lawyers deserve to make $300,000 a year. And I know the excuses is well they have spent so much time learning so much more which is BS. If that is the case then we would have phds sitting in the national labs making more than $120,000 a year because they have worked just as hard if not harder than many doctors and lawyers. Doctors (or i should say buisness men in charge of the doctors) know they can charge exorbarent amounts of fees to patients because patients need treetment it is an inelastic demand. The same is true for lawyers and drug companies. Sure say well the cat scan machine costs $$$$$$$ but it does because the people who are selling the machines are raking in a tun of profit. We have CEO's of corperations raking in millions while their hard workers who are responsible for the profit are lucky to make $50,000 a year.

Case in point and back to my personal story. I was working as a technition for a guy for a year. It took a little under a month for me to be the lead technition for this company, i would maintain his servers, fix computers, and make house calls. He charged people $100 an hour for me while only paying me $7.50. To me that seemed like a major exploitation of both the customers and me. So many buisness these days are run by people who rake way more cash then they deserve, honestly I believe buisnesses should be obligated to pass unusally high profits on to either the employees or the customers. Now i'm not saying all profits either because much of it should be used to add to the companies infastructure and even do R&D. But when a CEO goes we had a million dollars in profit this year, it looks like me and a few others are going to get a heafty raise, i get annoyed.

I guess maybe this is my compationate christian side of me coming out.

filtherton

Government spending created jobs that allowed people to earn a living that was otherwise not available. Direct government spending, not the dilute "trickle down" kind.

Ustwo

Who determines what is fair? If you don’t know what a fiasco government price fixing is, you should look into it.

They also have a skill in demand. Its that pesky supply and demand thing again. You are deciding what people should make, what their time is worth? I think you are very arrogant to do so.

Boy thats a lot of fish in your barrel. I do fully agree that some medical services are over charged, but that is PRECISELY because supply and demand is not followed for those procedures. A consumer with insurance doesn’t care about the cost, there are no market forces. The hospitals do what they can to get patients to go to them, but there is no competition based on price. The doctors in such cases tend to make only a faction of that total bill btw, and often time the surgery itself is not worth their time for the more basic procedures. You want to make it ‘fair’ by dictating what people make, but seem totally ignorant of the consequences. I am a doctor and if you told me that I would be making what YOU deemed fit, I’d have gone to work when I was 21 instead of going to school for 10 more years and do you know why? Because if you are paying me the same then I need to get started a lot earlier on my savings and I don’t do that in school. Your ‘system’ would have the quality of health care plummet. Also ask Ben and Jerry’s how well the ‘low paid’ CEO thing worked out for them.

Umm whos fault is that? You, as skilled labor, allowed yourself to be used for a year, didn’t ask for a raise, didn’t go out on your own, and you think its unfair? Did he hold a gun to your head? If you could do it better than he could, and found your own customers, why didn't you?


You are deciding what people should make again? What makes you qualified? Why bother increasing infrastructure or R&D if you don’t make any more money? Are your employees, who get paid the same, going to do this? Is your CEO going to do this? Who is this altruistic soul who will work hard for the same as those who don’t work hard?

You wish to basically destroy the economy and you call yourself compassionate? The road to hell is paved in good intentions, and quite frankly if your thinking was policy I’d be moving to Ireland. There is an element of truth there though, Christians as a rule treat making money as if it’s a distasteful necessity, which is perhaps why Jewish people seem to do better economially. I think its one of Christianities weaknesses.

You want to know the ironic part? I had that very conversation with my CPA computer tech, who just so happens to be Jewish, after work today. He didn’t like accounting and went into business on his own as a IT specialist for small businesses. While what I know what he is doing isn’t that hard, and I could learn it, I pay him so I don’t have to worry about it. I don’t feel ripped off because what is easy for him is harder for me and would require a lot of my time. That is what it is all about, its not a win-lose but a win-win. I get what I need, a three office integrated and mostly trouble free computer system going and he gets paid for it. I am happy because its easier for me to do business, he is happy because he used his skills to make money, which he just used to buy a new home with his wife. This is not a zero sum game.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Marvelous Marv

Because it's theft if the masses take the wealthy's money from them?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Aladdin Sane

The human species by nature is selfish and greedy; Man is driven by lust, power, and self-preservation. All experience and history proves that it is so. Therefore, self-interest in economic matters is not only reality, it is preferred and healthy. The pursuit of material wealth by individuals is good for society. It is what we do as human beings. So, yes. When it comes to material wealth--I'm all for it.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

flstf

I would like to believe that most of the wealthy are honest. I am always amazed at how corrupt many are no matter how much they already have. I don't like to use her as an example but I think she is typical of this. What gets into someone like Martha Stewart to cheat on stock trades to make a paltry $150K (from our pension funds) when she is worth over a billion already. It seems like they do it because they can and feel entitled or something. I can imagine this sort of thing happening thousands of times when no one gets caught. They are no different than someone who picks our pocket. I would say that I am more disgusted and puzzled rather than jealous.

If you buy a house for $40K and sell it for $60K a week later you are not dishonest, unless of course you have inside information from your political friends that the land will soon be rezoned. I fear the rich may get richer not just from their superior economic understanding. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to buy low and sell high when the game is fixed.

Rekna

Well Ustwo we will have to disagree i guess. I know i'm excentric here but I don't see why MD's who go to basically the same level of schooling as PHDs should get paid way more. The work involved by high level scientists is comparable and the length of schooling is definatly similar. Personally money is not the only motivating factor for me and this comes directly from my Christian side. While you may call it a weakness I call it a strength.

pan6467

Christ was poor, So he was not as trust worthy or as intelligent as the rich man?

Ghandi was poor, so he was not as humane nor as great as the Kenneth Lays?

Albert Schweitzer was not wealthy, so he was less eductaed and his work less important than that of a hack plastic surgeon?

Bill W. and Sister Ignatia were dirt poor, so the idea and creation of their 12 step program saving millions of lives is not what life is about?

Helping others for the sake of bettering society and thus self is not worthy of your time?

These beliefs come from the Right? The same right that caters to the Religious conservatives who are supposed devout Christians?

I submit examples like these show exactly how the GOP has tricked the religious conservatives into getting their votes.

The right says we'll give you (because there is truly no money to be lost in these areas by the corporations):

- Pro life
- pro Bible and Jesus (but we'll ignore the whole humanitarian, helping each other, love each othe aspect and preach hatred and intolerence for those who disagree)

You give us votes and ignore the greed.

If there were big bucks in abortion, I have a feeling the Right would find a way to allow it and support it. Just a hunch.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

flstf

I agree but there has to be some kind of balance. Self interest in economic matters can result in children working in factories and mines and people owing their souls to the company store (wasn't that a song, lol). I think capitalism is the best system but cannot be left unchecked. Having grown up close to Appalachia I wonder just how far the mining companies would have gone if not for people practically revolting.

flstf

I don't know about lawyers but healthcare does not seem to work this way. If your child is hit by a car in front of your house you call 911 and go to the closest hospital and do not stop to compare prices. You pay whatever exhorbitant rates they charge and there is little or no competition. It is difficult to apply capitalistic principals to a non-competitive industry.

roachboy

i do not see how this is a political topic, really.

it seems more considerations about advice gathering based on class stereotypes---more a finance or lifestyle thread.

i think the thread should be moved out of politics.

it is not political because its logic is social darwinist: the economy is like an ecosystem and money like food.....better adapted organisms will be more suited to gather more food than less adapted organisms. therefore the wealthy are more fit than the unwealthy.
such the hierarchies that result from activity within this nice economy-nature are like those in actual nature.
so inequalities in the distribution of wealth are not political matters---they are indices of the hierarchies that folk like ustwo presumably like to think exist in nature.

problems with this kind of view are legion--but in terms of the thread's placement under the rubric of politics, the main problem is that the whole logic of ustwo's opening post runs counter to the idea that there is anything political in the matter of wealth distribution at all.


if conservatives like ustwo really do see the economy as an ecosystem, as a kind of nature rather than as a space for particular types of social activity, then they should assume the consequences of this position relegate their arguments about to lifestyle or finance or nature forums.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

flstf

I think Ustwo's speculation regarding economic advice and who is best able to provide it has a lot to do with politics. Especially to those of us who wish to point out that much of the wealth created in this country is the result of political influence and not so much the superior economic ability of his "I Trust the Rich" position.

pig

A couple of different thoughts come to mind. Concerning doctors and lawyers and such; in my opinion some doctors are overpaid indeed. However, there is a good reason that doctors tend to make a higher average salary than other Ph.Ds. On average, their work is a hell of a lot more stressful and inherently risky. If an engineer makes a stupid design, then some other guy can come behind in review and tell him/her that the plexion catalever is obviously going to detorquerize and conflibbulate the crossbeam, resulting in immediate death for everyone in a 50 ft radius. If a surgeon screws the pooch, then you've got one less heart than you need to live. If Ustwo accidentally jukes you in the throat or cuts off your tongue or drowns you with the little water squirty thingy, you're screwed. Some non-medical/legal Ph.D.s do make a shit-ton of money, and their work tends to be high risk / high payoff. I think the level of disparity between the accomplished work in other fields and those in, for example the medical field, is too great - but I don't have a problem with the basic concept. Don't forget the massive debt most medical students are in when they graduate.

Related, there's a reason that and MRI or a CatScan instrument costs megabucks. A lot of R&D is behind that thing, and the company that sells them only sells a limited amount of them a year. It's not like chewing gum or jimmyhats.

Ustwo, in terms of the argument on a national level, policy decision: I think you are lumping in people who can't make lots of $$$ with people who choose not to make lots of $$$. They are not always the same, and I think the people who choose not to pursue wealth accumulation have important things to say about the economy. Things like: school teachers saying "quit cutting our funding. we need books." or firemen saying "we need another fireengine doohickey" etc. I think if you're saying that when it comes to questions of national economic policy that have to do with increasing the wealth and economic stability of our nation as whole that we should seek the advice of those who know how to accumulate wealth, then I'd have to agree with you.

However, seeing as how I think you'll find some pretty rich people in Congress these days, who have been there through multiple administrations and so on and so forth, and we seem to be potentially el fucked economically, I'd have to return to the question of whether or not you can trust that opinion from el richy rich. I posit that he would be quite tempted to suggest policy that is good for him, not so good for me. Thus, I don't think it's as simple as using someone's wealth or accumulation thereof to judge their fitness to make policy decisions, but I can see it as a factor.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

fistf: i understand your position and considered writing something that took off from it, but it amounted to a total critique of ustwo's opening post, which became less and less worth the trouble to me as it got longer. that said, i stand by my argument, that is is not a political thread because the way in whcih ustwo frames his opening post eliminates all political dimensions to the the uneven distribution of wealth, collapsing it back onto some wholly untenable social darwinist view.

if he wants to hold to this logic, the thread should be moved.
what he is talking about and how he is doing it remove this from any political discussion.
this is a finance thread that he has set into motion, and a pretty crude one at that.

i do agree with one thing in his post, however: there is a real problem with education about economics. the thread itself is a demonstration of the kind of crackpot ideas that people take seriously when they think about economic matters. there is nothing--and i mean nothing--more crackpot than a social-darwinist view of economic activity.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

Only if it's theft when the wealthy take the masses' money from them. Your opinion on who is stealing from who depends on where your class sympathies lie. I personally think the word "theft" gets thrown around too much in regards to one side or the other when it obvious that if you want to think about it in terms of theft, both sides are stealing from eachother. I don't think it's theft. No one forces the wealthy to pay taxes. They just end up in jail sometimes if they don't. They're also free to cease doing business in america, which seems reasonable to me: if you don't want to contribute anything to the system and the infrastructure that made your wealth possible than you're just as much of a leach as anyone on welfare. TANSTAAFL indeed.

Alladin Sane, your idea of greed being justifiable purely because certain people seem to be naturally prone to it seems somewhat lacking. Humans are prone to many horrible things. I disagree that a predisposition towards a certain kind of behavior is the same as a justification for that behavior. That kind of reasoning to me seems to go exactly against the kind of vague appeal to personal responsibility over one's natural predispositions that is often used both to disparage the welfare state, and to somehow justify as deserving anyone who has managed to accumulate some wealth.

host

Well, Ustwo....you have me at a disadvantage. For once, if the anecdotal evidence of your own former Illinois senator, Peter Fitzgerald, is any indication,
I have to agree with you. Fitzgerald was wealthy enough to finance his own senate campaign. I'm assuming that you share Fitzgerald's wisdom, but I haven't read posts on the forum by you that have included your condemnation of our house speaker or of other members of the Illinois congressional delegation.

Here it is, from the most "fair and balanced" news source that I could find:
My point, Ustwo, is that your POV about most things, including the premise of your thread, seem to me to be as upside down as Dennis Hastert's are.

I may not know that I am wet, but at least I know that I am a fish.....

Ustwo

But I think you posted in the wrong lake.

This thread has nothing to do with republicans, democrats, or what not. Hell when it comes to money there are more millionare democrats in the senate than republicans (at least at my last count).

This is a philosophy question, one where opionion can be stated without worry about party. I have been critical of president Bush's spending in the past on this board, but it does not matter here.

So host what do you think, and please, what do YOU think, not what others think in link form.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

It was a surprise to many of us to find a philosophy question in politics.

I request that a Mod move this topic to the appropriate forum that Ustwo intended.

Ustwo

It is indeed a philosophy question a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY question, or do you think how money is spent by a government not a political matter?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

This fish thought so, and posted exactly on the subject of a wealthy man, from your state, who was beholden to no one, presumably because of his wealth, who took political stands about money spent by a government, and found his wisdom about government spending, to be his political undoing, at the hands of people in your state, and in the party that you seem to identify with, Ustwo.

Your response was to tell this fish that he was in the wrong lake.

It seems time for you to post coherently, or to move this thread out of politics.

Ustwo

host I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry, so I'll go with laughing.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

People can choose not to acquire wealth, and there is nothing wrong with that in the least, but I think you underestimate school teachers and fireman. I spoke with an accountant once years ago and he said his richest client never made more than $38k a year in his life. Its about spending less than you make and investing the left over in some manner. There is no virtue in being rich, I agree, but if you choose not to be at least financially secure when you could be it does speak poorly of your wisdom.

That being said

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

once again, this is not a political thread.

the question assumes that the distrubution of wealth is a kind of natural fact, that the accumulation of wealth is a form of adaptation that can be understood on social darwinist lines. ustwo is not raising questions about his view of the social distribution of wealth, about the nature of his way of framing the question he poses.

like the template for this kind of argument--limbaugh--ustwo removes economic activity from the political.
and--again like the limbaugh template--the only thing that makes the thread political is that he chose to put it in politics.

it is only within ustwo's particular frame of reference that the correlation of external features (possession of wealth) with (arbitrary) subjective attributes (wisdom and other predicates traditionally imputed to an elite class) even begins to make sense.
and because for ustwo this correlation is not open to debate, there is no philosophical dimension to this thread either.

so far we have eliminated both politics and philosophy.

the op is not even talking about economics in a traditional-ish sense of the term--he is not interested in political economy, not interested in a comprehensive image, not interested in questions that might pertain to the definition of the economic as a discrete sphere of human activity, not even interested in ways of trying to isolate dynamics in general---the view of economics he outlines is focussed exclusively on tactics within a framework that is not itself open to question.
ustwo seems to want reassurance about his particular assumptions (i trust rich people because they are my betters) and to publicize his particular choices of adaptive behaviour (he read some manuals about wealth generation----which, because these manuals typically treat the environment as neutral or given and then proceed to discuss tactics within that environment--they too function to distance the thread from any contact with politics, philosophy or political philosophy)....


this is a finance thread.
maybe a lifestyle thread (the underlying question: how important are class stereotypes to you im making investment decisions?)
but it is not politics.
and it should be moved.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Only a socialist would think that finance has no place in politics, which is socialisms fatal flaw

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

you might try actually reading what i posted, ustwo, rather than resorting to all too typical facile non-reponse.
your response is wholly beside the point.
the problem is not "finance yes/no"--the problem is the way YOU framed the thread.
given YOUR framework---i made the point three different ways--this is not a politics thread.
the problem does not follow from your trying to introduce a finance question. it follows from how YOU think about questions of finance.

if you want to argue your case, ustwo, you'd do better to read the actual posts and respond to the actual arguments presented.

as it stands, your response is not worth the time it took you to type it, and still less the time it took me to read it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pig

It seem to me that this thread + the Cheney thread is the reason why the Politics section of ye olde TFP gets the rep it does for sucking like a mega-charged Hoover vacuum. I find myself disagreeing with Ustwo quite frequently, and I think the questions that Roach is raising about the fundamental nature of economics, wealth distribution, and politics are all valid and interesting. But it seems that no one ever actually tries to discuss anything. I see nothing inherent in the thread title or what I perceive to be the intended purpose that should derail it this way. The same thing with Elphalba's Cheney questions. To wit, in this case:

Roach, surely someone with your positions has to have an opinion on whether or not a person's ability to generate wealth, in the current socio-political situation, should have an effect on the validity of their advice on economic policy. It seems like the sort of thing you could drop a dissertation on, no? The same thing was happening over in the Cheney thread last time I checked it, but from the other side.

It seems to me that people's dislike of each other is stifling the ability to have reasonable discussions. It seems to go both ways, and it's completely killing my ability to sit back and lurk and enjoy the debates/discussions. I don't really see the need to give a lot of relationship advice, so I guess I'll go troll for some hot fucking poontang

edit Ustwo : I'm sure there are some savy school teachers and firemen, and some who have made serious money. Most likely, not from teaching public school on $38 k /year, but there's always someone. I think that if you try to make the case that people pursue those occupations as primary vehicles to make $$$, youv'e got a difficult position. By choosing those professions, the majority of people are accepting a different value system than one that is centered around $$$. I completely agree that one should always live beneath their means. I think it's pretty clear that this lesson is not translating very well to our national economics.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

pigglet:
i find myself deleting posts in response to ustwo more often than i post them in an effort to control for this kind of problem (what you refer to above)--in this case, i dont see it: i asked basic questions and they get no response.
when a response comes, it is trivial.
i see no reason to move on the basic claim i am making--which is that this is not a political thread.
i am not arguing that it could not be one---you rightly point out how it could become one, and in a different context i would probably even have tried to make it one--but at some point i think that the conservative attempt to depolitiize economic activity should be held to its own implications and discussions that work within it moved out of politics and out of philosophy and into finance or lifestyle.

there's nothing more to this.

i will also say that in general here i have been nice to ustwo so far in this thread.
i have even taken seriously a mode of argument that i find to be totally absurd.
but he should accept the consequences of his position, it seems to me.
i'll check in on this again once it is moved to another space.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Oh what you do and why you do it isn't the issue per say. An actor making 10 million a film can be horrible at economics and bussiness while someone making 38k a year can be well versed in both. Its a 'millionare next door' type of issue. Your occupation does not have to be where you make your money, but that is what we are mostly taught. Thats why you can have people who made millions die penniless and people who worked at mundane and lower paying jobs retire in comfort. Its undoubtedly EASIER if you have a big money occupation, but you still need to understand the game.

I have more to add but need to run to a concert my wife is a soloist in, so I have no choice but to go

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pig

roach,

I guess i see that the thread, regardless of some positions inherent in ustwo's op, does have some political aspect. I think it's hard to make the statement that separation of the haves and have nots, or the distribution of wealth, isn't something of a natural fact...I'm not saying I support the incredible differentiation in it, but it does seem to pop up again and again. My main problem with ustwo's op is the second part you brought up, the equation of wealth with some manner of inherent wisdom/intelligence and certainly the notion that that type of intelligence would swing over to a sense of what is best for society as a whole. Not to mention that if one attempts to silence the population on the basis of finanical status, then democracy / republican govt. goes straight in the shitter, and you end up with a seriously flawed situation. I don't understand your position that there isn't a political side to this question; however, I'll agree that the op is mostly finance related aside from the bit about political policy. Regardless, no offense intended - I didn't mean to single you out so much as I typically enjoy your posts.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

thanks, pigglet. the problem is not the question. it is how the question is framed.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

I know this is below everyone here (hopefully) as it is intended for primary schoool-aged children, but the point is the people that came up with this learning tool are the people from Ernst & Young. One of the big accounting firms. They are, what you might call, "rich corperation" but I don't see this game as an attempt to dupe the masses, but an attempt to educate and ready children for their own financial future. I guess this post has nothing to do with politics or political philosophy, but hey, at least there's an attempt out there by some 'evil corperation' showing some kind of responsibility to the masses, even if it isn't their duty to educate the youth on financial matters....oh yeah, the link in case you wanted to check it out http://www.moneyopolis.org

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Yakk

I know some people who have moved out of the middle class.

The thing about them is, they worked hellishly hard, and got lucky. They didn't have some deep understanding of economics or money -- they put 30,000$ on "black 42", and it came up.

Now, they didn't literally go to a roulette table -- to a man, they worked hard (investing years of income in the gamble that it would come up black 42) and tried to improve their odds.

I'm not working pay check to pay check. I have kept my spending an order of magnatude under my income. My ability to be thrifty has nothing to do with my understanding of economics.

Someone else's wish to spend money has nothing to do with their understanding of economics.

The guy who makes millions off his assets alone is playing a different game. Financial tools work differently once you have millions of assets.

You do understand that until recently the USA had one of the best inter-generational social mobilities? With a progressive tax structure, inheritance taxes, and the like?

A list of things you shouldn't do would change over time.

Ask those men if they would rather have a 1 in 20 chance of being worth 100 million (and a 95% chance of going bankrupt and being reduced to 20,000$/year), or a 100,000$/year job for life.

Be careful. This is much like watching the winners at a casino and ignoring the losers.

Go to a casino and only look at the people who come out 1 million$ richer. You will end up with a very warped view of how the casino works.

Failing to look at the losers is foolish.

You believe in a just world, do you not?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Cimarron29414

I forgot about this thread and I have skipped around in it. If this response is redundant, I apologize. I might be wrong but I think I am hearing that one's level of wealth directly correlates to one's level of community responsibility. This could be based on resources available and moral obligation. But, the poor person that is a burden to the community could rise out of poverty and improve the community as well. Do we focus too much on the wealthy as the only path to improvement? Isn't everyone's responsibility for community health equal? Doesn't it actually start at the individual level - meaning, the best thing I can start to do for the community is to not be a burden to it?

I don't think the word "trust" is properly used in the title. If you want to learn how to build a computer, you learn from a computer expert. If you want to learn to fix your car, you learn from an automotive expert. If you want to learn to become rich, you learn from a money expert. You certainly DON'T give your money to rich person and say, "Here, use this to make me more of this." <- that statement would imply trust and that action would be a little foolhardy.

There is one universal rule to becoming wealthy: Do not borrow money. Buy everything by saving the money and then applying it to the purchase. I'm not talking about small business loans or education loans here, I am talking about cars, jeans, X-Boxes, etc. You don't need the rich or the college professor to know this -> just ask your grandfather.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

pan6467

My father started out with absolutely nothing and became very wealthy.

Doesn't know crap about finances, doesn't care.

He worked hard was given governmental help in the form of apprenticship programs, school grants and loans that didn't bankrupt him or truly hurt him when he graduated, didn't graduate into a high paying job.

But his drive to be the best in what he did was unsurpassed. Whether it was project engineer and weekend surveys, to excavting waste dumps and putting evironmentally new ones in their place, to doing the groundwork and working for some of the greatest golf course designers in America. Every job my dad took moved him upward, until he owned his own company. His drive to be the best allowed companies to track him down and make HUGE offers, some he took, some he didn't because they meant moving or being away from the family.

He got government help, worked his ass off, repaid the government in sums he could afford and maintained a steady climb upward.

I maintain that is nearly impossible today the loans are a stranglehold, the ability to advance through government sponsored programs is gone, and it is harder to move up as companies downsize, plus pay less.

I get my drive from my father, I WILL BE the preeminent authority on compulsive gambling recovery, but I won't be doing it for money. I'll be doing it for myself and to better others. The money will come, if I am good enough at what I do, just as it did for my father, provided the conomy can support it. And very simply because I'll be my own boss, through family loans and friends who believe in me, and fundraisers. I don't plan to take a government penny on anything I start because I don't want the government telling me how I can help others.

But that makes me lucky because I have the oppurtunity, some people, a vast majority, don't have rich families and won't be able to work for themselves and will die owing on their student loans, because their jobs didn't pay enough. Not because they didn't work hard enough or didn't try to save enough.

Plus, our economy is built on debt, if people spent within their means the country would go bankrupt within 6 months, IMHO.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

smooth

Pan, until this last ratge increase, the student loan interest rate was at a 20 year low. Some of the requirements and limits for loans have changed, but they are obtainable and still tenable. In fact, I borrowed $20,000 at 3.5% and purchased some fairly liquid 12 month CDs at 4% to give my wife and myself a (free) security blanket in case of an emergency. I also shopped around and found a loan consolidation program that reduces our rates by 1% after 36 months of consecutive payments.

Anyway, government programs are being stripped, but they aren't dead...yet. Tuition is skyrocketing, so we have to take out more loans or earn larger grants, but for the most part I think education is still available for a particular class of people and will continue to be.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pan6467

That is true the loan payments and interest aren't that bad. My ex was paying like $150/month and even then you can usually work with them when you have money trouble. But hers were all Stafford and Perkins. If you go private or PLUS (Parent loans), and most students have to because Perkins and Staffords limits rarely cover the full 4 years, that's when the rates and payments become much higher and a true burden.

The problem is tuition is increasing and more and more loans have to be taken out, thus increasing the payments.

I believe if you work in a federally recognized "rebuild zone" (or whatever they are called) in inner cities and only make so much (like LISW's ) you can file for some loan forgivement. I think..... they may not have this program anymore.

You are right College education is becoming more and more for a certain economical class.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"