I trust the rich
 

One thing I've been trying to educate myself in is economics and wealth generation. I've come to realize just how little I knew about it, understood it, and that I was taught nothing about it in school. Even most MBA's seem to know nothing about it and they are basically bean counters. Those that do understand it become the reviled 'rich'.

So my question to you is this. If you are working pay check to pay check, if you are in credit card debt, if you can't pay all your bills, if you think your problem is you need a raise, what makes you qualified to think you understand the economy well enough to know what is 'good policy' is?

Who would you rather get investment advice from?

A university economist who has nothing beyond his schools pension/401k and pay check, or a guy who makes millions off his assets alone?

I can feel the responses right now. The rich just makes rules to make them richer, they can't be trusted, etc. Its true the rich like rules/laws that makes them richer, but it seems more laws are made to just punish the rich, voted by the masses of folks who can't figure out why its bad to put 9k on a credit card at 18.5% interest. They never DO punish the rich of course, the rich 'get it', they figure out how to maximize their investments and find the loop holes. They just punish themselves by making it harder to break out of the middle class. Income tax started only on the 'rich', which is how they overcame the anti-tax stance most Americans had back then, they made it someone elses problem. Well you see how well that worked out for the middle class.

The lack of financial education in this country is a travesty. I was in school longer than many of you reading this have been alive and in all that time I NEVER got any real classes on money and the economy. Never a plan for how to gain wealth, never a list things you shouldn't do. I had a few talks, but that was it. Plus of those few classes, who is teaching them? Self made millionaires or men who need to brown bag lunch? I was taught you need an education to get a good job, but most jobs, even high paid jobs, do not make you rich, they just let you pay more bills. You are still tied to that job, or you loose your car, your credit, and your biggest "asset" (HA!) your house. The school system does not train good employers but good employees. When the next depression hits, it is going to be due to peoples lack of education about money that causes it.

Rather than think 'I wish I had that kind of money' or get jealous, I've been studying how the game works and what makes one wealthy. They know how to play the game, and you don't learn how to play well by watching the losers.

I've come to trust the rich.

imo, a wealthy individual (as an individual) can be trusted. a wealthy corporation should never be trusted.

Trusted for knowing how to manage an individual's finances, certainly. For managing larger entities, possibly. Trusted for acting in the interest of the masses, rarely.

It is curious that you say this. I am not picking a fight, I am genuinely curious. As a matter of fact, this question might need to be moved to Philosophy: Why do you feel any individual has a financial obligation to the masses?

So you trust these same masses who are up to their necks in debt to know what is best?

I agree that financial education is nonexistent in america and that this is perhaps one very large reason why there are so many people who make so many horrible financial decisions.

I disagree that the rich are somehow necessarily more understanding of the economy. Certainly some of them are, but: A lot of wealthy people hire accountants to help them exploit loopholes in tax code. A lot of rich people hire experts to invest their money for them. A lot of rich people, like our president(in a matter of fact nonpartisan jab of a reference) never had to work a day in their life to achieve material wealth. For every warren buffet there is a george bush or a paris hilton. There are a lot of wealthy people who use their money to buy the expertise of people who can help them keep and/or make money. The poor don't often have the same access to these same experts.

I don't trust the rich any more than i trust the poor. Someone with money is just as apt to fuck you over as someone without money. The rich person often has access to more effective means of doing so.

The people i don't trust as a rule are the greedy. The ken lays, the latrell sprewels, the people who prefer the accumulation of wealth to integrity or ethical behavior. I don't trust people who think that the economy's sole purpose is facilitate the accumulation of wealth.

Why do we, as a society, have a tendency to lump words together? (Rich and greedy)

They don't but the thrust of this thread suggests that we should trust wealthy individuals to plan our finances... I think most would agree that this is a valid assessment on a level of personal finance but less credulous on a national level (i.e. for the masses).

I tend to agree with filtherton's take on this.

A festering sore is sometimes better than a driven knife. Sometimes the knife heals the sore.

When interest conflict there may not be a right answer. Certainly someone is always unhappy. However, I do believe there's always a more encompassing, long-term answer than "make me wealthy." The two may be compatible, or not. Who I trust depends on the question.

There's a danger here in confusing interests among me, community, country, world. I agree the odds are better for a wealthy person to have a grasp of economics, but if you mean that person automatically deserves our trust in making decisions, that's a matter of qualifications vs. qualities.

I didn't equate the two, though i believe there might be a positive correlation. The greedy are more incined to pursue wealth and perhaps because of this fact, more likely to achieve it. It is a pretty simplistic theory, i'll give you that.

If it weren't for the masses, no individual would be able to acquire any wealth at all. And also, if the masses don't feel like the current system is benefitting them, then they are perfectly entitled to change it. "Sharing the wealth" is a good policy in terms of self preservation.

Another interesting question: Why should the masses be obligated to allow anyone to accumulate wealth?

That isn't what he said. Don't derail your own thread.

UsTwo, Did you just finish reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"? If you haven't read it you should pick up a copy.

Neither, I have all the respect in the world for a self made millionare like Bill Gates and none whatsoever for an heiress like Paris Hilton.

While I disagree with Mr Gates on a lot of issues, watching how he manages money and philanthropy is very interesting.

Paris Hilton is only interesting when she takes her clothes off (and then only marginally).

If you haven't earned the money yourself, you are not due any respect.

I like where you're looking, Ustwo. I think you're dead on that our education system is designed to feed labor into the workforce, not to empower individuals to become financially independant (or even financially solvent).

I'd be interested to know the percentage of that top 1% that got there under their own steam versus inheritance. I suspect that it's a low percentage. A rich person who is rich because their great great grandfather build the railroads doesn't seem to me like somebody who should be educating others in finance. They don't necessarily know anything beyond how to sign the check to pay their accountant's bill. Maybe not even that.

I think it's flawed reasoning to think that the rich will have the best interests of the masses in mind. I also think it's flawed reasoning to think that the MASSES will have the best interests of the masses in mind. People pretty much look out for themselves. It's just that the wealthy have vastly more resources with which to do that.

Frankly I've decided that the "masses" are uneducated simps who'll always be wallowing in the depths of debt. It used to bother me... I wondered.. "why can't we just educate them and help them out of debt?" It still bothers me, but not much. Ensuring my own financial independence is my primary concern, not theirs. If we educated everyone on making money, who would work minimum wage to make my food, etc? We NEED stupid people to make the menial grind work. Enlightened people with investments and realistic plans for the future refuse to be degraded in a minimum wage job. Even as a fiscal liberal, I realize that the majority of people ARE stupider than me, and I know that this alone ensures a relative level of comfort.

And a question to you, Ustwo: if you could ensure a relative financial stability by just going to work everyday and putting in that 8 hours, why should you want to make more? Some people are content being middle class, or even poor.

I didn't intend that meaning. Only that trust varies by question and interests.

But since you're asking, I do believe individuals have an obligation to contribute to the health of their community, even if only for self-interest. To guard the back door. Since one's community (or area of effect in this case) scales with wealth, a larger entity has a broader obligation that will have larger internal conflicts of interest.

I do expect the average wealthy person to have a better grasp of causes and effects but that says nothing of their ability or motives to manage beyond their interests. Back to the question. What trust are we talking about?

-Not a communist. Honest.

Since most of the people perform some sort of labor and school is supposed to prepare you for working one day isn't that the goal of school?

It would be important to teach kids sound financial advice but most likely it will go in one ear and out the other. At that age most aren't ready to think long term like that.

To me, financially independent doesn't mean you don't need to work, just that you have a nice chunk of money set aside. However, it is about a obtaining a certain amount of wealth. Wealth works on a pyramid scale and it would seem wastefull to devote large resources towards achieving a goal that less than 5% will get to.

I trust them like I trust anyone. A bad apple can ruin the whold group but that doesn't mean they are all bad.

I talk to the "rich" all the time to glean what deals are coming etc. I also ask them opinions on some plans that I have etc.

Do I ask my peers that are only buying depreciable assets on credit? Nope.

If this was fark I'd think you are trolling. Overall, I agree with you I just wish you didn't put it in such a condescending way to the people on the bottom. True, unless we have some communist system where wealth is divided equally we will always have rich, poor, and the people in the middle. I don't have a problem with the idea of having three classes. All I ask is that we ensure that upward mobility is possible and that the 'unwashed masses' are at least paid/given enough so that they can be heathy, educated, and have a descent place to live (as long as they are working or making a proveable effort to secure work).

The Bush/Kennedy/Hilton thing is the exact reason why I have no problem with high inheritance taxes. They didn't do shit to earn that money. Even with the taxes they get a buttload of money (enough to never work a day in their life if that is their choice).

In reality people get rich in one of 2 ways. A) It is given to them (inheritence or lottery) B) by taking advantage of others. I would not like either of these people making financial laws.

When I was younger I had a choice to make, i could have started my own buisness doing computer repairs/sales and easily made tuns of money by exploiting people who know nothing about computers and charging them a hundred dollars an hour to "fix" their computers and sell them computers with cheap parts for high profit or I could go to school and get a job making an honest living. I chose an honest living because I do not like taking advantage of people, I don't think I should charge someone $100 an hour to do something that deserves $20 an hour. Now i'm working on my PHD and will still make decent money but sometimes I sit back and wonder how much I could have made by taking advantage of people.

How are you doing Rekna?
I don't believe you would have been taking advantage of those people. You had a skill that not a lot of people had; a skill that was in demand. You may have only paid someone $20 an hour to solve the same problem, but thats because you knew what was wrong and how to fix it. If someone is willing to pay you $100/hr to perform a service for them, thats because they value that service at that price, otherwise they would not pay it. If they want they could take the time and money it takes to learn such skills, but it is worth more to them to pay someone to do it for them than to make the heavy investment up-front. I would ammend your statement and add C) by working hard smartly.

back on topic, I think Ustwo has a point, that many here seem to agree with: Personal financial responsibility is not being taught in school to everyone, but he also makes the point that if you want to know the information is out there and it is up to you to find it.

I guess you cant just teach responsibility, you have to be responsible enough to find it and willing to learn it...

I agree. Unfortunately many of those who do understand how to play the game seem to also know how to take advantage of the system and who to payoff in order to increase their wealth. I don't doubt that there are many ecomomically smart wealthy people. I also don't doubt that many of them use this knowledge to vastly increase their wealth through corruption.

One can only hope that at least a few of these guys would be satisfied with their millions and want to run for national office and try to do the right thing instead of continuing to play the game they know so well. I think many are so caught up in creating more wealth for themselves that they cannot help themslves from using their knowledge and connections to rig the system. How do you know which ones we can trust when so many seem to be playing the game to increase their wealth at anyone/everyone elses expense?

I imagine Diogenes in search for an honest man would be hard pressed to find more than a few among our wealthy and politically elite.

stevo i guess i don't believe that a company charing $100 an hour to install a virus scanner or run a spyware removal tool is fair. I think there are lots of professions out there that exploit peoples despiration to make lots of money. The best example of this is doctors and lawyers. When someones lively hood is on the line you can just charge huge amounts of money and it doesn't matter. Doctors and lawyers exploit people. I don't think the honest hard workers ever become rich. I bet if we looked at millionares (who didn't win their money or inherit it) have made their money by taking advantage of people.

Ustwo,

this is similar to many other posters I think, but in response to the question:

First, are you talking about personal finanical planning, or larger political financial policy? If the first, then in theoretical space, the rich guy who made his own wealth. You have to assume he's being honest with you and that for some reason, he's going to tell you how to accumulate wealth instead of accumulating it himself...but obviously if you want to do x, then you emulate the people who have done x successfully. In the real world, unless I know the guy/girl/it really well, or he's making money for me and him simultaneously (he makes $$$ off my $$$), then I'm not too confident that I'll get the 100% straight dope from him, etc.

In political policy, I see no reason to trust random rich people over random poor people. You have to ask yourself on the behalf of whom is giving his recommendation? If its in his interest, there's no guarrantee that its in mine; in fact, it very likely will be directly counter to my interest - why would I take such advice?

If a rich guys tells me :

"I advise you to give me all your money. Now" I'm obviously not going to take that advice. If the national policy is just a convoluted version of that, why would I be excited about the idea?

Am I missing the intent of your post? I think there's no substitute for thinking for yourself, regardless of whether you adopt a rich or a poor person for your regent.

Ummm...that might be a kind of broad sweeping statement...hookers exploit people too. where's the righteous indignation?

Just a note, being I started this thread I do plan on responding to the thoughtful posts. Being currently at work, apparently exploiting people ;), I don't have time right now.

I remember reading in Fortune magazine a year or so ago about how "rich" people got their wealth. The number one listed reason was real estate (around 35%). Number two was inheritence (around 28%).

I don't think that the rich necessarily are any better at managing money than the poor, they are just better able to absorb bad events, and can more easily protect what wealth they have. Running a effective business != money managing expert. That's what accountants and financial advisors are for. If I invent something that sells, it doesn't mean I instantly understand economic principles any better because I'm rich than I did when I was poor. By your reasoning Ustwo, Mike Tyson would've been a good financial advisor, despite the fact he was hemmoraging money. The richer you are, the more likely you can be insulated and protected against your own foolishness.

And I do agree that there isn't much focus in schools on personal finance. Part of the problem is that there has been a big shift in the last 100 years from people thinking savings and thrift are the way to go, to people now being focused on consumption. So you have people spending more than they can really afford, and you get a situation where most people are one paycheck away from being in serious trouble.


Unfortunately, our economy works best when it's used just to accumulate wealth. Greed is a positive in capitalism, it's the driving force.

While it is largely the case, I don't think it is a truism. As I understand Adam Smith, he believed in the responibiliy of the Captialist to his employees and the community at large.

There's certainly an element of ditch digging involved. If everybody got it, it would be harder to manage.

And where does the education end? Society is continually exposed to advisors encouraging debt and depletion, not wealth building. It starts before K and goes long after higher ed.

To me the question of "who" is as much "which face of who?" Is it face-to-face over coffee, in a book, at a seminar, or maybe a product advertisement? Those who have attained substantial wealth generally hold positions that allow multiple forms of interaction, though the message varies by audience. It's rare I have coffee with these people.

I'm trying to think of anyone I trust that tfp'ers would know. Empty well. I trust greenspan to be a financial geek (in a good way). He's very concerned with big-picture finances, pressured many times by politics. I expect politicians to be very concerned with personal (and allies') financial health, pressured many times by big-picture finances. If I'm reading or watching something, consuming any form of media, I assume the material is massaged by motives and put on my tinfoil hat.

In Ustwo's state you're required to pass a course in consumer economics in order to graduate high school. The course covers topics such as insurance, lease agreements, contracts, labor rights, how to budget, and bankruptcy. Therefore I'd have to say one of the major premises for this thread, that we aren't teaching people financial responsibility, is pretty much bullshit.

It might also be interesting to note that as far as I can tell, there is no truly capitalist society on Earth. Don't want to threadjack, won't go into it, but I will say that if we're not in a purely capitalistic society, then whatever the theoretical driving force is for socialist economies might also have some people who have "perfected" the application of that knowledge, and they might be interesting people to take advice from as well, in my opinion.

Maybe that's begging the question a little, so I'll add that I think there is a need for social service in a healthy society, and for general social welfare, and that people who devote large portions of their lives to the service of others should also be consulted when turning to questions of national / international economic policy, in as far as how it will affect the people they serve and work with.

If you're looking for personal wealth accumulation, start hooking up with Warren Buffett's or Bill Gates' family members and find out which cigars he likes and what he drinks. Sit with him. Chill with him. Learn. etc. Find out who manages his money. Repeat process, etc.

I never had one class/course on finance or economics until my sophmore year of college. I don't think I've ever had a course in "consumer economics" like you're describing and I have an MS in econ.

Steve Forbes ran for president. Apparently he didn't have the connections it takes to rig the system. Most of what I remember from his campaign is the jokes people said about how he was just some rich guy, but knew nothing about running a country. I think I remember a joke on letterman, something along the lines of "his plan to win the election is to buy everyone who votes for him a car." He really got no respect. Unless you're a career politician, its pretty hard to win.

I graduated high school in Illinois only 5 years ago. Unless things have changed since then (in which case, it doesn't really effect Ustwo's premise anyway), it was not a COURSE in consumer economics, it was a week or so of information thrown into the middle of some other class. And I went to school in one of the best areas in the state and country (at the time at least, I don't know what it's like now but I hear it's not as good from current teachers there).

I agree with everything you said except this. I think our economy works best at accumulating wealth when its used just to accumulate wealth. The idea that it doesn't make sense economically to ensure that everyone has access to food, shelter, and healthcare is to me one of the great flaws with fiscal conservative thought. I would prefer that economic success was measured in terms of quality of life of the least fortunate in society, rather than the accumulation of wealth.

rekna, if i'm the only computer tech in my podunk little home town and people need me, then my time and services are a valuable commodity. whatever i charge is irrelevant, if people pay me what i charge, then they obviously feel that i'm worth it. if the did not, then they would choose to learn themselves or pack it up and drive down the road to the next town for a computer guy.

the same with lawyers and doctors, provided health insurance companies didn't have their say in it, would charge what they thought their time and services would be worth. If a patient thinks it is too much, they are free to find another doctor or lawyer.

I imagine rekna's dillemma is that he doesn't feel like it is always ethical to charge exorbitant fees just because you can get away with it.

Well as I said above this is the mandate in one state, but it happens to be Ustwo's state:

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/soci...mandates_2.htm
So you might have just taken the proficiency test Secret Method, but you did go through this/demonstrate your knowledge.

I suppose this wouldn't satisfy Ustwo though since high school teachers don't tend to be "rich." I'm sure though that he'd be the first person to demand a tax raise so his community's adolescents can get a proper education from a wealthy person.

Most of the wealthy are wealthy, in part, because they are incorporated.

Perhaps I needed to be more clear, I am of course talking about people who know how to make money, not those who get it handed to them. As for wealthy people hiring people who are smarter then them to manage their wealth, that only makes sense. I’ll be willing to bet you even Buffet has accountants and the lot. No one knows everything.

I don’t trust the rich in many matters any more than a poor man, but I do trust them (those again who know how to make money) with matters concerning money far more than a poor man. That doesn’t mean I’ll hand them my wallet kind of trust, but I trust they have a better idea for what makes the economy strong.

Why is that? Something that works for the individual won’t work for the economy as a whole? We should trust those who can not handle their own finances with ‘the masses’? Its that kind of thinking which is about to give us the social security melt down. I’m sure as hell glad I’m not 60.


You lost me here. You are saying that since most people don’t understand finances there is not a need to spend money to teach it?



Exactly my point. You don’t ask a crappy golfer how to play, you shouldn’t ask someone who is crappy with money what they think fiscal policy should be.

You have a very odd view of an honest living. So do you expect someone else (since you didn’t deem it worthy) to do that work for $20 an hour? You had a skill others needed, supply was limited and demand was high, hence the rate. Yet you deemed your own time worth only $20 an hour. Time is the one thing we all run out of, I want to spend as little of that limited time working for money.

Influence will never go away in any society, so yes you can rig the system, be it with political power directly, or bribes. Despite this most of the wealthy are honest because there is no need to be dishonest about it. If I buy a house at $40k and sell it a week later for $60k was I dishonest? You won’t find to many self made rich men running because we have been taught to revile the rich in this country rather than respect them. We allow our own jealousies to take over and assume they must have cheated to get where they are.

While I think a rich man is more likely to give you good advice about finances on a 1-1 level due to the fact that a poor man can’t no matter how honest he is, that wasn’t my intent. My intent was more why on the grand scale of things, do we think that people who can’t make any money themselves know what is best for the economy at large.

In my state you are required to pass an exam on the US government. I work with children and when I asked one of them how she didn’t know who the president was (bright kid too) if she just has this test she said they gave them the answers ahead of time. Plus who is teaching this class if it is being given fairly? A union member making 50k a year using the union retirement plan? I’d also add that almost nothing in there covers how to become wealthy or understanding money. Its more of a ‘how to manage your debt’ course. The replies that followed should let you know the truth of this ‘education’ if you are willing to listen to them. Even though I was in school when that was in place I never took such a course, and based on the level of consumer debt do you REALLY think that is enough?

Yes and this type of thought is why we are all in deep doo doo economicly in a few years. TANSTAAFL.


Well I'm not sure how rich Tyson is these days but he was never wealthy. He was blowing his income as fast as he made it, he just had a bigger income. But I of course meant people who knew how to manufacture wealth, not just got a big check for beating the snot out of someone as an employee of an entertainment industry.

It's also what stopped the country from imploding following the great depression. China owning a whole shitload of our debt is why we are all in deep doo doo economically in a few years.

This thread has been going well so far, let's not get personal with it.

Anyway, the fact it is mandated doesn't mean it's executed well. Spending a week on the subject and taking a test at the end that says you can remember things from a week ago hardly demonstrates any knowledge of consumer economics. I think Ustwo's point - and the point of many people in this thread, at least regarding consumer education, is that even when it is attempted it is done poorly. At the very least it *should* be it's own class, lasting an entire semester. Frankly, I'd rather it be a class that is taken more than once - more likely to stick in that case. It is, after all, one of the most important things a student could take from high school. It's a good idea to make sure it sticks.

You think government spending saved us in the great depression?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

http://www.museumsofmayo.com/enniscoe/enniscoe08.jpg

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.