Re: Making less than dad did
- From: "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 18:53:53 -0400
"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Zqydnen4QPqdEMXbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip]
That being said I do not believe that socialism it is a good idea either.
The classical socialism it is doomed to fail because there is not going to
be any non coercive way to motivate the individual.
Hmmmm ... what could it be????
What could we possibly come up with that is both
non coercive *and* motivational to the individual ...
Hmmm ... let's think about it a bit more.
....
....
They have interest motivated by profit.
BINGO!
You nailed it right there!
Profits.
They are both necessary, and sufficient as a motivation for
both the common man, and the wealthy individual.
I find quite disturbing to find in all these newsgroups people incapable
to
think about a balance solution. A solution in the middle.
Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Do we really live into a world where the last drop of decency and brain
has
been lost ?
Yes.
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few
hands.
Talk about brains. Use yours, for once, will ya please?
The smartest folks usually get the best grades.
The fastest folks usually win the race.
The strongest folks usually win the weight lifting competition.
The most popular folks usually win the election.
The most qualified folks usually get the job.
The best salesmen usually close the deal.
What's so hard to understand about the statement: The folks that
are good at making money and putting it to good use, these folks
usually accumulate the most wealth?
Sorry, but it's a natural law.
I lump you with the same sort of non-thinking, "let's all be
friends", "competition is evil" sort of folks that want all
students to get straight A's (not through effort, but by a
twisting of the grading process) and folks who want to
eliminate competition (My nephew played an entire soccer
season where they didn't keep score and nobody won a game.
Yeah. Right.) and the folks who want to give some class of
individual special priveleges on getting the job -- be it
for race or any other special priveleges you care to name.
The fact of the matter is: Some folks are better at making
money and accumulating wealth. The vast fortunes you mention
below are evidence of such and you're just jealous.
As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4%
of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial,
professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just
20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth
for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial
wealth,
the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and
Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist
Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).
There you have it. You've proved the point. The folks who
are good at making money accumulate the wealth. That's some
sort of logical tautology that oughta be self-evident (but
apparantly not).
Now you want to take their wealth?
What about the farmer who's good at his chosen trade and gets
a 30% better yield on his crop. Should you take his crop too
so you have a free dinner tonight?
It's no different. It's only money and ultimately money
is useless. It's the things you can buy with that money
that hold the true value. Why not skip the middle man and
just start taking from the more productive folks -- take
the farmer's crops directly -- who needs the money?
Oh! but it's just a small farmer and you don't want to
target him ... you just want the BigEvilCorporations(tm).
Well, that small farmer, if he's smart, can turn that
30% better yield into a global, multi-national corp that,
in a free market (as it should be) can literally pound
his competition into the ground and own the market (as it
should be).
You want more money? Go out and make it. Anything else:
taxes, redistribution, caps on salaries and gains because
you don't like "unbounded" profit, governmental confiscation
of wealth -- all of it, unless you go out and make the money
yourself -- all of it is nothing more than common thievery,
and makes you nothing more than a common thief.
I will suggest exactly the same thing to you. Read, learn, understand and
THINK before you BELIEVE and cite extremist PR statements
labeling "socialist" anyone which is not a fundamentalist fanatic right.
Socialism. Comunism. Redistribution of Wealth. Taxation.
Call it what you will. It all comes down to one thing:
Theft. You want to steal from others pockets rather than
build your own fortune and that's ... well it's downright
pathetic and you oughta be ashamed of yourself.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Making less than dad did
- From: Nospam
- Re: Making less than dad did
- References:
- Re: Making less than dad did
- From: Tom Gardner
- Re: Making less than dad did
- From: Nospam
- Re: Making less than dad did
- Prev by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Next by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Previous by thread: Re: Making less than dad did
- Next by thread: Re: Making less than dad did
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
