One thing the wealthy realize and understand ....

Not really. Wealth isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence just like poverty isn't necessarily an indicator of the lack thereof.

The smartest people in the world aren't typically the wealthiest, for example. Bill Gates is surely intelligent, but he's no Stephen Hawking. Obviously, he has far more money than Hawking though.

It's not something you can boil down to smart = rich and dumb = poor, partially because a lot of the most intelligent people aren't fixated on wealth. Intelligence certainly helps in getting by, but going from being moderately wealthy to being extremely wealthy has more to do with your priorities and your ability to network.

On the other end of things, poverty can be caused by bad decisions, which often correlates with stupidity, but it can also come from seriously bad luck.

Two people can live paycheck to paycheck, and if one of the two gets cancer, he's probably going to end up a lot poorer than the other guy. That's not stupidity, that's just life.

 

While I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're making, your example isn't a good one. Bill Gates probably is smarter than Stephen Hawking -- at making money. I won't disagree that luck can have a big impact on folks, and we own our own luck as much as anything else, but some folks give too little (and some folks give too much) credit to those who have accomplished amazing things in business.​

 

Personally, I think a Microsoft-type thang would have happened within a short period of time anyway - without Bill Gates. He was just the first one to the patent office.

 

If the economy hadn't expanded as a result of your gardening, who's to say you've added any value?

 

That about sums it up if the pie stays the same size.

 

Ah, er, you have just expanded the economy. That ain't part of the premise.

 

It IS pretty much a zero-sum game when the economy is flat. One man gets rich, another man gets tossed out of his home. That was the point of the OP, and it certainly has been the case with the economy since 2007.

 

It's not a case of indoctrination, it's a case of Algebra I. Yeah, I know, I know, math is a commie plot to take over the minds of America's youth and numbers are the devil's tools.

 

When Zuckerberg invented Facebook and took it public, was value taken away from the economic "pie"....did someone else "lose" a portion,
or was value created from whole cloth?

When I buy 2x4's and sheetrock and trim and siding and shingles and paint for "X" dollars...
and charge "Y" dollars to put these raw materials together to add on to a customer's home, have I taken from the economic "pie"...did someone else "lose" a portion, or has their vision and my skills created value?

When you endeavor to understand these very simple concepts that prove the notion of a static "zero sum economy" fallacious, do get back to me, won't you?

 

Alright, let's do the Algebra I math. Take a farmer and a cattle rancher. The farmer could also do cattle ranching, but his skill set is such that in an hour the farmer can produce 10 units of corn. He can only produce 2 units of beef if were to focus all of his efforts into cattle ranching, or he could produce any linear allocation between the two during an hour.

The cattle rancher could allocate all of his efforts to farming and produce 2 units of corn; however, he can produce 16 units of beef per hour focusing his efforts on ranching.

Because these two are liberals and can't do Algebra I, they believe they will be screwed if they engage in economic activity with each other; that is, it is a win-lose scenario at best. Thus, the farmer splits his time and produces 5 = (10/2) units of corn and 1 = (2/2) unit of beef each hour to take care of himself and the rancher splits his time and produces 1 = (2/2) unit of corn and 8 = (16/2) units of beef to take care of himself.

If these two aren't liberals and can do Algebra I, they will realize they have a win-win proposition in the works. The farmer specializes in corn production, making 10 units of corn and the rancher specializes and makes 16 units of beef. They then make a win-win trade. The farmer gives 3 units of corn while the rancher gives 3 units of beef. Can you see what just happened? The farmer now has 7 = (10-3) units of corn and 3 = (0+3) of beef compared to 5 and 1 before, while the rancher now has 13 = (16-3) units of beef and 3 (0 + 3) of corn compared to his 8 and 1 before. They are both much better off, neither is poorer because of this transaction, in fact, they are both richer.

Of course, this illustration requires both participants to be willing to work to produce something valuable, which is truly why liberals prefer to believe in the win-lose scenario.

 

*shrug* Not sure who else might have been entitled to patent all those lines of code Bill Gates wrote. Even so, most patents are worthless. It takes more than being first in line to build a business, much less one the size of Microsoft.​

 

Many times, when he becomes rich enough, he will hire others to mine the gold for him. He pays them wages and they do the work. The bigger the mining operation gets, the more people he must hire. he must give up more of his profits and gets less rich. To become more rich, he must pay less wages, making his workers poorer.

 

(Emphasis Added)

Both of you state things are "facts" without offering evidence. I do not approve.

 

Yeah, but the rich can't get richer if the "poor" people refuse to work for them or buy things from them. Has that ever occurred to you? If you're "poor" and you don't want to help rich people get richer, simply stop supporting them. That is directly within your control. Now go ahead and give me your sob story about why you can't do this and why you are a slave to them. I just tried to empower you, and you're going to throw it out the window to continue convincing yourself that you're living in bondage.

 

Its more a matter of resources. If they are limited then giving them away or letting others have first access to them is foolish for the wealthy and powerful. But productive humans create resources and are a resource themselves and as such can contribute to the wealthy. So, in times of plenty it is good sense to patronize the masses, in times of scarcity it is foolish. What people think has only a little to do with the real movements of wealth, power and resources. What people do has great effect, but unintended consequences seem to be a historical norm, not an oddity. In other words overthrowing the powerful can be a disaster for the weak, often they replace the devil they know with inexperienced and vain usurpers who punish them for their support. Loyalty to bloated and corrupt leaders meets with equal failure. The populace has very seldom proved to be wise enough to tell the right course, and when they have it appears to be as much from blind luck as wisdom.

 

The only thing that gets richer while making others poorer is the government because the government takes people's wealth. People can't make others poor by getting rich because the others make their own decisions. The exception is theft and theft is not only illegal but a very problematic way to get rich. Most theft is commited by the poor, not the rich.

 

If a = b + c, and you keep "a" constant (i.e., a flat economy), if you add to "b", you necessarily have to subtract from "c". It's that simple. The farmer and cattleman can produce all they want, their margins will only go down, along with the margins of their fellow farmers and ranchers. A receding tide grounds all boats.

 

You, of course, KNOW that patents are not worthless, correct?

 

Most seem to have no value. Some are valuable.​

 

This isn't true at all. Everyone can be wealthy simutaneously.

Think of a low skill laborer such as a McDonald's fry cook. Such an individual produces very little. Yet, they can afford such luxuries as electricity, food, clothing, shelter, perhaps an automobile, a smart phone, many electronics etc.

By today's standards such an individual is poor. Yet, poverty is subjective. From another's perspective such an individual is very wealthy.

The standard of living for all individuals increases as capitalism drives human productivity. Sure, there will always be wealth inequality and there will always be some we consider poor. But I'd much rather be poor in the US today than rich in the middle ages.

 

You troll every thread by correcting the spelling and grammar of others while contributing nothing relevant to the discussion. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is because you simply lack the capacity to contribute anything of value to a discussion and have no other means to draw attention to yourself.

 

You have made whoever is going to buy your house poorer.

 

You might want to think about that statement a bit.

You are incorrect but I won't point out why and ruin it for you.

 

That makes no sense. Rich people get rich by creating wealth, not by taking it from it others. Well, unless they work for the government or use government to take it.

There is no "pie." Maybe you should pick up a book on basic economics that wasn't written in the 17th century. We are long past mercantilism.

 

Your premise is fatally flawed.

It is not necessary for someone else to become poorer as a result of you becoming richer. In fact, most transactions are entered with the intended result being enrichment of both parties.