Liberals, how did the rich become rich?

Far more people have lost their shirts in real estate. Only the best prosper.


"...publicly created increases in land value."

Taxcutter says:
Land values go up because of decisions made outside government.

 

Yes, many of the rich have worked very hard to get something for nothing. That is the whole point of rent seeking.

At society's expense.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

That's just false, the recent crash notwithstanding. Most people who own land make a lot of money by doing so. Basically the only way to lose money in real estate is by borrowing too much or on too unfavorable terms to buy it.

False and absurd. Most of the people you know who have significant wealth got most of it by owning land. That's just a fact.

That's just clearly and indisputably false. There are three sources of land value: the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides. Decisions made outside government rarely have any significant effect on land value.

 

Which is exactly what I did.

No, you just have to refuse to know all facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil. We already established that long ago.

The way the Forbes 400 made their wealth (which is the subject, and which you provided NO figures on) hasn't changed perceptibly in five years; don't be ridiculous.

The 21 that FORBES SAID were "self-made." Not me. FORBES.

No, I found 17 were prima facie unproductive. The rest might well have been, too, I just didn't have enough detailed information about how they made their money to say.

I didn't say they were born wealthy, that's just you lying about what I have plainly written again. I said they got their wealth by privilege, not productive contribution. And I proved it.

 

lol, go back and look at the context of what you were replying to. I used that source to show that most were not born wealthy, and you jumped in and claimed you disproved that.

And no, you haven't disproven anything. The fact that your idea of 'self-made' is different from that of 95% of society and myself only proves how deluded you are. You have only proven your point within your own insane concept where anyone who invests, does anything with land (buying, selling, renovating, developing, harvesting etc.), works in law, runs a company, buys low sells high, etc. "didn't earn their wealth." *rollseyes* don't you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously?

 

Geez these progressives really hate on inheritance dont they. Its most like they want it like a game of monopoly, gather 'the use' of some wealth while playing then put it all back in the states box for redistribution. Very communist type mindset.

 

Actually one of Adam Smith's biggest concerns for economic stability was generational wealth as people who inherit money don't really provide anything productive to the economy and that money than can most likely become dead money as others who are able to innovate do not have the necessary resources as it is stuck in some wealthy child's savings accounts. This was in 1776, so it's not like progressives are the only ones that understand the dilemma with inheritance and generational wealth.

 

Yeah Karl Marx had some ideas too. So these children never grow up and use this cash, it just sits in a bank earning interest? Stupid place to leave if they did, more likely they'll spend on their education, invest in their own or other peoples business. More likely again, their wealth will be transferred to them via shares in existing companies, its its not sitting around idle.

 

Adam Smith is the father of capitalism. One of the most revered economist in the history of conservatives. I'm pretty sure you're not very educated in economics. Not surprising.

It's not about the children not using the cash... it's about them doing nothing innovative or productive to earn the cash and sets them on an uneven playing field with the next generation hampering the possibilities of innovation and progress.

 

No, Ted Kennedy IS the antithesis of what I said. Boy am I that lousy at sarcasm or what!

Does it matter?

 

Ok PF is in desperate needs of a register-time IQ test. I was being IRONIC, I-R-O-N-I-C.

 

Why does the worker not simply work for himself then? That way he gets all of the value for all of what he produces. That's called entrepreneurship. It's the very backbone of capitalism.

 

Well, clearly, people are different so the reasons are different. But I would say it was a mix of:

-Hard work
-Background
-luck

The first one is clearly important, but really I think that barmen work as hard as millionaires. The second one is clearly massively important, basically people with rich parents who can afford good education produce rich children. Finally luck has a large role to play (to which the book Outliers is the clear reference).

 

Why doesn't a business owner do the work himself then? That way he gets all of the value for all of what he produces.

 

You are right because you are right, right?

Irresponsible? If bankers WERE IRRESPONSIBLE enough to LEND MONEY TO POOR PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, why do they need Carter government to tell them to?

Oh I get it, if they lend, they are being irresponsible and aiming for cash, if they don't, they are a bunch of bastards that making poor people die in the streets, right?

This is holocaust-denial-level wishful thinking. But I'm not surprised that it came from a liberal. Take a nazi or a KKK member to the remains of Auschwitz, he would still consider holocaust a scam. Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking by Nazis and liberals. After all, you people all love nationalization and big governments, and you people share many, many more.

Ohh those corporation, in their giant corporation buildings, and their, their... you start to sound like Tim Burton in Team America.

Why don't you mobilize the few hundred brain cells of yours and come up with a sound argument with data and solid evidence?

Oh wait, that's too much to ask for a guy that chants laziness as a virtue.

Already that desperate? It's not OK, to you libs, to improve other people's concept? That's really, really low, man. Tut tut tut.

It was a technical monopoly. All you got do is to come up with better ideas. Firefox done that, Opera done that, Maxthon done that and Chrome is doing that. And we are we out of the 90s. Period. Have you been inside a 'comma'? Not very progressive as you thought you'd be, are ya?

More Team America style Tim Burtoness. *Yawn*

Oh dear god. *Look down at the watch*

Yea, they are facts, but did those giant corporations get their way by artillery barrage and armed assault? No, they became so giant because they are so successful, they are so successful because they done something small businesses failed to do — provide same products or services for lower price, thus attracting more consumers.

Do you understand that? Heck yea you understand that, but you won't admit it. You won't because you hate freedom — what made America America. The most dreadful thing for you libs is letting free people making free choices. How to get more customers? In a free society, the only way is to provide superior services and products for lower cost. Simple as that. Simple, but dreadful to you guys.

No, of course it exists, like Obama's atrocious failing grades. Problem is, rage-talking doesn't prove anything, like I suggested, why don't you mobilize whatever braincells you have, and come up with evidence to back it up?

 

Oh I get it, what you said is THE truth, the absolute words of God, anyone disagrees with it are wrong because they are wrong, riiiight?

Do you sometimes fantasize having a Gulag of your own and slam whoever that disagree with you inside?

Or are you just not the kind of pencil in the drawer sharp enough to come up with a decent argument?

 

You tell me.

 

It so is!!!

 

Oddly enough, you're right. What I refuted was the implication that because many of the rich are called, "self-made," they actually earned their wealth.

Actually, I disproved the claim that the rich became rich through actual productive contributions.

No, it shows that most people's notion of "self-made" -- very much including yours -- is delusional if not dishonest.

You are makin' $#!+ up again. I stated that four of the 21 "self-made" billionaires on Forbes's list could not be ruled out as having earned their wealth. I did show that the other 17 had not obtained their wealth through any commensurate contribution to production.

 

IMO, "rich" is a vague and relative term.

Is being "rich" dependant on salary?

Is an executive who makes $250,000 a year, but has a mansion with a mortgage, a boat he's paying for, 2 kids getting ready for college, a Mercedes for him and a Lexus for his spendaholic trophy wife (which he's still payin for), and a bank account of $725 rich?

Is a postal worker who makes $42,000 a year, who has worked for 20 years, drives a (*)(*)(*)(*) box, and has saved his whole life, and has a bank account of $105,000 rich?

From the perspective of a Third Worlder is the typical American welfare recepient, who has subsidized housing, a refrigerator, a cell phone, and a big screen TV rich?

 

When is 40% "most" ?

And what is "less than a million" ? $999,999.00 is a really good "leg up"....

 

Doesn't mean they're broke....there are more than 400 wealthy people in the US....

 

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Yes, it would help me understand why you hold the views you do.

Self-employment is no easy feat for everyone. The history of Capitalism culminates in the present as an example of how easy it is to start your own business. Small businesses have never been so imperiled.

What are you talking about? Banks do not create as many jobs as they have destroyed. Are you just shooting from the hip with your replies?

I think you really don't know what you are talking about. For some reason, people have come to believe that the workers in these businesses and corporations are the lazy ones, and the managers who profit from them are doing back-breaking labor. I think it is you who is absolutely without facts or anything of actual substance. You could not look at the history of labor in America and come to the conclusion that the corporate, industrial, financial groups of America somehow champion the worker. They champion themselves and ally themselves with government in order to further their own agenda.

It dispels a common belief. There is nothing "liberal" about that idea. And I am not a liberal.

These kinds of responses do not mask your ignorance on the subject. Referring to Tim Burton's "Team America"? What the hell...?

It would be better for you to stop writing here, honestly. For one, always using terms like "libs' does not make you look or sound any smarter. Their are more deas in the world than liberal and conservative. Second, you don't seem to understand the nature of economics and the threat capitalism poses to a society you claim to be free. You should read more into economics. Not even that, just take a cursory look at the history of labor in this free country of yours, and you'll gain a better perspective of where current society stands today.

Obama's failure's are undeniable, but taking him out of context obstructs the process of finding a solution. Obama is just the latest and greatest of a line of fail presidents who have each taken turns screwing over the nation and the world around it.

I get the feeling you central mode of thinking is that some vast liberal agenda is what is wrong here, and if you could just get rid of the liberals and let corporations go free, everything would be solved. Of course, you fail to realize that t is the corporations who promote the liberal agenda, as far as the definition goes, vs it's political sentiment. The relaxing of restrictive laws and polices on them, and the increasing laws and restrictions on us pretty much define liberalism, but redefine who is to benefit from it. Honestly, you'd do better to expand your range of ideas. I was once a believer in liberalism, but those days are long behind.

 

Why are you so obsessed with rich men ?

Is it from Rush radio saying "the rich made all the right choices"?
Is it from republicans constantly talking about a CEO's right to pay workers low wages?
Or are you obsessed with rich (men) for other reasons?

Or do you love them because they are the "producers" of US manufacturing jobs in communist China ?

Personally I respect men for character, integrity, and fist/gun fighting abilities.
But it seems you republican men judge men on how much money they have.
You republicans act like a bunch of insane homosexual squares.

Why do you republicans talk about rich men so much ??

 

Your entire characterization of liberals is skewed, I suspect from making the mistake of listening to corporate propagandists like Limbaugh and Hannity and thinking they are giving you "facts" and "news."

Also, if people are so bad, as you suggest, then your small government, private sector utopia won't work either- the people will still be bad.