Does wealth equal to greed?

[Sibirsky]

Money makes money. With a larger pool of capital, the wealthy can do what they do best. Invest it, grow the economy, create products and jobs.

Or not.

You know, exploit it, and when it crashes, rake in the profits and run.

Remind you of anything?

Idiotic incentives created by the government?

Precisely why more free markets, and less moral hazard are good things.

What have bankers learned? They have learned that they can be reckless, and take on unlimited risk. More risk, if it play out, means more reward. However if it fails, the government has assured them that they will be bailed out. Government reaction to this whole episode virtually guarantees another disaster.

In a genuine free market, the very real risk of failure, the equivalent of the death penalty for business, would prevent excessive risk taking.

[Sibirsky]

Money makes money. With a larger pool of capital, the wealthy can do what they do best. Invest it, grow the economy, create products and jobs.

Or not.

You know, exploit it, and when it crashes, rake in the profits and run.

Remind you of anything?

Idiotic incentives created by the government?

Precisely why more free markets, and less moral hazard are good things.

What have bankers learned? They have learned that they can be reckless, and take on unlimited risk. More risk, if it play out, means more reward. However if it fails, the government has assured them that they will be bailed out. Government reaction to this whole episode virtually guarantees another disaster.

In a genuine free market, the very real risk of failure, the equivalent of the death penalty for business, would prevent excessive risk taking.

[Primesnarf]

They have earned their money, and they do work, hard. I don't know about you, but being a CEO, a lawyer, an entrepeneur, an industrialist or an investor is anything but about just sitting on your butt and letting others do the work.

Also, they have the brains to take such jobs and are investors which help society quite a bit.

By investing in businesses and companies they create jobs, by paying taxes they make sure people like you can have universal healthcare and that the government of which you are a citizen of can spend millions on farm subisidies and other economic whirlpools.

And being against people getting "filthy" rich? They have earned that money(except of course in case a huge inheritance was laying around).

Again, this is mere jealousy.

But why then, is it almost impossible in most parts of the world for a farmer, fabric-worker, fisherman, etc, to get something near to rich? How is being a lawyer, entrepenour, director, etc, more important than the "low-status" jobs I mentioned? Why is it fair that a farmer almost cannot become rich while it is so easy for lawyers to become so?

That's because they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling factions. Cumberland Farms in MA managed to become rich millionaires and they, themselves, are farmers.

[Red Indus]

I have said that too. If they do really want a job, but there simply are not any, or they cannot get any, or they are not able to work in other ways, then they should get help from society; welfare, taxes from you, yes. If they is able to work, is offered one, but refuse to work, then they deserve nothing from society.

I have bertter idea. We raise the praise of fod. Then it be profi=table to farm and we get big food prusplus.

[Sucrati]

Greed - Excessive or rapacious desire.

No, the people who have wealth does not mean that they are greedy. Those who demand wealth or seek to make themselves wealthy for one's own could be deemed as 'Greedy'

Government Taxation takes the wealth of the high to middle income earners and spends it for the good of the people, however, as power grows, so does the demand of revenue or wealth from those who pay into the system. When the government continues to demand more wealth from those who earn it, and continue to spend it in ways that have no benefit to the populace but instead is used to control the populace or handed out to 'friends' (people who helped out the politician or politicians get elected) that could be greed or corruption.

Those who work hard all their life and earn a high amount of wealth don't want another entity who they know will mishandle their wealth and not act in accordance to their charter taking their wealth. This entity then slams these people of being greedy when you have the other side somehow acquiring wealth through means that are normally considered exploitation or fear mongering.

Class Warfare is a form of greed. One is not entitled to wealth, this belief in entitlement and then acting in a way to take wealth from one or more people and subsidizing those who haven't earned it and then continuing to treat those who they take wealth like criminals for actually working for their wealth is considered Class Warfare.

If private organizations did these things, they would be shut down and their financial gurus and CEOs/CFOs thrown in prison.

Sure there are those people who are penny pinchers, but because they don't continue to spend like no tomorrow, that is not greed, that is managing resources. That is why most people who win the lottery usually run out of money rather quickly. Because they did not have the experience to manage their wealth to get to the point of being that 'rich'

There are also people who are Socialist or Socialist leaning who are also able to acquire wealth, good examples would be Michael Moore, Al Gore, George Soros, among others.

Are they greedy? - I honestly can't judge them on it.

Are they considered greedy? - By some

If they are against Capitalism, how did they acquire that much wealth? - Really that's a good question

Not all Capitalists are 'Greedy Pigs' last I checked most Capitalists didn't go oink and didn't roll around in the mud.

[Primesnarf]

I have said that too. If they do really want a job, but there simply are not any, or they cannot get any, or they are not able to work in other ways, then they should get help from society; welfare, taxes from you, yes. If they is able to work, is offered one, but refuse to work, then they deserve nothing from society.

I have bertter idea. We raise the praise of fod. Then it be profi=table to farm and we get big food prusplus.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said, and I am pretty sure I have not said those things. You might want to re-look at where you got that from.

[The Rich Port]

... I find it ironic, really, that you cut out the third guy in this story.

What about the guy in the shack?

The fellow in the shack is a stodgy old coot, who refuses to give anyone else the time of day unless they give him something first. A selfish feckless little man he is. Is it any wonder no one wants to help him out? All he ever does is till his fields, and he works hard, and that's admirable, but he's never said a kind word to anyone. So why should he get anything kind in return.

... You don't know that.

What if your giant mansion house is just encroaching on his desires? Even if he did want to build a giant mansion, too, and get in a deal with Mr. Boathouse similar to the one Mr. Rich guy had, how can he? There no longer is any space to do such a thing.

Simply because one is old, crotchety, and... Not rich, doesn't mean he or she doesn't have any value. They just lack the same opportunities Mr. Rich and Mr. Boathouse had. Nobody taught him anything growing up, his family died when he was young, and now your giant mansion has driven off everyone he considered friends because they don't fit in either.

[Iron Chariots]

The idea that "ripping people off only goes so far" relies on a perfect information economy and the presence of viable alternatives. In the real world, the most profitable companies are typically the ones that can rape you in the ass and get you to thank them for the reach-around.

Highly doubtful; If you even look at economics and consumption, the only ones that are able to rip people off and become profitable are the ones with no competition and in a capitalistic society, that is very well near impossible as more rivaling companies will birth. Competition detail a need for either a cheaper good or a better good. No-one in a capitalistic society will buy a product if it is both shitty and expensive. Coke and Pepsi are successful companies because they are competing with each other, and with that they need to make better products than their rivaling company. Supply and Demand. Those who rip people off may get a good load of money in the beginning, they will soon fail because customers will not consume their product as they will complain and be dissatisfied. It all boils down to simple Supply and Demand.

And to do so they do things like murder union workers trying to strike, etc., so maybe they aren't your best examples of major companies not being greedy.

More to the point, though, we see examples every day of companies improving profits by being greedy assholes: it's more profitable to dump waste into a river than to dispose of it safely, so factory owners, if allowed to, will do so as much as possible. Tobacco companies add toxic filler to their already unhealthy products to cut costs. Every so often there's a public scandal where one of them has secretly started adding something they shouldn't have, they insincerely "apologize," remove it, and find something else to use instead, not caring one way or the other whether it causes additional harm or not.

To say that, in every circumstance, long-term profits will always align with general good is naive, as is saying companies will always (or even usually or often) have the wisdom to choose the long term over the short term, for that matter.

[Vestr-Norig]

But why then, is it almost impossible in most parts of the world for a farmer, fabric-worker, fisherman, etc, to get something near to rich? How is being a lawyer, entrepenour, director, etc, more important than the "low-status" jobs I mentioned? Why is it fair that a farmer almost cannot become rich while it is so easy for lawyers to become so?

That's because they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling factions. Cumberland Farms in MA managed to become rich millionaires and they, themselves, are farmers.

They are large scale farmers, almost industialists, capitalists, "kaksar". Do you really think it is possible for all, most, or nearly anyone to do so? do you think people are poor because "they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling faction"? Are you really that naive?

[Sucrati]

But why then, is it almost impossible in most parts of the world for a farmer, fabric-worker, fisherman, etc, to get something near to rich? How is being a lawyer, entrepenour, director, etc, more important than the "low-status" jobs I mentioned? Why is it fair that a farmer almost cannot become rich while it is so easy for lawyers to become so?

That's because they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling factions. Cumberland Farms in MA managed to become rich millionaires and they, themselves, are farmers.

That and the government restricts or regulates large farms throughout the nation.

[Red Indus]

They are large scale farmers, almost industialists, capitalists, "kaksar". Do you really think it is possible for all, most, or nearly anyone to do so? do you think people are poor because "they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling faction"? Are you really that naive?

well I don't know about him but I'm a commonbist and that's excatlky what I believe. we need to get together and capitalize those resources.

[Primesnarf]

That's because they do not know how to truly capitalize their resources and compete with rivaling factions. Cumberland Farms in MA managed to become rich millionaires and they, themselves, are farmers.

That and the government restricts or regulates large farms throughout the nation.

Another possibility and probably a logical one in the US. (Advantages within Commonwealths X3)

[The Merchant Republics]

The fellow in the shack is a stodgy old coot, who refuses to give anyone else the time of day unless they give him something first. A selfish feckless little man he is. Is it any wonder no one wants to help him out? All he ever does is till his fields, and he works hard, and that's admirable, but he's never said a kind word to anyone. So why should he get anything kind in return.

... You don't know that.

What if your giant mansion house is just encroaching on his desires? Even if he did want to build a giant mansion, too, and get in a deal with Mr. Boathouse similar to the one Mr. Rich guy had, how can he? There no longer is any space to do such a thing.

Simply because one is old, crotchety, and... Not rich, doesn't mean he or she doesn't have any value. They just lack the same opportunities Mr. Rich and Mr. Boathouse had. Nobody taught him anything growing up, his family died when he was young, and now your giant mansion has driven off everyone he considered friends because they don't fit in either.

Well.
1. This is my scenario, so I decide who is who.

2. The point I was attempting to get across is that wealth accumulation has a basic genesis in reciprocal altruism, you give a gift, the receiver gives one in return. By being the most helpful to others you accumulate the most gifts. Mr. Rich lives in a mansion because he choose to be helpful, Mr. Poor doesn't want to help anyone, and while he has received gifts, he's rarely given any in return, so he has a lonely shack to himself. There is no reason to make Mr. Rich give up the gifts he receives simply because Mr. Poor has less than he, Mr. Poor doesn't deserve anyone's gifts. Further Mr. Rich has demonstrated himself to be a stand-up guy, there's no reason for him to have "driven off anyone" in the context of our scenario, if he did people wouldn't want to give him any gifts would they?

Edit:
3. But, I'm flexible. Let's say this is true, and Mr. Poor is only mean because he was born mean, why does that mean Mr. Rich who was born nice, has to give up his things? Just because you were fated to such things, doesn't mean you can use fate as an excuse.

[Langorham]

'Let not him who is house-less pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.'

'You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.'

So if the world redistributes all the wealth and that doesn't make everyone happy, what then? Do we next make sure every person is the same height, weight, skin and hair color? Do we next make sure everyone is just as fast and just as strong as everyone else? Do we make sure everyone lives in the same style house and drives the same style car as everyone else? Do we make sure that everyone is exactly the same in every aspect as everyone else? If we do all of this and there are still people who are not happy, what do we do then?

No matter who you are or what you have, there is one thing that every person in this world has in common with everyone else, and that is time.

' So Value this time in your life, because this is the time in your life when you still have your choices, and it goes by so quickly. When you're a teenager you think you can do anything, and you do. Your twenties are a blur. Your thirties, you raise your family, you make a little money and you think to yourself, "What happened to my twenties?" Your forties, you grow a little pot belly you grow another chin. The music starts to get too loud and one of your old girlfriends from high school becomes a grandmother. Your fifties you have a minor surgery. You'll call it a procedure, but it's a surgery. Your sixties you have a major surgery, the music is still loud but it doesn't matter because you can't hear it anyway. Seventies, you and the wife retire to Fort Lauderdale, you start eating dinner at two, lunch around ten, breakfast the night before. And you spend most of your time wandering around malls looking for the ultimate in soft yogurt and muttering "how come the kids don't call?" By your eighties, you've had a major stroke, and you end up babbling to some Jamaican nurse who your wife can't stand but who you call mama. Any questions? '

'In the end it is not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.'

[The Rich Port]

... You don't know that.

What if your giant mansion house is just encroaching on his desires? Even if he did want to build a giant mansion, too, and get in a deal with Mr. Boathouse similar to the one Mr. Rich guy had, how can he? There no longer is any space to do such a thing.

Simply because one is old, crotchety, and... Not rich, doesn't mean he or she doesn't have any value. They just lack the same opportunities Mr. Rich and Mr. Boathouse had. Nobody taught him anything growing up, his family died when he was young, and now your giant mansion has driven off everyone he considered friends because they don't fit in either.

Well.
1. This is my scenario, so I decide who is who.

2. The point I was attempting to get across is that wealth accumulation has a basic genesis in reciprocal altruism, you give a gift, the receiver gives one in return. By being the most helpful to others you accumulate the most gifts. Mr. Rich lives in a mansion because he choose to be helpful, Mr. Poor doesn't want to help anyone, and while he has received gifts, he's rarely given any in return, so he has a lonely shack to himself. There is no reason to make Mr. Rich give up the gifts he receives simply because Mr. Poor has less than he, Mr. Poor doesn't deserve anyone's gifts.

1.) This is OUR scenario now, rich boy.

2.) Mr. Poor probably doesn't want anything because he already had everything from the start: his friends, his family, and his land. When life took away the family part and you took away the friends part, he can't afford to give you anything except his land, and any gift you give him will be a futile attempt at courtesy: what do you give the man who already had everything? A boat? A bigger house? Unless the scenario is a futuristic place where they've perfected cloning and regressive aging, and you can buy him his family back, Mr. Poor has only contempt for you.

The point I'M trying to make is that economics is more than just a game of numbers: it's a social, psychological, ethical, and cultural game as well. The poor aren't poor because they WANT to be poor. Unless Mr. Rich wants to play the updated version of the game that might just compromise a bit of his property rights, the people around him will suffer. And then, the only gift Mr. Rich will get is a bunch of protestors outside his house.

My own update:

3.) Mr. Poor was pretty fine until Mr. Rich built his giant mansion. You gulp up the resources, others can't adapt, shit starts to happen, people start to starve and get unhappy.

On another note: I don't like to stereotype. If you'll remember, I'm not Mr. Rich. I'm the guy in the shack. Do you really subscribe to this Darwinian survival schtick?

[Volnotova]

I am talking about the unemployed.

Again, they don't work; Why are they entitled to what I have earned?

I have said that too. If they do really want a job, but there simply are not any, or they cannot get any, or they are not able to work in other ways, then they should get help from society; welfare, taxes from you, yes. If they is able to work, is offered one, but refuse to work, then they deserve nothing from society.

Why? What is your moral justification?

[Red Indus]

Why? What is your moral justification?

how about survival of humanity
gubmint make moon space rocket
money grubbers not so much

but now money grubbers want all money
no space rocket

[North Calaveras]

Why? What is your moral justification?

how about survival of humanity
gubmint make moon space rocket
money grubbers not so much

but now money grubbers want all money
no space rocket

SpaceX

[Volnotova]

Why? What is your moral justification?

how about survival of humanity
gubmint make moon space rocket
money grubbers not so much

but now money grubbers want all money
no space rocket

I was wondering about Vestr's justification.

He also claims that somehow those that are rich are not entitled to what they have earned.

Which really makes me wonder: When does he believe someone is entitled to certain things, in particularly an above-average standard of living.

[Red Indus]

SpaceX

cargo transport

[North Calaveras]

SpaceX

cargo transport

You said money grubbers result in no rockets, i provided a private group that does just that.

[The Merchant Republics]

Well.
1. This is my scenario, so I decide who is who.

2. The point I was attempting to get across is that wealth accumulation has a basic genesis in reciprocal altruism, you give a gift, the receiver gives one in return. By being the most helpful to others you accumulate the most gifts. Mr. Rich lives in a mansion because he choose to be helpful, Mr. Poor doesn't want to help anyone, and while he has received gifts, he's rarely given any in return, so he has a lonely shack to himself. There is no reason to make Mr. Rich give up the gifts he receives simply because Mr. Poor has less than he, Mr. Poor doesn't deserve anyone's gifts.

1.) This is OUR scenario now, rich boy.

2.) Mr. Poor probably doesn't want anything because he already had everything from the start: his friends, his family, and his land. When life took away the family part and you took away the friends part, he can't afford to give you anything except his land, and any gift you give him will be a futile attempt at courtesy: what do you give the man who already had everything? A boat? A bigger house? Unless the scenario is a futuristic place where they've perfected cloning and regressive aging, and you can buy him his family back, Mr. Poor has only contempt for you.

The point I'M trying to make is that economics is more than just a game of numbers: it's a social, psychological, ethical, and cultural game as well. The poor aren't poor because they WANT to be poor. Unless Mr. Rich wants to play the updated version of the game that might just compromise a bit of his property rights, the people around him will suffer. And then, the only gift Mr. Rich will get is a bunch of protestors outside his house.

My own update:

3.) Mr. Poor was pretty fine until Mr. Rich built his giant mansion. You gulp up the resources, others can't adapt, shit starts to happen, people start to starve and get unhappy.

On another note: I don't like to stereotype. If you'll remember, I'm not Mr. Rich. I'm the guy in the shack. Do you really subscribe to this Darwinian survival schtick?

Economics is not a zero sum game.

Mr. Rich does not hurt Mr. Poor by having a big house, the resources in his home and boat were unused before and are used now. Mr. Poor and Mr. Rich were once both living in shacks.

I'm not arguing for social darwinism, but if someone forces a poor man unto my island society, I will explain how he got there by refusing to help others. Mr. Poor in the optimal version of this island would be living comfortably too, because even though he has only a small amount of time to spare, he uses it to his maximum advantage due to the things like Mr. Poor by borrowing Mr. Rich's tractor, and running errands using a car he got from Mr. Boatsmith's cousin. He lives a better life, he doesn't have as big a house, but he's happy, and so is Mr. Rich.

[Red Indus]

He also claims that somehow those that are rich are not entitled to what they have earned.

some rich get many times over what they earn

[Red Indus]

You said money grubbers result in no rockets, i provided a private group that does just that.

I don't giva shit about cargo transport I want a Europa landing.

[Volnotova]

He also claims that somehow those that are rich are not entitled to what they have earned.

some rich get many times over what they earn

I was thinking abuot more then just salaries if that is what you are insinuating.