Does wealth equal to greed?

[North Calaveras]

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.

There is no deman, capitalism prospers on demand. If no one gives a shit about europa then private enterprise won't invest in it.

[Red Indus]

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

direct the spending through a national committee. form it privately. no government necessary. then everyone knows what happens with the money.

[Red Indus]

There is no deman, capitalism prospers on demand. If no one gives a shit about europa then private enterprise won't invest in it.

make political will instead, then you do it with taxes

[The Merchant Republics]

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

Literally false.

The rich earn what they get, by virtue of the fact that they got it. Provided they did so legitimately.

[Volnotova]

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

direct the spending through a national committee. form it privately. no government necessary. then everyone knows what happens with the money.

Uh, please elaborate.

Are you suggesting to spend amounts of money that are large enough trough a privately formed and owned national committee?

Why would one do that?

[Icamera]

Of course wealth =/= greed. See: Buffett, Warren Edward and Gates, William Henry.

[North Calaveras]

There is no deman, capitalism prospers on demand. If no one gives a shit about europa then private enterprise won't invest in it.

make political will instead, then you do it with taxes

so force everyone to pay for something only you(government) wants to get done?

[Red Indus]

Are you suggesting to spend amounts of money that are large enough trough a privately formed and owned national committee?

Why would one do that?

broadcasted transparency

[Red Indus]

so force everyone to pay for something only you(government) wants to get done?

only for space rocket

[Volnotova]

There is no deman, capitalism prospers on demand. If no one gives a shit about europa then private enterprise won't invest in it.

make political will instead, then you do it with taxes

Then it still doesn't come from investors becaues they feel like investors.

Then it is simply payed for trough the use of coercive taxation apparatus of the state.

[Volnotova]

Are you suggesting to spend amounts of money that are large enough trough a privately formed and owned national committee?

Why would one do that?

transparency

If it benefits them then why does such a committee exist already?

[Red Indus]

Then it still doesn't come from investors becaues they feel like investors.

Then it is simply payed for trough the use of coercive taxation apparatus of the state.

I'm sure you can involve investors

[Wisconsin7]

Yes, it does. People inherit wealth from their parents. They then finance the campaigns of Republicans, so that they can get tax breaks pushed through, and bankrupt the country. They also have education cut so that the voters become idiots, and vote for Republicans because they're better at pandering. Thus, the rich get richer, the voters get dumber, and everyone EXCEPT the rich gets stuck with the bill.

[The Rich Port]

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.

Mr. Poor didn't use ALL the resources because he didn't NEED to. He doesn't need a big house and a big boat, he doesn't need a tractor, and he doesn't need any of these things. He was OK with the things he had.

Once Mr. Rich came, the resources dried up building his house. All of a sudden, the things that were in abundance all of a sudden dissapear. Resources are NOT infinite.

This is my problem: our society is NOT optimal in the least. It's not even operating at MINIMUM capacity. Why? Resources are starting to dry up all over. Land, water, the things that were once free, are now commodities. The rich are REFUSING to adapt, whereas the poor WISH they could, but they CAN'T because the rich want more, more, more out of them and the poor can't keep up because they're human and not machines who can produce constant results for cheaper for them in order to continue expanding.

And another issue that's come up: where did Mr. Boathouse come from? If he's from China, then it just brings ANOTHER issue around full circle.

[Red Indus]

If it benefits them then why does such a committee exist already?

it would benefit the country

[Sibirsky]

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

How?

[Plectia]

Yes and especially in the us's case.

[Volnotova]

If it benefits them then why does such a committee exist already?

it would benefit the country

Then how would you get politicians or investors/entrepeneurs/business men and woman to form such a committee anyway?

[Red Indus]

How?

even if I run a company how does that account for making hundred or even twenty times more then even the board
a little more sure

[Distruzio]

James J Hill did.

He gave out very charitable (sometimes interest free) loans and rock bottom rates for the use of his railway to struggling farmers and lumberjacks all across the American Midwest, loans that returned thousand-fold when they started making money again. And he got all their freight traffic.

That's exactly how the Mafia and the de Medici secured their success.

And OP.... are supposed to assume that greed is bad? If so, why?

[The Rich Port]

some rich get many times over what they earn

How?

Well, shit, Sib, you just said yourself they used the busted-up state to their advantage.

As nice as abolishing the state sounds, they still did the things they did.

And before you say "it's because of the state", I'll also bring up another fact you also brought up: not all rich people rip others off. In other words, abolishing the state will do nothing because the presence and the flaws of the state don't mean you should break the law and rip people off.

[Sibirsky]

Yes, it does. People inherit wealth from their parents. They then finance the campaigns of Republicans, so that they can get tax breaks pushed through, and bankrupt the country. They also have education cut so that the voters become idiots, and vote for Republicans because they're better at pandering. Thus, the rich get richer, the voters get dumber, and everyone EXCEPT the rich gets stuck with the bill.

Most wealthy individuals did not inherit it.

The rich did not bankrupt the country. Weak, pathetic and ignorant politicians did.

The rich, pay the overwhelming majority of taxes.

[Red Indus]

Then how would you get politicians or investors/entrepeneurs/business men and woman to form such a committee anyway?

why don't the rich you keep talking about form it themselves, I thought they didn't want the government involved. why don't they replace the government that way in fact.

[Distruzio]

Wealth is a wonderful thing, as long as everybody has it....

I love comments like this.

Honestly, if the wealth were evenly distributed, then you'd not have your computer b/c it involved the usage of resources more morally allocated to some starving indian children or something.

[Sibirsky]

How?

even if I run a company how does that account for making hundred or even twenty times more then even the board
a little more sure

That was the negotiated wage?

I fail to see how it is possible to get more what you earn.