The myth of the "self-made Millionaire"

[Malachi151]

By Ed: I am and I know several and it is not and you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound a bit like a bitter wage slave.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. I'll try to explain better here.

EVERYONE'S WEALTH is dependant on society. From the poorest to the richest. This should be pretty easy to understand.

There ARE NO self-made millionaires or self-made anythings.

If you live in America and you make money, you make money BECAUSE OF society and government.

Tell me what your business is an I can show you exactly how and why I say this.

Everyone's prosperity is interrelated.

Everyone's lifestyle is dependant on society.

Let's just say that I'm going to start a business to become "rich".

Let's say I open a new pizza chain.

Now, let's say that I save up money, start it on my own, work it myself until I get enough money to hire people, and then eventually expand, etc, and eventually I have a large chain and make millions a year.

Now, many people would call that being a "self-made" millionaire.

Obviously though its not being "self-made". The entire process is totally reliant on society. ALL WEALTH is SOCIETY MADE.

Without roads being in place that we all pay for you could have no store, without everyone having money and security so that they can buy pizza you could have no business. Without having educated people that you can employ you could have no employees.

YOU don't create all that, society does. Without all that you have nothing.

We are all dependant on one another, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that at all.

When you show me someone who is a millionaire that lives on a desert island and runs their own government and has their own money and does not interact with anyone else then I'll say yes, that's a self made millionaire, yet of course a million used of money that don't interact are worthless so it would not matter.

Do you regulate the Fed to keep the dollar stable? No, but your wealth is dependant on that isn't' it? Yes. Do you pay of the education of every American? No, but your wealth is dependant on that. Do you pay for all of our security, etc? No, but without it you have nothing.

No man is an island, you didn't "do it all yourself" you had the "help" of the entire American society and government in building your wealth and being successful.

[Cain]

http://www.randi.org/ubb/reply_ot.gif, good.
http://www.randi.org/ubb/topic_ot.gif, bad.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No, you don't what I'm saying. I'll try to explain better here.

EVERYONE'S WEALTH is dependant on society. From the poorest to the riches. This should be pretty easy to understand.

There ARE NO self-made millionaires or self-made anythings.

If you live in America and you make money, you make money BECAUSE OF society and government.


I notice you tend to create definitions for terms that are, shall we say, unique.

If you talk to virtually anyone (in the financial field or otherwise) and ask them what a 'self made millionaire' is, I'm sure you'll get a definition which greatly differs from your assumption. I doubt that many people would agree with the 'rules' you layed out in your definition.

Yes, everyone 'depends' on society and/or government for certain things (protection, etc.)

However, a self-made millionaire is someone who manages to achieve his financial success from limited beginnings, through hard work, intelligence, and/or luck.

And, in general, when someone becomes a "self made millionaire", they tend to give back to the community (in terms of taxes and/or jobs created) more than they received, so in effect they are a net-contributor.

[no one in particular]

I'll choose the good option!

I wonder, Malachi, why did society choose to help Ed become wealthy but did not do the same for your sister? Could it be that the choices Ed has made effected society’s decision on whom to help?

I apologize for the reference to your sister, I only being her up because of the previous example(s) in another thread.

[crackmonkey]

You're not really making a significant point, Malachi... you;re just playing with semantics here. Given that most people in society contribute something and the government maintains a more or less orderly society, some people manage to excel and prosper. Many do this by expending more time, effort, energy, and intelligence than others who are less driven.
Those who manage to make a million dollars in this way are commonly known as self-made millionaires... society doesn't often knock on your door and hand you a fortune.
This kind of thread is just nonsensical.

[Ed]

Society does not provide the creative spark nor the will to succeed. Society is the backdrop against which the successful work. I might suggest that, rather than this:

"If you live in America and you make money, you make money BECAUSE OF society and government"

you might consider replacing "because of" by "in spite of".

You sound a bit like one of those loons at the Oscars that thank everyone and their mother for their award. Yes, I am thankful for the oxygen I breathe as well as our dedicated park service workers. The fact is that this is a constant for everyone in this country. So what? I pay for my share of those things as well as for my computer and the heating in my house, without which little could be accomplished.

You have a rather nihlistic sort of viewpoint that demeans eveyone who has achieved a modicum of success. If someone fails is it because society has not done enough for him? After all, if an individual is not responsible for their own success, they can hardly be responsible for their failure. Yes? Are you arguing for a sort of meta individual lack of responsibility for any and everything that they do?

Before you get more insulting you might try explaining what you mean a bit more lucidly. Also, tell us about you. What are your accomplishments?

[KelvinG]

Is anybody really saying that self-made means something other than what you have described?
I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to say that they can become a millionaire without utilizing the workings of our capitalist society.
I think this is just a argument of semantics.

[QuarkChild]

When someone gives you "home-made" cookies, do you ask if they grew the wheat in their backyard and ground it into flour themself?

I assume that "self-made" is a term invented to represent the opposite of inherited wealth. Changing the definition destroys the usefulness of the word.

[Ed]

You also said this on another thread:

So during these 20 years many wealthy have been stealing from the system and amassing huge fortunes, of course with Bush in office they will all get away with it, a few examples may be made of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the billions of dollars stolen from the American people will be kept by the crooks, and safely invested in tax free dividend paying accounts.

To which I cleverly replied:

Define "stolen". Tell me more about "tax free dividend paying accounts", do you mean local Municipal bonds? The things that fund schools and water supplies, and infra structure? Those are the only tax free investment that I can think of, if you know of others please share. So your problem is that these horrid people are investing in municipalities? Basically loaning money for reasonably long terms at ****** rates that won't change as interest rates rise? Is that the core of your problem?


As a plutocrat myself, I'd really like to know about those Tax free thingies. Can you give me a reference or was it just spouting? You seem to be a very jealous person. Pity.

I think you need one of these
http://www.successories.com/assets/product_images/734816_PROV.gif

It says that success is not a journey it is a process or some such claptrap.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ed
Society does not provide the creative spark nor the will to succeed. Society is the backdrop against which the successful work. I might suggest that, rather than this:

"If you live in America and you make money, you make money BECAUSE OF society and government"

you might consider replacing "because of" by "in spite of".

You sound a bit like one of those loons at the Oscars that thank everyone and their mother for their award. Yes, I am thankful for the oxygen I breathe as well as our dedicated park service workers. The fact is that this is a constant for everyone in this country. So what? I pay for my share of those things as well as for my computer and the heating in my house, without which little could be accomplished.

This is SO nominated for the language prize.

[Malachi151]

you might consider replacing "because of" by "in spite of".

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

If you make money IN SPITE OF government and society, then please explain how you would have an easier time making money without government and society?

What I'm saying is not actually anything new, its actually old. Its they way that every up until the Reagan years saw wealth and taxes, etc.

In the Reagan years the whole "greed is good" mentality came in and the idea that all the money that an individual earns is purely the product of that individuals and only that individuals work, which his obviously not true if you do any critical thinking at all.

You sound a bit like one of those loons at the Oscars that thank everyone and their mother for their award. Yes, I am thankful for the oxygen I breathe as well as our dedicated park service workers. The fact is that this is a constant for everyone in this country. So what? I pay for my share of those things as well as for my computer and the heating in my house, without which little could be accomplished.

You have a rather nihlistic sort of viewpoint that demeans everyone who has achieved a modicum of success. If someone fails is it because society has not done enough for him? After all, if an individual is not responsible for their own success, they can hardly be responsible for their failure. Yes? Are you arguing for a sort of meta individual lack of responsibility for any and everything that they do?

Before you get more insulting you might try explaining what you mean a bit more lucidly. Also, tell us about you. What are your accomplishments?

Err, not really. I see nothing wrong with wealth specifically. Understanding how wealth is created is important in understanding economics, which is woefully misunderstood by most people. I'm talking about understanding how something works, I'm not making any judgment one way or the other.

Your taxes don't pay for all the benefits you receive from American society and government. You and all your wealth is dependant on everyone else paying their taxes and doing their job as well.

Any individuals wealth is a measure of the degree to which they have benefited from living in a society. Obviously a wealthy American has benefited from living in American more than a poor American. Wealth is the direct measure of that.

Now, obviously individual effort is large part of the entire equation as well, but its not being "self-made". By saying "self-made" you deny the reality of the dependence on society.

This is where "some" wealthy people piss me off. They act as though society a burden on their wealth, when in fact the opposite is true, there wealth is entirely dependant on society.

I mean people like Teddy Roosevelt said:

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. "

Which is undeniably true, yet today many people seem not to grasp this concept. Many people today seem to think that "the State" is a burden on the wealthy.

Its also interesting to note that up until WWII income tax was only paid by the wealthy. It was not until WWII that income tax was extended down to the lower income levels to any significant degree. Income taxes on the wealthy were always seen as a moral tax on those that had taken the greatest advantage of society.

http://www.taxhistory.org/Articles/taxjustice.htm

"In its incidents, and apart from the main purpose of raising revenue, an income tax stands on an entirely different footing from an inheritance tax; because it involves no question of the perpetuation of fortunes swollen to an unhealthy size. The question is in its essence a question of the proper adjustment of burdens to benefits."

Which of course points to the fact that many people "used" to think that there was such a thing as fortunes "swollen to an unhealthy size".

http://www.taxhistory.org/TR/1906.htm

Its a matter of understanding how wealth and fortune is amassed and who contributes in what ways. A person's individual fortune is not solely the product of that person's individual effort. Certainly individual effort is a part of it, but its annoying seeing so many people that don't acknowledge the entire social effort that goes into creating wealth and don't acknowledge the critical role that government plays in facilitating the creating of wealth.

There is no "self" to making money, its always a social process. Its no different than the "there is no 'I' in TEAM" speech. Even when a quarterback throws a touchdown pass certainly the quarterback's individual effort is important, buts its still all a team process.

[corplinx]

You can be a self-made millionaire. Well, up until they made it harder to counterfeit currency. Now you have to rob a bank but you can still be "self made".

Seriously, isnt it nitpicking to take a phrase like that and say its incorrect because you can't agree with what it means?

[JAR]

I know what you mean Malachi151. People don't come into existence with equal chances at success in life. And the definition of "success" differs from person to person. Some would define it as a state of being wealthy, others would define it as creating a work of art that is remembered for eternity, still others would define it as having a line of descendants that goes on forever. There seems to be an infinite number of interpretations for what success in life is.

The lack of equal chances at success is obvious when you see that some people are mentally retarded while others aren't and that some people have dark skin that doesn't burn when battered by the rays of the sun for long periods of time while some people have light skin that burns easily.

[aggle_rithm]

It's possible to split semantic hairs to a ridiculous degree here. You could say that a man who found a million dollars buried underground is a "self-made" milliionaire. But no, he relies on society to bury the money in the first place.

What if he finds gold? Society didn't put the gold there. Ah, but he needs society to convert the gold into money!

What if he collects a million pebbles, and we redefine "millionaire" to mean anyone who has a million of something? Yes, but he didn't MAKE the pebbles, now did he?

Worst -- thread -- EVER!

[Kodiak]

Just wanted everyone to read my second sig...

[King of the Americas]

...this IS a play on semantics.

However, there IS a point to be had here.

The 'attitude' of burden verses duty. Indeed, the 'rich' would be quite unable to fend off attackers if there were suddenly no police or military to protect them. And yet, today there is again raising the head of the hungry capitalist, wanting for those who 'PAY taxes to get the tax cut'.

The State is not a burden on the rich, nor are they being punished for being successful. The rich simply have a 'duty' to help pay for the system that aloted them their stay, so that other too behind them might become 'self made'.

I think there is an ebb and flow to economics and politics, and these days you are seeing more Republican and big money, corporate favored stuff getting through. And YES, that means tax cuts for the rich, but I think Mac's original point still stands.

The rich, can and should afford to pay high taxes.

Without the sytem in place, they would 'possess' their riches no longer.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...this IS a play on semantics.

However, there IS a point to be had here.

The 'attitude' of burden verses duty. Indeed, the 'rich' would be quite unable to fend off attackers if there were suddenly no police or military to protect them.

Have to disagree...

If you take the extreme "libertarian" position, the rich people would be able to afford their own police force to protect their riches. Even today, the existance of "gated communities" shows that the rich can and would be able to handle their own security. (This would especially be true if large amounts of their income weren't taken in taxes to support the policing of poorer areas.)

Note that I'm not saying it is an 'ideal' situation; just that the 'rich' don't necessarily need 'society' to defend itself.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The State is not a burden on the rich, nor are they being punished for being successful. The rich simply have a 'duty' to help pay for the system that aloted them their stay, so that other too behind them might become 'self made'.


The system did not 'alot' them their stay; a person who becomes rich did not do so because society said "Ok, I think you should be rich... here's your cash". They do so through hard work, smart decisions, and/or a little luck.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

The rich, can and should afford to pay high taxes.


And they do. They pay a higher amount both in terms of total dollar value, AND as a percentage of their total income. Even with the tax cuts, they will still be paying a higher percentage than people in lower income brackets.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...this IS a play on semantics.

However, there IS a point to be had here.

The 'attitude' of burden verses duty. Indeed, the 'rich' would be quite unable to fend off attackers if there were suddenly no police or military to protect them. And yet, today there is again raising the head of the hungry capitalist, wanting for those who 'PAY taxes to get the tax cut'.

The State is not a burden on the rich, nor are they being punished for being successful. The rich simply have a 'duty' to help pay for the system that aloted them their stay, so that other too behind them might become 'self made'.

I think there is an ebb and flow to economics and politics, and these days you are seeing more Republican and big money, corporate favored stuff getting through. And YES, that means tax cuts for the rich, but I think Mac's original point still stands.

The rich, can and should afford to pay high taxes.

Without the sytem in place, they would 'possess' their riches no longer.

Ahh yes, now we are getting somewhere :D

But in addition I think that many people take a WHOLE lot for granted and then give themselves much more credit then they deserve in their own success. This applies to everyone, not just the rich. I just always get the impression that so many people have the "Me, me, me, I did, its MY money, I earned it", attitude because they fail to see in what way all of society and ogvernment has facilitated their ability to make money in the first place.

I mean just think about some things like selling you house. How your neighbors keep their houses can affect the value of your hourse. If you move into a neighborhood that is run down, and you live there for 5 years and in that time everyone fixes up their house, you then can sell your house and make much more money. Are YOU responsible for that? No, your community is. The work of others helped contribute to your success.

That type of understading applies to many things and many levels.

All I'm saying is that people need to understadn this and acknowledge it and aply that understadnig to how they view economics in general.

[King of the Americas]

That's the Libertarian solution alright...

NO WAY!

Did you SEE what anarchy is all about. Take a good look at Iraq. Gated or not, looters take what they want, and it is only deadly force that will stop them.

Without government secured police and military defenses, the 'rich' would be held captive by pirate capitalists, and would be forced to ban toghter and again form some kind of government, or perish.

It was said that rich people are so, because they worked for it? Well that is true in part, but those rich are really the few. 'Most' Big Money IS inherited, by a 3 to 1 ratio. For ever 1 man who 'earned' his million, 3 had their's given to them. 'Higher Taxes' on the rich ensure that this ratio is more fair, in that it ensures that everyone gets to start at the bottom.

If you keep shoveling off the top, you'll get a larger base for us all to stand on.

[Tmy]

In many of the tax discussions theres the thought that the rich are punished because "they worked hard for their money".

I wonder. There are many people who just have the money handed to them. Did they really "work hard" for it. Is there more old money than new money?

Should it matter just how someone came into money. Its not like there is any right to fairness in taxes.

One of the most unfair taxes. State taxes on state lotto winnings. TALK ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151

But in addition I think that many people take a WHOLE lot for granted and then give themselves much more credit then they deserve in their own success. This applies to everyone, not just the rich. I just always get the impression that so many people have the "Me, me, me, I did, its MY money, I earned it", attitude because they fail to see in what way all of society and ogvernment has facilitated their ability to make money in the first place.


But if, in the process of getting and being rich, the person gives more back to the government and society (through taxes, charitable contributions, job creation, etc.) then they can consider that any obligations they owe as being repaid.


Originally posted by Malachi151

I mean just think about some things like selling you house. How your neighbors keep their houses can affect the value of your hourse. If you move into a neighborhood that is run down, and you live there for 5 years and in that time everyone fixes up their house, you then can sell your house and make much more money. Are YOU responsible for that? No, your community is. The work of others helped contribute to your success.


But as a home owner, it is your job to decide what neighbourhood to love to, your job to research its background, your job to decide when to sell (sell fast if you think the neighborhood is declining, or hold on to the property if you think the neighborhood is getting better), your job to fight for any problems that could negatively impact your values.

Notice that there is an aweful lot for the property owner to do there?

[King of the Americas]

...'society' should be directly reflective in how much you've benefited from it.

Agreed, "Malachi151", there IS a lot of me, Me, ME, I, 'I', "I" did this all by myself, alone, with no one else.

Without the sytem in place few of us could secure a loaf of bread or a port of wine. We are afford our comfort, only by each other.

[Charles Livingston]

There is a difference between the 'system' of government (ie capitalism, constitutionally limited republic, democracy, or whatever you call it) that the founders of this country chose to use, and the 'services' that government provides to its citizens. Although some 'benefits' that the populace receives are down to the governements regulation of that 'system' (ie corporate regulation to prevent robber barons and such, which could be considered a service paid for by taxes as all services generally are), most benefits are received from governmental services, such as SS, welfare, etc. See my point Malachi151?

[aggle_rithm]

Some people have it easier than others. Some people have to work harder than others.

Welcome to the big, bad world.

The ideal society just doesn't exist. Even in Paradise, a bunch of poor virgins have to be at the mercy of martyred suicide bombers.

:cool:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tmy
In many of the tax discussions theres the thought that the rich are punished because "they worked hard for their money".

I wonder. There are many people who just have the money handed to them. Did they really "work hard" for it. Is there more old money than new money?

Should it matter just how someone came into money. Its not like there is any right to fairness in taxes.

One of the most unfair taxes. State taxes on state lotto winnings. TALK ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING!

I'm not even trying to put any kind of "blame" anywhere or say that anything is fair or not fair. I'm simply pointing out that NO ONE becomes wealthy BY THEMSELVES.

Its not something that you do alone, its something that a person can do with the help of society.

It does not matter if 100% of wealthy people earned it all from starting with ZERO dollars. The fact is that the process of becoming wealthy depends on society, it is not a fully independent activity.

An economy is just like an ecosystem. The entire ecosystem has interdependencies, in which the shark cannot exist without the little fish under him in the food chain, and the health of the population of little fish is helped by the shark as well.

I'm just pointing out he community aspect to all this because so many people seem to ignore it.

But as a home owner, it is your job to decide what neighborhood to love to, your job to research its background, your job to decide when to sell (sell fast if you think the neighborhood is declining, or hold on to the property if you think the neighborhood is getting better), your job to fight for any problems that could negatively impact your values.

Nonetheless the fact that your property value went up in this case is because of the actions of other people. Are you going to deny that?

Now, this is much the same with all ways in which we obtain wealth. A basketball player get paid millions of dollars, not because of his ability to put a ball in a net, but because of the existence of TV networks, marketing businesses, an audience that cares about basketball and has money to buy tickets and products, etc. Is a basketball player a "self-made" millionaire? He does all the work himself that he is paid for, but obviously not, he would not be getting paid anything if not for a million other things that allow him to get paid what he does.

Individual effort contributes in the ability to exploit a given set of conditions, but those conditions are not created by the person exploiting them, and the person exploiting the conditions it reliant on those conditions for his ability to profit from his own actions.

In many of the tax discussions theres the thought that the rich are punished because "they worked hard for their money".

To revisit this, this is the most absurd thing that anyone can say, that the rich are punished. If the person was punished for their hard work then they would not be rich. Being rich is BY DEFINITION proof that you have been rewarded for your efforts. If you weren't rewarded then you would not be rich.

There are millions of people in America and billions around the world who work just as hard or harder than many rich people, but due to the lack of conditions which allows that work to pay off, they are never rewarded.

Becoming rich is a combination of work, and exploitation of the conditions. Two people can work equally hard and if the conditions are right for the one person they will become rich, and the other will not.

Most rich people will fully acknowledge this and most rich people I know are indeed thankful and acknowledge that its more than just hard work that goes into becoming wealthy.

Will someone argue that an auto mechanic that works 60 hours a week from the age of 18 to 70 and never makes more that $40,000 a year didn't work as hard as a model that was discovered while standing in line at a store, asked to do a photo shoot and then within 6 months she was a millionaire and lived the rest of her life married to a multi-billionaire while shopping all over the world? I mean come on, lets get real here.

Getting wealthy has to do with many, many things, not just hard work.

Or, let's take two businessmen. They both went to the same school, graduated with the same grades, one was hired by Microsoft 15 years ago, the other was hired by Systemworks (I just made that up). They both put in the same hours both do essentially the same thing for their companies, but today one is a millionaire and the other has been recently laid off and is looking for a job while drawing unemployment.

Let's take two entrepreneurs. One is developing product X, the other product Y. The guy with product Y is about to bring it to market after 5 years of hard work on it and hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans, etc he put into developing his product. A week before he comes to market a new technology is released that makes his product obsolete. Meanwhile the guy with product X has been working half as hard, and spent less money, but the new technology compliments his product and he becomes rich.

And, as I said, the ability to create wealth at all is totally dependant on society and government. If it was not totlaly dependant on those things then creating wealth in China or Iraq or Antarctica would be equally as easy as it is in America.

[DrChinese]

I doubt there are very many millionaires per capita in Afghanistan. So certainly the fabric of the society one is born into is a critical factor. In other words, America has more self made millionaires than any other country in the world. And that is certainly not because we are the only country with good people.

So I guess Malachi151 has a point in there somewhere.

But the concept of the self-made millionaire was intended, I believe, to distinguish that group from millionaires whose wealth was inherited. Clearly, it would be hard to call someone who inherited a few million bucks "self-made".

To anyone who has accumulated a forture in their own lifetime, it is naturally going to appear that it is a result of their own unique and special contribution. And if you read the book, "The Millionaire Next Door", it is clear that these individuals do seem to share certain traits that directly contributed to their becoming millionaires. Frugality is one such trait, not one you might expect either.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DrChinese
I doubt there are very many millionaires per capita in Afghanistan. So certainly the fabric of the society one is born into is a critical factor. In other words, America has more self made millionaires than any other country in the world. And that is certainly not because we are the only country with good people.

So I guess Malachi151 has a point in there somewhere.



Perhaps, but it is a "so what" point.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed


Perhaps, but it is a "so what" point.

No, you claim to make money IN SPITE OF government, I claim that you, and everyone else, makes money BECAUSE of government. Big difference.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Strangely enough, I strongly agree with Malochi on this issue. In fact I see it so much as a matter of basic reasoning that I don't even see what all the fuss is about.

Some people have commented that this issue is over semantics. By that meaning it involves semantics. Well then, let us explore the semantics.

First off, if by self-made millionare you mean, someone of great will or ability, who was able to sieze an opportunity as opposed to someone more lacking, who in the same position would have missed the opportunity: then yes there are self-made millionares.

If you likewise mean, someone who started poor, worked real hard, and got rich: yes there are self-made millionares.


IF however you mean what many far-right conservatives, libertarians and fundamentalists mean: some guy who by sheer will alone, created wealth or an industry that would not otherwise exist and thus deserves much, MUCH more then his fellow man in return, a person who's billions or trillions means he is actually a thousand to a millions times more able, harder working or more intelligent then his fellow men: then there is no way in hell that I'll believe such a man exists.

Yes some people succeed and grab opportunities where others fail due to their character. But more often, those of great character fail simply because they were not given the opportunity or as much opportunity.

Yes, sometimes a poor person, by strength of character becomes rich. But most likely a poor person with strong character will remain poor or at most, attain middle class status.

And this ignores all the rich people, the majority who became rich by means of inheritence. By the mechanisms of the system which give huge advantage to those with priviledge.

The idea of a self-made millionare is like a self-made messiah or celebrity. Sure some cultists get lucky and start a major religion. Some people get lucky going to hollywood, dropping everything to go, or starting a band, and make it real big.

And lesser people would have failed, given they were in the success stories place.

But would you now suggest your kid drop out of school and try to succeed via making a band or becoming a big star?


For every competent person that succeeded in these things, there are dozens of failures. That is because luck, and knowing the right people(again a matter of luck) plays such a significant factor. And when these people get lucky, and get established they stay established. Unless they really screw up.

So being a self-made millionare is a lot like playing the lotto. Right place right time. And such "success" stories are likely just as frequent as success stories of those who won the lotto.

Of course competence here, unlike the lotto is necessary. But it's not sufficient. You need competence and a lot of luck to be sufficient.

Remember, ability and good character: necessary but not sufficient.

That is why despite all the great character that may be around in China, or India, few will go from rags to riches. Fewer then even in the US: because they have what is necessary but not what is sufficient.

Also these people by themselves are not sufficient to create wealth. They need societies entire superstructure to do it.

THAT was Malachi's point.

Gates, Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan all placed on a desert island would do nothing. All placed in Afghanistan, would do nothing but suffer under the Taliban. All placed in the Soviet Union would die in the gulags probably.

But placed in America, right place, right time, right connections, did extraordinary things.

However much of this extraordinary was based on the strong superstructure they had to work with. This superstructure is what enabled them to create this wealth ultimately.

Now ask what played the bigger role?

Lets say we removed Gates, Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan: is it now more likely that america will still produce their industries, that someone in America for example would start the equivalent of assembly lines, a microsoft, a strong steel industry....

or more likely that Morgan and Gates, placed in their third world nation would create a windows?

In essence, are these men more important then america on this issue, or is america more important then these men?

The answer is obviously the former on the first count, the latter on the second.

And hence it is quite obvious that a great deal of this wealth is not "self-made". We could lose these men and america probably just as soon, maybe a couple years later, would get it's wealth.

Wealth is a social product.

And now where are we going with this? Does this not prove america has a better system then others, since more people can become millionares?

Yes, but that's not the point.

The point is that many fundamentalists, libertarians and far-right conservatives believe the millionares are entitled to all the money which happens to fall into their hands. Because "they earned it."

However that money represents a chunk of societies total wealth. It is in essence coming from society. And it's allocation should hence be determined by society, not a few men.

And that means if these men get more wealth, a ridiculous amount more then they by themselves helped contribute, there needs to be some mechanisms for fairer distribution.

Many grade school teachers need to work two jobs just to make ends meet. While CEO's of big tobacco, casinos, and alchohol companies live it up: buying mansions as a hobby. Yet I believe many would agree that a good teacher deserves more credit then a good CEO who inherited Marlboro.

I'm not saying everyone should be paid the same amount, or teachers should earn as much as CEOs. I'm saying they shouldn't have to struggle just to make ends meet. They go in for the teaching, love of their profession should be their incentive, but love of any subject may not be a sufficient incentive for any person, when it leads to a sort of punishment. I may wish to be a philosopher because I love philosophy, but if that meant living in a gang run neighborhood, my love of philosophy may have to go.

And then you get most of society's qualified and able people abandoning society's most important post. And people then wonder where all our critical thinking and good education went.

Well all the talent went to the stock market and people struggling to make ends meet via more profitable jobs. It went to fields that were rewarded and left those which were punished. The market and the CEO's and society loses ultimately, at least to a large degree, what is most important to it.

Hence I am not arguing against all capitalism. Nor for economic equality, nor even a welfare state. Just a fairer state. A state more based on merit, and deeper values and less based on priveledge, luck and merchant values.

Where the market is really giving payment where payment is due.

[Malachi151]

Thanks to DM for stating it much better than I. And yes, that was essentially the point of the whole post, well done.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No, you claim to make money IN SPITE OF government, I claim that you, and everyone else, makes money BECAUSE of government. Big difference.

Try doing it. Government is far from a help, it is a decided hinderance.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a very silly thread.


(BTW, Ed is right.)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed


Try doing it. Government is far from a help, it is a decided hinderance.

OHHH great argument. Face, it you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm sorry the subject is over your head.

[crackmonkey]

WHat a waste of electrons. This topic is so banal that it doesn't deserve to live...
Why are big time scorers always awarded the Heisman trophy? They couldn't do it without the rest of the team, the coach, the front office, etc. Heisman winners relly aren't THAT special - perhaps they are lucky enough to take advantage of favorable conditions on the field and score, but they don't do all that much themselves...
What a crock of tepid horse snot.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ed


Try doing it. Government is far from a help, it is a decided hinderance.
If this were true, then places in the world with little or no government should rule world economy. Yet, that never seems to be the case.

Sorry EdGod. I just became an atheist. ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tricky

If this were true, then places in the world with little or no government should rule world economy. Yet, that never seems to be the case.

Sorry EdGod. I just became an atheist. ;)

I am talking about here, in the USA. I don't give a rat's ass about anywhere else.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
WHat a waste of electrons. This topic is so banal that it doesn't deserve to live...
Why are big time scorers always awarded the Heisman trophy? They couldn't do it without the rest of the team, the coach, the front office, etc. Heisman winners relly aren't THAT special - perhaps they are lucky enough to take advantage of favorable conditions on the field and score, but they don't do all that much themselves...
What a crock of tepid horse snot.

LOL, talk about proving the piont! :D

Okay, look at how many Heisman winers come from teams that did well, and often teams that at least made the post season.

If you can't see how having a good supporting team allows individual players to have greater achievements then you don't understand football any more than you understand eocnomics.

Look at Emmit Smith, sure he had great rushing yardage there for a number of years, but he also had a great team and a great front line. Put the same man in the Tampa Bay Bucks from the 1980s and he wouldn't have had nearly as good a career. Or do you disagree?

Jordan on the Wizards vs Jordan with the Bulls. Of course you can say age, but still, you get the point. Team environment most certianly does allow individual players to play better and any half decent coach will tell you the same.

You see, your side on this whole agrument can only come up with truisims, no logic, no facts.

So far I have seen no arguments from the opposition in this thread just simple name calling and truisims.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Nonetheless the fact that your property value went up in this case is because of the actions of other people. Are you going to deny that?

But I could just as easily have lost money, had I sold my property value too soon, or bought property in a different area. I make the decisions to buy/sell/upgrade, not my neighbours. The neighbours will take whatever action they wish; it is my responsibility to take advantage. (And the neighbours are not taking their actions to fix up their property just so my value gets increased; they are doing it for their own reasons, over which I have no input.)

Originally posted by Malachi151

To revisit this, this is the most absurd thing that anyone can say, that the rich are punished. If the person was punished for their hard work then they would not be rich.

It is possible to be "punished", yet still remain "rich". There is nothing that says 'punishment' has to involve the removal of ALL results of a person's wealth. To imply otherwise is, well, absurd.

Originally posted by Malachi151

Will someone argue that an auto mechanic that works 60 hours a week from the age of 18 to 70 and never makes more that $40,000 a year didn't work as hard as a model that was discovered while standing in line at a store, asked to do a photo shoot and then within 6 months she was a millionaire and lived the rest of her life married to a multi-billionaire while shopping all over the world? I mean come on, lets get real here.


First of all, the 'married to a multi-billionaire' has nothing to do with your argument.

Now, frankly, I think 'fashion models' are way overpayed. But, it is the value that society has placed on people who can get their picture taken. It is still up to the model to take their opportunity and 'run with it'. (They could have easily told the person 'finding' them "No, I don't want to get my picture taken".)

Originally posted by Malachi151

Getting wealthy has to do with many, many things, not just hard work.

And I never denyed that. Intelligence, and luck also play a part. But luck, or 'society' by itself will NOT result in success.

Originally posted by Malachi151

And, as I said, the ability to create wealth at all is totally dependant on society and government. If it was not totlaly dependant on those things then creating wealth in China or Iraq or Antarctica would be equally as easy as it is in America.

And as I've said, if a person "gives back" to society more than they get out of it (though taxes, or job creation, or charity) then they have more than 'repaid' society's contribution to their success.

[no one in particular]

Malachi, I do not think crackmonkey was disagreeing with you, as such. I think the point of crackmoney’s (along with a lot of others) response to your opening post is just that it is a non-starter. It is a “big freakin’ deal” observation. No, mushrooms alone do not make a pizza, so what?

The “self made” term has been described as a relative term. They are self-made as compared to the inheritance millionaires. Again, so what?

It sounds to me that you are arguing that the United States is a great society in which some folks have the ability to prosper. Hey, I agree with you, so what?

[Malachi151]

Well, so far all I can say is that the only person who seems to understand the full implications of this topic is DM.

The topic goes to the very core of our econmic system and how people are compensated. I'm saying ultimately that the majority of Americans are under comensated and a few people are way, way, over compensated.

To quote DM:

The point is that many fundamentalists, libertarians and far-right conservatives believe the millionares are entitled to all the money which happens to fall into their hands. Because "they earned it."

However that money represents a chunk of societies total wealth. It is in essence coming from society. And it's allocation should hence be determined by society, not a few men.

And that means if these men get more wealth, a ridiculous amount more then they by themselves helped contribute, there needs to be some mechanisms for fairer distribution.

And I still disagree with Ed that he makes money IN SPITE of the govt. He makes money BECAUSE of the govt.

As much as certian things may seem to "get in the way" of him making more money, or anyone else making more money, he is overlooking the many other things that facilitate his ability to make money which are provided by the govt.

Saying that the govt get's in the way of making money is like saying that referees get in the way of playing basketball. Okay, sure they don't let you do certian things, but without enforcement of those rules in the first place there would be no game at all to even play. You don't make money IN SPITE OF government or society, you make it BECAUSE OF. And, just as in sports, as the level of competition increased the more rules and regulations become important.

[RedCoat]

I think one of the factors affecting the attitudes that people carry regarding taxation and how it affects the rich / poor that has been left out of the conversation is *how the money is spent*.

Just hypothesizing, if I were Joe Millionaire, and the gov't says "Joe, we're raising your taxes 10% to build a new hospital, a state university, and a highway", I would doubtless be a little miffed at the increase, but I would have the satifaction of knowing that these were tangible benefits that would serve the entire community for a substantial duration.

If, on the other hand, the gov't says "Joe, we're hiking your taxes 10% to build a new mansion for the governor, a new exercise facility in the state prison, and giving the rest away as welfare payments to the chronically unemployed" I would likely resent this increase in taxes A LOT more than in the first case. These expenditures would not help the community at large, or provide tangible benefits for an appreciable duration.

I think some of the tax resentment that people in high income brackets express is as much a result of what they're being taxed for as it is how much they are taxed.

Just an idea. Peace.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Did you SEE what anarchy is all about. Take a good look at Iraq. Gated or not, looters take what they want, and it is only deadly force that will stop them.


Apples and oranges, KOA...

In Iraq, the wealthy ruling class was ousted and destroyed by the invading US and UK military forces. The Iraqi elite had a strangle-hold on that country until then...


Originally posted by King of the Americas

Without government secured police and military defenses, the 'rich' would be held captive by pirate capitalists, and would be forced to ban toghter and again form some kind of government, or perish.


Speculative drivel...


Originally posted by King of the Americas

It was said that rich people are so, because they worked for it? Well that is true in part, but those rich are really the few. 'Most' Big Money IS inherited, by a 3 to 1 ratio. For ever 1 man who 'earned' his million, 3 had their's given to them.


Evidence please...


Originally posted by King of the Americas

'Higher Taxes' on the rich ensure that this ratio is more fair, in that it ensures that everyone gets to start at the bottom.


"Fair"? Don't you really mean "punishing"?

"Fair" in what regard? Equality of misery???

Churchill was right...


Originally posted by King of the Americas

If you keep shoveling off the top, you'll get a larger base for us all to stand on.

Which, unlike the rich you're shoveling from, you haven't earned.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151




And I still disagree with Ed that he makes money IN SPITE of the govt. He makes money BECAUSE of the govt.



OK, let me ask this. If it is because of the government, why are you not wealthy? Be specific.

Also, tell me about those tax free investments that the rich have.

[Malachi151]

Kodiak

LOL, obviously you have learned nothing from this thread :)

RedCoat

If, on the other hand, the gov't says "Joe, we're hiking your taxes 10% to build a new mansion for the governor, a new exercise facility in the state prison, and giving the rest away as welfare payments to the chronically unemployed" I would likely resent this increase in taxes A LOT more than in the first case. These expenditures would not help the community at large, or provide tangible benefits for an appreciable duration.

I think some of the tax resentment that people in high income brackets express is as much a result of what they're being taxed for as it is how much they are taxed.

First of all I think that the middle class is lead to believe that the wealthy as a group "despise" taxes much more than they actually do by politicans and a few vocal right-wealthy bastards. I think that most wealthy people fully understand the situaiton and they have a lot to be greatful for. Anyone who is wealthy is wealthy BECAUSE of the billions of people around the world who are not wealthy. All of the global community at this point does the work that allows the wealthy to be wealthy. Without billions of global workers getting underpaid there would be no Bill Gates in the first place.

What are you going to say about teh poor, that without he wealthy they would be worse off? :p LOL, please, they are already at the bottom, they ther condition could do nothing but improve.

Secondly you have to recognize that the wealfare state is DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE WEATHLY, AND A PRODUCT OF CAPITALISM.

Marx and other socialists were the biggest opponents to the welfare state. The welfare state is a capitalist state.

At the most basic level of econmics there is no welfare and there ar no wealthy, that level is full equality and ful independance.

As economic independance is taken away by capitalism the need for welfare grows.

Without welfare the wealthy cannot exist.

Without welfare inflation would go up, wages would have to go up. Welfare is what allows capitalist exploitation.

Without it you would have masses of unemployed people with no means to survive who would resort to crime and demonstrations for greater labor rights. Welfare is placation of the masses. In order to fix this situation wages would have to be raised and jobs increased.

You see, the Fed tries to keep unemployment above 5% in order to keep wages depressed adn in order to keep inflation low, inflation is worse on the wealthy than the poor and middle class.

In addition to the unemployed we have jails overflowing and the welfare state increasing. What is all this about? Managing the supply and demand of workers and keeping people placated w/o doing things that would increase inflation.

The wealthy are better served by spending tax dollars to pay for welfare than they would be if we did away with welfare and then had to employ all these people with high enough wages for them to live on. Its "cheaper" for all tax payers to pay them to do nothing than it is for employers to pay them to do something. Taking them off of welfare would increase demand for jobs, which the system cannot supply.

Its all a way to lower demand for jobs, which allows wages to stay lower, whcih control inflation and which allows the rich to become richer.

The wealthy are fully dependant on the welfare state.

"Real" socilaism completely does away with welfare except for those who are disabled, and it also completely does away with unemployment. Unemployement is a product of capitalism.

Even so called "socilist" Europe is really a mixed economy and really just a highly taxed capitalist welfare state.

No individual pays more in taxes than they receive in benefits. This is becuase of the collective nature of government and taxation. By pooling resources we all get more out then we put in. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Even "Bill Gates" get more out of the system than he puts in.

[Malachi151]

OK, let me ask this. If it is because of the government, why are you not wealthy? Be specific.

These questions have already been anwsered, especially in the post by DM. Plus, I'm only in my 20s and in fact doing quite well thank you, though I know that there is a whole lot more I could be doing if I had the oppertunity, i.e. captial. I'm getting there though. I'm sure I will never achieve my potential in my lifetime because it will probably take to 'til I'm 40 or 50 to make enough money to really start doing what I want to do. Oh well, society's loss :D

Also, tell me about those tax free investments that the rich have.

I never said anything about tax free investments, but of course you know that Bush is making dividneds tax free now I assume. I assume you are also away of tax free bonds and mutual funds that have existed for years.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151
OK, let me ask this. If it is because of the government, why are you not wealthy? Be specific.

These questions have already been anwsered, especially in the post by DM. Plus, I'm only in my 20s and in fact doing quite well thank you, though I know that there is a whole lot more I could be doing if I had the oppertunity, i.e. captial. I'm getting there though. I'm sure I will never achieve my potential in my lifetime because it will probably take to 'til I'm 40 or 50 to make enough money to really start doing what I want to do. Oh well, society's loss :D

Humor me

Also, tell me about those tax free investments that the rich have.

I never said anything about tax free investments, but of course you know that Bush is making dividneds tax free now I assume. I assume you are also away of tax free bonds and mutual funds that have existed for years.


It is nasty to lie. Just answer the question.

You said

[b]So during these 20 years many wealthy have been stealing from the system and amassing huge fortunes, of course with Bush in office they will all get away with it, a few examples may be made of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the billions of dollars stolen from the American people will be kept by the crooks, and safely invested in tax free dividend paying accounts.[b/]

I asked:

Define "stolen". Tell me more about "tax free dividend paying accounts", do you mean local Municipal bonds? The things that fund schools and water supplies, and infra structure? Those are the only tax free investment that I can think of, if you know of others please share. So your problem is that these horrid people are investing in municipalities? Basically loaning money for reasonably long terms at ****** rates that won't change as interest rates rise? Is that the core of your problem?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by RedCoat


Just hypothesizing, if I were Joe Millionaire, and the gov't says "Joe, we're raising your taxes 10% to build a new hospital, a state university, and a highway", I would doubtless be a little miffed at the increase, but I would have the satifaction of knowing that these were tangible benefits that would serve the entire community for a substantial duration.


I'm assuming how much he is miffed would also depend on how much tax he was paying in the first place. If he was only at a tax rate of 20%, he might not care. If he was at a tax rate of 80%, then he would care.

Even if taxes were earmarked for hospitals, etc., what else is the government spending money on? If they are raising taxes to pay for a new hospital, but the government is also paying for, oh, say, "Urninate on the Sidewalk for Peace" day, they would be miffed because, instead of raising taxes earmarked for 'good' purposes (hospitals), they could have simply transferred money from 'bad' areas of spending.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed



It is nasty to lie. Just answer the question.

You said

[b]So during these 20 years many wealthy have been stealing from the system and amassing huge fortunes, of course with Bush in office they will all get away with it, a few examples may be made of sacrificial lambs, but for the most part the billions of dollars stolen from the American people will be kept by the crooks, and safely invested in tax free dividend paying accounts.[b/]

I asked:

Define "stolen". Tell me more about "tax free dividend paying accounts", do you mean local Municipal bonds? The things that fund schools and water supplies, and infra structure? Those are the only tax free investment that I can think of, if you know of others please share. So your problem is that these horrid people are investing in municipalities? Basically loaning money for reasonably long terms at ****** rates that won't change as interest rates rise? Is that the core of your problem?

Is that even from this thread?

Umm.. okay, but anyway stolen through means such as the S&L scandal and the Enron type scandals. And Bush is making dividends tax free. Therefore, if you aquire millions of dollars, as many of these corproate theives have through deception, and you then get to keep it, as many of them are going to, then you invest it in an account that pays 5% dividends, tax free, a few millions dollars invested in such an acount can set you up for life w/o havig to t any work to live comfortably.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Is that even from this thread?

Umm.. okay, but anyway stolen through means such as the S&L scandal and the Enron type scandals. And Bush is making dividends tax free. Therefore, if you aquire millions of dollars, as many of these corproate theives have through deception, and you then get to keep it, as many of them are going to, then you invest it in an account that pays 5% dividends, tax free, a few millions dollars invested in such an acount can set you up for life w/o havig to t any work to live comfortably.

In other words these dollars are supporting municipalities? Sounds like a good deal to me. Then again, to the wicked everything serves as pretext. To the bitter also, I might add.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I'm assuming how much he is miffed would also depend on how much tax he was paying in the first place. If he was only at a tax rate of 20%, he might not care. If he was at a tax rate of 80%, then he would care.

Even if taxes were earmarked for hospitals, etc., what else is the government spending money on? If they are raising taxes to pay for a new hospital, but the government is also paying for, oh, say, "Urninate on the Sidewalk for Peace" day, they would be miffed because, instead of raising taxes earmarked for 'good' purposes (hospitals), they could have simply transferred money from 'bad' areas of spending.

This is why I like my localk taxes. They want to expand the school, I vote on it. With the feds it simpy goes into a communal feeding trough.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Umm.. okay, but anyway stolen through means such as the S&L scandal and the Enron type scandals. And Bush is making dividends tax free.

Strange; I could have sworn that many (if not most) of the people who were responsible for Enron and S&L ended up getting charged as criminals.

You cannot compare the results of criminal activities (such as the above mentioned scandles) with wealth obtained through honest work and/or business decisions. One is a criminal activity (and should be treated as such), the other is not. Hopefully some day you can see the difference.

By the way, it should be noted that Bush has actually tightened the rules to try to prevent more Enron-type problems (which had actually been going on since Clinton was in office.) I just wish Bush would pay more attention to Microsoft's activities.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ed


This is why I like my localk taxes. They want to expand the school, I vote on it. With the feds it simpy goes into a communal feeding trough.

You're lucky... Much of our local taxes goes to cr*p.... literally:

http://www.canoe.ca/OttawaNews/os.os-06-13-0005.html

(although it shoudl be noted that our feds are also funding this fine exhibit.)

[Ed]

Really? We vote on every local tax (rather, expenditure).

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Strange; I could have sworn that many (if not most) of the people who were responsible for Enron and S&L ended up getting charged as criminals.

You cannot compare the results of criminal activities (such as the above mentioned scandles) with wealth obtained through honest work and/or business decisions. One is a criminal activity (and should be treated as such), the other is not. Hopefully some day you can see the difference.

By the way, it should be noted that Bush has actually tightened the rules to try to prevent more Enron-type problems (which had actually been going on since Clinton was in office.) I just wish Bush would pay more attention to Microsoft's activities.

Well seeing as he's completely taking an argument of mine out of context so I really don't care.

Let's see, good points have been made, he can't come up with any decent way to address them, so he brings up other stuff out of context. Talk about poor quality discussion.

Bush is tightening the rules because of political pressure, and much of it is just for show and doesn't actually do much. The bulk of these problems came into being under Reagan, who greatly revised all of these rules, and other problems have simply been around for a long tie and have never been addressed. That doesn't take any blame off of the people who did it though.

Besides, that's not even the point of this thread, bringing that up was just the typical way that people who can't prove their point try to sidetrack issues. I was not comparing criminal activity, both my points and DMs focus squarely on legal activity Sad to see how easily and willingly people are deceived :(

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ed
Really? We vote on every local tax (rather, expenditure).

You're lucky.

Our local goverenment recently went through restructuring... 11 smaller cities were combined into one big one. It made a lot of sense; reduce duplication, encourage businesses by providing a "homogenous" envoronment, and cut costs/taxes.

It hasn't worked that way. Our current city council as taken a golden opportunity and wasted it. We now have more people working for one big city than we had working for 11 smaller ones. And they still haven't sold any of the old city hall buildings.

The city was going to raise general taxes by approximately 5% (across the board). No single big project that they needed to pay for; they just can't seem to control their spending. When tax payers started to complain, they had a 'secret' council meeting to decide where to cut expenses (and prevent the tax increase). They didn't even invite all the members of the council to the meeting!

So, we had major finanical decisions made, without even full reprentation from all parts of the city.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well seeing as he's completely taking an argument of mine out of context so I really don't care.


And how was stolen through means such as the S&L scandal and the Enron type scandals taken out of context? You suggested money was 'stolen', you gave Enron as an example. I addressed your statement.

Originally posted by Malachi151


Let's see, good points have been made,

Yes, good points have been made; its just that none have actually been made by you.

Originally posted by Malachi151

Talk about poor quality discussion.


"Poor quality discussion" is taking commonly understood terms (like "Self Made Millionaire" and "Socialism") and making up your own definitions for them to support your points. "Poor quality discussion" is making claims that can't be supported (such as claiming that the poor will pay more in taxes than the rich, which I proved was not the case in another thread.)

Originally posted by Malachi151

Bush is tightening the rules because of political pressure, and much of it is just for show and doesn't actually do much.
Do you have proof that that is the reason for Bush's actions? (Its much more reasonable that he would take those actions in order to instill more confidence in the economy, rather than assume there is some 'conspiricy' involved.)

Originally posted by Malachi151

The bulk of these problems came into being under Reagan, who greatly revised all of these rules, and other problems have simply been around for a long tie and have never been addressed. That doesn't take any blame off of the people who did it though.


Why didn't Clinton do anything about it? He had 8 years to act.

Originally posted by Malachi151

Besides, that's not even the point of this thread, bringing that up was just the typical way that people who can't prove their point try to sidetrack issues. I was not comparing criminal activity, both my points and DMs focus squarely on legal activity Sad to see how easily and willingly people are deceived :(

Still, you made the statement linking Enron, stealing, and wealth. You were asked to descibe how the rich "stole" from the system (with no hint of the criminal element), and you brought up Enron.

[Ed]

Unfortunately, this entire thread seems to be a position in search of an argument.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151

LOL, obviously you have learned nothing from this thread :)



Right back at ya, Malachi151... ;)

[Ed]

I'd sorta like a definition of "rich".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed
I'd sorta like a definition of "rich".

Anyone who has more money than Malachi151 thinks they should have...