First, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Sure, a lot of wealthy people are born into wealth, but that usually speaks to the successes of their ancestors.
Second, not all rich people are necrssarily bad or selfish, even billionaires. A lot of people don't understand that many wealthy people (e.g. CEO's) spent years and years working ridiculously long hours, sacrificing personal relationships and leisure activities to spur their careers. Most of the time, profits are reinvested back into the pursuit of career growth and development, whether that means additional schooling or perhaps helping a business to grow. If a surgeon can save lives that no one else can, he deserves the ~$300k/yr. he gets. If a CEO creates a business that provides jobs to hundreds of people so they can provide for themselves and their families, he deserves to keep millions.
A lot of people who complain about the rich could very well pursue employment in high-paying fields. If you enter into a low-paying field (like I did while pursuing employment in the social services industry) then you should know what you're getting yourself into. If you want more money, get out your thinking cap and come up with a plan to make it happen.
I agree that successful people deserve to be rich. But the problem is inequality gap gets too big then entire economy suffers because the 1% cant do all the consumption. You want a big middle class to do most of the consumption Yeah, but unfortunately that's more of a political/policy issue. I'm sure rich CEO's wouldn't mind a large, affluent middle class if it means that people will be buying more of their goods and services. That's right its a policy issue rather than banking issue. There are few theories to why this happen. 1. Tax policy. Capital gains is capped at 15% and ordinary income is progressive. 2. Deregulation from the 80's led to CEO compensation to take the form of stock options. lt follows that most of their income is taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary income 3. Globalization forced companies to reduce salaries or outsource jobs. This multiplied the effect of inequality gap But there is a finance component to it as well because when asset prices outpace inflation the asset holders have more to gain. This also contributes to greater inequality gap |
|
|
|
My logic is laid bare and flawless. Instead of hiding behind sophistry PICK APART THE LOGIC, WHERE DOES IT NOT HOLD TRUE?
And this is called deductive reasoning and this is exactly what science is. Science is the description of nature with deductively valid rules. This is physics, this is what I do.
All you demonstrated is formal fallacyYour deduction: If it rains the street is wet? Is the street wet? Therefore it rained |
|
|
|
to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc. I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution. So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force. That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons. Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks). Regulations don't have to come from govt. industries can self regulate. But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive. Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock? I like to see this. I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out. Fish stock levels a problem? Yes. Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes. Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes. Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes. So government is the cause of fish stock problems. Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes. Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes. Government is a tragedy of the commons problem. Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes. Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes. Remove the government. Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes. Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes. Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes. Remove the common, land is now private. Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes. Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes. Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels. Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes. Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes. All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes. Fishing stock problem solved? Yes. Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism. On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations. Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive. On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem' Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid. Sorry science doesnt work like that. Need empirical data to create hypothesis. And your logic is sketchy. Land ownership? Fish live in the ocean By definition govts dont need profit because they can fund themselves. Thats the difference between public vs private |
|
|
|
to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc. I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution. So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force. That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons. Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks). Regulations don't have to come from govt. industries can self regulate. But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive. Can you cite the study that suggests Canadian govt regulations responsible for decline in fish stock? I'd like to see this. |
|
|
|
First, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Sure, a lot of wealthy people are born into wealth, but that usually speaks to the successes of their ancestors.
Second, not all rich people are necrssarily bad or selfish, even billionaires. A lot of people don't understand that many wealthy people (e.g. CEO's) spent years and years working ridiculously long hours, sacrificing personal relationships and leisure activities to spur their careers. Most of the time, profits are reinvested back into the pursuit of career growth and development, whether that means additional schooling or perhaps helping a business to grow. If a surgeon can save lives that no one else can, he deserves the ~$300k/yr. he gets. If a CEO creates a business that provides jobs to hundreds of people so they can provide for themselves and their families, he deserves to keep millions.
A lot of people who complain about the rich could very well pursue employment in high-paying fields. If you enter into a low-paying field (like I did while pursuing employment in the social services industry) then you should know what you're getting yourself into. If you want more money, get out your thinking cap and come up with a plan to make it happen.
I agree that successful people deserve to be rich. But the problem is inequality gap gets too big then entire economy suffers because the 1% cant do all the consumption. You want a big middle class to do most of the consumption |
|
|
|
The fed has used printed money to buy home mortgages and treasuries.
What has Barack Obama done to lower housing prices for the poor?
The reality is the printed money is used to expand government and bailout deadbeat debtors and homeowners. The work poor savers get the shaft.
Yellen is a puppet of government.
Its not the Central Banks or Obamas job to supress housing prices. Central Banks job is to keep liquidity in the market when there is a credit crunch |
|
|
|
to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc. I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution. So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force. That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore |
|
|
|
It does not suffer, just like gold never suffered for being a good money and lose its value. Bitcoin will be used mainly as a high powered money, as a store of value, it has international payment function, not like gold
Yeah, it will be gold but with the benefits of a worldwide digital currency, I dont think we'll see people paying buritos with BTC unless it gets an insane amount of adoption, almost defeating FIAT. Gold became money because kings forced people to use it as money. Unless we are forced to use bitcoin dont think itll be anything like gold This is common myth, the usage of people came first, not authority. King acted as a buyer of gold, which made it more precious, but he used that because people were using that. The concept of "legal tender" is relatively new. (in france 1870) Do you have citation for this? From the book Debt: The First 5000 Years. The author Davud Graeber suggests that early economies were gift economies. Then credit. Then coinage Gold and precious metal coins came from imperial expansion. Rome taxed its citizens w gold coins. They paid the armies w these gold coins so they can buy food and supplies during their campaigns Gold was originally collected by the elites as ornament but wasnt used as money until coinage |
|
|
|
|
Day trading is really hard and it takes a long time to get good. The problem is that people dont have enough money when they start so they never reach that point of experience before blowing there account
|
|
|
|
It does not suffer, just like gold never suffered for being a good money and lose its value. Bitcoin will be used mainly as a high powered money, as a store of value, it has international payment function, not like gold
Yeah, it will be gold but with the benefits of a worldwide digital currency, I dont think we'll see people paying buritos with BTC unless it gets an insane amount of adoption, almost defeating FIAT. Gold became money because kings forced people to use it as money. Unless we are forced to use bitcoin dont think itll be anything like gold |
|
|
|
Actual production cost of one single bicoin is aroundt $530-$550. Any price below $500 is a steal. Buy now or regret years later. With difficulty ever increasing miners are getting screwed now cause anyone mining now is running at a loss.
Exactly. I don't think the day trading speculators have any clue what the cost of production is (they seem to consider lines on a chart and various other less important factors first). I think your logic is the wrong way round.
If something costs more to produce than its worth doesnt mean its a good idea to buy the product, just thats it a bad idea to produce it. Most of the people here never had a business so they don't get it The miners are already operating on razor thin margins if COGS is $550 and they are willing to sell for $600. If price drops to $500 then the liability of their inventory will become unbearable at some point. They would be insolvent & have no choice but to stop mining |
|
|
|
Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.
Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy. What? USSR collapsed |
|
|
|
Indeed my initial count was the better count. The target was hit but it looks like a iii of C of 2 right now.  The triangle that I posted yesterday turned out to be the B wave of the 2 instead of the iv of 1.  This C of 2 could have one more wave to it, possibly breaking 500 (with an actual target around $498.45), but it should find some fairly strong resistance around $500. Invalidation of this short term wave 2 is at $514.98. The over-all picture is still quite Bearish at the moment. We are in one of those situations again, where a Bullish count would require many extensions higher to even consider a Bullish impulse. This rise still appears to be corrective to the larger downtrend. Man you are pretty good at analysis. Do you trade anything aside from BTC? |
|
|
|
Can you specifically name at least one or two of those countries?
india most of africa most of latin america inb4 but they arent really following true capitalism,the ron paul types are as bad as trotsky supporter India isnt poor its a BRIC. You might be thinking of Bangladesh or Pakistan |
|
|
|
Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?
Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it. To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required. In pure capitalism, the rewards tend to concentrate in the hands of a few. A touch of socialism (i.e. progressive income tax, estate tax, and social programs, as presently exist in most Western nations) redistributes the wealth enough to allow everyone a chance. All Western nations use economies that are a mixture of capitalism (free private enterprise) and socialism (government taxes and programs), therefore we are largely on the right track. Most economic political debates focus on where on the spectrum a society should be, with usually the furthest left and furthest right positions still remarkably close together on the spectrum. Best answer so far |
|
|
|
|
Fiat money is created ex nihilo but it isnt free. The Fed buys Treasuries to get money into circulation. USD is backed by liabilities of the Treasury. The Treasury pays off debts by collecting taxes. So USD is backed by future economic output of USA. Thats why USD should be more stable than a currency backed by computers solving puzzles
The currency itself is just a medium of exchange. Value lies in the goods & services
|
|
|
|
I never said 30 USD shouldn't be considered poverty... but on some regions can actually do the basic living with it.
I said poverty is relative and has a broad meaning. I see way too many people, outside the 3rd World mostly, complaint about poverty when the last thing a normal person would call them is "poor". Sort of "I can't buy a iPhone 6 so I'm poor" kind of mindset.
Strawman about iphones The official poverty line is those who earn less than $1.25 a day. . regardless if people can get by on this they are considered poor And no, most prices dont adapt only cost of labor. If products are foreign the prices are same |
|
|
|
You like to assume a lot...
Prices of food, water and housing are adapted to each reality. A Toyota and Samsung are needless piles of junk we somehow are lured into value. Believing that a Toyota and a Samsung is needed and assuming I'm white makes you the caricature you are talking about.
And for the notice I'd been and lived on really poor countries... to see people that somehow were happy without a Toyota and a Samsung... and happier than many people I know with a Toyota or other brand and a Samsung or even iPhone.
The point is prices dont adjust because of locality especially when producers are foreign I didn't say people are happier if they own a phone or a car. Im saying things like personal transportation and telephony can be a prerequisite to starting business. Because the huge gap of cost between these things and the local wages these people have no choice but to sell their labor for cheap because barrier to entry is too high to start a business. Youre idea that $30 per month shouldnt be considered poverty if the median income is nonsense and ignores economic realties. |
|
|
|
30 dollars a month a lot? how can you survive?
Prices are usually adapted to the different realities... Not when economies are globally connected. A Toyota car or a Samsung phone costs about the same regardless of the market. Let me see how much you require a Toyota or a Samsung to survive... hmmm... ... Got it! 0.00% But like I said early, "poverty" has a very wide meaning. Id like to see you live on $30 a month even in the poorest country and tell us if its fine because prices adapt. Seems like you've never been to poor country before You are the worst caricature of the privileged white male |
|
|
|
30 dollars a month a lot? how can you survive?
Prices are usually adapted to the different realities... Not when economies are globally connected. A Toyota car or a Samsung phone costs about the same regardless of the market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
