Why we give respect to Rich and no-respect to poor?

[the joint]

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

Since the rich make most of their money from investments, when the gap gets to be too large, profits will suffer, and investments will follow, and as a result the gap will decrease.

Maybe it's just late, but, referring to the bolded snippet, why do you think this is the case?

If I'm following your train of thought, you're saying implying that the profits of the rich will decrease when increasing wealth disparity forces the middle class to spend less.   If this is true, then sure, fewer profits mean that there may be less 'new' money for the rich to spend on 'new' investments...

...but this is because the middle class has less money, too.   How does the gap change significantly if both classes lose purchasing power?  Moreover, over time, the investments of the rich are more likely to appreciate in value, particularly hard assets like real estate.

[Nicolas Dorier]

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

Since the rich make most of their money from investments, when the gap gets to be too large, profits will suffer, and investments will follow, and as a result the gap will decrease.

Maybe it's just late, but, referring to the bolded snippet, why do you think this is the case?

If I'm following your train of thought, you're saying implying that the profits of the rich will decrease when increasing wealth disparity forces the middle class to spend less.   If this is true, then sure, fewer profits mean that there may be less 'new' money for the rich to spend on 'new' investments...

...but this is because the middle class has less money, too.   How does the gap change significantly if both classes lose purchasing power?  Moreover, over time, the investments of the rich are more likely to appreciate in value, particularly hard assets like real estate.

How can it appreciate in value when no one is left for buying it ?
Especially in real estate, the crisis should have taught people that an house does not automatically increase in value.
And equities will not be protected from government created bubble. (QE)
The rich does not make money by doing nothing, if he does nothing he will be outsmarted and be the victim of its inferiors.

[johnyj]

The rich does not make money by doing nothing, if he does nothing he will be outsmarted and be the victim of its inferiors.

They might be doing something that the poor never can do, because their different position in society, especially their large capital

Take bank for example, they just earn interest difference between loan and saving, and get more loans from FED when necessary. This is a no-brainer job, you don't need a college degree to be a banker. But only those with large amount of capital can do it, and they already have long term relationship with FED and other large commercial banks

There are so many smart people out there, they are working hard and very poor, because they failed to see the big picture and truth from the right angle

[Nicolas Dorier]

The rich does not make money by doing nothing, if he does nothing he will be outsmarted and be the victim of its inferiors.

They might be doing something that the poor never can do, because their different position in society, especially their large capital

Take bank for example, they just earn interest difference between loan and saving, and get more loans from FED when necessary. This is a no-brainer job, you don't need a college degree to be a banker. But only those with large amount of capital can do it, and they already have long term relationship with FED and other large commercial banks

There are so many smart people out there, they are working hard and very poor, because they failed to see the big picture and truth from the right angle

Sure, as a libertarian, I do not endorse the current FED/banker system, I consider it like a fraud, and it is one of the reason why I am in Bitcoin.
But the crisis have made banks gone bankrupt (in Greece & USA, and I think more in the future), so they are not so invulnerable than that, despite the effort of the FED to make it otherwise by devaluating money.
This freaking system is artificially drawing smart people in finance, when they could create new business and job instead. (Remind me a book called "smart people should build things")

However, nowadays is the best period for the poor to become rich.
You don't need capital, only an internet connection.
Their is a skill shortage (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/employers-arent-just-whining-skills-gap-real), and you can learn everything on internet, especially in the computing industry.
This is the great thing of the knowledge economy, and would thus transfer wealth from stupid rich to smart poor even faster. This is what I mean by "being the victim of his inferiors".

[twiifm]

This freaking system is artificially drawing smart people in finance, when they could create new business and job instead. (Remind me a book called "smart people should build things")

You mean build stuff like a chat app that you can take nude selfies that self destruct?  People follow the money.  I thought you were a "free market" proponent

[johnyj]

Sure, as a libertarian, I do not endorse the current FED/banker system, I consider it like a fraud, and it is one of the reason why I am in Bitcoin.
But the crisis have made banks gone bankrupt (in Greece & USA, and I think more in the future), so they are not so invulnerable than that, despite the effort of the FED to make it otherwise by devaluating money.
This freaking system is artificially drawing smart people in finance, when they could create new business and job instead. (Remind me a book called "smart people should build things")

However, nowadays is the best period for the poor to become rich.
You don't need capital, only an internet connection.
Their is a skill shortage (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/employers-arent-just-whining-skills-gap-real), and you can learn everything on internet, especially in the computing industry.
This is the great thing of the knowledge economy, and would thus transfer wealth from stupid rich to smart poor even faster. This is what I mean by "being the victim of his inferiors".

If you mean become rich in fiat money, then it is still the same old game where bankers positioned at the top. You can't earn money without bankers first release money at higher level. Even there is a skill shortage, without money that shortage will not translate into income

I just realized recently that money has never been generated by free market choice, it is always an imagination in people's mind and bankers/governments create money to fit this imagination: People think money is a measurement/unit of value, and the more you have the more things you can buy. Then as an authority they create this unit of value as money, give it a value and then people are satisfied. Since people need money to measure the amount of value, they seldom notice that the value of this unit itself is changing

[itsAj]

The rich does not make money by doing nothing, if he does nothing he will be outsmarted and be the victim of its inferiors.

They might be doing something that the poor never can do, because their different position in society, especially their large capital

Take bank for example, they just earn interest difference between loan and saving, and get more loans from FED when necessary. This is a no-brainer job, you don't need a college degree to be a banker. But only those with large amount of capital can do it, and they already have long term relationship with FED and other large commercial banks

There are so many smart people out there, they are working hard and very poor, because they failed to see the big picture and truth from the right angle

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

[twiifm]

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

Yep nobody understands how risky this is and thinks banks make free money on interest.  They make money by taking risk on lending.  If there is a default then they also lose their money.  Banks go insolvent all the time

[Nicolas Dorier]

This freaking system is artificially drawing smart people in finance, when they could create new business and job instead. (Remind me a book called "smart people should build things")

You mean build stuff like a chat app that you can take nude selfies that self destruct?  People follow the money.  I thought you were a "free market" proponent

Ahah you don't know how these apps take my nerves. As a developer, that lost so much time of my life to make great software, some of which failed, seeing such stupid app succeed make me crazy, I admit that.
But these app are not the software that drive the economy, only the one that make the biggest noise, because everybody can understand what they do.

But they are not all so evil, take Angry bird for example (that is not as much stupid as chat app), it created a whole industry of derivatives that are maybe bigger in term of sales than the game itself.
You can't deny that it has not created jobs.

If you mean become rich in fiat money, then it is still the same old game where bankers positioned at the top. You can't earn money without bankers first release money at higher level. Even there is a skill shortage, without money that shortage will not translate into income

I just realized recently that money has never been generated by free market choice, it is always an imagination in people's mind and bankers/governments create money to fit this imagination: People think money is a measurement/unit of value, and the more you have the more things you can buy. Then as an authority they create this unit of value as money, give it a value and then people are satisfied. Since people need money to measure the amount of value, they seldom notice that the value of this unit itself is changing

So you understand why more and more of my money is converting in BTC, regardless of the rate of the day and why I believe in its future.
The bankers and politicians have an edge that you can't beat no matter how much you work, as long as we use their money, which is not free market.

Nevertheless, the difference between poor and rich is not capital anymore but knowledge.
Central bankers, politicians and all parasites living on government subsidies are the exception, their edge is relations and privileged information, not knowledge.
Once their relations become irrelevant (either when they are dead, or the policital powers shift),  they will not keep their capital for long.
The rich does not stay rich forever and automatically, it takes deliberate fight to protect it, even for the politician and central banker.

The thought that one has just to give money to someone else hand and it grows automatically while you sleep, keeping the rich rich without effort, and gov has to step in to prevent that (giving even more power to the politician), is a dangerous myth.

[itsAj]

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

Yep nobody understands how risky this is and thinks banks make free money on interest.  They make money by taking risk on lending.  If there is a default then they also lose their money.  Banks go insolvent all the time

It is actually pretty uncommon for banks to go insolvent because they are generally good at measuring risks. I would say that they do no make money by taking risks on lending, they make money by taking good risks on lending.

[twiifm]

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

Yep nobody understands how risky this is and thinks banks make free money on interest.  They make money by taking risk on lending.  If there is a default then they also lose their money.  Banks go insolvent all the time

It is actually pretty uncommon for banks to go insolvent because they are generally good at measuring risks. I would say that they do no make money by taking risks on lending, they make money by taking good risks on lending.

It's really not that uncommon. 

[Get.BTC.Now]

money gets respect. You might not get an honest answer but yes, money gets respect.

[jjacob]

How do bankers determine if a particular loan is a good risk to take? They need to evaluate the borrower's income and repayment history and assets to see if the borrower is an appropriate risk. If they are then a loan will be given, if they are not a good risk then it will not. This is not an easy job to measure this kind of risk and it takes a lot of legwork.

Yep nobody understands how risky this is and thinks banks make free money on interest.  They make money by taking risk on lending.  If there is a default then they also lose their money.  Banks go insolvent all the time

It is actually pretty uncommon for banks to go insolvent because they are generally good at measuring risks. I would say that they do no make money by taking risks on lending, they make money by taking good risks on lending.

It's really not that uncommon. 

Merger of banks does not happen only because of insolvency.

[yrask]

"Money do the honest man". I've heard this sentence a long time ago, and I think that is a bit real.

Why you've afraid of a poor man which is in the street and ask you something? Why you admire a man that walk on a Ferrari?

That's why you give respect to a man that walk on a Ferrari, and not give respect to a poor man.

[Damnyo]

"Money do the honest man". I've heard this sentence a long time ago, and I think that is a bit real.

Why you've afraid of a poor man which is in the street and ask you something? Why you admire a man that walk on a Ferrari?

That's why you give respect to a man that walk on a Ferrari, and not give respect to a poor man.

Someone could steal a Ferrari and you would believe he is a "hard working man that bought a Ferrari". Seems pretty stupid to me.

[bassclef]

Because they think they deserve it. "Oh, he deserves to be poor, its their fault". This along with the hope of poor people to get rich, constitute the fundamental pillar to keep the capitalism scam going.

Because many times it's true. Having been on both sides of the fence, people with money either inherited it or worked hard for it. In the case of inheritance you can't do much about it, but you can be damn sure their parents/grandparents worked hard for it.

Working hard doesn't mean getting up early every morning and going to a 9-5 job that pays $4 an hour. It means understanding enough about the world around you and yourself to manipulate it into making it change for you. What are you good at? What are you lacking? Are people in your life successful, or do some relationships hold you back? Being around smart, successful people is inspiring. Being around laziness tends to inspire the same. Do you have an education? If not, why not? Information is free and it leads to understanding, and that can make you wealthy.

Life is hard and full of failure and pain. I was born with next to nothing, so were many of my successful friends. If you constantly complain about the rich, how "capitalism" is scam, and how their wealth should be distributed to you in some sort of socialist utopia, I have news for you. You will always be poor.

[SW725]

Money gets you respect. Its the reality. Too bad for people that dont have it.

[mllenios]

That is because respect nowadays is all about the cold hard cash

[DaveSaldana123]

No money = no respect
Money = yes respect
Gun = with respect
No Gun = no respect
No money for gun = come on!

That means, if you have no money, you get a gun.

[SueGiant]

Rich becomes the boss while the poor becomes his/her employee. You think the boss wants to be overtaken by his employee?