NationStates Jolt Archive

'It is untrue that some are poor because others are rich'
ludwig von mises
i think this is probably a good discussion point.... thought?
(yes we understand that without poor or rich we wouldnt have those words relativism blah blah, take the quote in its intended spirit and run with it)

'It is untrue that some are poor because others are rich'
ludwig von mises
i think this is probably a good discussion point.... thought?
(yes we understand that without poor or rich we wouldnt have those words relativism blah blah, take the quote in its intended spirit and run with it)
The only people that believe the converse are the same ones that think wealth is finite. And that somehow, when the opportunity bus showed up, only the rich were allowed to get on. The truth is that wealth in infinite. One just has to be ready to make the right decisions.


Now, let's hear all about how poor people just don't have any chance because they're poor.

'It is untrue that some are poor because others are rich'
ludwig von mises
i think this is probably a good discussion point.... thought?
(yes we understand that without poor or rich we wouldnt have those words relativism blah blah, take the quote in its intended spirit and run with it)

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this. Bill Gates, being a multi-billionaire doesn't make me poor. I can afford food, shelter basics of life plus some luxuries. Have a look at the current edition of the Economist, for example. There they profile a 'poor' person and a 'rich' person. The poor person lives in the Appalachians in the US - OK, he lives in a caravan, but he owns a car, can feed and clothe himself can support a family etc. Contrast that to the rich person. He's a surgeon in Africa - Zimbabwe, I think. He gets bugger all in the way of money, he gets constantly robbed, he ain't got much cash and wonders how he and his family will get by from month to month. In all, I'd rather be a poor person in the US than a rich person in Zimbabwe. And the key difference? The govt in Zimbabwe screwed the economy. And it's as simple as that.

The only people that believe the converse are the same ones that think wealth is finite. And that somehow, when the opportunity bus showed up, only the rich were allowed to get on. The truth is that wealth in infinite. One just has to be ready to make the right decisions.


Now, let's hear all about how poor people just don't have any chance because they're poor.
:)....i dont always expect such a welcoming response for things theyve tried to tar and feather me for.... what can i say

Wealth is finite.
Therefore that there are rich people it logically follows that there are poor people. As we move forward in history the standard of living of the poor has increased exponentioally, but the standard of living of the rich has increased by a greater exponent (you know what I mean).

Bill gates havign 36 billion or whatever he has means that the poor people do not have it... his owning means their not owning....

That there are rich people means that there are poor people, however as it stands now those rich people invest etc leading to advancment and the betterment of the poor people.....

In all, I'd rather be a poor person in the US than a rich person in Zimbabwe. And the key difference? The govt in Zimbabwe screwed the economy. And it's as simple as that.

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy
eeerrrmmmm.....ill agree the colinialism, intervensonism screwed/screw their economy.....but they continue to screw it, when they really do have achoice in the matter

OP confuses cause and effect with the question who to blame. It's logically true that some are poor because others are rich. The question is, can you blame the rich for the existence of poverty? But I'm afraid the real intent here is to conjure up an elaborate apology for not giving a shit about worldwide poverty issues.

OP confuses cause and effect with the question who to blame. It's logically true that some are poor because others are rich. The question is, can you blame the rich for the existence of poverty? But I'm afraid the real intent here is to conjure up an elaborate apology for not giving a shit about worldwide poverty issues.
ill be entirely honest here, i dont care about worldwide poverty issues, and i have no need for apologizing because i do not see this as wrong. it is not my fault that they are poor, and i could find blame in all sorts of other things, the fact is, if these people really want a good standard of living in the long run, they will have no problem achieving it.

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy

I think it's more because zimbabwe has a tinpot dictator who is creating his own famines at the expense of his people.

Now, let's hear all about how poor people just don't have any chance because they're poor.
I could cite studies showing poor people have remarkably fewer oppurtunities than rich people, but if I wanted to have a pointless discussion with a wall, I have one 6 inches to my left.

:)....i dont always expect such a welcoming response for things theyve tried to tar and feather me for.... what can i say
When you post the correct hypothesis, you should get the right responses. I'm sure the communinsts will check in with their anti-wealth rhetoric soon enough.

ill be entirely honest here, i dont care about worldwide poverty issues, and i have no need for apologizing because i do not see this as wrong. it is not my fault that they are poor, and i could find blame in all sorts of other things, the fact is, if these people really want a good standard of living in the long run, they will have no problem achieving it.

You heartless animal!

Seriously, I couldn't care either. Africa used to be really prosporous, then they screwed things up.

Wealth is finite.
Therefore that there are rich people it logically follows that there are poor people. As we move forward in history the standard of living of the poor has increased exponentioally, but the standard of living of the rich has increased by a greater exponent (you know what I mean).

Bill gates havign 36 billion or whatever he has means that the poor people do not have it... his owning means their not owning....

That there are rich people means that there are poor people, however as it stands now those rich people invest etc leading to advancment and the betterment of the poor people.....
The depth of your lack of knowledge is frightening.

Try reading some basic economics texts. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html) would be a good starting point.

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy

Mugabe is a Colonial European and from the US? Since when?! :mad:

You heartless animal!

Seriously, I couldn't care either. Africa used to be really prosporous, then they screwed things up.

When was Africa really prosperous, in your eyes, and who's 'they'?

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just wanting to understand your thinking :)

I think there are probably some examples of cases in which one person (or group, or organization) is able to use their own wealth to block others from becoming wealthy. In that respect, some are poor because others are rich. However, I think this is more an issue of power than wealth itself; it is not the wealth itself that is holding down the poor, but rather the power being wielded by those with the wealth. In other words, the poor aren't poor simply because the rich are rich, but rather because there are some rich people who choose to USE their wealth in specific ways.

I could cite studies showing poor people have remarkably fewer oppurtunities than rich people, but if I wanted to have a pointless discussion with a wall, I have one 6 inches to my left.
i would love to see these studies first off, and them having 'less oppertunity' does not mean they are forced to stay poor. i dont sit around waiting for oppertunity to come up, i look for it, work for it

I think there are probably some examples of cases in which one person (or group, or organization) is able to use their own wealth to block others from becoming wealthy. In that respect, some are poor because others are rich. However, I think this is more an issue of power than wealth itself; it is not the wealth itself that is holding down the poor, but rather the power being wielded by those with the wealth. In other words, the poor aren't poor simply because the rich are rich, but rather because there are some rich people who choose to USE their wealth in specific ways.
actually, i can kind of agree to that...which is odd....

I could cite studies showing poor people have remarkably less oppurtunities than rich people, but if I wanted to have a pointless discussion with a wall, I have one 6 inches to my left.
There are only a couple things I see on this forum that are really important to me. The first is the sanctity of civil liberties. The second is how limitless opportunity is in the United States.

You can go ahead with studies that show how education is unequal, or whatever, but what it comes down to is attitude. If one continually makes choices that are going keep them poor, they will stay poor. If one doesn't want to stay poor, they need to get their first job. And from there, opportunity only expands. Now, not everyone is going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates. But no one has to live on the dole for their entire life, either.

actually, i can kind of agree to that...which is odd....
To use a creepy example:

Bill has $50,000 in the bank. This does not result in Max being shot in the head. However, Bill could (theoretically) take that $50,000 and pay somebody to shoot Max in the head. If Bill did this, Max would be dead because Bill had the $50,000 to pay the hitman, and if Bill had lacked the money to pay the hitman then Max would not have been killed in that manner, so in one sense you could say that Max died because Bill had $50,000. However, that $50,000 wasn't shooting anybody while it was sitting in the bank, and Bill could just as easily use that $50,000 to save some orphans or puppies or something, so I don't think it is reasonable to say that Max is dead because Bill had money.

In the same sense, I know there are rich people who use their money to do awful things, but I don't think it's right to let them off the hook by blaming the MONEY for the choices made by the rich people. The money didn't fuck over poor people, those RICH PEOPLE decided to fuck over the poor people. In virtually every case, nasty rich people are jackasses who simply have a greater scope to their jackassery because they have enough money to indulge themselves...they'd most likely still be jackasses even if they were totally broke.

in countries like the united states we do well BECAUSE of rich people. how would i have the cool things i have if someone didnt get rich out of inventing and manufacturing them?

in countries without rich people who do the inventing and manufacturing, they dont have cool stuff. of course im thinking of the former soviet union where they were all "equal" and they all had crap.

done right, the possibility of getting rich off of your own ingenuity and hard work makes us all richer.

there are places where the entrenched rich and powerful keep the poor in their place. im not expert on mexico, but mexicans arent poor because they dont work hard. they work long hard hours but dont get paid well. the way the government and society of mexico is set up keeps ambitious mexicans from bettering their situations.

i think its this way in alot of poor countries. its not that people dont work hard; its that their hard work doesnt get them anywhere. the rich and powerful of their countries arent doing what needs to be done to facilitate the poor bettering themselves. or, as in the case of china, getting out of the way so that the poor can do it all on their own.

I think there are probably some examples of cases in which one person (or group, or organization) is able to use their own wealth to block others from becoming wealthy. In that respect, some are poor because others are rich. However, I think this is more an issue of power than wealth itself; it is not the wealth itself that is holding down the poor, but rather the power being wielded by those with the wealth. In other words, the poor aren't poor simply because the rich are rich, but rather because there are some rich people who choose to USE their wealth in specific ways.
thats what i think too. i think that in some places the rich are afraid that if the poor do well it comes out of their pockets.

if bill gates were to lose his $36billion i would not have an extra $144. if he never had his $36B i might have ended up way more than $144 poorer. ($144 being about my share of his money if it were divided up evenly to everyone in the US)

That statement only holds true if the entire workforce is automated and the human population spend all day smoking cigars, drinking scotch, and playing golf.

There will always be a relative poor segment of the population under (our current model of) capitalism. Somebody needs to clean the toilet, so to speak. I fail to see how anything would turn a profit if everyone received a "wealthy" wage. Because some people have money and business enterprises, others won't - how else are the people with money supposed to find a workforce? It's pretty obvious that a storm would be kicked up if corporations had to pay third-world workers on a comparable level to those in the first-world...

(And I would say that wealth under some circumstances is finite...mine all of the coal, and try to operate a steel industry. Etc. Sure, you can find an alternative, assuming you have the resources to do that...)

You can go ahead with studies that show how education is unequal, or whatever, but what it comes down to is attitude. If one continually makes choices that are going keep them poor, they will stay poor. If one doesn't want to stay poor, they need to get their first job. And from there, opportunity only expands. Now, not everyone is going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates. But no one has to live on the dole for their entire life, either.

I'm not agreeing with your assertion that 'attitude, in of itself, is the most important determinant in life chances and financial success'. But let's pretend, for a moment, that you're right, and attitude is the most important determinant.

Where do you think attitude comes from?

It's not based on genetics; if it were, regression-to-the-mean would kick in, and you'd have the 'financial-success-attitude' distributed evenly throughout the socio-economic strata at any one time; so, you'd see huge levels of social mobility!

But we don't see this, so genetics can, at best, only be a _part_ of the story. Suddenly, we're looking at the environment, experience, and socialisation for an answer to the question: 'why do people have different attitudes?'

And if we're saying that the environment, experience, and socialisation effects how your attitude is formed, then we're also, in effect, in your theory, saying that environment, experience, and socialisation affect why you're rich, or why you're poor. As an individual, I have very little control over my upbringing, the society into which I'm born, or who my parents are and how they raise me, and yet it is these factors, encountered early in life, that will shape, limit, and define the bounds of my future attitudes and, in your theory, how well I'll do financially...

Ergo, according to your simple 'attitudes' theory, bearing in mind where attitudes come from, it wouldn't be anyone's fault they were poor, but rather a result of their upbringing!

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy

Please provide evidence for this statement.

Bill gates havign 36 billion or whatever he has means that the poor people do not have it... his owning means their not owning....
Actually, wealth is infinite, or rather we have not reached near the limit which amounts to nearly the same thing. And if you want to get technical about it we should say that energy is infinite, since in the end wealth is an expression of energy. Before Bill Gates performed his mojo, for all intents and purposes his 36 billion didn't exist. The question is not if wealth is infinite, but how much wealth is accessable to humanity. That is currently finite. There has been some sci-fi written that looks at what would happen if that were not the case, but somehow I seriously doubt you read those authors.

You can go ahead with studies that show how education is unequal, or whatever, but what it comes down to is attitude.

Er, why do so many people 'choose' to be poor, then?

The only people that believe the converse are the same ones that think wealth is finite. And that somehow, when the opportunity bus showed up, only the rich were allowed to get on. The truth is that wealth in infinite. One just has to be ready to make the right decisions.

Wealth is not infinite in our western economic system since we have property rights and limited resources.
Example: If I were to own all the land of the world, you could not own land. If I buy up all the oil on this planet, there is no oil for you. Etc.

There will always be a relative poor segment of the population under (our current model of) capitalism. Somebody needs to clean the toilet, so to speak.

This is true - there will always be a 'relative' poor segment.

Firstly - this was anticipated for by the originator of the thread and we probably shouldn't go down this debate in this thread

Secondly - (and 'cos I'm an opinionated egotist who can't resist) relative is important. I would rather be the poor hillbilly in the appalachians than the 'wealthy' surgeon in Zimbabwe. I'd rather be poor and taking my chances cleaning up urine and feces in the leafy parts of England rather than be rich and hide behind expensive security gates in the chaos that is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I think for 'poor' and 'rich' we should adopt absolute rather than relative terms. Poor, in my mind, is someone who can't provide for him or herself the basics of life - security, food, water, shelter and some basic freedom from life's worries. 'Rich' is someone to who this does not apply.

Merely being 'rich' does not cause the oppression of the poor / prevent the poor from becoming rich. That happens because the powerful (who happen to be members of the rich) oppress the poor. Now it is my belief that a liberal capitalist system, with its opportunities for voluntary exchange, offers the best hope for the poor to become rich.

Any serious socialist recognizes that the wealth gap is only one part of the issue. There is also the authoritarianism of capitalism, the dangers to the environment, the way it dumbs things down, and so on. It is technically true that being rich doesn't make others poor, but the mechanisms that generate and maintain a class-based society have other effects besides making a few people rich.

If being poor was caused by other people being rich, would it also be true that some are skinny because others are fat? So in other words, Michael Moore causes starvation?

Any serious socialist recognizes that the wealth gap is only one part of the issue. There is also the authoritarianism of capitalism, the dangers to the environment, the way it dumbs things down

WHAT?! I nearly fell off my chair when I read this! (hmmm really need to lay off the whisky).

Authoritarianism of capitalism?
Howabout the authoritarianism of socialism? Socialist societies suffer from an information problem. In a capitalist society, everyone buys and sells according to market prices freely set. You don't need to know what is happening or what will happen, you just look at the price. So, no information problem. But, in a Communist society the state controls what happens and there are no prices. So the State has a choice - predict and provide or command and control. Under predict and provide, I as a Central Planner need to think - what does someone want for breakfast three weeks from now on Thursday? I can't possibly know or predict that - there's not enough computing power in the Universe to predict that. So I have to move to the command and control model. So you WILL HAVE EGGS for breakfast. JYou sir, will become a chicken farmer. Mr X you will become an egg collector and so on and so on. I believe this was the big problem that faced the 'socialist' UK Labour Govt in the 1960s. They teetered on the edge of introducing a 'Law of Occupations' that would have given a job and occupation to everybody ... whether they wanted it or not.

Socialism is inherently totalist.

Any serious socialist recognizes that the wealth gap is only one part of the issue ... the dangers to the environment


Still falling off my chair ...

Most of the very worst pollution took place in the Socialist world - no property rights you see.

If being poor was caused by other people being rich, would it also be true that some are skinny because others are fat? So in other words, Michael Moore causes starvation?
just another reason to hate that bastard!


yeah its real similar to the day you realize that not eating your oatmeal has no effect on the starving children in china. our surplus of food is not causing starvation in asia. they need to grow their own food in order to not starve.

That statement only holds true if the entire workforce is automated and the human population spend all day smoking cigars, drinking scotch, and playing golf.

There will always be a relative poor segment of the population under (our current model of) capitalism. Somebody needs to clean the toilet, so to speak. I fail to see how anything would turn a profit if everyone received a "wealthy" wage. Because some people have money and business enterprises, others won't - how else are the people with money supposed to find a workforce? It's pretty obvious that a storm would be kicked up if corporations had to pay third-world workers on a comparable level to those in the first-world...

(And I would say that wealth under some circumstances is finite...mine all of the coal, and try to operate a steel industry. Etc. Sure, you can find an alternative, assuming you have the resources to do that...)

Here is the fallacy that a lot of you use. No one 'receives' a wage. They earn it because they do something that is valued by others. There are always going to be people with less ambition. Those are going to be the ones that do the low wage jobs that require very little initiative and very few skills. Because they choose to stay in those jobs speaks more to their ambition than to their 'station' in life.

Here is the fallacy that a lot of you use. No one 'receives' a wage. They earn it because they do something that is valued by others. There are always going to be people with less ambition. Those are going to be the ones that do the low wage jobs that require very little initiative and very few skills. Because they choose to stay in those jobs speaks more to their ambition than to their 'station' in life.

Less ambition or capability. Even if you are willing to work your fingers to the bone to become a rocket scientist - if you lack the necessary talent it will not happen. The same is true for almost every job: not everyone can do it. This is not their own fault.

Elgesh']
Ergo, according to your simple 'attitudes' theory, bearing in mind where attitudes come from, it wouldn't be anyone's fault they were poor, but rather a result of their upbringing!
But it is that simple. If a person makes choices that keep them poor, then they stay poor. No education and no job skills is something we all are born with. All that gibberish about pre-determination aside, if one decides to take the first step and get education or to take an entry level job at McDonalds, they are on their way to not being poor anymore.

Wealth is not infinite in our western economic system since we have property rights and limited resources.
Example: If I were to own all the land of the world, you could not own land. If I buy up all the oil on this planet, there is no oil for you. Etc.
No, no, no. Let's continue using Microsoft as an example. Bill Gates created it out of intellectual ability. He didn't need land, he didn't need oil. Wealth isn't like a natural resource that will peak and expire. It is a wonderful thing that those with insight and ability can develop out of nothing.

Any serious socialist recognizes that the wealth gap is only one part of the issue. There is also the authoritarianism of capitalism, the dangers to the environment, the way it dumbs things down, and so on. It is technically true that being rich doesn't make others poor, but the mechanisms that generate and maintain a class-based society have other effects besides making a few people rich.

Correct.

Here is the fallacy that a lot of you use. No one 'receives' a wage. They earn it because they do something that is valued by others. There are always going to be people with less ambition. Those are going to be the ones that do the low wage jobs that require very little initiative and very few skills. Because they choose to stay in those jobs speaks more to their ambition than to their 'station' in life.


Less ambition or capability. Even if you are willing to work your fingers to the bone to become a rocket scientist - if you lack the necessary talent it will not happen. The same is true for almost every job: not everyone can do it. This is not their own fault.

That's right. I hardly think that your average textile worker in Tanzania has much of a chance in life to end up owning two cars, and a nice suburbian house with a swimming pool. Even if he emigrates to a first world country, it isn't likely to happen. Ambition isn't everything. It's a blind fallacy to say that the poor are only poor because they don't want to be rich.

The only people that believe the converse are the same ones that think wealth is finite. And that somehow, when the opportunity bus showed up, only the rich were allowed to get on. The truth is that wealth in infinite. One just has to be ready to make the right decisions.


Now, let's hear all about how poor people just don't have any chance because they're poor.

So if you lost a great deal of money from your investments because the "wealthy" executives falsified their earnings, it's your fault?

Er, why do so many people 'choose' to be poor, then?

Some, because of their upbringing.

For example, there is a poor black American culture, which teaches children that speaking proper english or answering mathematical problems correctly or performing well in school is just plain wrong, because it is emulating "the man", which would turn the proper speaking math genius honor student into an "oreo", which would result in shunning, beatings, etc.

My own daughter went through that, underperforming all through high school in order to remain popular. Now out of that environment, surrounded by peers who value achievement, she has learned physics, calculus, etc. And no longer has to hide her love of reading.

Unfortunately, those dubbed by the mass media as "black leaders" need dumb sheep to follow them, in order to keep their highly paid positions as spokespersons, and promote the culture of being poor, ignorant conspiracy-theorists. When someone prominent, such as Bill Cosby, speaks out against it, he is vilified by those "leaders" for speaking the truth.

So yes, some do choose to continue in behaviors that will keep them poor, to avoid becoming "like the man".

I even once worked with another black man who refused to learn how to use his work PC, because that would have caused him to "think like the man!":rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Really just a shame...:(

Less ambition or capability. Even if you are willing to work your fingers to the bone to become a rocket scientist - if you lack the necessary talent it will not happen.
True.


The same is true for almost every job: not everyone can do it. This is not their own fault.
Less true. I would say that the majority of jobs held by human beings are jobs that most people COULD do, if they wanted to do so. Even extremely specialized jobs COULD be mastered by most anybody, provided they were prepared to put in the time and energy required.

Less ambition or capability. Even if you are willing to work your fingers to the bone to become a rocket scientist - if you lack the necessary talent it will not happen. The same is true for almost every job: not everyone can do it. This is not their own fault.
We're drifting off track with all this drivel. No, not everyone can be a rocket scientist -- actually, I'm not sure why that couldn't be true, except for a lack in interest on their part.

What it comes down to is that someone has a desire to do something. Here it's rocket design. That interest must make a person do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. Learn calculus, learn physics, learn chemistry. Not everyone is that determined and some fall by the wayside.

When we talk about real wealth, not just success and self-sufficiency, a person has to have that same drive. Not everyone does. That doesn't mean that everyone can't.

Now, I have to produce some work in order to continue my chose path to wealth. I'll check back later and see how I've been slandered. :)

So if you lost a great deal of money from your investments because the "wealthy" executives falsified their earnings, it's your fault?
If you have had the choice of diversification and you ignored it, then absolutely. If you haven't had that choice, then sometimes bad things happen. It's time to start over.

But it is that simple. If a person makes choices that keep them poor, then they stay poor. No education and no job skills is something we all are born with. All that gibberish about pre-determination aside, if one decides to take the first step and get education or to take an entry level job at McDonalds, they are on their way to not being poor anymore.

Mindful of not slandering you, I'll simply say that as your reply-post doesn't address anything I talked about, I'll assume you're not interested and leave off :) See you anon though :)

There will always be classes, despite rich or poor. In capitalism, the real class distinction is between employer (one who owns capital) and employee (one who works with capital owned by another). Financially based classes tend to shift a lot as the wages for various jobs depend on the demand, and quantity of workers. Socialism and Communism have the same thing where government = employer and everybody else = employee. Not that the government employs everybody, but they own the capital.

More on topic: The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The rich are a necessary part of the capitalist system because someone has to fund investment, and the guy with $5 to his name sure isn't going to do it. It's a kind of symbiotic relationship between the two as the rich need people to work with their capital, and the working class needs jobs. In turn, the rich need someone to buy the stuff they're producing, and the workers need the wages to buy the stuff they need.

On the limit of wealth mentioned earlier: Any limit of wealth will be defined only by the limit of productivity growth. So long as productivitiy continues to grow, wealth is infinite because we will be able to do ever increasing amounts of things with the same amount of resouces. Productivity is the closest thing to something for nothing you will ever see in capitalism.

Poor staying poor: I think we can all admit that capitalism is not entirely equal oppurtunity. People will rise and fall based on their own merit to a degree, but it's not a free flowing system. Some who work hard all their life will eek out a mediocre existance, and some who do nothing will live in government housing and buy Cadillacs with their welfare cheques. The education gap IS a problem, but it's mostly at the public, not the university, level. The school system leads to inherant gaps as each district brings in revenues from the area it gets its students from. This very easily leads to rich people getting better schools, not because of a fault in capitalism, but because the government allows it. Public education in America is becoming somewhat of a joke, if education was improved, it would help mitigate some of the gaping financial class distinctions.

We're drifting off track with all this drivel.

Calling something drivel when you do not have a decent counterargument really does not strenghten your position.

No, not everyone can be a rocket scientist -- actually, I'm not sure why that couldn't be true, except for a lack in interest on their part.

Reason 1: because some people simply do not have the mental capacity. The statement "I want to be able to do that, therefor I can if I just make enough effort" simply is not true in general outside fairytaleland. To give another example: the asthmatic cripple will not become the Olympic marathon winner, no matter how hard he tries.

Reason 2: because people may never been given the chance to discover what they are good at. If you need to work fulltime on daddies farm to feed the family you will not be able to learn the necessary skills to move up. You may in fact never even know those skills *exist*.

Succes is a combination of motivation, talent, opportunity and luck. One of them is seldomn enough (though winning the lottery helps).

More accuratly the governments of colonial europeans and the US have screwed zimbabwae's economy

Then explain why Rhodesia was a prosperous country, but Zimbabwe is a basket case.

I don't see how wealth is infinite. Raw materials - finite. Labour - finite. Capital - finite. So how the hell is wealth infinite?

Reason 1: because some people simply do not have the mental capacity. The statement "I want to be able to do that, therefor I can if I just make enough effort" simply is not true in general outside fairytaleland. To give another example: the asthmatic cripple will not become the Olympic marathon winner, no matter how hard he tries.

But that's not really what is being discussed, is it? I mean, sure there are a very few jobs that require such specialized gifts that only a select few can pursue those lines of work, but I thought this discussion was about over-all economic success. If we set aside the mentally/physically handicapped (since they are special cases in this discussion), we are left with a vast majority of human beings who are--at least innately--capable of pursuing a huge range of avenues.

Maybe the asthmatic cripple can't be an Olympic marathon winner, but so what? She could cure cancer, or design the world's tallest sky scraper, or even just be a decent accountant who makes a comfortable living. We all have various individual limitations, but that doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion because we have such a range of choices.


Reason 2: because people may never been given the chance to discover what they are good at. If you need to work fulltime on daddies farm to feed the family you will not be able to learn the necessary skills to move up. You may in fact never even know those skills *exist*.
I think THIS is the real issue.


Succes is a combination of motivation, talent, opportunity and luck. One of them is seldomn enough (though winning the lottery helps).
I can agree with that.

My understanding of the original topic was that it sort of focused more on the blame aspect of failure, however. In other words, if a person "fails" (i.e. becomes poor or fails to escape poverty), is it the "fault" of those who have succeeded? Or, to what extent does the success of one person decrease another person's chances of acquiring the "ingredients" for their own success?

'It is untrue that some are poor because others are rich'
ludwig von mises
i think this is probably a good discussion point.... thought?
(yes we understand that without poor or rich we wouldnt have those words relativism blah blah, take the quote in its intended spirit and run with it)

obviously and trivially untrue. firstly because poor and rich are always terms of comparison, either within or between societies. but secondly because at any particular instant there is a finite amount of wealth available to be distributed in any fashion, and the inevitable distribution of wealth under capitalism (or any other class-based system) is extremely skewed towards a tiny elite. quite literally, the rich are rich because the poor are poor.

There will always be classes, despite rich or poor. In capitalism, the real class distinction is between employer (one who owns capital) and employee (one who works with capital owned by another).
What about those who are self-employed? (I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm honestly curious about the classification)

obviously and trivially untrue. firstly because poor and rich are always terms of comparison, either within or between societies. but secondly because at any particular instant there is a finite amount of wealth available to be distributed in any fashion, and the inevitable distribution of wealth under capitalism (or any other class-based system) is extremely skewed towards a tiny elite. quite literally, the rich are rich because the poor are poor.
no just no

if the rich did not create wealth, it would not exist. they are not stealing it out of the pockets of the poor, they are making it from "nothing" (intellectual property) or from natrual resources. their creation of "wealth" means there is more to be spread around. this benefits everyone. the rich more than the poor, certainly, but the poor still benefit.

to use the former soviet union as an example... if no one creates wealth, there is none to be had and everyone is poor. (except for the privileged elite who are only rich in comparison to the poor who surround them)

My 2 cents:

Yes, someone poor could conceivably move up in status to being wealthy through herculean efforts.

However, someone who already starts out wealthy doesn't need to put in anywhere NEAR as much effort to stay wealthy.

Compare:

Middle-upper class kid. By the time he's old enough to actually think about "where am I going in life? What should I do?" (probably in his teens) he's already on track to perpetuating his lifestyle - he's probably enrolled in a good public school or maybe even a private school, probably is on track to go to a decent college and then go on to some job. Not necessarily to be Bill Gates, but to have a job that will maintain his middle-class status.

Poor kid. By the time he's in his teens, he's barely gotten any education to speak of - probably going to a crappy school, or even worse has been in a culture where learning wasn't encouraged. (Or do you expect children to pick BOOKS over HAVING FRIENDS?) In a year or two he has to get a job already to earn money. Probably either going to a local two-year community college or not going to college at all. Couldn't get into a four-year university if he tried - doesn't know enough.

Now, of course it's *possible* for him to get out through exceptional dedication - spend years both working a job AND studying on his own. Assuming he knows what to study. Assuming that he can get access to the resources he needs. And so on.

...whereas, the middle class kid has both the direction he needs and the resources he needs and the head start he needs provided to him.

You used Bill Gates as an example. Well, he's not a particularly good example of mobility... his parents had the money to enroll him in a prestigious prep school. One that had enough resources to give him access to advanced computing facilities so that he could learn. You can bet that nobody in a poor family would ever have anywhere NEAR the amount of opportunity that Gates had.

no just no

if the rich did not create wealth, it would not exist. they are not stealing it out of the pockets of the poor, they are making it from "nothing" (intellectual property) or from natrual resources.

that's just silly. you've mistaken ownership of wealth for creation of wealth.

that's just silly. you've mistaken ownership of wealth for creation of wealth.
no i dont believe i am.

most rich people work for their money. they certainly dont steal it (enron not withstanding)

there are idle rich but those people drop money like crazy. where would all the yacht builders be without the idle rich??

I don't see how wealth is infinite. Raw materials - finite. Labour - finite. Capital - finite. So how the hell is wealth infinite?
Raw materials are finite, but we have not utilized them all. Capital is finite only in the sense of human ingenuity being finite.

I think you've fundamentally understood a key point here in economics. The bourgeosie own capital (the means of production, eg. factories) and raw materials but cannot run those factories themselves, and so require labour. The proletariat (workers) sell their labour to the bourgeoisie by choosing to work for them (although I use the word "choose" loosely). It is them who actually create wealth, but using the capital of their bosses.

Now, the way the bourgeoisie creates profit/surplus value is as follows. Adam Smith came up with the concept of "use value" and "exchange value".

For example:

Gold does not have a wide range of uses (it is sometimes used in electronics, etc. because it is unreactive). However, it is scarce, which means that it is useful as a form of currency, and so has high exchange value.

Water is the opposite. Live could not exist without it (it has massive use value) but it is so common, it has an almost non-existent exchange value. Have you ever tried to buy anything with a bucket of water?

Marx applied use and exchange value to labour, whereas Smith only applied it to commodities. The use value of labour is the amount working adds to the product's value (eg. raw gold might cost $300 per ounce, but a one-ounce necklace may cost $500. The use value of the labour used to make the necklace is therefore $200, IIRC). However, the exchange value is the wage a worker is paid, and this is almost always less than the use value because unemployment allows employers to make their workers compete for lower wages. The profit a boss makes is the difference between the use and exchange value minus overheads, etc.

So, the rich do not actually create wealth, they merely own the means to create wealth. I know these principles are old, but they are basic enough to apply to economics today.

So if you lost a great deal of money from your investments because the "wealthy" executives falsified their earnings, it's your fault?
The whole enron thing wouldn't have occurred without corruption and unneeded regulations on the gevernment side of the equation.

no i dont believe i am.

most rich people work for their money. they certainly dont steal it (enron not withstanding)

for certain vales of "work" and "steal", i guess.

under capitalism, almost nobody gets rich by working. you get rich by charging others to work for you. capitalism holds that the owner of capital is entitled to own the products created by people using capital goods on materials - privileging capital ownership over work, and causing the capitalists to become immensely wealthy by giving them the surplus or residual value of the labor. if, on the other hand, we privileged work over capital by having workers own the products and the owners of capital get paid the equivalent of a wage for the use of their capital, then we could maybe talk about rich people working for their money. as it stands now, the rich are just diversified feudal lords.

Raw materials are finite, but we have not utilized them all. Capital is finite only in the sense of human ingenuity being finite.

But capital must be manufactured itself, from finite raw materials. And even if you did have infinite capital, you would need infinite land to supply it, because you can't make something from nothing.

People are not poor because others are rich; wealth creation comes from the production of goods from raw materials, providing services, or from creating intellectual property.

People are not poor because others are rich; wealth creation comes from the production of goods from raw materials, providing services, or from creating intellectual property.

Actually it does happen. Martin Marrieta went into a town and setup shop. They made a healthy profit and then abandoned the town. The peoples standard of living did take a drastic drop as there wasn't an avenue to replace the job losses.

Note: this was a few years back. Don't know what they are doing these days. But the point is. Martin made a nice profit and then people became poorer when they bailed.

But capital must be manufactured itself, from finite raw materials. And even if you did have infinite capital, you would need infinite land to supply it, because you can't make something from nothing.

Not necessarily; there are forms of capital that do not exist as physical property. Capital is generally defined as goods that are either devoted to the production of other goods or ones that generate income, and so intellectual property and technological innovation would fall under non-physical capital since they are used to produce either other goods or generate wealth in themselves.

Also, human skill and work quality fall under non-physical capital in the sense that they are attributes that can be cultivated without input of raw materials.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this. Bill Gates, being a multi-billionaire doesn't make me poor. I can afford food, shelter basics of life plus some luxuries. Have a look at the current edition of the Economist, for example. There they profile a 'poor' person and a 'rich' person. The poor person lives in the Appalachians in the US - OK, he lives in a caravan, but he owns a car, can feed and clothe himself can support a family etc. Contrast that to the rich person. He's a surgeon in Africa - Zimbabwe, I think. He gets bugger all in the way of money, he gets constantly robbed, he ain't got much cash and wonders how he and his family will get by from month to month. In all, I'd rather be a poor person in the US than a rich person in Zimbabwe. And the key difference? The govt in Zimbabwe screwed the economy. And it's as simple as that.
"Rich" and "Poor" are utterly relative:

http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/p01s02-usec.htm
from the December 30, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/p01s02-usec.html
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Better living ... as measured by PCs, VCRs

In case there was any doubt, a study has confirmed that Americans have a lot of what economists know, technically, as stuff.

The computer has surpassed the dishwasher as a standard household appliance. The poorest Americans have posted a sharp rise in access to air conditioning. The richest Americans still own the most cars, but they are choosing to own slightly fewer of them than they used to.

These census findings, released earlier this month, were true even before gifts piled up under trees this past week.

These nuggets provide a glimpse of American lifestyles that isn't captured in the raw data of monthly economic reports. At a time of concern about the standard of living for future generations, the study offers hopeful signs of tangible progress, even as the pace of income growth has slowed in recent years.

It's only one piece of the overall picture of economic progress and doesn't resolve the question about future generations. But it confirms that what the Census Bureau calls "material well-being" abounds for regular folks today in ways that Louis XIV - for all his palaces, silk stockings, and ruffled finery - could barely have imagined.

True, most of us don't have an entourage of fawning servants, and while US homes have expanded in square footage they hardly rival Versailles. But modern appliances, in many ways, are robotic servants who sometimes break down but have yet to stage an organized revolt.

Wealth remains highly stratified. For example, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans had 2.4 cars per "consumer unit" (essentially a household or an individual living on his or her own) in 2002, the most recent year in the Census study. That's down slightly from 1992, when they had 2.5 cars per household. The bottom 10 percent of the income ladder averaged just 0.6 cars per household in 2002, the same as 1992.

Still, by almost all measures, the data show rising well-being for all of society. And while the wealth gap may not be narrowing, the rich-poor gap in lifestyles has narrowed substantially since 1992 when measured in many of these tangible items.

"In terms of the items people have ... it amazes me the number of people who are at or near the poverty line that have color TVs, cable, washer, dryer, microwave," says Michael Cosgrove, an economist at the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas. That's not to ignore the hardships of poverty, he adds, "but the conveniences they have are in fact pretty good."

http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/csmimg/p1d.gif

The study doesn't explore the happiness factor - whether the growing material prosperity is actually making people feel more satisfied with their lives. While economists tend to focus on things that can be measured in dollars and cents, the spiritual side of the economy has begun to garner more attention. That's partly because some research has found that once people gain a modest sufficiency in goods, further increases in income don't result in rising happiness.

Census researchers don't have a happiness index, but they are exploring aspects of well-being that go beyond physical goods. For example, nearly 13 percent of Americans have incomes that place them below the official poverty line. But what does that mean in terms of their daily lives? The fact that 95 percent of them may have a refrigerator tells only part of the story.

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people's perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92 percent of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86 percent said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89 percent had no roof leaks, and 87 percent said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

While some improvement was found in all those measures over that period, shortfalls obviously remain. But in many goods, the progress is significant for poor and rich alike.

Two-thirds of those in poverty had air conditioners in 1998, up from 50 percent in 1992. Personal computers have grown increasingly ubiquitous. Where fewer than 20 percent of homes had them in 1992, nearly 60 percent did in 2002 (more than own dishwashers).

That doesn't mean all have equal access to PC-enabled economic empowerment.

"What good is a computer without Internet access?" asks Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future. In this networked age, he's only exaggerating a bit.

While high-speed Internet access is spreading, the potential rise of free wireless networks in cities could help many low-income Americans, he says.

Even with the rise interactive tools like computers and media players - alas, Apple iPods aren't included in the Census survey yet - the preferred appliance of couch potatoes is also spreading. There are now 2.1 TV sets per household, up from 1.6 in 1992.

The Census report doesn't measure environmental factors. The US routinely consumes more resources per capita than most other nations.

http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/csmimg/p1c.gif

Reading between the lines... The single greatest cause of "Poverty" in the US is buying too much crap when you really can't afford it. (true for every "poor" person I've met...) :headbang:

Actually it does happen. Martin Marrieta went into a town and setup shop. They made a healthy profit and then abandoned the town. The peoples standard of living did take a drastic drop as there wasn't an avenue to replace the job losses.

That's an aspect of capitalism that isn't normally taken in to account; human nature can often act irrationaly or without regard to the ramifications of an action. Although this is by no means a constant occurence, it is an important exception to the OP's statement.

Note: this was a few years back. Don't know what they are doing these days. But the point is. Martin made a nice profit and then people became poorer when they bailed.

They're gone; I think they were purchased or something.

I think it's more because zimbabwe has a tinpot dictator who is creating his own famines at the expense of his people.


Look Zimbabwae's economic problems go back way farther than mugabe, they started before zimy was even born (as a country)

for certain vales of "work" and "steal", i guess.

under capitalism, almost nobody gets rich by working. you get rich by charging others to work for you. capitalism holds that the owner of capital is entitled to own the products created by people using capital goods on materials - privileging capital ownership over work, and causing the capitalists to become immensely wealthy by giving them the surplus or residual value of the labor. if, on the other hand, we privileged work over capital by having workers own the products and the owners of capital get paid the equivalent of a wage for the use of their capital, then we could maybe talk about rich people working for their money. as it stands now, the rich are just diversified feudal lords.
well now im not sure just what bill gates is doing these days (i dont follow microsoft closely) but id be willing to wager that he puts more hours in than the janitor at MS headquarters.

rich people get rich through work. either theirs, their ancestors or their spouses. for the most part its their own hard work that gets them where they are.

well now im not sure just what bill gates is doing these days (i dont follow microsoft closely) but id be willing to wager that he puts more hours in than the janitor at MS headquarters.

rich people get rich through work. either theirs, their ancestors or their spouses. for the most part its their own hard work that gets them where they are.

I agree with everything except that :) Success breeds success, as it were; rich kids start life with huge advantages relative to their less fortunate contemporaries, so needn't work anything like as hard to maintain a lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

Poverty isn't punishment for laziness, and wealth isn't _always_ the reward of hard work.

Elgesh']Poverty isn't punishment for laziness, and wealth isn't _always_ the reward of hard work.
I've always liked the stories of the 95 year old school lunch lady with 14 cats and a condemned house and a beater car who dies and leaves a couple of million to the local Rotary Scholarship Fund (or whatever)

(Perpetual) poverty (outside of Appalacia) isn't punishment for laziness, it's punishment for living outside your means.

IMO Cable TV and/or Bling should automatically disqualify you for Aid.

I've always liked the stories of the 95 year old school lunch lady with 14 cats and a condemned house and a beater car who dies and leaves a couple of million to the local Rotary Scholarship Fund (or whatever)

(Perpetual) poverty (outside of Appalacia) isn't punishment for laziness, it's punishment for living outside your means.

IMO Cable TV and/or Bling should automatically disqualify you for Aid.

re underlined portion - true enough! :)

But I wonder... if you're poor, everyone you know is poor, your prospects seem hopeless, your kids a disappointment... Would you be so strong willed as to deny yourself just a little taste of a better life? A little luxery? Everyone else wants xyz, it's normal to them... can't I have a little of it?

It's easy to judge when the problem isn't yours.

Elgesh']I agree with everything except that :) Success breeds success, as it were; rich kids start life with huge advantages relative to their less fortunate contemporaries, so needn't work anything like as hard to maintain a lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

Poverty isn't punishment for laziness, and wealth isn't _always_ the reward of hard work.
youll get no argument from ME that its easier to get ahead when you start out in the lead. my only point was that rich people do work for the most part. even paris hilton works. she didnt earn all her money but her ...great grandfather?... did. he worked hard so that she doesnt have to work so hard.

youll get no argument from ME that its easier to get ahead when you start out in the lead. my only point was that rich people do work for the most part. even paris hilton works. she didnt earn all her money but her ...great grandfather?... did. he worked hard so that she doesnt have to work so hard.

No worries then! I was just trying to point out that 'most rich people work for their money' is a little misleading; in some ways - as you've pointed out - work was certainly done for the money, it was earned (in the 'deserved' sense of the word!), but not neccesarily by the rich person. So to an extent, a lot of rich people are in their position by virtue of birth, not hard work.

Not every rich person worked their way up from the street by their positive attitude and ard work, is what I'm delicately hinting at, even in the US!:p

Obviously those who are born into poverty have to work harder than those born into wealth have to work to attain the same achievements. It's not impossible, but there is a difference. Nobody can really deny that.

Seriously, I couldn't care either. Africa used to be really prosporous, then they screwed things up.
I was always taught that Christians were supposed to be compassionate. I'm not trying to use that to justify any government policies at all. I just find the attitude deplorable, and contrary to my understanding of the Christian religion in general. Or have I just been hanging around with too many bleeding-heart Catholics?

Elgesh']No worries then! I was just trying to point out that 'most rich people work for their money' is a little misleading; in some ways - as you've pointed out - work was certainly done for the money, it was earned (in the 'deserved' sense of the word!), but not neccesarily by the rich person. So to an extent, a lot of rich people are in their position by virtue of birth, not hard work.

Not every rich person worked their way up from the street by their positive attitude and ard work, is what I'm delicately hinting at, even in the US!:p
youre so diplomatic!

its very true. there are classes of rich people here who are of such old money and so exclusive with each other that they live in unnoticed splendor. unless you happen to live near one of those kinds of places like newport rhodeisland or northeast harbor maine.

those people tend to work at foundations dedicated to spending the family money on good causes.

the truly idle rich who do no work whatsoever piss their money away in a generation or 2. but they drop money on the working classes like crazy while they do it. so its all to the good in the end. their inherited money quickly gets redistributed to the hard working classed below them.

Elgesh']re underlined portion - true enough! :)

But I wonder... if you're poor, everyone you know is poor, your prospects seem hopeless, your kids a disappointment... Would you be so strong willed as to deny yourself just a little taste of a better life? A little luxery? Everyone else wants xyz, it's normal to them... can't I have a little of it?

It's easy to judge when the problem isn't yours.
Actually... I do not have Cable or Satellite TV. My car cost $1500 cash and gets 35mpg. I keep my thermostat at 60degF occupied and 55degF night/unoccupied (80degF summer) I haven't purchased a CD in years. My only "hobby" is NS (work or $4.95 dialup on a computer I was given in payment for some IT work) and a once-a-month trip to the range to shoot black-powder firearms. Most movies suck fresh dogshit so I don't go unless it's really good and I can see a (low price) matinee.

I make $20KUS/yr. After Housing, Transportation, Food and Student Debt, I have a grand total of $2000 left for frivolities like retirement and medical care. You think I am going to shell out nearly $600/yr for televised drek? No thanks. I'll go to the library and check out a Video if I want to waste an evening.

So I guess I don't know an awful lot about stretching a buck... :rolleyes:

Actually... I do not have Cable or Satellite TV. My car cost $1500 cash and gets 35mpg. I keep my thermostat at 60degF occupied and 55degF night/unoccupied (80degF summer) I haven't purchased a CD in years. My only "hobby" is NS (work or $4.95 dialup on a computer I was given in payment for some IT work) and a once-a-month trip to the range to shoot black-powder firearms. Most movies suck fresh dogshit so I don't go unless it's really good and I can see a (low price) matinee.

I make $20KUS/yr. After Housing, Transportation, Food and Student Debt, I have a grand total of $2000 left for frivolities like retirement and medical care. You think I am going to shell out nearly $600/yr for televised drek? No thanks. I'll go to the library and check out a Video if I want to waste an evening.

So I guess I don't know an awful lot about stretching a buck... :rolleyes:

No, I don't think you do.

$20 k a year, that's... what, roughly £12k? Heh.

Mate, people exist who are poorer than you. Deal with it, and lose the chip on your shoulder. I respect your thriftiness (and I'm a Scot, so that's high praise!), and admire your evident hard work. I simply say that not everyone can be like you. You remind me of a thin man who's lost 100lbs, preaching contempuously at overweight folk; sometimes, thriftiness and hard work will get you nowhere miserably. Who are you to tell someone they can't get nowhere but have the odd 'illicit' (literally or figuratively!:p) pleasure along the way?

well now im not sure just what bill gates is doing these days (i dont follow microsoft closely) but id be willing to wager that he puts more hours in than the janitor at MS headquarters.

doesn't matter. a tiny tiny miniscule percent of his yearly income (and his total wealth) comes from wages. the absolute vast overwhelming majority of his money comes from owning things. and while he would still be ridiculously well off with just the salary and bonuses he has his company pay him, that number, like all similar numbers paid to corporate bigwigs, is vastly inflated by the nature of corporate decision-making.

So I guess I don't know an awful lot about stretching a buck... :rolleyes:
If this doesn't prove that all leftists are wannabe freeloaders, I don't know what does.

youre so diplomatic!

its very true. there are classes of rich people here who are of such old money and so exclusive with each other that they live in unnoticed splendor. unless you happen to live near one of those kinds of places like newport rhodeisland or northeast harbor maine.

those people tend to work at foundations dedicated to spending the family money on good causes.

the truly idle rich who do no work whatsoever piss their money away in a generation or 2. but they drop money on the working classes like crazy while they do it. so its all to the good in the end. their inherited money quickly gets redistributed to the hard working classed below them.

Hah, cheers! :D

I don't think the class of 'family money' is as exclusive or proportionately small as you suggest, but that's certainly the broad idea I was going for, yeah.

doesn't matter. a tiny tiny miniscule percent of his yearly income (and his total wealth) comes from wages. the absolute vast overwhelming majority of his money comes from owning things. and while he would still be ridiculously well off with just the salary and bonuses he has his company pay him, that number, like all similar numbers paid to corporate bigwigs, is vastly inflated by the nature of corporate decision-making.
doesnt bother me a bit. without bill gates all those people making good wages at microsoft would be out of work. without bill gates and people like him making the computer world a reality, my life would be less.

if bill gates hadnt make his billions the people below him wouldnt have made their millions and hundreds of thousands. his hard work has improved the lives of millions. so he gets paid more than i do, i dont have a problem with it.

"equal" societies like the ussr and prereform china paid everyone the same but it sucked. without the innovation that we take for granted all they got was equal crap.

ill take my smaller slice of a bigger pie and come out with more in the end.

I think there are probably some examples of cases in which one person (or group, or organization) is able to use their own wealth to block others from becoming wealthy. In that respect, some are poor because others are rich. However, I think this is more an issue of power than wealth itself; it is not the wealth itself that is holding down the poor, but rather the power being wielded by those with the wealth. In other words, the poor aren't poor simply because the rich are rich, but rather because there are some rich people who choose to USE their wealth in specific ways.

We'll accept and agree right off the bat that some wealthy people consider other's wealth a threat. Now if we can accept that while posessing ill-intent they are rational (even a little) in this desire. Who is the threat? The poor? Well no. The middle class? Not if they have goods and or services that they sell or commodities that they trade. To gain wealth SOMEONE has to buy these things. How about the 'well off' (I mean physicians successsfull lawyers folks under an 8 figure or in the low end of 8 figure incomes) Not even in the same leauge as the board of directors for most large publicly traded corporations. And a large resevoir of disposable income.
So there is no motivation to make the midlle class or well-to-do poor rather the inverse motivation is there. So who would thosee with great wealth weild their power against? Most likely a smaller (though still well financed) competitor. Well hw can they usee their wealth against them? If the competitor is a threat to them then obviously they cannot threaten them in the market. I suppose they could hire assassins although I've yet to hear of such a case. But lets say they wish to stay within the law.
Well then the only way they can bring their wealth and influence to bear is to modify the law. To impose regulations upon the market through government influence that prefer their business over another. I know I know it sounds far-fetched I am sure. Got to opensecrets.org and look at the major contributors. You'll see as many anti-business crusaders as 'free-market' advocates getting big chacks from the same folks. Hedging bets? Look at the most regulated industries and you will see that they are also dominated by a few large corporations.

There will always be "poor" people in any society, whether it's the guys who make slavery look like a lazy lifestyle or if it's simply the guys with four solid gold mansions each instead of five, there will always be "poor" people. When Russia was the USSR, just about everyone not in power was poor. Heck, When Stalin was in power, the USSR was full of people starving in the streets. Don't blame the rich for there being poor people. Blame logic. Blame the fact that there will always be a poor class, no matter how rich the "poor" get.

Don't blame the fit for obesity. Don't blame the smart for mental retardation. Don't blame marathon runners for paralysis. Don't blame the non-blind for blindness. That's not how it works. I explained how it works. Here's how it works:
In every society, there is poor.
If there is a top class(in terms of money), that class is the rich.
If there is a top class, there usually is a middle class.
There won't always be a top class. There won't always be a middle class. There will always be a poor class. How well off that poor class is is how well off the society is.

well now im not sure just what bill gates is doing these days (i dont follow microsoft closely) but id be willing to wager that he puts more hours in than the janitor at MS headquarters.

rich people get rich through work. either theirs, their ancestors or their spouses. for the most part its their own hard work that gets them where they are.


I'm sorry I find this argument pretty poor. I'd certainly be willing to bet there are thousands of Microsoft employies working long hard stressful hours much worse than Bill gates. My parents a long while back had a builder (polish immigrant) come in and do some hard manual labour moving stuff about and sorting out some of the building that was not worth my dads time. He worked a long full day from the morning till night for along the lines of £80 much longer than I certainly could and certainly those executive managers on 500 times his wage.

"Hard work" as a reason to why people become millionaires doesn't seem right. J K rowling's made 100's of million from her Harry Potter books and I'm sure there are thousands of writers who work much harder than she'd ever done (although I in no way think she didn't work hard). Basically in capitalism making money comes down to; - What skill(s) you have to offer - How much that skill is valued at the time you can offer them - Are you lucky enough not to be exploited and use the skills you have.

Hard work only plays a small role in giving you certain skills you can improve thus make more money. David Beckham certainly put hard work into improving his football skills but if I put the exact same training as him into football I doubt I would make even a good semi proffessional team. And if it was the 18th century Beckhams football skill would be worthless no matter how much hard work he puts in.

No person deserves to be rich because of their "hard work" they just have a skill that happens to be of value in todays society/economy, if they went to uni or whatever to further develop this skill makes only minimal difference.

Actually... I do not have Cable or Satellite TV. My car cost $1500 cash and gets 35mpg. I keep my thermostat at 60degF occupied and 55degF night/unoccupied (80degF summer) I haven't purchased a CD in years. My only "hobby" is NS (work or $4.95 dialup on a computer I was given in payment for some IT work) and a once-a-month trip to the range to shoot black-powder firearms. Most movies suck fresh dogshit so I don't go unless it's really good and I can see a (low price) matinee.

I make $20KUS/yr. After Housing, Transportation, Food and Student Debt, I have a grand total of $2000 left for frivolities like retirement and medical care. You think I am going to shell out nearly $600/yr for televised drek? No thanks. I'll go to the library and check out a Video if I want to waste an evening.

So I guess I don't know an awful lot about stretching a buck... :rolleyes:


In London you could make the same ammount as a good waiter with little education, in places around Africa I'm sure someone owning lots of farms and land considerd hugely rich makes less than half that.

Poor is just a relative term so in that extent rich only make poor people by defining what isn't rich. Britian has free education and lots of help to the poor looking to go to uni and other stuff. Just because someone else is a millionaire no way prevents you becoming one as well, luck and tellent is more of an obsicle than Bill Gates or "rich people hogging all the money ;) "

No person deserves to be rich because of their "hard work" they just have a skill that happens to be of value in todays society/economy, if they went to uni or whatever to further develop this skill makes only minimal difference.

Exactly; the key is your ability to work smarter (i.e. having an in demand skill or knowledge), not harder. The key to wealth is the value your work generates, not how hard it is. Hard work is meaningless unless you generate value with it.

This is also why productivity is so important to living standards.

wealth isn't finite, but it's not infinite either. it's just contantly growing, mainly thanks to, who do you know, rich poeple.

increasing welath helps everyone, not just rich people

No person deserves to be rich because of their "hard work" they just have a skill that happens to be of value in todays society/economy, if they went to uni or whatever to further develop this skill makes only minimal difference.
my point was that rich people dont get rich if they DONT work hard. not that hard work guarantees riches. all you have to do is look around to see that.

bill gates had the right idea and the right work ethic at the right time. i have no problem with him and all of those internet/computer guys who got rich from their own labor and good ideas.

my point was that rich people dont get rich if they DONT work hard. not that hard work guarantees riches. all you have to do is look around to see that.

bill gates had the right idea and the right work ethic at the right time. i have no problem with him and all of those internet/computer guys who got rich from their own labor and good ideas.

Yeah a lot of hard work playing the lottery, must be tough. And on a more representative point certainly in America if you just know a few of the right people you can have a very easy life. I still consider a day working in the mines or physical labour much harder work than some office clerk reading some papers day in and day out.

Most of us on this site love politics and go out of our way to discuss this stuff in our free time, how about having a job where you discuss stuff you really like and you make really good money. Is that hard work?

Yeah a lot of hard work playing the lottery, must be tough. And on a more representative point certainly in America if you just know a few of the right people you can have a very easy life. I still consider a day working in the mines or physical labour much harder work than some office clerk reading some papers day in and day out.

Most of us on this site love politics and go out of our way to discuss this stuff in our free time, how about having a job where you discuss stuff you really like and you make really good money. Is that hard work?
i dont think i understand your point. your bitter because manual pays less than managerial work?

and does this have something to do with the rich getting rich off the poor?

Yeah a lot of hard work playing the lottery, must be tough. And on a more representative point certainly in America if you just know a few of the right people you can have a very easy life. I still consider a day working in the mines or physical labour much harder work than some office clerk reading some papers day in and day out.

Most of us on this site love politics and go out of our way to discuss this stuff in our free time, how about having a job where you discuss stuff you really like and you make really good money. Is that hard work?

Umm actually I dread office work that's why I work in construction. But anyway in the office or in the feild you're not going to get rich without putting in some heavy hours. And by rich I mean rich not well off which throws out all of the lotteries too. But if you're going to consider lottery money rich even then you're talking about a lot of work or school or both. Or winninng the lottery. Which given the odds means that there's both an epidemic of people getting rich because they were 'just lucky'. There's also an epidemic of people dying by being struck by lightning.

i dont think i understand your point. your bitter because manual pays less than managerial work?


Umm depends really. On bid work I make better than most of my freinds. I do construction and allmost all of them do computers.....

Don't blame the rich for there being poor people. Blame logic. Blame the fact that there will always be a poor class, no matter how rich the "poor" get.

except for the fact that we know it is possible for there to be societies that lack classes, rich or poor. and we know that in societies with classes, those that run them are the rich, and they run them for their own benefit. and we know that it was the would-be rich that formed the class-based societies in the first place. in a completely literal sense, the rich are entirely responsible for the existence of the poor.

i dont think i understand your point. your bitter because manual pays less than managerial work?

and does this have something to do with the rich getting rich off the poor?

Not really, just a driftoff from your origonal mention that hard work was the key to becoming rich. I'm not bitter I support capitalism! but not on the basis of the "America dream" make yourself rich by yourself defence you put out.

Umm actually I dread office work that's why I work in construction. But anyway in the office or in the feild you're not going to get rich without putting in some heavy hours. And by rich I mean rich not well off which throws out all of the lotteries too. But if you're going to consider lottery money rich even then you're talking about a lot of work or school or both. Or winninng the lottery. Which given the odds means that there's both an epidemic of people getting rich because they were 'just lucky'. There's also an epidemic of people dying by being struck by lightning.

Every single person in the world is rich because they are "just lucky". If your just born with some tallent that with hard work can make you successful (I would guess you have a natural ability for construction work over particular skills with numbers ect..). Others get to know important people quickly and suck up to the right people, my main point was MUCH to emphasis is given to hard work in this thread however much off the point my posts might have been I still felt worthwhile to just add it.

except for the fact that we know it is possible for there to be societies that lack classes, rich or poor. and we know that in societies with classes, those that run them are the rich, and they run them for their own benefit. and we know that it was the would-be rich that formed the class-based societies in the first place. in a completely literal sense, the rich are entirely responsible for the existence of the poor.

There hasn't been a classless society since before the rise of civilization, so sucha society would be impossible without the dismantling of the existing social model and regression to a primitive technological level that minimizes the need for a system of valuation. A lot of people would also have to die to return us to equilibrium.

except for the fact that we know it is possible for there to be societies that lack classes, rich or poor. and we know that in societies with classes, those that run them are the rich, and they run them for their own benefit. and we know that it was the would-be rich that formed the class-based societies in the first place. in a completely literal sense, the rich are entirely responsible for the existence of the poor.

We do? Where when? I know what I have seen and what has occured in history. The only thing we KNOW is that everytime someone offers such a society we end up with a totalitarian state.

There hasn't been a classless society since before the rise of civilization, so sucha society would be impossible without the dismantling of the existing social model and regression to a primitive technological level that minimizes the need for a system of valuation. A lot of people would also have to die to return us to equilibrium.


What about the Amish? :p

Not really, just a driftoff from your origonal mention that hard work was the key to becoming rich. I'm not bitter I support capitalism! but not on the basis of the "America dream" make yourself rich by yourself defence you put out.



Every single person in the world is rich because they are "just lucky". If your just born with some tallent that with hard work can make you successful (I would guess you have a natural ability for construction work over particular skills with numbers ect..). Others get to know important people quickly and suck up to the right people, my main point was MUCH to emphasis is given to hard work in this thread however much off the point my posts might have been I still felt worthwhile to just add it.

Actually I'm good with numbers. I dropped engineering school because building thing is more fun than living in a Dilbert cartoon. Now I've worked for a few people that were'nt as talented as I am (in either area) but were a hell of a lot more interested in making money and so they WORKED VERY HARD AT IT. More effort than I am motivated to make. Einstein was born smarter than practically the rest of the planet but he was'nt interested in being wealthy and so he did'nt become wealthy.

What about the Amish? :p

Oligarchy. And to a degree Meritocracy the more succesfull Amish have more stuff. They gave up autos not cash...

We do? Where when? I know what I have seen and what has occured in history. The only thing we KNOW is that everytime someone offers such a society we end up with a totalitarian state.

Well, actually, I think he's refering to some of the more out of the way cultures, like the Amazon indians, papua new guinea tribes, kalahari bushmen etc etc.

What was the name of the social theorist who wrote that it is impossible to 'see through' (in the sense of percieving its true limitations and inequalities) your society's ideology because it is the thing you 'see through' (inthe sense of a pair of glasses/a window!)? I'm minded of this every time I read someone saying that a classless society = a totalitarian state :)

What about the Amish? :p

Hell, even the Amish shop at Wal Mart...:confused:

Anyways, there's only 150,000 of them distributed over twenty states, so that's probably not going to go over well with the 280 million other people who live here.:p

Not really, just a driftoff from your origonal mention that hard work was the key to becoming rich. I'm not bitter I support capitalism! but not on the basis of the "America dream" make yourself rich by yourself defence you put out.

Every single person in the world is rich because they are "just lucky". If your just born with some tallent that with hard work can make you successful (I would guess you have a natural ability for construction work over particular skills with numbers ect..). Others get to know important people quickly and suck up to the right people, my main point was MUCH to emphasis is given to hard work in this thread however much off the point my posts might have been I still felt worthwhile to just add it.
how bout if we take the "hard" out of it and just say that rich people get rich (and stay rich) by working at it. no comparison of desk work with manual labor.

lottery winners arent all that common and for the most part they immediately piss the money away thus redistributing their unearned wealth.

im not really concerned about how much rich people work. i just know that our system has given us common folk incredible innovations that make our lives better. most people in the west live a nice comfortable life filled with cool things. what more could i want?

Elgesh']Well, actually, I think he's refering to some of the more out of the way cultures, like the Amazon indians, papua new guinea tribes, kalahari bushmen etc etc.

What was the name of the social theorist who wrote that it is impossible to 'see through' (in the sense of percieving its true limitations and inequalities) your society's ideology because it is the thing you 'see through' (inthe sense of a pair of glasses/a window!)? I'm minded of this every time I read someone saying that a classless society = a totalitarian state :)

Right once again I think that if you scratch the surface you'll find an oligarchy (tribe elders anyone?) or a pettite nobility or even a 'benign dictatorship'. Let us say that no society capable of giving you a computer on which to speak your enlightened opinion is classless. I invite all advocates of a classless society to wander into the nearest rainforest with a pointy stick and live an egalitarian life. I'll buy planbe tickets. We'll take up a collection.
Oh and on your social theorist I suppose that YOU have 'seen through' and now wish to share your great wisdom?!?!?

Oh and on your social theorist I suppose that YOU have 'seen through' and now wish to share your great wisdom?!?!?
No need to be childish! Of course I haven't 'seen through' it, it's impossible - that was my (and his:p) whole point! All you can do is to _acknowledge_ that you see things a certain way, and bear in mind that, when thinking of/discussing other types of societies, sometimes you'll get things arse over tit due to your own blind prejudices.

Elgesh']No need to be childish! Of course I haven't 'seen through' it, it's impossible - that was my (and his:p) whole point! All you can do is to _acknowledge_ that you see things a certain way, and bear in mind that, when thinking of/discussing other types of societies, sometimes you'll get things arse over tit due to your own blind prejudices.

I'll keep that in mind just in case it ever happens. Actually I already try to do that. Most of my opinions are based on things that I got 'ass over tit' in the past....

Elgesh']Mindful of not slandering you, I'll simply say that as your reply-post doesn't address anything I talked about, I'll assume you're not interested and leave off :) See you anon though :)
Okay, I didn't do a good job with your argument and you deserve a little better. I was working on a little project yesterday that gave me a few breaks to post here, but when it finally finished, gave me quite a bit data to reduce. Unfortunately, my reply to you was toward the end of the test run, and I was a little distracted. So let me recap.

You argued that the conditions under which one is raised will set their attitudes about ambition, earning, wealth, etc. Therefore there is no social mobility and people that are born poor are likely to stay poor.

When I started thinking about this, I decided you're right. Poor children are raised poorly. They have lousy examples of the adults that they should become. In fact, census figures allow us to put numbers to how badly they have been raised. In the U.S., the number of unmarried black women in poverty has doubled since 1960 and the illegitimacy rate has more than tripled.

The number of black men not looking for work has also tripled in the same period. During the late nineties, when employers were beating the bushes for workers, that number was around 30 percent. So the problem isn't a lack of work, it's the lack of ambition to go get the work.

The census numbers for poor whites are similar, but not quite as dramatic. I'm sure the reasoning behind that would be another interesting discussion.

You're right, the U.S. government has sufficiently rewarded non-earners to the point where they perpetuate themselves through their children. There are large segments of mostly urban dwellers that just won't get up off the couch and work, because they don't have to. What to do? Give them a kick in the butt and make them go to work. But that, too, is another discussion.

Now, I still claim that anyone _with_ ambition can successfully pull themselves out of poverty. Just look at many of the Indian, Asian, and Mexican immigrants, to name a few, that come to the U.S., work like hell, and become more successful than they ever could have in their native countries. The key to success is being willing to work and if you want real wealth, being willing to risk a little.

In fact, there's a poster on this forum from Somalia that tells a very similar story of moving to a lousy neighborhood in Toronto. Then his family worked like hell to get out. Now they live in a decent and safe middle class neighborhood. It would be interesting for him to weigh in on the attitude issues.

Just look at many of the Indian, Asian, and Mexican immigrants, to name a few, that come to the U.S., work like hell, and become more successful than they ever could have in their native countries. The key to success is being willing to work and if you want real wealth, being willing to risk a little.
Not everyone is trained as or able to be a high class engineer, mathmetician, or scientist. Indians run our CS department and Asians are all over our Science department. Though I don't know what exactly Mexicans do.

And I assume you two were talking about black Americans, but if you wern't, your statement about them is practically irrelevant and probably racist. Which I wouldn't put past you.

of course youre right, myr. it IS possible to overcome a terrible start. people do it all the time. they stay in school, graduate highschool, go on to a bit of training or college or join the military and they have escaped.

but those who dont "escape" are not necessarily lazy. most arent. most kids born in bad circumstances can look around them and see that there is a way better life out there for them if they find a way to get it.

kids who are taught their whole lives that they are stupid or inferior tend to believe it. kids without good role models dont know the right steps to take to keep out of trouble. kids who live in neighborhoods where the richest people are the gang leaders, drug dealers, pimps, and big time welfare cheats get a skewed notion of how to succeed. kids raised by drug or alcohol addicted parents look for love and security.

even graduating top of your class in an inferior highschool can doom you. smart kids who were valedictorian of their class go to a good college and flunk out because they are utterly unprepared for what a good school is like and are surrounded by kids who went to excellent highschools. the former val has the equivalent of a C or D education at one of those schools. (not because they are less smart but because their school sucked)

for kids from the worst families and the worst neighborhoods getting out of poverty is like walking a maze with a blindfold. ooops fell into the pit of getting pregnant...oops fell into the pit of drug addiction...oops fell into the pit of getting arrested... oops fell into the pit of thinking that basketball is going to save me....oops fell into the pit of thinking ill be a gansta rapper...

one bad decision one day and they can make it almost impossible to succeed. things that kids from good families and good neighborhoods can get past, they cant. sure its "all their own fault" but its not from being lazy or not wanting better. its from being young and not knowing better.

Not everyone is trained as or able to be a high class engineer, mathmetician, or scientist. Indians run our CS department and Asians are all over our Science department. Though I don't know what exactly Mexicans do.

And I assume you two were talking about black Americans, but if you wern't, your statement about them is practically irrelevant and probably racist. Which I wouldn't put past you.
Oh you with little experience outside the classroom. The world doesn't revolve around the university. Have you never been to a convenience store, or a motel, or a dry cleaners? Maybe not, but there is a joke that is very funny in India and not so funny as true, here. The joke is that 'motel' is just a misspelling of the name 'Patel'. The fact is that the vast majority of motels and convenience stores are owned by families of Indian descent.

And Mexican or Latin American immigrants are likely to be swabbing your floors. The point is that they see the opportunity to get out of poverty and are willing to take it.

Speaking of Mexicans and technology, a great friend and customer of ours died before Christmas. He immigrated from Mexico with his family when he was very young. They settled in El Paso. He supported the through high school and college. Eventually, he became a leading engineer for the Army at the White Sands Missile Range. This is interesting because most people don't associate Mexicans with technical areas, but Mo hired quite a few Hispanic engineers and they are really quality folks.

of course youre right, myr. it IS possible to overcome a terrible start. people do it all the time. they stay in school, graduate highschool, go on to a bit of training or college or join the military and they have escaped.

but those who dont "escape" are not necessarily lazy. most arent. most kids born in bad circumstances can look around them and see that there is a way better life out there for them if they find a way to get it.

I guess I didn't do a good job in my presentation. I agree. The United States government has all but codified that there will always be a dependent class in our nation. Not a poor class, mind you, because there will always be a lowest 20 percent of all wage earners, but a _dependent_ class. And that's the real crime. We have a whole generation, or two now, that have known nothing but that the first of the month means that the government assistance check is coming. That's a shame.

Elgesh']No, I don't think you do.

$20 k a year, that's... what, roughly £12k? Heh.

Mate, people exist who are poorer than you. Deal with it, and lose the chip on your shoulder.
Oh I know there are people who make less than I my townhome is situated directly between two "Low Income" housing projects where the residents are subsidised and pay significantly less than Market for their flats... that said, there are an awful lot of "Bling" (Chav) autos, sattelite dishes, big screen TVs, monster stereos, cable, etc that I have to put up with as the wanna-be gang-bangets skulk through my back yard sneaking from one project to the other.

(Also, my "chip" comes from being essentially forced to pay $36,000 at 8% (to the tune of over $5,000/yr) for a Uni degree I have yet to see a benefit from.)
I respect your thriftiness (and I'm a Scot, so that's high praise!), and admire your evident hard work. I'm a Buchanan (maternal) so it comes naturally :p I'm married and my spouse is chronically ill, so that $20K isn't worth quite as much as all that anyway, but the above still applies.
I simply say that not everyone can be like you. You remind me of a thin man who's lost 100lbs, preaching contempuously at overweight folk; sometimes, thriftiness and hard work will get you nowhere miserably. True, but less often than spending yourself into obscene debt while still taking money from the Government... Who are you to tell someone they can't get nowhere but have the odd 'illicit' (literally or figuratively!:p) pleasure along the way?Nothing wrong with the "odd" pleasure, but I can hardly call monthly Telly fees, "Rent To Own" scams and the like "odd".