# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Are wealthy people unethical?

## furface

This is something that I think needs to be addressed.  My personal belief is that the way our current system is set up, being unethical gives you a tremendous advantage.  The problem is with the system, not that the things that should make you wealthy like productivity, ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc correlate with unethical behavior.  The problem is that those things will not generally make you wealthy in our society.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...73109.abstract




> Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

----------


## Travlyr

The system is unethical. Central bankers get their power from counterfeiting. It's a tad ridiculous that some "banker" should be worth $trillions while others strive to find shelter and decent quality food. He's not THAT hard of a worker! He doesn't benefit society THAT much more than a gardener! Sure, an honest system would have some inequity. The harder one works, the more persistent, the more intelligent will prosper more than the lazy people. But, if it is based on honest efforts, then the disparity of wealth would shrink to reasonable levels based on efforts of production and benefit to society.

----------


## Zippyjuan

There is no system which can create ethical people.  There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically. 



> He doesn't benefit society THAT much more than a gardener!


Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels. If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?

----------


## Roy L

> There is no system which can create ethical people.  There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically.


But people respond to incentives.  If they can make billions through crooked dealing without making a productive contribution, as under our current system, then that's what they will do.  If the only way to make money is through making a commensurate contribution to production, then at least the people who make a lot of money will have earned it.



> Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels. If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?


Nonsense.  I have no problem with how much CEOS are paid.  I have a problem with what they are paid FOR, which in the current system is usually crooked political and financial manipulations unrelated to any sort of productive contribution.  I have known people who made a lot of money BY THEIR PRODUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS, and people who have made much, much more money through manipulation and crooked dealing.  The former DESERVE to have a lot more money than other people.  The latter deserve to be in jail.

----------


## Travlyr

> There is no system which can create ethical people.


I agree. Some people behave in an ethical manner while others behave in unethical manners. That is one reason contract law, restitution, and justice are so important.

There are, however, ethical monetary systems and unethical monetary systems. When the special privilege of counterfeiting money is allowed by only a few elite in order to bless them with abundant wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, then that is an unethical monetary system. It is theft. That is what central banking is ... The Federal Reserve System ... and the like. Another term for it is "elastic" money.

Sound monetary policy is an ethical system of money. It starts with an individual's right to own a little piece of the world's pie ... a piece of land with rights to the minerals, water, and privacy against trespassers. Then if a landowner choses to work the land, build on that land, or mine the land, he/she can enjoy the fruits of his/her labor. Contract law protects individuals against thieves who steal from honest producers by seeking restitution for the theft. Sound monetary systems are ethical systems of money.




> There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically.


And that is what Dr. Ron Paul is referring to when he says that "_everybody who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable."_ Not all people are ethical, so a system of ethics is in order to settle disputes and establish justice. In other words, put an end to the unethical system of money ... End The Fed.




> Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels.


Not at all. If you read the "10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto" then you will discover that the intention of the socialists is to control society with a central bank, indoctrination systems of control, and force everybody to pay into the system for the greater good of society. As you can easily see, communism is what Americans have had to endure since 1913 ... and even before ... since 1861 when the socialistic parasites first invaded our republic with their irredeemable paper currency, wars for profit, and income tax. The fact is that they are closest to the money printing machine so they take money off the top in the form of insider privilege ... otherwise known as bailouts, etc. They take $billions for being elite and pay their janitors $thousands.




> If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?


No, not at all. If the janitor doesn't want to take the business risks that a CEO must take, then he'll have to be happy with janitor's wages as set by the marketplace. As a CEO of my company, since I possess some empathic traits, if I was earning 100,000 ounces of silver each year, then I could see my way to pay the janitor 30 pieces of silver per week. If that is not enough, then he has the right to ask for more, and I have the right to pay his demand, or let him go his way and hire a new janitor. Everybody is free to succeed if they so choose.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

Are poor people unethical? I mean it's the poor vote for socialist government so that they'd rob the middle-class & rich & give it to them! 

I think such rhetoric is only used by class-warfarists, who want to usurp power by using people's ignorance, jealousy & insecurity; there are ethical & unethical amongst poor as well as rich

----------


## furface

> Are poor people unethical? I mean it's the poor vote for socialist government so that they'd rob the middle-class & rich & give it to them! 
> 
> I think such rhetoric is only used by class-warfarists, who want to usurp power by using people's ignorance, jealousy & insecurity; there are ethical & unethical amongst poor as well as rich


It's not purely rhetoric.  The studies are a matter of scientific fact.

----------


## Twilliams

I just don't see this as legitimate science. I strongly question the motives of studies that try to classify a group's morals/ethics based on their wealth or lack thereof.  

But I guess you do need "scientific facts" to back up cases for legislation. [sarcasm]

----------


## presence

> If the janitor doesn't want to take the business risks that a CEO must take, then he'll have to be happy with janitor's wages as set by the marketplace.


That certainly is an elitist simplified version of reality.  

Quickly I can compile a list of Physical Risks for janitorial work that outweigh "business" Risks associated with being a CEO:

Falls; Broken Bones
Chemical Burns
Brain Damage from Inhalation
Lung and Eye Irritation
Back Injury
Bio Hazards, Blood, Urine, Feces
Damage Liability
Security Responsibilities
Electrical Hazards
Muscle and Joint Damage

When is the last time as CEO you've read an MSDS?  

A CEO takes risks with other peoples careers and corporate bank accounts to determine whether he'll make $250,000 or $25,000,000 this year.

A Janitor takes risks with his own health and public safety to determine if he'll make $25,000 or.... get fired.

Clearly it is not *risk* that determines the ever rising 200:1 CEO to Janitorial pay ratio in the US.

may cause permanent reproductive harm,

presence

----------


## furface

> I just don't see this as legitimate science. I strongly question the motives of studies that try to classify a group's morals/ethics based on their wealth or lack thereof.


You don't seem to have a problem with the science.  You have a problem with the conclusions.  If you have a problem with the methodology of the studies, it would nice if you pointed out the flaws you see in what they did.  For instance how they collected the data, who they polled, etc.  I know some of these things are just abstracts and not very detailed, but you can make inferences even from that.  To blanket discount the studies as unscientific without addressing the details of the way they were performed is illegitimate.

----------


## klamath

> It's not purely rhetoric.  The studies are a matter of* scientific fact*.


Bull$#@!. There is no such thing as a scientific fact on a study like this. I know rich people and I know poor people and they all have the same human failings.

----------


## Black Flag

The question is pointless.

The amount of wealth you have does not change the roots of your character.

If you become immoral because you have money simply means *you were always immoral, you just couldn't afford it before.*

The measure of all action:
"The means justifies the end"

If the means is evil, the end will be evil - no matter how "good" the end is proclaimed to be.
If the means is moral and good, the end does not much matter - it will take good care of itself.

----------


## presence

> The question is pointless.
> 
> The amount of wealth you have does not change the roots of your character.


I believe the point was quite the opposite:

The roots of your character determines the amount of wealth you can accumulate.

Consider two men living in the forest:

A poor man living in the woods with his family might wake up, and be thankful for the beauty of the forest, take what little his family needs from the woodland for the day.


A rich man living in the woods with his family might wake up, clear cut the forest, sell the cleared land at a profit, and move his family to another forest, all the wealthier... to repeat the process again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not purely rhetoric.  The studies are a matter of scientific fact.


Not really.  People move in and out of "poverty" regularly.  The studies you mention are contradicted by other studies.  ETA: In this country, "poor" people aren't really that poor compared to the poor elsewhere in the world.  Free up the economy from State control and this well improve even more.

----------


## furface

> Bull$#@!. There is no such thing as a scientific fact on a study like this.


Scientific fact means an observed phenomenon that is reproducible.  The results were reproduced in 7 different studies.  If you have reason to believe they fudged their data or are in any way reporting misinformation, that would make it not a scientific fact.  Nothing posted here as of yet qualifies as a serious refutation of the scientific methodology used in the studies.

----------


## klamath

> Scientific fact means an observed phenomenon that is reproducible.  The results were reproduced in 7 different studies.  If you have reason to believe they fudged their data or are in any way reporting misinformation, that would make it not a scientific fact.


How do you PROVE unethical? Unethical can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. I for one might think that promoting the concept of this thread as unethical.

----------


## furface

> PROVE


WTF? Did anybody say anything about "prove?" A reproducible fact does not mean prove.  Get your knowledge of scientific methodology straight.

----------


## Black Flag

Yep, that first guy lives with only about 25 others - and no more, or else the additional ones would overwhelm the capacity of that guy to feed them, someone would starve, and thus, that guy will slaughter any new born that threatens to grow his little tribe any bigger.

The second guy lives with about 300 million other people - he provided farm land that grows food at a ratio to the farmer's consumption by about 1,000 to 1 ... the other 999 people then go out and build and produce other goods that -repeated over and over- increase the lifestyle prosperity and health of the other 1,000 ... and this is repeated all over the country - ending up with a prosperous, vibrant, growing nation

Yep, go right ahead and join the first guy -- good luck and happy hunting!

I'll salute the second one

----------


## klamath

> WTF? Did anybody say anything about "prove?" A reproducible fact does not mean prove.  Get your knowledge of scientific methodology straight.


 Reproducible fact would be showing that you multiple times posted in this thread promoting class warfare which in my ethical beliefs is unethical. It is one group of people trying to say their ethics  are the way and anyone not doing it their way is unethical.

----------


## Travlyr

> That certainly is an elitist simplified version of reality.  
> 
> Quickly I can compile a list of Physical Risks for janitorial work that outweigh "business" Risks associated with being a CEO:
> 
> Falls; Broken Bones
> Chemical Burns
> Brain Damage from Inhalation
> Lung and Eye Irritation
> Back Injury
> ...


How much do you think I should pay my janitor to clean my place? And why should I care what you think I should pay? The janitor is free to negotiate with me, or go look for other work, or become his own CEO.
The MSDS is the janitor's responsibility. He is responsible for his own safety.

----------


## furface

> Reproducible fact would be showing that you multiple times posted in this thread promoting class warfare which in my ethical beliefs is unethical.


Actually, a more accurate version of this statement is:




> In my view you multiple times posted in this thread promoting class warfare which in my ethical beliefs is unethical.


Dumbassery != science

----------


## klamath

> Actually, a more accurate version of this statement is:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbassery != science


Morals and ethics are not science. Get over it. Ethics cannot be a fact.

----------


## Butchie

On a legal level I have no problem with someone making lots of money so long as it was not the result of bribery, bailouts, illegally stashing money overseas, that kinda crap.

On a moral level, I believe in being charitable, for someone to rake in billions while other are starving is disgusting, I'm not talking about the lazy bums who just won't work, I'm talking about laying off 30,000 people but then building yourself a 100M dollar house, again, not illegal, but definitely sickening to me.

----------


## Black Flag

> On a legal level I have no problem with someone making lots of money so long as it was not the result of bribery, bailouts, illegally stashing money overseas, that kinda crap.
> 
> On a moral level, I believe in being charitable, for someone to rake in billions while other are starving is disgusting, I'm not talking about the lazy bums who just won't work, I'm talking about laying off 30,000 people but then building yourself a 100M dollar house, again, not illegal, but definitely sickening to me.


So you hate carpenters, concrete makers, window makers, flooring and roofing guys, landscaper, etc.?

The issue with envy - as you have demonstrated - is that is it so short-sighted.

Do you truly believe that a billionaire's money is not doing something to improve YOUR life and the lives of everyone else around you?

You are so hung up on envy of what other people have, you blind yourself to social good wealth provides to everyone around you.

You live well because "billionaires" make billions.

----------


## Travlyr

> You live well because "billionaires" make billions.


This is only true in a system of honest money. With our system of counterfeiting billionaires are chosen through privilege. They did not earn it. They do not benefit society as a whole.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Morals and ethics are not science. Get over it. Ethics cannot be a fact.


 It is true that the Scientific method is value-free, but there is voluminous literature on ethics in science (especially biology and medical science).  i.e. http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is only true in a system of honest money. *With our system of counterfeiting billionaires are chosen through privilege.* They did not earn it. They do not benefit society as a whole.


 Some do still make billions honestly, but you're on to something there.

----------


## Black Flag

> This is only true in a system of honest money. With our system of counterfeiting billionaires are chosen through privilege. They did not earn it. They do not benefit society as a whole.


Prove that they did not earn it.
Did they put a gun to your head and steal it?
If so, call the cops.

----------


## Travlyr

> Prove that they did not earn it.
> Did they put a gun to your head and steal it?
> If so, call the cops.


We have proved plenty of times on this forum that "elastic" money is counterfeiting of money and unconstitutional fraud. 

Alan Greenspan tells us,



> "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom


A study of money proves it. "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard

I'm not calling the cops. Calling the cops will get you killed.

What we are doing is exposing how they are stealing through irredeemable currency inflation, the income tax, and capital gains tax. 

That is why Ron Paul is becoming so popular. When we get a critical mass of people who understand the difference between sound money and unsound currency, then we'll get our audit, and end to the Fed, and perhaps get some of the criminals behind bars.

----------


## Travlyr

> Some do still make billions honestly, but you're on to something there.


I agree. But it is a very very small number of $billionaires earned their money through honest effort. Kudos to those who have, but most have stolen it through the dishonest monetary system of counterfeiting theft and war economics of democide.

----------


## furface

> Did they put a gun to your head and steal it?


Yes. Virtually all wealth nowadays has been made via a system that is enforced at gunpoint.




> If so, call the cops.


The cops are part of the problem.  In a lot of ways they're among the biggest crooks of all.  They're certainly a prominent partier at the big government union pig trough.

When I personally talk about the unethics of current monetary allotment, I put government unions among the worst of the abusers.  Banks and their proxies are their private sector counterparts.

This is not about class warfare.  It's about property rights & feedom.  Property rights in the sense that we are all fundamentally granted by God the right of access to natural resources.  Freedom in the sense that government sponsored monopolies for trading in professional services like medical, law, engineering, finance, personal/public safety, etc are a very virulent modern form of slavery.

----------


## Butchie

> So you hate carpenters, concrete makers, window makers, flooring and roofing guys, landscaper, etc.?
> 
> The issue with envy - as you have demonstrated - is that is it so short-sighted.
> 
> Do you truly believe that a billionaire's money is not doing something to improve YOUR life and the lives of everyone else around you?
> 
> You are so hung up on envy of what other people have, you blind yourself to social good wealth provides to everyone around you.
> 
> You live well because "billionaires" make billions.


This is a joke right? I don't envy anyone, I'm quite content with my life and it has nothing to do with "billionaires", I own my own farm, no one pays my salary other than my customers. BTW, as much as someone may be indebted to a billionaire, that billionaire is just as indebted to them for buying their products, it's a circle, one could not exist without the other.

As for your "carpenter" arguments, if that billionaire didn't lay off those 30,000 workers they likely would do lots of building of their own which would keep the construction biz hoping, nice try.

----------


## furface

> You live well because "billionaires" make billions.


Butchie is right.  It does sound like a joke.  However, I will respond to this claim with some examples of well known billionaires.

1. Microsoft billionaires - Monopolists. Scoured the environment for technology developed by other people and monopolized it.

2. Google - Similar to Microsoft only a different era and technology.  They had one innovative idea and that was to use other website's links to score word searches. It gave them a few month's advantage in the search engine game and they won big and are now using their prominence to monopolize other areas.

Before I go on I'll say a few words about tech money & wall street.  Investment capital for tech companies doesn't fund technology innovation.  It monopolizes it.  The innovation is there, and the money is used to push other players out of the game.  Same thing for Facebook, Twitter, etc.

3. Petro billionaires, Saudi Royal family, etc.  Yeah, my life is better because these people are billionaires.  I should send them a thank you card.

4. Warren Buffet.  He's in favor of the estate tax.  You wanna know why?  Because he can pick up stock cheap when families are forced to sell to pay taxes.

5. The Sam Waltons - Cheap imported goods that drive out American manufacturers.  Poor worker conditions.

6. Micheal Bloomberg - right.

7. George Soros - yeah.

Name one single billionaire who has made my life better.  Come on.  Get off it.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> It's not purely rhetoric.  The studies are a matter of scientific fact.


They can shove their biased "scientific fact", vast majority of the poor people allover the world have no compunction in expecting that government should STEAL money from those who are better off & give it to them, THAT is unethical

Of course, there are rich who are unethical too but the numbers unethical poor far exceed them & usually it only hurts them as they destroy capital of the productive people & everyone ends up with a lower living-standard than they would otherwise have had




> That certainly is an elitist simplified version of reality.  
> 
> Quickly I can compile a list of Physical Risks for janitorial work that outweigh "business" Risks associated with being a CEO:
> 
> Falls; Broken Bones
> Chemical Burns
> Brain Damage from Inhalation
> Lung and Eye Irritation
> Back Injury
> ...


Markets are about supply & demand, supply of the skill CEOs or doctors or engineers provide is lower than the skills provided by the janitor or bricklayer or whatever

The higher "price" of CEO is an indication by the market to say that it needs more CEOs or doctors or whatever




> Morals and ethics are not science. Get over it. Ethics cannot be a fact.


+1

That is true, there's no universal concept of ethics where everyone will agree on every point




> Yep, that first guy lives with only about 25 others - and no more, or else the additional ones would overwhelm the capacity of that guy to feed them, someone would starve, and thus, that guy will slaughter any new born that threatens to grow his little tribe any bigger.
> 
> The second guy lives with about 300 million other people - he provided farm land that grows food at a ratio to the farmer's consumption by about 1,000 to 1 ... the other 999 people then go out and build and produce other goods that -repeated over and over- increase the lifestyle prosperity and health of the other 1,000 ... and this is repeated all over the country - ending up with a prosperous, vibrant, growing nation
> 
> Yep, go right ahead and join the first guy -- good luck and happy hunting!
> 
> I'll salute the second one


+1






> Reproducible fact would be showing that you multiple times posted in this thread promoting class warfare which in my ethical beliefs is unethical. It is one group of people trying to say their ethics  are the way and anyone not doing it their way is unethical.


True 




> On a legal level I have no problem with someone making lots of money so long as it was not the result of bribery, bailouts, illegally stashing money overseas, that kinda crap.
> 
> On a moral level, I believe in being charitable, for someone to rake in billions while other are starving is disgusting, I'm not talking about the lazy bums who just won't work, I'm talking about laying off 30,000 people but then building yourself a 100M dollar house, again, not illegal, but definitely sickening to me.


Bribery & bailouts is obviously bad but what's wrong with stashing away money overseas so long as one has earned through voluntary interaction & doesn't want it to be robbed away by organized criminals aka government?

Were those 30000 working for free for the billionaire? I guess they were working for an income & so does the billionaire, so if he can't make an income anymore then he has no reason to keep paying them

Let's put it this way, if the billionaire's project or business had failed & had he lost all the money, would the workers have worked for him, even though he doesn't have money to pay them???

And he isn't doing what he was doing because it's no more profitable, it's a signal from the market to not waste resources there for the moment & those resources, be it money or labor or whatever, are needed somewhere else in the economy

And finding job is not as hard as people make it sound, people can find jobs, we mayn't get the paycheck that we desire but that's life, we don't always get to choose all the good & the problem is that people often don't want to take up the jobs that they can get because they want higher pay, other than that there's always government to blame for Minimum Wage & eating up capital through taxes, which could have been used more productively by the private sector, the burdensome "regulations" & the red-tape that inhibits & scares businesses & so on

----------


## bolil

Yeah, loaded question.  Wealthy follows people, and people as a rule are unethical because "ethical" is a subjective term.  Given, certain ethical values are common in all Human interactions (the only realm of ethics) those are: murder and theft.

----------


## Butchie

> Bribery & bailouts is obviously bad but what's wrong with stashing away money overseas so long as one has earned through voluntary interaction & doesn't want it to be robbed away by organized criminals aka government?
> 
> Were those 30000 working for free for the billionaire? I guess they were working for an income & so does the billionaire, so if he can't make an income anymore then he has no reason to keep paying them
> 
> Let's put it this way, if the billionaire's project or business had failed & had he lost all the money, would the workers have worked for him, even though he doesn't have money to pay them???
> 
> And he isn't doing what he was doing because it's no more profitable, it's a signal from the market to not waste resources there for the moment & those resources, be it money or labor or whatever, are needed somewhere else in the economy
> 
> And finding job is not as hard as people make it sound, people can find jobs, we mayn't get the paycheck that we desire but that's life, we don't always get to choose all the good & the problem is that people often don't want to take up the jobs that they can get because they want higher pay, other than that there's always government to blame for Minimum Wage & eating up capital through taxes, which could have been used more productively by the private sector, the burdensome "regulations" & the red-tape that inhibits & scares businesses & so on


Not the point I was making. On the point of overseas money: My argument is I can't do it, why should they be able to? If we're going to reform the tax code for all that's one thing, but to say they can skip out on paying taxes that I can't is not right.

As for getting a job, I agree, you can get jobs. But there is also some truth to the fact that people cannot live off of $8/hr. To just say the rich "worked hard", no doubt most of them did, but if working hard was some guarantee of being rich we'd have alot more rich people in the world.

As for whether or not a person is "profitable" to you was not the point, I employ someone on my farm who is not necessarily profitable to me, his job is kinda charity, but I'm happy to do it because I believe in trying to help out so long as I'm not encouraging laziness, and he works hard. I understand the mentality that you can't be charitable to the point of bankruptcy, my issue is in saying you could keep some workers on the payroll, but if you do you may just have to "settle" for a 50M house instead of a 100M, this is just something I don't agree with - Again, not saying it's illegal, I just don't agree with it.

----------


## klamath

> It is true that the Scientific method is value-free, but there is voluminous literature on ethics in science (especially biology and medical science).  i.e. http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/


Right there a voluminous amounts of writting on bioethics but they  are not all the same which makes it impossible to call it a fact. Case in point. bioethic researcher wrote a paper stating it was ethical ot kill new borns. Maybe in you book it is ok, in mine it is not. Ethics changes all the time, from person to person from region to region. To do a study that says rich people are unethical and no one can challenge what is ethical because it is a "Scientific fact" is a joke.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Not the point I was making. On the point of overseas money: My argument is I can't do it, why should they be able to? If we're going to reform the tax code for all that's one thing, but to say they can skip out on paying taxes that I can't is not right.


The problem isn't those stashing away their money but those who finance the organized crime & expect others to do the same so that the criminals have even more money to perpetrate their crimes; the problem is that people buy into the socialist myth that everyone must pay their "fair share", if enough people look beyond this meme & recognize property-rights then the criminals will be starved of money & greater chance that there will be a rebellion to overthrow the criminals




> As for getting a job, I agree, you can get jobs. But there is also some truth to the fact that people cannot live off of $8/hr. To just say the rich "worked hard", no doubt most of them did, but if working hard was some guarantee of being rich we'd have alot more rich people in the world.


Why does just being born entitle one to other people's money? People earn according to their skills & productivity in the economy (barring thieves & corrupt of course) so if someone is earning $8/hr then that's what their skills are worth & besides, blame the government for having a fraudulent money-system in place which allowed them & banks to suck productivity out of the economy otherwise $8/hr mightn't be that bad at all

Here's a simple example I gave in another thread




> Originally Posted by nedomedo
> 
> 
> You obviously know your stuff, but couldn't we all technically hold gold and precious metals as a hedge against the inflation anyway? 
> 
> We know that milk used to cost 30 cents a gallon back in the day when our money was backed by gold, but today it costs $3.50. Every normal person would see the devaluation of our money in this example and why fiat currency is bad. However, back in the day our hourly wages were only $1.00 per hour, and today its $10.00 per hour....its still the same. It takes about 1/3 of an hour of labor to earn enough money to buy a gallon of Milk. So what is the difference if it says milk costs $3.50 or $3.5 million dollars a gallon if our wages and earnings are still proportional? If it costs 3.5 million, then our wages would be $10 million per hour.
> 
> Obviously you couldn't inflate that much, there would have to be some control, but steady inflation wouldn't be that bad. Sure it would affect savers etc. but those people can just buy gold or anything else that is valuable and use it as a hedge against the inflation.
> 
> ...





> As for whether or not a person is "profitable" to you was not the point, I employ someone on my farm who is not necessarily profitable to me, his job is kinda charity, but I'm happy to do it because I believe in trying to help out so long as I'm not encouraging laziness, and he works hard. I understand the mentality that you can't be charitable to the point of bankruptcy, my issue is in saying you could keep some workers on the payroll, but if you do you may just have to "settle" for a 50M house instead of a 100M, this is just something I don't agree with - Again, not saying it's illegal, I just don't agree with it.


The point is would the workers have been "charitable" to the businessesman & kept working for him for free had he failed & didn't have the money to pay them? If not then why should he be expected to be charitable?

It's ok you believe in keeping your workers even though you could do away with them but that doesn't negate the fact that it's a waste of capital & labor which could have been used elsewhere for some actual productive endeavor to create goods/services that are needed

Besides, you're clearly overlooking the fact that the money with which the person bought the expensive house clearly, at least indirectly, paid the salaries of workers that built it otherwise the businessman building it could have suffered losses, he could have fired some people or even closed down his venture altogether if he felt it wasn't worth it & if people don't buy such houses then the workers employed to build them wouldn't have jobs either so you're merely talking of transferring jobs from one place to another but only to an unproductive end rather than a productive one

It's not "money" that determines people's living-standards in a society but the goods & services (which is the real wealth) & wasting resources & labor on goods & services that aren't really needed doesn't augur well for productive societies; you know the story of some government paying people to dig & fill ditches for no other reason than to keep them employed, that sort of thing doesn't lead to a productive & prosperous society

You can watch the whole 1 to 6 parts if you want it's pretty good :

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I believe the point was quite the opposite:
> 
> The roots of your character determines the amount of wealth you can accumulate.
> 
> Consider two men living in the forest:
> 
> A poor man living in the woods with his family might wake up, and be thankful for the beauty of the forest, take what little his family needs from the woodland for the day.
> 
> 
> A rich man living in the woods with his family might wake up, clear cut the forest, sell the cleared land at a profit, and move his family to another forest, all the wealthier... to repeat the process again.


Supplying people with crucial resources is a bad thing?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> This is something that I think needs to be addressed.  My personal belief is that the way our current system is set up, being unethical gives you a tremendous advantage.


That's known as bias.  Therefore you select studies which match your bias.  I'm sure there could be crafted studies which suggest wealthy give more to charity and have less children (less overpopulation of the earth etc) and are therefore more ethical.




> Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.


Well just off the top of my head I can think of a number of flaws with this study and it does not seem very well constructed on the face of it.

1.  First off - who is agreeing to be in their laboratory studies for their groups of upper and lower class?  Somehow I'm guessing Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg (and Ron Paul for that matter who is likely considered upper class) would not agree to be in their study.  Where did they find these people?  That is usually the biggest bias in these sorts of studies - it is very important that the people are selected as random.

2.  The first two studies measured if they were breaking the law while driving?  Really?  I drive over 65 on the highway half my life - THAT is unethical?  This is the first two studies?  Really?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Butchie is right.  It does sound like a joke.  However, I will respond to this claim with some examples of well known billionaires.
> 
> 1. Microsoft billionaires - Monopolists. Scoured the environment for technology developed by other people and monopolized it.
> 
> 2. Google - Similar to Microsoft only a different era and technology.  They had one innovative idea and that was to use other website's links to score word searches. It gave them a few month's advantage in the search engine game and they won big and are now using their prominence to monopolize other areas.
> 
> Before I go on I'll say a few words about tech money & wall street.  Investment capital for tech companies doesn't fund technology innovation.  It monopolizes it.  The innovation is there, and the money is used to push other players out of the game.  Same thing for Facebook, Twitter, etc.
> 
> 3. Petro billionaires, Saudi Royal family, etc.  Yeah, my life is better because these people are billionaires.  I should send them a thank you card.
> ...


Why is it that this $#@!ty system we have in the West created computers, cell phones and the internet?  Why wasn't the internet created in Iran, Zimbabwe, or North Korea?

By the way just to address one of the companies on your list people forget how hard it was to find information online before Google.  Google made it easy which I'd say is a big impact on many of our lives.  And by the way it's not a monopoly by any stretch.  90% of their income still comes from search.  It is probably the product with the lowest switching costs on the planet.  If someone came up with a search that was twice as good as Google - the company would be out of business tomorrow and the new guys would be billionaires.  Maybe someone should work on creating that.

----------


## furface

> Why is it that this $#@!ty system we have in the West created computers, cell phones and the internet?  Why wasn't the internet created in Iran, Zimbabwe, or North Korea?
> 
> By the way just to address one of the companies on your list people forget how hard it was to find information online before Google.  Google made it easy which I'd say is a big impact on many of our lives.  And by the way it's not a monopoly by any stretch.  90% of their income still comes from search.  It is probably the product with the lowest switching costs on the planet.  If someone came up with a search that was twice as good as Google - the company would be out of business tomorrow and the new guys would be billionaires.  Maybe someone should work on creating that.


You bring up an interesting point, however there are many problems with it.  First of all you might want to look into libertarian discussions about opportunity costs that our current authoritarian system is burdening us with.  It's not so much that we have things like computers and the internet. These are old and simple technologies.  It's the fact that we're losing out on a lot of better things that we would have without our current authoritarian system.

For instance I estimate that the authoritarian State is costing my generation 20 years in life expectancy.  If we didn't have the Big Brother State, people my age would all be living 20 years longer than current projections.  For younger people, it's probably much more than that.  The reason is lost opportunity costs because wealth is being stolen and spent on useless crap like military adventures, government bureaucracies, and crazy banker managed business schemes.

Specifically about Iran, they're actually a major technological player in the region and in some instances in the world nowadays.  That's probably the main reason Israel feels so threatened by it.  For instance they now seem to produce their own medical nuclear isotopes.  There is a shortage of medical isotopes in the West, so they're actually beating the west on this technology.  

North Korea & Zimbabwe?  Very poor examples of failed dictator run states.  Why don't you bring up places like Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, China, etc where they have taken over most consumer electronics manufacturing without anything close to Billionaire producing Wall mechanisms.  There are big players, but a great deal of it's small family run factories that don't have any formal financing and don't produce billionaires.

Google is a name and a load of money nowadays.  There's virtually no difference between it and other sites like Yahoo & Bing.  Bing works better for most searches I've found than Google.  Like I said before.  Google's single innovation was that it ranked pages by counting and scoring the incoming links to it from other pages.  It gave it a few months advance over other search engines.  The irony is that other companies had considered using it, but knew that it would eventually fail because you could game the rankings pretty easily.  That's exactly what's happening now to Google and that methodology is indeed failing, so it's having to rely more heavily on other methods.

Ask other people who follow tech and IT here.  It would be amazing folly to conclude that Google's market dominance nowadays has anything to do with having better technology.  They got the funding from Wall Street and created a monopoly.  There's no social benefit to it at all other than making its shareholders rich to the detriment of consumers.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You bring up an interesting point, however there are many problems with it.  First of all you might want to look into libertarian discussions about opportunity costs that our current authoritarian system is burdening us with.  It's not so much that we have things like computers and the internet. These are old and simple technologies.  It's the fact that we're losing out on a lot of better things that we would have without our current authoritarian system.


There are a lot of issues with our system.  I wouldn't disagree with that.  But you're blowing over the fact that our system created computers, the internet, and cell phones.  The original internet was funded with money from the federal government and was majority American by design.  No other system created that - nor do I think would it have.




> For instance I estimate that the authoritarian State is costing my generation 20 years in life expectancy.  If we didn't have the Big Brother State, people my age would all be living 20 years longer than current projections.  For younger people, it's probably much more than that.  The reason is lost opportunity costs because wealth is being stolen and spent on useless crap like military adventures, government bureaucracies, and crazy banker managed business schemes.


I don't think this 20 years is based off anything but conjecture so I can't speak to that.




> Specifically about Iran, they're actually a major technological player in the region and in some instances in the world nowadays.  That's probably the main reason Israel feels so threatened by it.  For instance they now seem to produce their own medical nuclear isotopes.  There is a shortage of medical isotopes in the West, so they're actually beating the west on this technology.


What technologies are being exported from Iran to the rest of the world?




> North Korea & Zimbabwe?  Very poor examples of failed dictator run states.  Why don't you bring up places like Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, China, etc where they have taken over most consumer electronics manufacturing without anything close to Billionaire producing Wall mechanisms.  There are big players, but a great deal of it's small family run factories that don't have any formal financing and don't produce billionaires.


I'd consider those countries - at least Taiwan and South Korea to be similar systems of economics to the US - not 100% so.  But enough so.  By the way all those countries have billionaires as well.  South Korea specifically I know plenty about.  South Korea is run primarily by a small group of huge multinational firms named chaebol's.  It is far harder to start a company in South Korea than it is in the US.  That is why I know a number of very smart South Koreans who have moved to this country to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams.




> Google is a name and a load of money nowadays.  There's virtually no difference between it and other sites like Yahoo & Bing.  Bing works better for most searches I've found than Google.  Like I said before.


The people who created Yahoo are billionaires, and the engineers behind Bing are very high millionaires as well.




> Google's single innovation was that it ranked pages by counting and scoring the incoming links to it from other pages.  It gave it a few months advance over other search engines.  The irony is that other companies had considered using it, but knew that it would eventually fail because you could game the rankings pretty easily.


Other people knew about it but decided that they didn't want to make 200 billion dollars...




> That's exactly what's happening now to Google and that methodology is indeed failing, so it's having to rely more heavily on other methods.


Yes it's called continuing innovation.




> Ask other people who follow tech and IT here.  It would be amazing folly to conclude that Google's market dominance nowadays has anything to do with having better technology.  They got the funding from Wall Street and created a monopoly.  There's no social benefit to it at all other than making its shareholders rich to the detriment of consumers.


What prevents people from switching to another search engine?  Why do a couple hundred million people use GMail when there are 100 other free email providers out there?  This IS the free market.

----------


## Butchie

> The problem isn't those stashing away their money but those who finance the organized crime & expect others to do the same so that the criminals have even more money to perpetrate their crimes; the problem is that people buy into the socialist myth that everyone must pay their "fair share", if enough people look beyond this meme & recognize property-rights then the criminals will be starved of money & greater chance that there will be a rebellion to overthrow the criminals
> 
> 
> 
> Why does just being born entitle one to other people's money? People earn according to their skills & productivity in the economy (barring thieves & corrupt of course) so if someone is earning $8/hr then that's what their skills are worth & besides, blame the government for having a fraudulent money-system in place which allowed them & banks to suck productivity out of the economy otherwise $8/hr mightn't be that bad at all
> 
> Here's a simple example I gave in another thread
> 
> 
> ...


There is one flaw in your logic, well, more than one actually:

1st: You mentioned something about "forcing people", I never said that, nor did I say anyone was "entitled" to anyone's money, merely pointed out that the whole "Get a job and your problems will be solved" idea is a myth, and saying people are always getting paid what they are worth is also a myth. Think of people who work in nursing homes, I'd say they provide a pretty important service and have alot of responsibility on their hands yet they are paid very little, you can make an employer alot of cash, doesn't mean they are going to reward you proportionately.

2nd: The house thing, I already dubunked that, true the man building his rediculous sized home employs some people, but had he not let those workers go they would have hired those construction workers to do work on their homes, also think of how much money those layed off workers spend on other products - cars, toothpaste, food, etc.

3rd: If billionaires were constantly recirculating their money that'd be one thing, but many of them don't, they hold onto it like Scrooges, look at that guy who Anna Nichole married, he had billions when he died, how was the money growing the economy sitting there? How about that trillion or so overseas right now just sitting because they don't want to bring it back here and be taxed on it, how is that helping the economy?

4th: My tax idea was not the "Socialist" view, I actually follow Ron's view that no one should be taxed, however, if there are taxes, everyone should have to pay equally, that's all I was saying.

5th: I don't know where your notion of "working for free" is coming from, working for free goes well beyond charity, working for free would bring someone to ruin, a CEO living a slightly less luxurious lifestyle due to charity would not bring him/her to ruin.

P.S. Already watched that Stossel thing before, good show, but I don't always agree with John.

----------


## Roy L

> Are poor people unethical? I mean it's the poor vote for socialist government so that they'd rob the middle-class & rich & give it to them!


Actually, the poor are far less likely to vote at all than the middle class and rich, so you are just making that up.



> I think such rhetoric is only used by class-warfarists,


As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning.  ― Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett knows what the rich are doing.  You don't.  Simple.



> who want to usurp power by using people's ignorance, jealousy & insecurity;


Nope.  They simply want justice.  You are just trying to pretend that there has never been any such thing as injustice that benefited the rich.  But in fact:

"Nearly all civil institutions were made for the benefit of the rich. If we peruse our books of law, we are startled at finding everywhere the confirmation of the fact. It could almost be said that a few people, after dividing the earth among themselves, ordained laws to fortify themselves against the multitude."  Jacques Necker (Minister of Finance under Louis XVI.)



> there are ethical & unethical amongst poor as well as rich


But the unethical poor are living in jail or in slums, while the unethical rich are living in mansions with servants because they own the country, the government, all the big corporations, the banks, etc., etc.

----------


## Roy L

> I just don't see this as legitimate science.


Then explain why its methodology is flawed.



> I strongly question the motives of studies that try to classify a group's morals/ethics based on their wealth or lack thereof.


I strongly question the motives of anyone who doesn't want anyone else to investigate the relationship between wealth and ethics.



> But I guess you do need "scientific facts" to back up cases for legislation. [sarcasm]


As opposed to knee-jerk accusations of envy leveled at anyone who dares to challenge injustice...

----------


## Roy L

> Bull$#@!. There is no such thing as a scientific fact on a study like this.


You clearly know nothing of scientific fact or methods.



> I know rich people and I know poor people and they all have the same human failings.


ROTFL!!  And on the basis of that "scientific research" you presume to judge the merits of *actual* scientific research??  BWAHAHHAHAAA!!!

----------


## Roy L

> How do you PROVE unethical?


The researchers stated what they considered the normal understanding of ethical behavior.



> Unethical can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. I for one might think that promoting the concept of this thread as unethical.


Translation: you don't want anyone thinking too hard or too clearly about exactly how the rich get rich.

----------


## Roy L

> People move in and out of "poverty" regularly.


Only if you falsely define poverty by income rather than assets.



> The studies you mention are contradicted by other studies.


No, they are not.



> ETA: In this country, "poor" people aren't really that poor compared to the poor elsewhere in the world.  Free up the economy from State control and this well improve even more.


OTC, it is only state "control" -- i.e., intervention on behalf of the poor through welfare, union monopolies, minimum wage laws, publicly funded education, health care and pensions, etc. -- that allows the poor in rich countries to avoid the destitution typical of the poor in poor countries.

----------


## Roy L

> Yep, that first guy lives with only about 25 others - and no more, or else the additional ones would overwhelm the capacity of that guy to feed them, someone would starve, and thus, that guy will slaughter any new born that threatens to grow his little tribe any bigger.


That is an absurd fabrication not supported by anthropological evidence of any kind.



> The second guy lives with about 300 million other people - he provided farm land that grows food at a ratio to the farmer's consumption by about 1,000 to 1 ...


No, that is just a flat-out _lie_ on your part.  You are _lying_.  He did not provide any farmland, and never could have, because the land was already there, ready to farm, with no help from him or anyone else.  You know this.  You just decided deliberately to lie about it.

Apologists for greed, privilege and injustice always have to lie.  ALWAYS.



> the other 999 people then go out and build and produce other goods that -repeated over and over- increase the lifestyle prosperity and health of the other 1,000 ... and this is repeated all over the country - ending up with a prosperous, vibrant, growing nation


Thing is, they can do that without the first guy charging them for access to what government, the community and nature provide.  That is why you cannot answer The Question:

_"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"_



> Yep, go right ahead and join the first guy -- good luck and happy hunting!
> 
> I'll salute the second one


You mean you will kneel and tongue his nether parts in hopes that he will favor you with the crumbs of what he stole from the productive.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Then explain why its methodology is flawed.


The first two studies equated ethics with obeying traffic laws.

The study only studied students at UC Berkeley and asked them to self identify if they were upper or lower class.

Some of the questions used to determine ethics were "If you received an A on a test but feel that you actually deserved a B would you tell the professor".

I'm not saying one way or another but no one looking objectively would say this study is without numerous flaws.

----------


## Roy L

> Why is it that this $#@!ty system we have in the West created computers, cell phones and the internet?  Why wasn't the internet created in Iran, Zimbabwe, or North Korea?


Because they are even worse.  You might as well ask why, if junk food is supposed to be so bad for you, anorexics have lower life expectancy than the obese.

----------


## Roy L

> The first two studies equated ethics with obeying traffic laws.
> 
> The study only studied students at UC Berkeley and asked them to self identify if they were upper or lower class.
> 
> Some of the questions used to determine ethics were "If you received an A on a test but feel that you actually deserved a B would you tell the professor".


And...?  None of those is actually a methodological flaw.  There might be better ways to get at the question, but maybe they were too expensive for the researchers to use.  The wealthy are notoriously difficult to study because they do not want anyone to know anything about them, especially how they got their money.  Trying different methods is how science progresses.



> I'm not saying one way or another but no one looking objectively would say this study is without numerous flaws.


Questions that can be raised do not constitute "flaws."

----------


## Roy L

> The question is pointless.


IOW, you do not want anyone to start thinking about it.



> The amount of wealth you have does not change the roots of your character.


That's a ludicrous fabrication.  Those who grow up rich and privileged have a definite sense of entitlement -- so much so that many rich people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have taken measures to help their kids not feel so entitled.



> If you become immoral because you have money simply means *you were always immoral, you just couldn't afford it before.*


You are evading the point.  It's not that wealth makes you unethical, but that being unethical is the way to get wealthy.  



> The measure of all action:
> "The means justifies the end"


That sounds highly unethical to me, like a blank check to swindle people as long as everything is "voluntary."



> If the means is evil, the end will be evil - no matter how "good" the end is proclaimed to be.


And if the end is evil, the means will be evil, no matter how "good" the means is proclaimed to be.



> If the means is moral and good, the end does not much matter - it will take good care of itself.


Problem is, the means by which the wealthy become wealthy are rarely moral and good:

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac

----------


## klamath

> You clearly know nothing of scientific fact or methods.
> 
> ROTFL!!  And on the basis of that "scientific research" you presume to judge the merits of *actual* scientific research??  BWAHAHHAHAAA!!!


You clearly are freaking out. Better hide in a closet or a rich man will get ya....

----------


## Roy L

> It starts with an individual's right to own a little piece of the world's pie ... a piece of land with rights to the minerals, water, and privacy against trespassers.


There can be no such right, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.  The right to liberty is the right our ancestors had: the right to USE land non-exclusively, not to deprive others of that right.



> Then if a landowner choses to work the land, build on that land, or mine the land, he/she can enjoy the fruits of his/her labor.


OK, so you agree there can be no justification for his owning what is NOT the fruit of his labor, but something others would otherwise be at liberty to use.



> If the janitor doesn't want to take the business risks that a CEO must take, then he'll have to be happy with janitor's wages as set by the marketplace.


No, the CEO is in a privileged position: he has control of vast wealth that isn't his, and he can use that control to take some of that wealth without making any commensurate contribution to production in return.  He is risking other people's money, but he participates only on the upside, not on the downside.  This has happened over and over again.  Nortel.  Lehman.  Enron.  The banks, hedge funds, insurance firms, etc. whose CEOS pocketed trillions, and left the taxpayer holding the bag.  The list goes on and on.

----------


## Roy L

> Morals and ethics are not science. Get over it. Ethics cannot be a fact.


But there can be facts about ethics.

----------


## Roy L

> So you hate carpenters, concrete makers, window makers, flooring and roofing guys, landscaper, etc.?


Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something meaningful?



> The issue with envy - as you have demonstrated - is that is it so short-sighted.


No, the issue with envy is that to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it is one of the most evil things a human being can do.  It is profoundly, utterly, satanically evil.



> Do you truly believe that a billionaire's money is not doing something to improve YOUR life and the lives of everyone else around you?


I know damn well it isn't.



> You are so hung up on envy of what other people have,


Such insulting personal accusations are despicable and outrageous.



> you blind yourself to social good wealth provides to everyone around you.


There is a difference between there being a lot of wealth in society and one guy having it all.  Duh.



> You live well because "billionaires" make billions.


No, we live worse than we ought because of systematic, institutionalized injustices that enable billionaires to make billions without having to make any commensurate contribution to wealth production.

----------


## Roy L

> Prove that they did not earn it.


Here:




> Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
> billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
> the USA:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/sec...secretsqa.html
> 
> Almost all the wealth of almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
> contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
> unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
> ...


Get it?



> Did they put a gun to your head and steal it?


The government did that for them.



> If so, call the cops.


The cops are on their side.  How deaf and blind can you get?

----------


## Travlyr

> There can be no such right, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.  The right to liberty is the right our ancestors had: the right to USE land non-exclusively, not to deprive others of that right.
> 
> OK, so you agree there can be no justification for his owning what is NOT the fruit of his labor, but something others would otherwise be at liberty to use.
> 
> No, the CEO is in a privileged position: he has control of vast wealth that isn't his, and he can use that control to take some of that wealth without making any commensurate contribution to production in return.  He is risking other people's money, but he participates only on the upside, not on the downside.  This has happened over and over again.  Nortel.  Lehman.  Enron.  The banks, hedge funds, insurance firms, etc. whose CEOS pocketed trillions, and left the taxpayer holding the bag.  The list goes on and on.


This is very short sighted and of shallow thought. It makes no sense.

----------


## Roy L

> To just say the rich "worked hard", no doubt most of them did,


Most did not.  And the rich, like criminals, often only work hard at getting something for nothing.  In the case of the rich, this hard work is called, "rent seeking behavior."  Look at Trump, who works so hard... to get property tax abatements from government for his properties, thus pushing his rightful tax burden onto others.  That is the only kind of perfectly legal "hard work" that most of the super-duper uber-rich have done to get rich.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is very short sighted and of shallow thought. It makes no sense.


Unless you want to live in a tent. I don't.

----------


## Roy L

> This is very short sighted and of shallow thought. It makes no sense.


It does make sense, and you know it.  That is why you are afraid even to try to refute it.

----------


## Travlyr

> It does make sense, and you know it.  That is why you are afraid even to try to refute it.


Huh? I don't want to be a nomad, or a hunter/gatherer.

----------


## Roy L

> Unless you want to live in a tent. I don't.


OK, so you have figured out that secure tenure is required for significant fixed improvements to be made.  Now, can you figure out how to make that tenure consistent with liberty and justice for those who are thus forcibly deprived of their liberty to use the land?

----------


## Travlyr

> OK, so you have figured out that secure tenure is required for significant fixed improvements to be made.  Now, can you figure out how to make that tenure consistent with liberty and justice for those who are thus forcibly deprived of their liberty to use the land?


Yes, pure liberty is chaos. I would rather give up some liberty for order.

----------


## Travlyr

You see RoyL, I enjoy being warm, dry and secure. No it is not perfect liberty, but that is not my goal. One of my goals is happiness on an imperfect Earth.

----------


## Roy L

> Supplying people with crucial resources is a bad thing?


The crucial resources were already there, ready to be used, without any rich, greedy thief having to "supply" them to people.

That is why you cannot answer The Question:

*"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"*

And no one else can, either, and no one ever will.

----------


## Roy L

> Yes, pure liberty is chaos. I would rather give up some liberty for order.


OK, that makes sense.  You're on the right track.  Now, what is the best way to make our desire for order consistent with our desires for liberty and justice?

----------


## Roy L

> You see RoyL, I enjoy being warm, dry and secure. No it is not perfect liberty, but that is not my goal. One of my goals is happiness on an imperfect Earth.


The Earth is actually perfect... by comparison with the institution of private landowning that has caused such wretched unhappiness for so many people.

----------


## Black Flag

> Those who grow up rich and privileged have a definite sense of entitlement -- so much so that many rich people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have taken measures to help their kids not feel so entitled.


A baseless opinion and demagoguery  - one can just as easily replace the word "rich" with poor, and change the names from Buffet and Gates to "Roy", and the statement makes equally as much sense as it did before.



> You are evading the point.  It's not that wealth makes you unethical, but that being unethical is the way to get wealthy.


Only to those that do not understand wealth.




> And if the end is evil, the means will be evil, no matter how "good" the means is proclaimed to be.


You cannot achieve an evil end by a moral means - it is impossible.



> "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac


...and such a statement is only believed by people who aspire to crime.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Earth is actually perfect... by comparison with the institution of private landowning that has caused such wretched unhappiness for so many people.


I agree that the unfair distribution of land ownership has not been good. However, land ownership is good to build a home, find some valuable treasure as in mines, oil, or valuable resource to use. Land is good to grow vegetables and livestock. Land is good to build a manufacturing plant. To claim that land ownership is bad is to misunderstand the world you live in. 

Explain in detail your claim.

----------


## Black Flag

> Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something meaningful?


It obviously earned your comment, so it must have!




> No, the issue with envy is that to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it is one of the most evil things a human being can do.  It is profoundly, utterly, satanically evil.


You have two, and only two means to provide yourself the goods you need;

Earn, by profit and trade
or
Steal, by guns or government.

I sense you prefer that latter to the former.




> I know damn well it isn't.


I know YOU do not know, but I know damn well he does.




> Such insulting personal accusations are despicable and outrageous.


You took that as an insult to you? My, thin skin becomes you!




> There is a difference between there being a lot of wealth in society and one guy having it all.  Duh.


Duh, one guy doesn't have it all....




> No, we live worse than we ought because of systematic, institutionalized injustices that enable billionaires to make billions without having to make any commensurate contribution to wealth production.


Whereas I have no love for institutions, I find it funny that I guy just a post or two above disparages wealth but here demands contributions to its creation.

Have you checked recently with your psychiatrist regarding your natural tendency to contradict yourself?

----------


## Black Flag

> Here:
> 
> 
> Get it?


Get what?

You see you have a problem - called "being a crackpot".

You hate that Trump earns more in a minute than you in 10 years.
You do not believe Trump "deserves" his money. Am I right? I know I am right about that.

But you know who you really hate?

It's not the Trumps or billionaires - because there is no way they get their money unless someone gives it to them.

Now you don't complain about the guy who gives YOU money - you like that guy, and if tomorrow he gives you more, you like that even better.

If I dropped by and gave you a million$, you'd cheer and sing my praises and might even buy me a beer.

But you HATE that guy who had to give Trump money; you disagree -not with Trump- but the guy who believed Trump was worth more in a minute then 10 years of your earning.

That's the real roots of those that hate the rich - they really hate those that valued what the rich were doing or selling so much that they gave money to them.

----------


## Black Flag

> Most did not.  And the rich, like criminals, often only work hard at getting something for nothing.  In the case of the rich, this hard work is called, "rent seeking behavior."  Look at Trump, who works so hard... to get property tax abatements from government for his properties, thus pushing his rightful tax burden onto others.  That is the only kind of perfectly legal "hard work" that most of the super-duper uber-rich have done to get rich.


I agree, so let's get government out of the picture - that's where the problem exists.

The provider of violence has a marketable good - called legitimized violence and guns. It sells it to the highest bidder and its currency is either cash or votes ... or both.

You don't like the provider of violence hitting on you - but you do not care if it hits on others, thus, you give it grace to hit on you and others! 

But because you like the gamble - that sometimes you benefit from the loot that the provider of violence gives to you for your vote - you'd rather pick on those that try to buy their way out of the way of violence ... an intended victim... and champion the guy who is pointing the gun...

But no worries, a lot of people are as equally messed up as you are...

----------


## Roy L

> A baseless opinion and demagoguery


No, that is a lie from you.  My statement is well founded and based on obvious facts.



> - one can just as easily replace the word "rich" with poor, and change the names from Buffet and Gates to "Roy", and the statement makes equally as much sense as it did before.


No, that's nothing but a stupid lie from you.  It makes no sense to say the poor grow up with a sense of entitlement.  It's just stupid garbage.



> Only to those that do not understand wealth.


I know enough wealthy people personally to know it is largely true.



> You cannot achieve an evil end by a moral means - it is impossible.


Wrong again.  There were people who quite morally helped Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. to survive infancy, yet the end result was monstrous evil.



> ...and such a statement is only believed by people who aspire to crime.


No, that is just the sycophancy of a crawling servant of greed, privilege and injustice.

----------


## Roy L

> I agree that the unfair distribution of land ownership has not been good. However, land ownership is good to build a home, find some valuable treasure as in mines, oil, or valuable resource to use.


Nope.  People do all those things just fine without owning land.  No one owns land in Hong Kong, but it is a thriving, free and prosperous city.  No one owns land in China, but it accounts for the lion's share of world production of rare earth minerals.

You need to find a willingness to know the fact that you are wrong as a matter of objective, physical fact, while I am objectively correct.



> Land is good to grow vegetables and livestock. Land is good to build a manufacturing plant.


But in fact, many people do those things just as well on land they do not own as others do on land they do own.



> To claim that land ownership is bad is to misunderstand the world you live in.


Oh, really?  Who misunderstands the world: the one who thinks Hong Kong cannot possibly be more prosperous than Bangladesh, or the one who understands why it is?



> Explain in detail your claim.


The Empire State Building was built on leased land.  That fact proves you wrong.  Now it is up to you to find a willingness to understand the world you live in.

----------


## Roy L

> I agree, so let's get government out of the picture - that's where the problem exists.


Somalia proves you wrong.



> The provider of violence has a marketable good - called legitimized violence and guns. It sells it to the highest bidder and its currency is either cash or votes ... or both.


Silliness.



> You don't like the provider of violence hitting on you - but you do not care if it hits on others, thus, you give it grace to hit on you and others!


Now you are just lying about what I have plainly written.  Inevitably.



> But because you like the gamble - that sometimes you benefit from the loot that the provider of violence gives to you for your vote - you'd rather pick on those that try to buy their way out of the way of violence ... an intended victim... and champion the guy who is pointing the gun...


More silly fabrications.

----------


## Black Flag

> No, that is a lie from you.  My statement is well founded and based on obvious facts.


It maybe a fact that Gates and Buffet are trying to be good parents.

It is not a fact that they see wealth as an entitlement gained at the unearned expense of others.

Your statement is not well founded - you have no measure to judge such "sense" of such "entitlement" nor capable of defining what constitutes an entitlement of the rich to be able to measure it.

As such it is demagoguery, as I also pointed out, you can do simple replacement using your name and "poor" in the appropriate places and you can make the same (pointless) claims with the same effect.



> No, that's nothing but a stupid lie from you.  It makes no sense to say the poor grow up with a sense of entitlement.  It's just stupid garbage.


Is this truly the best you can do is have a temper tantrum?

They are, factually, called ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS for a reason, so to claim that the poor and elderly do not have a "sense" of it - when they are the recipient of the very thing so titled, is utterly bizarre.

But I am sensing from you that your brain operates in a very bizarre manner.



> I know enough wealthy people personally to know it is largely true.


Did you do a scientific poll and study and put it in a peer review journal? No?

So I doubt you know much about "wealthy" people and either way, I don't really care.




> Wrong again.  There were people who quite morally helped Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. to survive infancy, yet the end result was monstrous evil.


You helping a kid who then becomes a murderer is not the fault or consequence of helping the kid.
You are very morally confused.




> No, that is just the sycophancy of a crawling servant of greed, privilege and injustice.


To claim that wealth is a measure of injustice displays a mental confusion and muddiness that is probably incalculable.

----------


## Black Flag

> Somalia proves you wrong.


No, Somalia proves me right.

Comparisons are done with "like against like" - and Somalia was better in nearly every way without a government than with one.

Otherwise, I'd just point to N. Korea to show how 'wrong' you are regarding your pretty little government.



> Silliness.


Wow! Remarkable debater you are - you sure you don't have more to say?

----------


## Roy L

> Get what?


The fact you refuse to know.



> You see you have a problem - called "being a crackpot".


<yawn>  That must be why you can't refute anything I say....



> You hate that Trump earns more in a minute than you in 10 years.


No, I hate the evil institutions that enable him to get that much money WITHOUT earning it.



> You do not believe Trump "deserves" his money. Am I right? I know I am right about that.


Indeed, I have stated it explicitly.  Even the most cursory examination of the man's business dealings and career confirms that he makes money by relentless self-promotion, elaborate scams, and political manipulation, not commensurate productive contributions.  He is a huckster.



> But you know who you really hate?


Yep: lying apologists for greed, privilege and injustice, because they are the ones who make massive, systematic, institutionalized evil possible.



> It's not the Trumps or billionaires - because there is no way they get their money unless someone gives it to them.


I have identified how people "give" it to them: under duress, usually applied by government.  Or are you talking about all the banksters and other rich crooks who have been given billions BY government?



> Now you don't complain about the guy who gives YOU money - you like that guy, and if tomorrow he gives you more, you like that even better.
> 
> If I dropped by and gave you a million$, you'd cheer and sing my praises and might even buy me a beer.


Actually, I have despised and detested some of the rich people who have given me money, because I knew they were going to turn the work I did for them to dishonest gain.



> But you HATE that guy who had to give Trump money; you disagree -not with Trump- but the guy who believed Trump was worth more in a minute then 10 years of your earning.


I can only pity anyone who imagines Trump is worth anything at all.



> That's the real roots of those that hate the rich - they really hate those that valued what the rich were doing or selling so much that they gave money to them.


No, that's just more stupid garbage from you.  The rich don't have to do or sell anything to make others give them money.  They just have to own the legal privilege of taking value that others produce.

----------


## Roy L

> It obviously earned your comment, so it must have!


Non sequitur.  I often comment on stupid, meaningless garbage.



> You have two, and only two means to provide yourself the goods you need;
> 
> Earn, by profit and trade
> or
> Steal, by guns or government.


BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT.  You missed the one that is prior to all the rest: production.  You missed it because it is not a part of your understanding of economic relationships.  To you, the producer is a non-entity the rich can rob with impunity: you think the producer's product goes to the rich without having to be produced by anyone. 



> I sense you prefer that latter to the former.


Well, at least you are consistent in being wrong.



> I know YOU do not know, but I know damn well he does.


No, you don't even know that production has to come before profit, trade, or robbery.



> Duh, one guy doesn't have it all....


OK, so you admit that wealth does people no good unless they have some.  Good.  Maybe you are capable of understanding something.



> Whereas I have no love for institutions, I find it funny that I guy just a post or two above disparages wealth but here demands contributions to its creation.


I didn't disparage wealth, that's a fabrication on your part.  I disparaged the wealthy, because they are mostly a bunch of greedy, privileged takers.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> There is one flaw in your logic, well, more than one actually:
> 
> 1st: You mentioned something about "forcing people",


Firstly, no, I didn't say that, please quote me where I've said "forcing people"




> I never said that, nor did I say anyone was "entitled" to anyone's money, merely pointed out that the whole "Get a job and your problems will be solved" idea is a myth,


Expecting that they should get more than what their skill can command IS making an etitlement argument since you think they "deserve" more while I think the markets have allocated them what they deserve because nobody but markets can decide what someone truly deserves through forces of supply & demand

I never said getting a job solves all the problems or anything close to that, I just said, it's better than government-socialism or even charity, people producing goods & services which are needed leads to more prosperity for everyone than there otherwise would be




> and saying people are always getting paid what they are worth is also a myth. Think of people who work in nursing homes, I'd say they provide a pretty important service and have alot of responsibility on their hands yet they are paid very little, you can make an employer alot of cash, doesn't mean they are going to reward you proportionately.


There's nothing mythical about supply & demand, the supply of those nursing-home workers is high enough in relation to their demand to only get what they're getting, if they were worth more then employer would've to pay them more to hire them

You forget there would've been no work had the employer hadn't put up the initial capital, whatever he gets is a return on that capital & again, if the venture had failed, would those workers have worked for him for free? NO, their compansation is fixed irrespective of the success of the venture but the same can't be said of the employer & that's why whatever is made over & above, what is paid to workers & other costs, belongs to him




> 2nd: The house thing, I already dubunked that, true the man building his rediculous sized home employs some people, but had he not let those workers go they would have hired those construction workers to do work on their homes, also think of how much money those layed off workers spend on other products - cars, toothpaste, food, etc.


I don't think you debunked anything, he didn't think he could make profits from the venture, meaning that markets were asking not to waste the resources there because the demand is dropping & better to save those resources for now If there was a legitimate demand he'd have gone on with his venture or someone else would've so your point about the construction workers & toothpastes & cars is irrelevant

You're using government/Keynesian logic, like they say - if people aren't spending then government should - yes, but they aren't spending because that's what markets are demanding so taking money from people or inflating is ridiculous
Now, before you misconstrue me , I NOT saying you necessarily support government-spending BUT the logic you're using is similar that he should spend (waste) resources even though markets are suggesting otherwise, sure, it'll push toothpaste/food/car-sales but the bottomline is that the capital spent on keeping his workers is a waste because markets are suggesting that they are so it would be BETTER if he lets them go & they should take up other jobs where there IS market-demand & buy toothpaste/food/cars with money they earn there, as I've said before, a society grows rich by production of goods & services that are needed, not by paying people just for the sake of it




> 3rd: If billionaires were constantly recirculating their money that'd be one thing, but many of them don't, they hold onto it like Scrooges, look at that guy who Anna Nichole married, he had billions when he died, how was the money growing the economy sitting there? How about that trillion or so overseas right now just sitting because they don't want to bring it back here and be taxed on it, how is that helping the economy?


What do you think they do with their money? Do you think they sleep in it or something? They either spend it or invest it, either they can invest directly or through the banking-channel

And aren't those trillions helping produce goods & services there? US economy isn't isolated, economies must be seen as a whole, if they produce goods & services there then that has an impact on lowering US prices too as all prices are interlinked, it's a cumulative system & the more goods & services are produced in the world the more it helps the world as a whole

Besides, as I've said before, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to keep their money from being stolen by thieves so nothing wrong with them not bringing it in, it's the market that decide that it'll be more fruitful there than it will be here & even Ron Paul perfectly understands this & therefore, what's his solution to that? - Don't tax it & they'll bring that into US




> 4th: My tax idea was not the "Socialist" view, I actually follow Ron's view that no one should be taxed, however, if there are taxes, everyone should have to pay equally, that's all I was saying.


It IS socialist-thinking to believe that government has any legitimate right to steal from anyone, you're merely justifying it because you are being stolen from

Let me put it this way, if you happen to have a burglary at your house or office or whatever, do you wish & think it's "fair" that others should get burgled too?

Besides, Ron's view on ALL taxes is pretty obvious from the picture so I don't think he'll chase every tax-evader to every corner of the Earth & if he reduces taxes as much as he'd like to then cost of hiding money will outweigh just paying whatever little is needed & be done with it


image hosting gif




> 5th: I don't know where your notion of "working for free" is coming from, working for free goes well beyond charity, working for free would bring someone to ruin, a CEO living a slightly less luxurious lifestyle due to charity would not bring him/her to ruin.


And how is charity not the same as working for free? Let's say there are poor people you want to help & you make them food
OR you could just pay them so they could buy it from someone who's selling it
In essence, you've "worked for free" for them, even if you didn't do so "directly"
You may be an engineer or whatever you get paid for that, & that part of your money which you earned to pay those poor people with, that labor of yours was essentially exchanged for the labor of whomever made the food that they bought with the money you've given them so there's no difference between charity & working for free

Besides, the point was that self-interest is what drives markets to optimum resource-allocation so the CEO not wanting to continue the venture is because markets don't want the resources to be wasted there & the resources & labor needs to be allocated elsewhere

I'm just wondering what you might be saying to a socialist person you're trying to convert when they might argue that "the evil rich" need to be taxed more to pay for the poor because you know it won't matter if they live a less luxurious lifestyle! 
Or if they say, the workers are being paid too little & hence we need minimum-wage laws to "fix" that! 
Or that, those tax-evading companies & individuals need to be punished & taxed! 
And so on, I mean you don't seem to understand how markets allocate resources in an optimum manner then how can you convince anyone else, especially socialists, that free markets would be better & therefore they should vote Paul??? 

I mean there might never be an absolutely perfect society or a perfect "free market", there will always be corruption & "greed" & all that, but understanding the market's resource-allocation gives us a better perspective on things that whether markets are free or not, they always allocate resources better, it's just that freer they are the better for people




> P.S. Already watched that Stossel thing before, good show, but I don't always agree with John.


No two people agree on everything I guess but you'd agree with a lot more than you do now if you'd look into the market-process a little bit more
Google, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" if you don't know already; Bastiat will give more insight into market-process 

Here's couple of good videos (find the subsequent parts on right side in related videos)






Here's the book given in the video - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
That's a must read for all of us who want to learn the market-process

----------


## Black Flag

Roy,

You're boring

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Are wealthy people unethical?


The answer to that would be collectivist. All people are individuals.

It would be a gross generalization, but it often seems that those who are on the "wrong side of the law", and also on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic scale seem to tend towards self-destructive levels of honesty. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there seems to be an utter lack of honesty in any situation. This would be one aspect of "ethics", and there seems to be a trend.

----------


## Butchie

> Firstly, no, I didn't say that, please quote me where I've said "forcing people"
> 
> 
> 
> Expecting that they should get more than what their skill can command IS making an etitlement argument since you think they "deserve" more while I think the markets have allocated them what they deserve because nobody but markets can decide what someone truly deserves through forces of supply & demand
> 
> I never said getting a job solves all the problems or anything close to that, I just said, it's better than government-socialism or even charity, people producing goods & services which are needed leads to more prosperity for everyone than there otherwise would be
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to give me credit that I'm not advocating force from govt but then keep on trying to subtely pigeon hole me into that mentality. You're claim that by my employing the man that I don't exactly need I'm somehow hurting the economy because I'm not investing those dollars and the market tells me he's not useful and he's not worth what I pay him, this is false. The money I use to pay him is purely out of my profits, I spend it, he spends it, what's the difference?

He is in a wheelchair, I honestly don't know what other job he would do, and I admire him that he wants to work instead of sitting around leeching off the govt.

You still are twisting the "working for free" thing, obviously no one would work for free for me because they could not live off of nothing, if I was a billionaire could I give away half my fortune and still live - absolutely, and I'd still live very well, that is not a fair comparison.

On the taxes we agree - No taxes, where we disagree is I say if we do have them, as we currently do, all should pay a fair %, but ofcourse, my preference is get rid of them all together, TRUST ME, if you ever try to farm you know I am all for getting rid of taxes.

I don't have a perfect solution to wealth inequality in society, and I do believe in capitalism, but I will never agree it is right for a small percentage of people to hoard all the wealth and for you to claim there is some system to balance that is not true, the wealthy will always have advantages the poor do not, (lookup Preston Tucker and Nikolas Tesla) there is no for sure formula to get rich, two people can be just as smart, just as hard working one can get rich one go broke.

Govt redistribution is obviously not the answer, but I have to ask, when you watch "It's a Wonderful Life" are you voting for George or Mr. Potter?

----------


## Travlyr

> Nope.  People do all those things just fine without owning land.


From whom do they lease their land?




> No one owns land in Hong Kong, but it is a thriving, free and prosperous city.  No one owns land in China, but it accounts for the lion's share of world production of rare earth minerals.


No one, RoyL? No one owns land in Hong Kong? Do they pay rent? If so, then who do they pay it to? If not, then that would make them the landowner. 




> You need to find a willingness to know the fact that you are wrong as a matter of objective, physical fact, while I am objectively correct.


 Okay. Either the land is collectively owned or it is individually owned. Right?




> But in fact, many people do those things just as well on land they do not own as others do on land they do own.


How so? If you own your land, then nobody can kick you off of it. If someone else owns the land where you sleep, then they can evict you if they want. Specifically, how is not owning land just as good as owning it?




> Oh, really?  Who misunderstands the world: the one who thinks Hong Kong cannot possibly be more prosperous than Bangladesh, or the one who understands why it is?


I live in America. If you wish to live in Hong Kong, that's fine with me. Here in America some of us embrace land and property rights. We are willing to fight for it.




> The Empire State Building was built on leased land.


Who is the leasee and who is leasor?




> That fact proves you wrong.


Huh?




> Now it is up to you to find a willingness to understand the world you live in.


And here we come to the source of violence caused by misunderstanding our worlds. A man who cherishes his right to natural resources (me) and a man who does not respect my natural right to resources (RoyL). Therefore, when I make my land claim by staking the boundaries, then it is up to me to protect my claim against people like RoyL who do not believe I have that right. First, I might put up a fence to keep RoyL and others from trampling my crops and taking my livestock. If the fence doesn't work, then I must protect my claim by even more force. See how that works? Hatfield vs. McCoy.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You seem to give me credit that I'm not advocating force from govt but then keep on trying to subtely pigeon hole me into that mentality. You're claim that by my employing the man that I don't exactly need I'm somehow hurting the economy because I'm not investing those dollars and the market tells me he's not useful and he's not worth what I pay him, this is false. The money I use to pay him is purely out of my profits, I spend it, he spends it, what's the difference?
> 
> He is in a wheelchair, I honestly don't know what other job he would do, and I admire him that he wants to work instead of sitting around leeching off the govt.


I'm DON'T mean to tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your money, you can spend it any way you want & charity isn't necessarily a bad cause at all BUT all I'm not trying to make you realize is that "use of force" isn't the ONLY argument against waste of capital but the fact that EVERYONE in the society is less better off than they otherwise would be

"I spend it, he spends it" argument can just as well be made by the socialists & they do all the time, government says they'll spend if people aren't spending but that's just waste because they spend frivolously
And socialists don't mind use of force either but they may reconsider their position if you show them FACTUAL arguments that destruction of capital doesn't help the society as a whole because the money is given away without production of goods/services worth the money

You've have to understand that "money" isn't capital, it may represent it but not in it's entirety, "capital" is created when a person foregoes his consumption, because every time we buy/spend it creates demand & raises prices & therefore when we save, we're instead making that "purchasing-power" available to others so that they could produce more goods & services & the whole society is better for it because all prices affect each other because it's a cumulative system




> You still are twisting the "working for free" thing, obviously no one would work for free for me because they could not live off of nothing, if I was a billionaire could I give away half my fortune and still live - absolutely, and I'd still live very well, that is not a fair comparison.


May be you would have given away half  of your fortune but that does NOT mean society would've been better off, they may THINK that is the case but all it'll have done is bid up the prices of LIMITED, EXISTING goods & services without the production of goods & services of that worth; on the other hand, saving it would mean lower prices & making that purchasing-power available to others to produce more goods & services which helps everyone in the LONG-RUN, if every millionaire & billionaire gave his money away, it'll have only destroyed capital & there will less goods & services in the future & the society will be poorer for it




> On the taxes we agree - No taxes, where we disagree is I say if we do have them, as we currently do, all should pay a fair %, but ofcourse, my preference is get rid of them all together, TRUST ME, if you ever try to farm you know I am all for getting rid of taxes.


Again, if your house gets burgled, do you hope & think it's "fair" that others should have their homes burgled too?

I don't doubt your dislike for taxes but the view that just because you (or anyone else for that matter) is worse off in some way then it's "fair" that others should also be worse off similarly




> I don't have a perfect solution to wealth inequality in society, and I do believe in capitalism, but I will never agree it is right for a small percentage of people to hoard all the wealth and for you to claim there is some system to balance that is not true, the wealthy will always have advantages the poor do not, (lookup Preston Tucker and Nikolas Tesla) there is no for sure formula to get rich, two people can be just as smart, just as hard working one can get rich one go broke.


There will ALWAYS be "wealth inequality" because all people are NOT alike, their skills they're born with aren't & certainly not intelligence, sometimes, you're just lucky to be born in a society that has a high demand for your skill

The question is where all those poor would be if there are no "evil rich hoarders" - well, likely much worse off than they otherwise had been because again, there can be no prosperity without capital & capital only comes from savings (not from "printing presses" as Keynes & many mainstream economists believe ), the capitalist is rewarded by the market to the extent he's helping produce goods & services & making everyone better off than they otherwise would be, that's why poorer countries usually have fewer capitalists - no savings (ah! "hoarding"), no capital to undertake ventures & have SURESHOT wages to employees irrespective of success or failure of the venture

Again, I'm not saying wealthy don't have their advantages but merely the fact that capitalism is the best deal for EVERYONE because it helps everyone to be better off than they OTHERWISE would have been




> Govt redistribution is obviously not the answer, but I have to ask, when you watch "It's a Wonderful Life" are you voting for George or Mr. Potter?


Media that always depict capitalism as the "evil guy" is one of the reasons why the country is moving towards an Orwellian nightmare led by socialism; but what's difficult to see for public is that a billionaire who merely squanders money by way of charity (I'm NOT saying there should be no charity AT ALL) will only leave the society poorer than the the "evil hoarder", that's why socialism & tyrannism reigns & capitalism, free markets are sneered at 

Again, I urge you look at the video & the book I've posted, it may give better perspective on things; keep the "moral" argument of "force" aside for a moment, it may convince some but most WON'T be convinced & then focus on the real economic argument that is to be made regarding "evil capitalists", without which people won't accept capitalism because as I've said people are self-interested so unless they're shown the FACTS about how capitalism makes EVERYONE economically better off they'll keep choosing socialism & tyranny by making emotional arguments

_The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries._

----------


## Butchie

> I'm DON'T mean to tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your money, you can spend it any way you want & charity isn't necessarily a bad cause at all BUT all I'm not trying to make you realize is that "use of force" isn't the ONLY argument against waste of capital but the fact that EVERYONE in the society is less better off than they otherwise would be
> 
> "I spend it, he spends it" argument can just as well be made by the socialists & they do all the time, government says they'll spend if people aren't spending but that's just waste because they spend frivolously
> And socialists don't mind use of force either but they may reconsider their position if you show them FACTUAL arguments that destruction of capital doesn't help the society as a whole because the money is given away without production of goods/services worth the money
> 
> You've have to understand that "money" isn't capital, it may represent it but not in it's entirety, "capital" is created when a person foregoes his consumption, because every time we buy/spend it creates demand & raises prices & therefore when we save, we're instead making that "purchasing-power" available to others so that they could produce more goods & services & the whole society is better for it because all prices affect each other because it's a cumulative system
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your thief analogy doesn't hold up. Being robbed is a random act of crime, which is illegal. Like it or not (and I don't like it) there is an Amendment which gives the govt the power to tax (rob) us, I don't agree with it, but it is legal, so that is my argument. That is not the same as a burglar.

One key component you seem to forget about capitalism tho is - charity, when Ron is asked what happens to people without insurance what is his answer? Well, the community, churches, charities will help them out. I think what you are doing is confusing charity with handouts, I don't believe in enabling anyone to be lazy or dependent, but there are times when people legitimately need a helping a hand.

I will watch your video but trust me I've read/watched tons of stuff on Capitalism and there always are holes in it, ie I remember when someone asked Peter Schiffe what they should do if their boss doesn't treat them right or pays them an unlivable wage, he says "well you can quit"??? Seriously, just quit your job, that is insane, someone living paycheck to paycheck should just quit their job.

Lastly, sorry to tell you, I deal with the big time farmers all the time, trust me, they are every bit the "evil capitalist", those guys would step over their own mothers to make a buck. I think the real issue you are having with me is likely you are so used to debating this issue with socialists that you are putting me in that box, you seem to suggest things that are a bit more extreme than what I am saying, making money is fine, investing that money is fine, buying some nice things for yourself is fine, but there comes a point where it's like "how much more money does one person need, would it kill you to give your workers a raise, or a Christmas bonus?"

----------


## Roy L

> From whom do they lease their land?


You seem to have somehow found a way to delete from your brain the fact that people did all those things before anyone ever owned any land.  I'm curious: how do you go about removing such facts from your brain?  I've never been able to remove facts from my brain the way apologists for landowner privilege habitually do.

If land has been forcibly appropriated as property, then the producer must pay whoever the community privileges to collect the land's community-created value.



> No one, RoyL? No one owns land in Hong Kong?


Correct.  There is no private landownership in HK, and hasn't been for 160 years.



> Do they pay rent? If so, then who do they pay it to? If not, then that would make them the landowner.


They pay for a lease from the public land authority, and a number of real estate associated taxes.



> Okay. Either the land is collectively owned or it is individually owned. Right?


No.  Land all started out UNowned, and there has never been an event that could rightly have made it anyone's property.  Individuals and collectives often claim to own it, but such claims are never based on anything but forcible appropriation and are therefore invalid.



> How so? If you own your land, then nobody can kick you off of it.


Joke, right?  "Owning" land is never based on anything but forcible appropriation, and is therefore just as rightly overturned by forcible appropriation.



> If someone else owns the land where you sleep, then they can evict you if they want.


No, of course they can't, don't be stupid.  They are required to observe the terms of any lease or rental agreement you may have.  That is why many people do just fine using rented land.



> Specifically, how is not owning land just as good as owning it?


That depends on the terms of ownership.  In most places, the landowner is so exorbitantly subsidized at the expense of the productive that not owning land is equivalent to taking a vow of perpetual poverty.  That is why you like to own land: you want to continue to pocket your welfare subsidy giveaway at others' expense.  But in places like HK where no one owns land, not owning land works very well all round.



> I live in America. If you wish to live in Hong Kong, that's fine with me.


You blankly refuse to know facts that prove you wrong.  No surprises there.



> Here in America some of us embrace land and property rights. We are willing to fight for it.


Of course, just as greedy, privileged, evil filth who lived in America 150 years ago embraced their property "right" in human flesh and were willing to fight for it.



> Who is the leasee and who is leasor?


The land is currently owned by Prudential Insurance; after a complicated history, Malkin Holdings has emerged as owner of both the building and the land lease.



> Huh?


Go back to sleep.



> And here we come to the source of violence caused by misunderstanding our worlds.


Right: the violence initiated by those who seek forcibly to remove others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.



> A man who cherishes his right to natural resources (me)


What "right to natural resources" would that be?  A right forcibly to deprive others of their liberty to use natural resources, perhaps?  You are obviously not satisfied with the liberty right to _use_ natural resources non-exclusively, which our ancestors exercised for millions of years.  No.  You are not actually interested in exercising your valid natural liberty right to _use_ natural resources at all.  What you seek is a "right" to remove MY natural liberty right to use natural resources -- i.e., to initiate the use of force against me should I wish to exercise my right to liberty on land you claim is "yours."



> and a man who does not respect my natural right to resources (RoyL).


Oh, but now, inevitably, you are just deliberately lying about what I have plainly written, like any evil, lying apologist for greed, privilege and injustice.  I absolutely respect your valid natural liberty right to *USE* natural resources.  What I don't respect is your outrageous and indefensible claim that you have a "right" to remove *MY* natural liberty right to use natural resources.



> Therefore, when I make my land claim by staking the boundaries,


I.e., when you claim you have removed my right to liberty, and declare your intention to initiate violent, aggressive, physical coercion against me should I try to exercise it.



> then it is up to me to protect my claim against people like RoyL who do not believe I have that right.


No, you will go crying to government for help, just as slave owners did when their property "rights" needed enforcing against their victims, who only sought to exercise their rights to liberty.  The privileged always know they are reliant on government to secure for them their privileges of pocketing unearned wealth at the expense of others' rights.



> First, I might put-up a fence to keep RoyL and others from trampling my crops and taking my livestock.


No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.  Your crops and livestock are quite safe.  They are products of labor and thus rightly yours.  But you can't expect the rest of us to just give up our liberty rights to use that land you want to exclude us from without just compensation.



> If the fence doesn't work, then I must protect my claim by even more force. See how that works? Hatfield vs. McCoy.


Master vs slave, you mean...  Yes, I see how it works everywhere land is privately owned, and government does not intercede to rescue the landless from the slavery-like conditions they would otherwise be consigned to.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> From whom do they lease their land?
> 
> 
> No one, RoyL? No one owns land in Hong Kong? Do they pay rent? If so, then who do they pay it to? If not, then that would make them the landowner. 
> 
>  Okay. Either the land is collectively owned or it is individually owned. Right?
> 
> 
> How so? If you own your land, then nobody can kick you off of it. If someone else owns the land where you sleep, then they can evict you if they want. Specifically, how is not owning land just as good as owning it?
> ...


Welcome to the imaginary land of Cognitive Dissonance that is Roy L's utopian, idealistic world.

----------


## Travlyr

> The land is currently owned by Prudential Insurance; after a complicated history, Malkin Holdings has emerged as owner of both the building and the land lease.


I think you got it! Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings are the owners whether you like it or not. They control that property with guns.




> Right: the violence initiated by those who seek forcibly to remove others' rights to liberty without making just compensation.


Exactly! Just like the Hatfields and McCoys 

I make my claim forcibly against you just like Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings do at the Empire State Building. If you don't like it, then that's too bad. It is good for me and my family because we can have a home to live in and feel safe, secure, warm and dry. I will defend my family and my right to own land with a weapon if necessary.

----------


## Roy L

> You've have to understand that "money" isn't capital, it may represent it but not in it's entirety, "capital" is created when a person foregoes his consumption, because every time we buy/spend it creates demand & raises prices & therefore when we save, we're instead making that "purchasing-power" available to others so that they could produce more goods & services & the whole society is better for it because all prices affect each other because it's a cumulative system


???  Huh?  Who do you imagine gets the money when you spend it on a product, other than the producer??  The best way to put money in the hands of producers who can invest it most productively is to buy their products.  It's not up to consumers to refrain from consuming in the hope that some producer somewhere will be able to use their savings productively.  It's up to producers to allocate the money they receive for their products so as to produce more as efficiently as they can.



> the capitalist is rewarded by the market to the extent he's helping produce goods & services & making everyone better off than they otherwise would be,


Oh?  Then why can't you answer The Question:

_"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"_



> that's why poorer countries usually have fewer capitalists - no savings (ah! "hoarding"),


OTC, poor countries often have rich (especially landowning) elites with lots of savings.  It is almost proverbial in many poor countries that people who need to borrow money go to the local landowner, who brings out a box stuffed with it.



> Again, I'm not saying wealthy don't have their advantages but merely the fact that capitalism is the best deal for EVERYONE because it helps everyone to be better off than they OTHERWISE would have been


Not if you compare capitalism to liberty and justice.



> Media that always depict capitalism as the "evil guy" is one of the reasons why the country is moving towards an Orwellian nightmare led by socialism;


ROTFL!  Nonsense.  It is rapidly becoming fascist, not socialist.  The signs are everywhere.

----------


## Roy L

> I think you got it! Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings are the owners whether you like it or not. They control that property with guns.


No, they control it by government decree.



> Exactly! Just like the Hatfields and McCoys 
> 
> I make my claim forcibly against you just like Prudential Insurance and Malkin Holdings do at the Empire State Building. If you don't like it, then that's too bad. It is good for me and my family because we can have a home to live in and feel safe, secure, warm and dry.


People are actually safer in HK.  Why can't you ever remember that HK refutes you?



> I will defend my family and my right to own land with a weapon if necessary.


IOW, you can't justify your claim to own land by any means other than the one slave owners used to justify their ownership of slaves.  Thought not.

----------


## Travlyr

> IOW, you can't justify your claim to own land by any means other than the one slave owners used to justify their ownership of slaves.  Thought not.


Right again, except land is not a living breathing human. I don't know how you missed that. I don't justify to you. I justify it in my mind and that is all I need. It is natural for me like my right to eat. I don't care what you think about it. You don't have to own land if you don't want. I do, and we enjoy it.

----------


## onlyrp

Easy answer : rich people are ethical if they're also Ron Paul supporters or libertarians, because then they're real capitalists. But if they are not, then they're immoral corporatists who want freedom for themselves, but taxes and regulations on everybody else. What decides your morality isn't how much money you have, but how you got it and how you allow other people to compete with you.

----------


## Roy L

> Right again, except land is not a living breathing human.


Neither is the sun.  So what?  Does that mean it must be OK for someone to own the sun?  If not, then you have admitted that the fact land is not a living breathing human is irrelevant to whether it can rightly be owned, and you were just engaging in a dishonest ignoratio elenchi fallacy: i.e., changing the subject.

You need to take a couple of months off work to figure out what rights are, and how making the sun into private property would violate them.  If you can figure that out, you might be minimally qualified to participate in this discussion.



> I don't know how you missed that.


If you were thinking, you might be able to figure out that I "missed" it because it is stupid, dishonest and fallacious crap.



> I don't justify to you.


Which might be because you can't.



> I justify it in my mind and that is all I need.


Like slave owners' justification for owning slaves.



> It is natural for me like my right to eat.


But you can't justify it any more than the socialists who think it is natural to confiscate privately produced wealth.



> I don't care what you think about it. You don't have to own land if you don't want. I do, and we enjoy it.


You enjoy being unjustly privileged.  What a surprise.  I'm sure slave owners did, too.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Your thief analogy doesn't hold up. Being robbed is a random act of crime, which is illegal. Like it or not (and I don't like it) there is an Amendment which gives the govt the power to tax (rob) us, I don't agree with it, but it is legal, so that is my argument. That is not the same as a burglar.


"Laws" are IRRELEVANT to liberty, Patriot Act & NDAA even for indefinite detention & even killing of people, so just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's proper, same with taxes, just because taxing is "legal" does NOT mean it's not burglery, it IS, there are no two ways about that




> One key component you seem to forget about capitalism tho is - charity, when Ron is asked what happens to people without insurance what is his answer? Well, the community, churches, charities will help them out. I think what you are doing is confusing charity with handouts, I don't believe in enabling anyone to be lazy or dependent, but there are times when people legitimately need a helping a hand.


As I've said, I'm NOT against charity but the recognition that it IS waste of capital when people are given stuff without them ADDING more goods & services to the society
Just giving away, adds little & only increases demand & prices of EXISTING LIMITED goods & services while saving it allows others to use that purchasing-power to PRODUCE, that's what capitalism is about & that's what makes it beter than socialism
For example, you may've a socialist society completely bereft of force & they'd still be worse off that a capitalist society bereft of force because socialist one won't be saving much & redistribution, (even consensual) only succeeds in raising demand & prices & destroyes capital




> I will watch your video but trust me I've read/watched tons of stuff on Capitalism and there always are holes in it, ie I remember when someone asked Peter Schiffe what they should do if their boss doesn't treat them right or pays them an unlivable wage, he says "well you can quit"??? Seriously, just quit your job, that is insane, someone living paycheck to paycheck should just quit their job.


Again, nobody "deserves" a particular wage, they get what they get because that's what their skill is worth at that point in time

Why do you think doctors make more than a bricklayer? Because doctors services are valued more by the society & there's a lower supply of his services compared to its demand & hence his "price" gets bidded up, which is an indication by the market to show that there's low supply & more people need to become doctors to meet demand but unfortunately becoming a good doctor is beyond most people but even still, you'll see in places like India or China there's a glut of doctors & that's why their "prices" are much lower & many in the West can travel & vacation there & get the desired treatment, all with the same money or less than what it would cost in the West, where there's less competition because of big labor & welfarism & what not but just to make the point that prices are market-indicators of supply & demand, higher the supply, less the price & higher demand, higher the price

If someone gives others "livable wage" (& that's pretty subjective most of the time anyway) irrespective of the services & productivity provided by them then he'll be giving more to them than the value of goods & services, they'll consume more goods & services than the value of services they've provided to the society




> Lastly, sorry to tell you, I deal with the big time farmers all the time, trust me, they are every bit the "evil capitalist", those guys would step over their own mothers to make a buck. I think the real issue you are having with me is likely you are so used to debating this issue with socialists that you are putting me in that box, you seem to suggest things that are a bit more extreme than what I am saying, making money is fine, investing that money is fine, buying some nice things for yourself is fine, but there comes a point where it's like "how much more money does one person need, would it kill you to give your workers a raise, or a Christmas bonus?"


Actually, I am used to debating socialists because world is ripe with them & also tyranny for the same, because they don't or can't understand what goes on "behind the scenes", they just see the "evil capitalist hoarder" but don't see that if he just gave money away, most of that will just be spent of consumption & thereby bidding up LIMITED EXISTING goods & services without producing the equivalent amount in goods & services

I guess you "want" to support capitalism but you don't because I'm sorry but you're stuck in a socialist paradigm
It's NOT a question of "how much money does one need", but people fail to see that by not just spending it or just giving it away for others to spend, he SAVES purchasing-power & thereby demand & prices for goods & services are lower than they otherwise would be & thereby he creates "capital" & then he makes that purchasing-power available to other productive people who want to be produce MORE goods & services & prosperity of a society as a whole depends ONLY & ONLY one thing - availability of more & more goods & services so that prices would be lower than they otherwise would be & more people can enjoy them

There are three parts to the video-series I think & I'd HIGHLY recommend this free e-book, it's written in simple English, no complex jargon or stats, etc & it's not very lengthy either - http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

----------


## Black Flag

> Again, nobody "deserves" a particular wage, they get what they get because that's what their skill is worth at that point in time


Exactly.

When anyone says "He doesn't deserve that pay" --- what they are really saying is "the guy who gave him that pay is really stupid" because no gets paid unless someone else gives them the money.

Their complaint, then, is bizarre.

They are judging -not the guy getting money but - the guy GIVING the money!

But what right do they have to judge what others spend their money on?
It's not their money to judge!!

----------


## Roy L

> Exactly.
> 
> When anyone says "He doesn't deserve that pay" --- what they are really saying is "the guy who gave him that pay is really stupid" because no gets paid unless someone else gives them the money.
> 
> Their complaint, then, is bizarre.
> 
> They are judging -not the guy getting money but - the guy GIVING the money!
> 
> But what right do they have to judge what others spend their money on?
> It's not their money to judge!!


Come on, people, are you really that ignorant of basic economics?  Google "rent seeking behavior" and start reading.

----------


## Black Flag

> Come on, people, are you really that ignorant of basic economics?  Google "rent seeking behavior" and start reading.


Yawn

----------


## Butchie

> "Laws" are IRRELEVANT to liberty, Patriot Act & NDAA even for indefinite detention & even killing of people, so just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's proper, same with taxes, just because taxing is "legal" does NOT mean it's not burglery, it IS, there are no two ways about that


We both agreed on this, why do you keep saying it? You can do your "work around" wording all you like, fact is, taxes, right or wrong, are a reality, a reality that we would both like to change, but for now it's here, just because it's wrong doesn't make it go away unfortunately.




> As I've said, I'm NOT against charity but the recognition that it IS waste of capital when people are given stuff without them ADDING more goods & services to the society
> Just giving away, adds little & only increases demand & prices of EXISTING LIMITED goods & services while saving it allows others to use that purchasing-power to PRODUCE, that's what capitalism is about & that's what makes it beter than socialism
> For example, you may've a socialist society completely bereft of force & they'd still be worse off that a capitalist society bereft of force because socialist one won't be saving much & redistribution, (even consensual) only succeeds in raising demand & prices & destroyes capital


Again, you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying. If I keep the money I pay the guy I hired how is that "growing the economy", please, explain, I don't save, I buy gold/silver, so if I don't give him the money I will buy more coins that will sit in my safe, doing nothing until I retire. I pay him he spends it, I will ask you a simple question again, Anna Nichole's husband, had billions when he died, how exactly were those billions helping anyone? How then too would you care for people without insurance if just "giving" them money is wasting capital, how do they get care?




> Again, nobody "deserves" a particular wage, they get what they get because that's what their skill is worth at that point in time
> 
> Why do you think doctors make more than a bricklayer? Because doctors services are valued more by the society & there's a lower supply of his services compared to its demand & hence his "price" gets bidded up, which is an indication by the market to show that there's low supply & more people need to become doctors to meet demand but unfortunately becoming a good doctor is beyond most people but even still, you'll see in places like India or China there's a glut of doctors & that's why their "prices" are much lower & many in the West can travel & vacation there & get the desired treatment, all with the same money or less than what it would cost in the West, where there's less competition because of big labor & welfarism & what not but just to make the point that prices are market-indicators of supply & demand, higher the supply, less the price & higher demand, higher the price
> 
> If someone gives others "livable wage" (& that's pretty subjective most of the time anyway) irrespective of the services & productivity provided by them then he'll be giving more to them than the value of goods & services, they'll consume more goods & services than the value of services they've provided to the society


You are just generalizing. I agree there are many instances where the market does control wages, but there are others where it's simply up to the boss, their workers make them mountains of money yet they still pay them very little, where I say you are living in a bit of fantasy is that you honestly think an employer will say "Gee, this guy made me a ton of money, I really owe it to him to give him a fair share of it", sure, what is "fair" will always be debatable, but trust me, employers try every which way they can to skimp out on paying their workers.






> Actually, I am used to debating socialists because world is ripe with them & also tyranny for the same, because they don't or can't understand what goes on "behind the scenes", they just see the "evil capitalist hoarder" but don't see that if he just gave money away, most of that will just be spent of consumption & thereby bidding up LIMITED EXISTING goods & services without producing the equivalent amount in goods & services
> 
> I guess you "want" to support capitalism but you don't because I'm sorry but you're stuck in a socialist paradigm
> It's NOT a question of "how much money does one need", but people fail to see that by not just spending it or just giving it away for others to spend, he SAVES purchasing-power & thereby demand & prices for goods & services are lower than they otherwise would be & thereby he creates "capital" & then he makes that purchasing-power available to other productive people who want to be produce MORE goods & services & prosperity of a society as a whole depends ONLY & ONLY one thing - availability of more & more goods & services so that prices would be lower than they otherwise would be & more people can enjoy them


OK, you come try and farm with me then, you'll change your tune. Just an example, start of the year, I have to buy seed, well, they always have some BS excuse of how there's some new "shortage" or what have you, so they jack up the price, but low and behold, 3 months later, when I go to sell, everything's magically fine and prices go back down, now tell me, what's my free market solution? Go to another supplier, sure, except for the fact that they have a patent on the seed since it's all genetically modified and anyone who tries to copy it will be sued or arrested.  My fuel costs are obviously going to go up again this year, which raises the prices on everything else I have to BUY, but I guarantee my SELL prices won't go up, what's my solution to the monopoly of the oil company's and large farmers?

My view is not socialism, I never advocate anyone HAS to do these things, it is all of their own free will that I would advise them too, but how can you argue that increased demand for products would be bad? yes, the demand goes up, then the need for supply goes up, creating more jobs.

----------


## Black Flag

> , fact is, taxes, right or wrong, are a reality, a reality that we would both like to change, but for now it's here, just because it's wrong doesn't make it go away unfortunately.


_Murder, right or wrong, is a reality - one that we'd both like to change, but for now, it's here and because it's wrong doesn't make it go away.
_
I think it is very important to always keep in the forefront of one's mind the truth:
*Taxes is theft, they exist, and we all should work toward eliminating the evil, not justifying it.
*




> I buy gold/silver, so if I don't give him the money I will buy more coins that will sit in my safe, doing nothing until I retire.


You have to buy gold from someone, and that someone uses the money to do other things.

The fundamental concept you miss is that _labor_ is an *economic good* like any other economic good.

As much as you buy an economic good called gold with your money, you buy an economic good called labor with your money.

So when you buy an economic good with your money, you get that good and the other person gets the money to do with it as they please.




> I pay him he spends it, I will ask you a simple question again, Anna Nichole's husband, had billions when he died, how exactly were those billions helping anyone? How then too would you care for people without insurance if just "giving" them money is wasting capital, how do they get care?


*Those "billions" were out in the market, in the hands of others ...either as loan or as an investment.*

The vital concept missed by many is that *money never stops moving.*
Just because you see an accounting record does not mean money stops on a piece of paper.

----------


## Roy L

> I think it is very important to always keep in the forefront of one's mind the truth:
> *Taxes is theft, they exist, and we all should work toward eliminating the evil, not justifying it.
> *


And you call _me_ a crackpot??!!?

BWAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!

----------


## Butchie

> _Murder, right or wrong, is a reality - one that we'd both like to change, but for now, it's here and because it's wrong doesn't make it go away.
> _
> I think it is very important to always keep in the forefront of one's mind the truth:
> *Taxes is theft, they exist, and we all should work toward eliminating the evil, not justifying it.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> You have to buy gold from someone, and that someone uses the money to do other things.
> ...


OK, I give up on you with the taxes thing, I never justified it, you just keep wanting to go in a completely off-topic direction with that.

The rest I find you are just agreeing with what I'm saying. Exactly, the money doesn't stop, so why does it matter if I spend it or someone else does? Also, as a farmer I am well aware that money, when it's all said and done, is based on goods produced. If I have more corn than I can ever eat, why not spread some of it around or give someone a somewhat token job to earn it instead keeping far more of it than I ever could need?

----------


## Black Flag

> Exactly, the money doesn't stop, so why does it matter if I spend it or someone else does?


Really, its the same thing, isn't it?
*You* are *choosing* what to do with *your money*, and that is your total Right.

However, this does not make _someone else choosing_ how to spend _someone else's money_ a good thing and is not a Right.

It does matter who spends the money - the one that earns it or who didn't earn it who takes it anyway and then spends it....

----------


## Butchie

> Really, its the same thing, isn't it?
> *You* are *choosing* what to do with *your money*, and that is your total Right.
> 
> *However, this does not make someone else choosing how to spend someone else's money a good thing and is not a Right.*
> 
> It does matter who spends the money - the one that earns it or who didn't earn it who takes it anyway and then spends it....


Now we're back to that force argument? That's not what I'm advocating, look, this has been fun, I understand what you're trying to say, I just think you are labeling me with the extremes which is not what I'm saying.

----------


## Black Flag

> Now we're back to that force argument? That's not what I'm advocating, look, this has been fun, I understand what you're trying to say, I just think you are labeling me with the extremes which is not what I'm saying.


Hey, its only one of two things, Butchie.

You get to chose where you spend your money
or
Someone else does.

You don't need to force the first choice on yourself - that is sorta self-evident.

The latter, for it to happen, needs force.

There is no third way here, sir.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> We both agreed on this, why do you keep saying it? You can do your "work around" wording all you like, fact is, taxes, right or wrong, are a reality, a reality that we would both like to change, but for now it's here, just because it's wrong doesn't make it go away unfortunately.


Again - fact is, Patriot Act & NDAA, right or wrong, are a reality, a reality that we would both like to change, but for now it's here, just because it's wrong doesn't make it go away unfortunately - ............so if someone arrested under those "laws", runs away into another country to save their life then that's bad??? 

It's the same thing with taxes, whether they're a "reality" or not is irrelevant, they've every right to try to preserve their rights from being violated




> Again, you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying. If I keep the money I pay the guy I hired how is that "growing the economy", please, explain,


EXACTLY, if he isn't providing service worth that amount then there's no net addition to the economy, & he'll just take the money WITHOUT PRODUCING THE EQUIVALENT & use that money to buy stuff & bid up their prices - as you know, goods & services are limited so every marginal demand increases prices

Again, it's really not about the guy, it's about the understanding of how it works & my initial point was with regards to those 30000 workers, they were fired because whatever the business was engaged in producing wasn't profitable anymore - which was signal by the market to not waste resources there - & they can take up other jobs, where their labor would be needed & they'll producing goods & services which are needed & there will be net addition to the economy




> I don't save, I buy gold/silver, so if I don't give him the money I will buy more coins that will sit in my safe, doing nothing until I retire.


Gold doesn't just pop up you know, it's a real industry where people are hired to mine & everything, moreover, you're merely saving purchasing-power, if you just spend it, it just pushes up demand & raises prices, that's all




> I pay him he spends it, I will ask you a simple question again, Anna Nichole's husband, had billions when he died, how exactly were those billions helping anyone? How then too would you care for people without insurance if just "giving" them money is wasting capital, how do they get care?


Let me first say,
"more spending is good" = Keynesian, largely socialist, government-centric economic thought, which is mainstream right now
"more saving is good" = free market capitalist economic thought that Ron Paul, all the Classical & Austrian Economist follow, which is why he was able to predict the bubble, it was spending without saving

Anyways, as I've already explained several times, saving conserves purchasing-power & allows others spend it, just dumping that money to buy stuff just for the heck of it does no good, it merely bids up the prices of LIMITED EXISTING goods & services, conserving it creates capital
If he hadn't made it available for lending then that's probably because of high taxes, government taking & wasting it wouldn't do much good anyway as it'd only raise prices so market-participants try to minimize the damage




> You are just generalizing. I agree there are many instances where the market does control wages, but there are others where it's simply up to the boss, their workers make them mountains of money yet they still pay them very little, where I say you are living in a bit of fantasy is that you honestly think an employer will say "Gee, this guy made me a ton of money, I really owe it to him to give him a fair share of it", sure, what is "fair" will always be debatable, but trust me, employers try every which way they can to skimp out on paying their workers.


Fundamental rule of the market = buyers want to buy low, sellers want to sell high; there's always a tug-of-war going on between both sides

Again, the employer isn't paying them more because he's the buyer of their services, he wants to buy low, of course, they want to sell their labor high but they can't go much higher than that & that's why they work for what they do otherwise they wouldn't because that's what their skill & productivity is worth to the market, at that time, mostly because of the supply of their labor high enough compared to the demand so "prices" of their are low
Similarly, the skill or capital or whatever offered by the employer is low in supply in relation to its demand, otherwise he wouldn't get what he's getting, if it's high enough then others with that skill MAY enter the market & offer competition, which will drive down his profits & the employees' wages MAY get bidded up if the supply isn't altered




> OK, you come try and farm with me then, you'll change your tune. Just an example, start of the year, I have to buy seed, well, they always have some BS excuse of how there's some new "shortage" or what have you, so they jack up the price, but low and behold, 3 months later, when I go to sell, everything's magically fine and prices go back down, now tell me, what's my free market solution? Go to another supplier, sure, except for the fact that they have a patent on the seed since it's all genetically modified and anyone who tries to copy it will be sued or arrested.  My fuel costs are obviously going to go up again this year, which raises the prices on everything else I have to BUY, but I guarantee my SELL prices won't go up, what's my solution to the monopoly of the oil company's and large farmers?


What you're describing with regards to "shortage" & then there's "glut" - it's a known market phenomena known under "cobweb model" or even "pork cycle" where producers base there expectations upon market prices & then they all go on producing & since there's a time-lag between start of production to actual sale, by that time, prices go down & because of they've gone down, producers produce less which causes prices to go up again & so on & so forth; this is why futures-markets were brought in to existence, so that producers could hedge against future expectations & lock in their price structure; it's not that he's "jacking up the prices" only for you, (unless there's some personal vendetta ) but it's normal market behavior & I don't know may be they're not being able to hedge or something
Just think about it, why would he EVER lower the prices if he could "jack it up" at his will, why wouldn't he "always keep it jacked up"? It's very funny when people make such arguments that sellers can charge whatever they want, they can't, they only react to supply & demand, if supply goes down then prices will go up & when supply goes up, prices will go down; prices indicate to the market the supply-demand scenario of every good & service

With respect to oil prices though, you could hedge with futures contracts, you can set up your cost-structure according to the market rates & then hedge against the future price expectations - http://www.investopedia.com/universi...#axzz1oYUeHtQx




> My view is not socialism, I never advocate anyone HAS to do these things, it is all of their own free will that I would advise them too, but how can you argue that increased demand for products would be bad? yes, the demand goes up, then the need for supply goes up, creating more jobs.


Again,
(1) advocating socialism & its related force
2() believing in socialist economic theories
Those are two different things, I'm sure you're not (1) but I'm saying you're (2)

As I've said previously, socialist government-centric economic model puts demand & spending first while free market models put supply & savings first so you're believing the oft-repeated mainstream socialist demand/spending-centric model, which has been utter failure everywhere, saving MUST come before spending - think of it like, someone has to save capital so that they could spend it, or someone else could borrow it from them & spend it, or provide a service to them & then spend it

So demand going up doesn't do anything unless it's backed up by savings & that's why free marketers put savings-first - you see the debt-based system we live in - how did you think that come about?

Free market model is that in order to earn the right to spend, the person must provide goods/services worth that much amount or it's a waste of that capital (again, I'm NOT suggesting you shouldn't give to the disabled guy but understanding it doesn't hurt)

Again, you could understand a lot more if you'd just take a little time to learn & at least read the free e-book I'd linked in my previous posts; it's in simple english & not very lengthy either

It's only because people don't want to learn that we don't have liberty & capitalism, while socialism (& the resultant tyranny) is present almost everywhere because vast majority of people put emotions before reason & logic & they don't want to expend the time & efforts to learn how things work & they go along with what seems "intuitive" & emotional, which isn't always right

----------


## Butchie

> Again - fact is, Patriot Act & NDAA, right or wrong, are a reality, a reality that we would both like to change, but for now it's here, just because it's wrong doesn't make it go away unfortunately - ............so if someone arrested under those "laws", runs away into another country to save their life then that's bad??? 
> 
> It's the same thing with taxes, whether they're a "reality" or not is irrelevant, they've every right to try to preserve their rights from being violated


You're trying to twist my words. You are speaking out against people having resentment towards the rich, I am explalning WHY they have that resentment. Fact is, because of their influence, they pay less, it's going to make people angry, this is just a fact, it's not a justification for taxes and I'm not siding with the govt. It's the same as when the draft was around, ofcourse people got pissed at the govt for doing it but it was also only natural when they saw how rich kids got exempt that they were going to be angry about it.




> EXACTLY, if he isn't providing service worth that amount then there's no net addition to the economy, & he'll just take the money WITHOUT PRODUCING THE EQUIVALENT & use that money to buy stuff & bid up their prices - as you know, goods & services are limited so every marginal demand increases prices


Don't really care if he produces exactly what I pay him or not, my life doesn't revolve around profit and I don't view people as money signs. I am able to help him out and still support myself, so what is the harm? If I fire him he goes on SSI draining more tax payer dollars, not to mention he loses all of the sense of pride that he gets from actually getting out of the house and earning a living for himself, and his job is not completely a token job either, he does my paperwork for me, if I wanted to hog every penny I possibly could for myself I could fire him and do the paperwork myself, I choose not to.




> Again, it's really not about the guy, it's about the understanding of how it works & my initial point was with regards to those 30000 workers, they were fired because whatever the business was engaged in producing wasn't profitable anymore - which was signal by the market to not waste resources there - & they can take up other jobs, where their labor would be needed & they'll producing goods & services which are needed & there will be net addition to the economy


Really? So all of the people who are laid off now collecting unemployment are a net addition to the economy? Got a funny feeling they don't feel that way.




> Gold doesn't just pop up you know, it's a real industry where people are hired to mine & everything, moreover, you're merely saving purchasing-power, if you just spend it, it just pushes up demand & raises prices, that's all


So you're saying everyone should just hold onto their money and never spend any of it and that saved money will keep the economy going even tho no one is buying anything? Ofcourse, I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I again I'm not advocating everyone just "blow their money", ofcourse you can save some, but once you've got some money tucked away, you are making enough for yourself, what's wrong with giving out a few bonuses or raises to your employees?




> Let me first say,
> "more spending is good" = Keynesian, largely socialist, government-centric economic thought, which is mainstream right now
> "more saving is good" = free market capitalist economic thought that Ron Paul, all the Classical & Austrian Economist follow, which is why he was able to predict the bubble, it was spending without saving


No, the bubble was caused by spending money gotten from credit based on money that never existed.




> Anyways, as I've already explained several times, saving conserves purchasing-power & allows others spend it, just dumping that money to buy stuff just for the heck of it does no good, it merely bids up the prices of LIMITED EXISTING goods & services, conserving it creates capital
> If he hadn't made it available for lending then that's probably because of high taxes, government taking & wasting it wouldn't do much good anyway as it'd only raise prices so market-participants try to minimize the damage


I never advocated "buying for the heck of it" employees putting a roof over their head and food in their stomach hardly falls into that category. When did I ever advocate govt taking anyone's money?




> Fundamental rule of the market = buyers want to buy low, sellers want to sell high; there's always a tug-of-war going on between both sides
> Again, the employer isn't paying them more because he's the buyer of their services, he wants to buy low, of course, they want to sell their labor high but they can't go much higher than that & that's why they work for what they do otherwise they wouldn't because that's what their skill & productivity is worth to the market, at that time, mostly because of the supply of their labor high enough compared to the demand so "prices" of their are low
> Similarly, the skill or capital or whatever offered by the employer is low in supply in relation to its demand, otherwise he wouldn't get what he's getting, if it's high enough then others with that skill MAY enter the market & offer competition, which will drive down his profits & the employees' wages MAY get bidded up if the supply isn't altered


This is a total lie. Before I got into farming I worked security (still do part-time) I can increase my employers profits, doesn't matter, I don't get a raise, bonus, whatever. You are trying to just make these CEO's out to be automatons who follow this pattern of making money, then rewarding their workers respectively, you obviously don't know many billionaires or how they get their money, again, come farm with me, I'd love to see you try to deal with some of these big time farmers, see what you think then.




> What you're describing with regards to "shortage" & then there's "glut" - it's a known market phenomena known under "cobweb model" or even "pork cycle" where producers base there expectations upon market prices & then they all go on producing & since there's a time-lag between start of production to actual sale, by that time, prices go down & because of they've gone down, producers produce less which causes prices to go up again & so on & so forth; this is why futures-markets were brought in to existence, so that producers could hedge against future expectations & lock in their price structure; it's not that he's "jacking up the prices" only for you, (unless there's some personal vendetta ) but it's normal market behavior & I don't know may be they're not being able to hedge or something
> Just think about it, *why would he EVER lower the prices if he could "jack it up" at his will, why wouldn't he "always keep it jacked up"?* It's very funny when people make such arguments that sellers can charge whatever they want, they can't, they only react to supply & demand, if supply goes down then prices will go up & when supply goes up, prices will go down; prices indicate to the market the supply-demand scenario of every good & service


You're joking right? Why on earth would he keep the prices high when he's buying? Do you even understand what I'm saying? You are trying to lecture me on this industry and unless you farm you don't have much authority on this. Yes, he absolutely can set the price for what he sells his seed at, what is anyone going to do? There is no other way to get seed, he can charge what he wants, likewise he can buy the harvested seed back at whatever price he chooses, there are other mills but they are so far away by the time I pay for the fuel/wear and tear on my vehicles it is not worth it, and he knows it. You seriously ask me why he would RAISE prices when he's selling then pay less when he's buying?




> Again,
> (1) advocating socialism & its related force
> 2() believing in socialist economic theories
> Those are two different things, I'm sure you're not (1) but I'm saying you're (2)


No, I am saying we both believe in a combination of keeping money + Charity, I just advocate a little more charity and a little less keeping, you are the reverse.

----------


## Travlyr

> And you call _me_ a crackpot??!!?
> 
> BWAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!


...

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No, I am saying we both believe in a combination of keeping money + Charity, I just advocate a little more charity and a little less keeping, you are the reverse.


Forget about it, this is why socialism & tyranny rules because most people just don't want to or don't have the capability to understand capitalism & liberty; I'm sure you didn't read the book either so good luck convincing socialists about capitalism being better, you can't even convince yourself of that & are unwiling to learn about it

Have a nice day

----------


## Black Flag

> No, I am saying we both believe in a combination of keeping money + Charity, I just advocate a little more charity and a little less keeping, you are the reverse.


No sir, that is a falsehood of your position.

You are not *advocating*, that is, by your rhetoric and reasoning, convincing ME and MY money to be spent on a different thing.

You are *arguing* that the forces of violence be applied to me, to *take my money from me and spent in a way you feel is "better"*

The former way, I can say "no thanks" if you do not convince me.

The latter way, my life is in danger if I say "no thanks"...

That is the evil of the Socialist mindset - they believe they are merely making "talk" and inspiring - when they are actually proclaiming massive violence as a means to achieve their utopia.

----------


## Butchie

> No sir, that is a falsehood of your position.
> 
> You are not *advocating*, that is, by your rhetoric and reasoning, convincing ME and MY money to be spent on a different thing.
> 
> You are *arguing* that the forces of violence be applied to me, to *take my money from me and spent in a way you feel is "better"*
> 
> The former way, I can say "no thanks" if you do not convince me.
> 
> The latter way, my life is in danger if I say "no thanks"...
> ...


Huh? Are you sure you're talking to the right person? If you can show me where I ever advocated ANY force or violence against anyone I will mail you a .999% silver round - this a real offer. As for your friend above I say ditto. I have successfully run what the two of you would call a "socialist" business for over 15yrs now, so I'd say my actual life experience trumps any books/videos/or nasty labels you are tyring to pin on me.

----------


## Black Flag

> Huh? Are you sure you're talking to the right person? If you can show me where I ever advocated ANY force or violence against anyone I will mail you a .999% silver round - this a real offer. As for your friend above I say ditto. I have successfully run what the two of you would call a "socialist" business for over 15yrs now, so I'd say my actual life experience trumps any books/videos/or nasty labels you are tyring to pin on me.


IF you advocate for government to take my money and give to others, then you are advocating for force, but merely by proxy.

IF you have not advocated for government to do this, then my apologies since now we are merely dialoguing on _'nice things to do, but don't have to do'_ subjects.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Huh? Are you sure you're talking to the right person? If you can show me where I ever advocated ANY force or violence against anyone I will mail you a .999% silver round - this a real offer. As for your friend above I say ditto. I have successfully run what the two of you would call a "socialist" business for over 15yrs now, so I'd say my actual life experience trumps any books/videos/or nasty labels you are tyring to pin on me.


Exactly, that's what I tell everyone, Ron Paul is an idiot for believing that economic theory could have the answers! After all, he's never run a business but many such as yourself who have will recognize that capitalism fails, it doesn't work & capitalist theories are all bunk & only socialist theories based on spending are the real deal 

Again, I'll ask you a simple question, how do YOU convince people capitalism is better? Or do you just stay away from arguing about capitalism because you yourself believe that capitalism doesn't work?

P.S. The argument that just because someone has been in business that they understand the market & economics is very weak, it's the same argument that the likes of Romney, Cain, etc have made that because they've been in business, they understand economics but that's not true at all, because it wasn't them who predicted the economic collapse in 2001, it was a puny little DOCTOR (not a businessman) from Texas that predicted it while all the great bankers & businesses & Bernankes couldn't see it coming & got wiped out when it came; it's only the understanding of Austrian economic theory that allowed a DOCTOR (not a businessman) an insight into the market-process & economics, & therefore, running a business & understanding economics are two very different things & if one wants to understand economic then one must learn economic theory!

----------


## Xhin

Socialists/Communists are definitely unethical, their idea is to rob people who have earned their money and give it to people who haven't. Similarly, a lot of the Left here in America have no problem with robbing one group of their rights in order to give another group rights.

Wealthy people can definitely be unethical, but that depends on the person rather than the ideology. I think the correlation the OP made is really that people who are more willing to take risks will take them both to accrue wealth and to break the law.

----------


## Black Flag

> to break the law.


Is breaking the "law" unethical?

----------


## Xhin

> A CEO takes risks with other peoples careers and corporate bank accounts to determine whether he'll make $250,000 or $25,000,000 this year.


Or file bankruptcy due to lack of his product selling, legal liability, etc. Also business startup is a *LOT* more work than an 8-hour day. Unless you're just incredibly lucky, you're going to put in a lot of work and not get much pay (if any) while starting up the business, unless you get investors in which case there's more risk because if your business fails, you have to file bankruptcy to avoid the debt you owe them (also you have to spend time selling your product before it actually exists).

Have you ever had a janitor job? I have (well I've done janitorial tasks at one of my jobs anyway). If you follow some basic safety regulations, all you have to do is avoid accidents (which are usually self-inflicted anyway) and your risk drops to your boss laying you off for corporate reasons. Work a little harder than average (mindless, risk-free work) and become essential to your employer and that risk drops to almost nothing.

Working for yourself (I've done that too) means you have to think more, and adapt, and focus on providing the highest quality possible rather than doing whatever will keep you from being fired. You can also find yourself working many more hours a day than the mandatory 8 or so at a janitorial position.




> Let's put it this way, if the billionaire's project or business had failed & had he lost all the money, would the workers have worked for him, even though he doesn't have money to pay them???


+1! Also your post has made the market seem almost.. supernatural o.O




> To just say the rich "worked hard", no doubt most of them did, but if working hard was some guarantee of being rich we'd have alot more rich people in the world.


I've found that people overstate how hard they work at minimum wage jobs. When I have a minimum wage job, I work extremely hard and end up with people either trying to promote me or calling me and trying to get me to work months after I've quit. Yet the people around me who are doing the bare minimum actively complain about how hard they work and how little they get for it. I think the problem is that these people judge how hard they work on how much they hate their job. There's really no excuse for it.




> Why does just being born entitle one to other people's money?


It doesn't. In the case of inheritance, the people who earned their own money are giving it to you willingly.




> It's ok you believe in keeping your workers even though you could do away with them but that doesn't negate the fact that it's a waste of capital & labor which could have been used elsewhere for some actual productive endeavor to create goods/services that are needed


I think you're thinking of capitalism in terms of socialism. The whole point with capitalism is that it makes society flourish, but it does so inadvertently based on the freedom it grants. If you want to "waste" your capital in an ethical way, there should be no societal pressure to not do so.

Forgive me for only being on page 5 so far :P

----------


## Xhin

> Is breaking the "law" unethical?


If you're breaking the law in business, then yes. Otherwise no, provided we're still in the context of "business ethics" which is what the study measured.

----------


## Xhin

> Why is it that this $#@!ty system we have in the West created computers, cell phones and the internet? Why wasn't the internet created in Iran, Zimbabwe, or North Korea?


Not to nitpick, but that's not really a good comparison since the "West" has been wealthier far longer than it's been capitalistic. Also the internet was invented by a non-profit group (they also invented vac-trains which don't exist yet but totally should). But yes, there's still a lot of proof that freer markets create more technological innovation.




> 90% of their income still comes from search.


Their income actually comes from ads.




> If someone came up with a search that was twice as good as Google - the company would be out of business tomorrow and the new guys would be billionaires.


Wolfram alpha comes to mind. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the full version launches.




> It would be amazing folly to conclude that Google's market dominance nowadays has anything to do with having better technology.


Very true, otherwise they wouldn't have made their UI less user-friendly in favor of making it look prettier and more up to date with web standards. I think its market dominance is only because people know what it is and use it and starting a search engine from scratch with better features is damned hard.




> And the rich, like criminals, often only work hard at getting something for nothing. In the case of the rich, this hard work is called, "rent seeking behavior."


So if you make money from something you've invested your money in, you're getting "something for nothing". Interesting outlook. I suppose freelance carpenters who buy their own tools and advertisements are also getting something for nothing.




> Seriously, just quit your job, that is insane, someone living paycheck to paycheck should just quit their job.


Let's look at this another way. You have a patch of land and have a garden on it. You work tirelessly on getting rid of weeds. I come along and ask if you need the help. You say sure, and you'll buy me dinner every day I work for you. However, when I work, you yell at me for making mistakes and not doing it as well as you. Do I have the right to _force_ you to treat me better just because I've become reliant upon you for dinner?




> I have to buy seed, well, they always have some BS excuse of how there's some new "shortage" or what have you, so they jack up the price, but low and behold, 3 months later, when I go to sell, everything's magically fine and prices go back down, now tell me, what's my free market solution?


Go for organic, non-GMO seed once and then use your own seed afterwards? Organic stuff seems to sell for a lot higher anyway.




> what's my solution to the monopoly of the oil company's and large farmers?


Invest in a truck with higher MPG? Get a diesel that can run on vegetable oil (with the right parts) and fuel up for free at fast food chains?




> they only react to supply & demand, if supply goes down then prices will go up & when supply goes up, prices will go down; prices indicate to the market the supply-demand scenario of every good & service


There's more in play than just simple supply and demand. If you, say, offer something that has higher quality (or lie about its actual quality but market it effectively) then you can  jack your prices up way higher than competitors. Also, if you market something as having low prices, and enough people believe you, then you can jack the prices up then and trick people into thinking they're lower *cough*walmart*cough*.

----------


## idiom

There are a numbers of schools of philosophy including Aristotle that believe *only* the wealthy can be ethical. For example only the Wealthy can be magnanimous.

There are other schools of course that believe only the destitute can be ethical.

So you need to start with your definition of ethical, not end with it.

----------


## Butchie

> Exactly, that's what I tell everyone, Ron Paul is an idiot for believing that economic theory could have the answers! After all, he's never run a business but many such as yourself who have will recognize that capitalism fails, it doesn't work & capitalist theories are all bunk & only socialist theories based on spending are the real deal 
> 
> Again, I'll ask you a simple question, how do YOU convince people capitalism is better? Or do you just stay away from arguing about capitalism because you yourself believe that capitalism doesn't work?
> 
> P.S. The argument that just because someone has been in business that they understand the market & economics is very weak, it's the same argument that the likes of Romney, Cain, etc have made that because they've been in business, they understand economics but that's not true at all, because it wasn't them who predicted the economic collapse in 2001, it was a puny little DOCTOR (not a businessman) from Texas that predicted it while all the great bankers & businesses & Bernankes couldn't see it coming & got wiped out when it came; it's only the understanding of Austrian economic theory that allowed a DOCTOR (not a businessman) an insight into the market-process & economics, & therefore, running a business & understanding economics are two very different things & if one wants to understand economic then one must learn economic theory!


Your comment demonstrates to me you are so far off on understanding what I'm trying to say. Like I mentioned earlier so many of you are so eager to go into your lectures you don't even read what was said.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> +1! Also your post has made the market seem almost.. supernatural o.O


Sure, rain & clouds, & rising & setting of the Sun & the Moon & many other things seem "supernatural" until people understand the processes that cause them, same holds for market-process, sure, it may seem "supernatural" or "idealistic" for some when someone argues that markets allocate resources better but once they understand the process as to how & why that happens then it's just another thing, which is no more "supernatural" in any way, no more than we consider rain or rising & setting of Sun to be "supernatural"




> I think you're thinking of capitalism in terms of socialism. The whole point with capitalism is that it makes society flourish, but it does so inadvertently based on the freedom it grants. If you want to "waste" your capital in an ethical way, there should be no societal pressure to not do so.
> 
> Forgive me for only being on page 5 so far :P


Nowhere have I said about "societal pressure" but to spread the understanding that those "evil hoarders" aren't really hurting the society, if anything, they're conserving capital & purchasing-power & allocating it better than if they were to just give their money away without the receivers producing equivalent of worth of goods & services

The point of capitalism is that markets allocate resources better than we individually can think & plan; it underlines the futility, not only of coercive socialism but also non-coercive socialism, due to fewer savings & more wasteful spending which only raises demand & prices, without raising production of goods & services by equivalent amount

As I've said, you can have two societies, one NON-COERCIVE socialist & another capitalist, & ceteris paribus, years down the line you'll see the capitalist society producing more goods & services & even the "poor" there having a better living-standard; this is only because capitalist society conserves much more capital & purchasing-power & makes it available to producers so that they can produce more while socialist one where, even if capital is WILLING redistributed according to people's needs then fewer of it will be conserved & made available to producers to produce

We've to understand that socialists don't mind coercion as such, they think they're "entitled" to a good life, just because they exist, even if they aren't being as productive to the society to the extent they want to consume so non-coercion argument may work sometimes but most of the times it won't because they don't mind using coercion against "those evil rich hoarders" "why can't they give more?" so if we were to make a case for capitalism then we must recognize that those socialists are just as self-interested as anyone  so we need to show them how capitalism & "those evil rich hoarders" benefit them as well as the whole society in the long-run by conserving more capital & purchasing-power to produce more goods & services, lower prices & better living-standards for everyone




> There's more in play than just simple supply and demand. If you, say, offer something that has higher quality (or lie about its actual quality but market it effectively) then you can  jack your prices up way higher than competitors. Also, if you market something as having low prices, and enough people believe you, then you can jack the prices up then and trick people into thinking they're lower *cough*walmart*cough*.


+1 for the rest of the post but I'd disagree with the quoted part

NO, prices are the creation of supply & demand, there are no two ways about that, that's why, for example, when government tries to put price-controls or wage-controls, they always fail because you just can't DICTATE prices no matter whether you're a seller or a government or whoever, prices will always be constrained by supply & demand, that's a fundamental factor for those who can observe the market phenomena & why it works better than coercion or central-planning

Sure you can lie about the quality but you'll only be able to sell it at any given price, if enough people are wiling to buy it at that price, that is the demand is high enough for you to sell at that rate, & if the perceived utility, which is a subjective concept, isn't that high then demand & prices will fall pretty quickly because of fewer & fewer buyers at that price
Further, if something is selling at a much higher price than normal expected rate then sellers will naturally want to sell more & producers would want to produce more of it, which'd increase supply & put downward pressure on prices

Let's for example, take diamonds, I mean a lot of people might say they're useless stones but the point is that its demand is high enough compared to its supply that its able to command a high price, despite its obvious futility to some people

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Your comment demonstrates to me you are so far off on understanding what I'm trying to say. Like I mentioned earlier so many of you are so eager to go into your lectures you don't even read what was said.


It's not about "lecturing" anyone but the understanding of how & why capitalism works & why it is better, & the point is that whether people just give money away or government takes it & gives it away, the *economic effect* is still the same, the society as a whole has fewer capital & goods & services than there otherwise would've been

And again, I keep asking you, how would you argue with someone about capitalism if you think that "rich hoarders should be giving more"? Which is basically the socialist line, you just don't support violence but still your position is exactly the same & with that position of yours, you can't really argue in favor of capitalism so how do you plan on spreading liberty & capitalism???

Socialism & tyranny exists, only because people support it, directly or indirectly

----------


## airborne373

For a society to be free and prosperous its people must be moral.

----------


## Butchie

> It's not about "lecturing" anyone but the understanding of how & why capitalism works & why it is better, & the point is that whether people just give money away or government takes it & gives it away, the *economic effect* is still the same, the society as a whole has fewer capital & goods & services than there otherwise would've been
> 
> And again, I keep asking you, how would you argue with someone about capitalism if you think that "rich hoarders should be giving more"? Which is basically the socialist line, you just don't support violence but still your position is exactly the same & with that position of yours, you can't really argue in favor of capitalism so how do you plan on spreading liberty & capitalism???
> 
> Socialism & tyranny exists, only because people support it, directly or indirectly


Simple question: You, I and a 3rd person are all good friends and we all run successful small businesses. One day our third friend finds out his little girl needs a heart transplant, he has insurance, but they will only cover a fraction of it, he drains his bank accounts, sells alot of stuff, still, he's about 10K short. You and I both have over 150K in the bank, I make the *suggestion* that we each give 5K to help him out, I further suggest we give 10K just because we know this whole thing has drained him financially. 

In that scenario you are always free to make your own choice. No one is going to force you to do anything. I would merely encourage you to help out your friend, if you don't, that is your decision and I would go ahead on without you. So, you explain to me how it would be better for the world if you and I to keep that 10/20K instead of saving that little girls life?

I think you need to go back and watch Ron's answer at the infamous CNN debate about the man without insurance. What was his answer again when asked how people who legitimately need help yet have no money get help?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Simple question: You, I and a 3rd person are all good friends and we all run successful small businesses. One day our third friend finds out his little girl needs a heart transplant, he has insurance, but they will only cover a fraction of it, he drains his bank accounts, sells alot of stuff, still, he's about 10K short. You and I both have over 150K in the bank, I make the *suggestion* that we each give 5K to help him out, I further suggest we give 10K just because we know this whole thing has drained him financially. 
> 
> In that scenario you are always free to make your own choice. No one is going to force you to do anything. I would merely encourage you to help out your friend, if you don't, that is your decision and I would go ahead on without you. So, you explain to me how it would be better for the world if you and I to keep that 10/20K instead of saving that little girls life?
> 
> I think you need to go back and watch Ron's answer at the infamous CNN debate about the man without insurance. What was his answer again when asked how people who legitimately need help yet have no money get help?


I think you need to re-read my earlier replies, I've NEVER said that there should NEVER be any charity but just to point out the fact that it can be a waste of capital, if the person receiving money isn't going to produce equivalent worth of goods & services; & the fact that "evil rich hoarders" are actually benefitting the society in ways that aren't obvious to the masses by conserving capital & purchasing-power & making it available to producers rather than unproductive consumers

As for your question, if it's a loan & he produces goods or services worth that & pays it back then that's fine but if the money is just given away then *that transaction itself* hasn't yieded any additional goods or services for the society; my point is that you may choose not to ask the money back but that shouldn't deter you from the obvious conclusion that it was waste of capital

With capitalism, there's an expectation for equivalent goods or services to be produced, every time  money changes hands for the sake of consumption, otherwise it's a waste of capital; it can be for existing goods/services that have already been produced or future goods/services that will be produced, for example, businesses, enterpreneurs take loans, a student can take a loan to increase his productivity & repay with the money he's earned in exchange for goods or services he produces & so on
When people only receive money by way of producing goods or services then that will lead to more goods & services being produced & higher supply means lower prices & better living-standards for everyone, it's not rocket-science!

Hence my original point about the billionaire & 30000 workers, that if profits can't be made off whatever they were producing then it's best not to waste capital & resources there & let them be used in other areas of the economy where they'll be used more profitably, satisfying the demand there

Typically, there's always someone dying or suffering in the socialist worldview, & it's true & that's what makes socialism such a palatable proposition because most people are emotional & very few actually use reason & logic & that's why socialism is almost always more palatable to masses but it never comes alone, it always comes with its resultant corporatism & tyranny & then people whine about that without realizing that they'd been the cause themselves, at least indirectly - case in point - the liberal socialist/communist OWSers

----------


## Butchie

> I think you need to re-read my earlier replies, I've NEVER said that there should NEVER be any charity but just to point out the fact that it can be a waste of capital, if the person receiving money isn't going to produce equivalent worth of goods & services; & the fact that "evil rich hoarders" are actually benefitting the society in ways that aren't obvious to the masses by conserving capital & purchasing-power & making it available to producers rather than unproductive consumers
> 
> As for your question, if it's a loan & he produces goods or services worth that & pays it back then that's fine but if the money is just given away then *that transaction itself* hasn't yieded any additional goods or services for the society; my point is that you may choose not to ask the money back but that shouldn't deter you from the obvious conclusion that it was waste of capital
> 
> With capitalism, there's an expectation for equivalent goods or services to be produced, every time  money changes hands for the sake of consumption, otherwise it's a waste of capital; it can be for existing goods/services that have already been produced or future goods/services that will be produced, for example, businesses, enterpreneurs take loans, a student can take a loan to increase his productivity & repay with the money he's earned in exchange for goods or services he produces & so on
> When people only receive money by way of producing goods or services then that will lead to more goods & services being produced & higher supply means lower prices & better living-standards for everyone, it's not rocket-science!
> 
> Hence my original point about the billionaire & 30000 workers, that if profits can't be made off whatever they were producing then it's best not to waste capital & resources there & let them be used in other areas of the economy where they'll be used more profitably, satisfying the demand there
> 
> Typically, there's always someone dying or suffering in the socialist worldview, & it's true & that's what makes socialism such a palatable proposition because most people are emotional & very few actually use reason & logic & that's why socialism is almost always more palatable to masses but it never comes alone, it always comes with its resultant corporatism & tyranny & then people whine about that without realizing that they'd been the cause themselves, at least indirectly - case in point - the liberal socialist/communist OWSers


So you still want to use that "S" word on me eh, alright, fine I'm a *voluntary* socialist if that's what you want to call me. What you are failing to realize about economic theory is that all "wealth" is based on goods that people want or need. Now, I have over 1500acres of land, it has a freshwater creek and a freshwater pond, if SHTF I would have more than enough food and water to support myself and my 5 employees and their families, so I would equally divide up the work (as it is now) and then at harvest time equally divide up the food. By your logic I should keep as much of the food/water for myself because somehow this is going to help everyone overall for me to have more food/water than I could ever possibly need while the other 5 are rationing every little bit of the scraps I give them????

I think you are confusing socialism with basic human kindness towards your fellow man. You hate socialism (and so do I) because socialism is not the same as what I'm saying. Socialism is first of all govt coming in and taking peoples money, which I don't agree with, the 2nd and biggest problem is then that govt tries to distribute it however the people handing it out are either corrupt or incompetent. Therefore you have an enormous amount of waste and worse yet the vast majority of people who end up with money are not those in need but rather lazy good for nothing bumbs who don't want to work or take any responsibility, but ofcourse the politician will still continue to feed their laziness because it ensures his/her re-election.

If, on my farm, out of the 5 families only 1 wanted to work and the other 4 wanted to just sit around and relax yet reap the rewards, aside from that being grossly unfair there is no way myself and 1 other worker could possibly do enough work to bring in sufficient food for everyone. The scenario in my first paragraph is the "socialism" according to you I suggest, the scenario in this paragraph is what has become known as socialism.

----------


## Black Flag

Accidental duplicate post

----------


## Black Flag

> So, you explain to me how it would be better for the world if you and I to keep that 10/20K instead of saving that little girls life?


Because I may need that 10k to save my little girls life.

That's the problem - you have what is called an "ego-centric world view" - you only see the world as it relates solely to your needs or wants. 

You believe you are not this, because you will say "no, i care about my friends kid" ... but that is because she is YOUR FRIEND -

If your point of view was honest, why are you here?

I mean, instead of spending a $1000 for a computer, why didn't you send that money to Africa and help 3 kids in poverty? 

You didn't because you have an ego-centric view point - helping unknown kids didn't do anything for you, you forgot about them. 

Instead, you pontificate to others that they should forgo THEIR WANTS and do what you will not do!

I save my money and invest it etc. because I *do not know what the future may bring* - tomorrow, my kid might get hit by a car, and it is I that needs the 10K... that 10K you "suggest" I fork over to save someone else.

When *I am confident* that my future's risk, desires and needs have been mitigated, _then I may consider others_ because no suffers alone. 

The suffering of other men effects all men - so to claim that you need to suggest to someone that they should help is rather arrogant of you ... as if only you know what is the right thing to do...

PS:
There is a difference between telling me something I do not know, so that I can make a better informed decision _myself_
vs.
Telling me I should spend my money they way you would spend it.

----------


## Black Flag

> Now, I have over 1500acres of land, it has a freshwater creek and a freshwater pond, if SHTF I would have more than enough food and water to support myself and my 5 employees and their families, so I would equally divide up the work (as it is now) and then at harvest time equally divide up the food. By your logic I should keep as much of the food/water for myself because somehow this is going to help everyone overall for me to have more food/water than I could ever possibly need while the other 5 are rationing every little bit of the scraps I give them????


No, *because that is your logic*

You can't see that.

You made up a story.
You put yourself in that story.
You demonstrated your calculation of certain circumstance of that story.
You claimed you would act based on those calculations.

...and then you started pointing fingers at everyone else demanding that they do exactly the same calculation you did!

Ego-centric.

You do not think that other people have their own story.
That other people make different calculations.
That other people chose different actions on that calculation.

Because they chose differently, you judge them _inferior_ to you because of that.

You do not know what are my circumstances.
You do not know that maybe I am saving my stuff for others who have yet to arrive.

You will say "Well I didn't know that..." -- exactly..*it's none of your gawd damn business* - I do not need to pander to your meddling by explaining the reasons I make different calculations so to get a gold star from you.

You suffer an ego-centric viewpoint - your calculation on the welfare of others is correct; others calculation for themselves is irrelevant.

"Freedom for me, but not for you" is the ego-centric mantra.


You demand judgement on others, but you refuse others judgement on you (unless they agree with you - then you use them as 'evidence' of your righteousness)

----------


## Black Flag

Now, you will deny you are doing any of that ... that's what ego-centric view pointers do - once exposed, they deny it by claiming ethical motives.

You will say "I am merely suggesting better motives or ways people can live together".

_But who the hell are you to think you have a right to educate me on my morals or ethics?_

I am an *adult* - all grown up - don't need you to be my Mother to tell me right or wrong. I figured that out when I was 9 years old... you just figured right/wrong yesterday??? And you think you can tell me what is right and what is wrong?

Who made you the preacher?
What qualifications do you have to preach to me?

What great thing in your life have you done to tell me what is right?

Teach your own _children_.

But I am not your child.

----------


## Xhin

> Like I mentioned earlier so many of you are so eager to go into your lectures you 
> 
> don't even read what was said.


I've noticed that too :P




> We've to understand that socialists don't mind coercion as such, they think they're "entitled" to a good life, just because they exist, even if they aren't being as productive to the society to the extent they want to consume


I'm curious to see what a society composed entirely of socialists who feel entitled would turn out like. Even on a commune you have to work.




> Sure you can lie about the quality but you'll only be able to sell it at any given price, if enough people are wiling to buy it at that price, that is the demand is high enough for you to sell at that rate, & if the perceived utility, which is a subjective concept, isn't that high then demand & prices will fall pretty quickly because of fewer & fewer buyers at that price


Hmm, that's true. 




> I think you are confusing socialism with basic human kindness towards your fellow man. You hate socialism (and so do I) because socialism is not the same as what I'm saying.


More specifically, the bad part of socialism/communism is trying to impose it on a national level without the consent of the people under it. On a smaller level, there's nothing wrong with the concept, which is why these things called "families" and "friends" don't cause economic collapse.




> But who the hell are you to think you have a right to educate me on my morals or ethics?
> 
> I am an adult - all grown up - don't need you to be my Mother to tell me right or wrong. I figured that out when I was 9 years old... you just figured right/wrong yesterday??? And you think you can tell me what is right and what is wrong?
> 
> Who made you the preacher?
> What qualifications do you have to preach to me?


Oh the irony...

----------


## Butchie

> Because I may need that 10k to save my little girls life.
> 
> That's the problem - you have what is called an "ego-centric world view" - you only see the world as it relates solely to your needs or wants. 
> 
> You believe you are not this, because you will say "no, i care about my friends kid" ... but that is because she is YOUR FRIEND -
> 
> If your point of view was honest, why are you here?
> 
> I mean, instead of spending a $1000 for a computer, why didn't you send that money to Africa and help 3 kids in poverty? 
> ...


First, I never said anyone had to give every last penny up for others, there is nothing wrong with having some nice things for yourself, if you read my scenario then you would know that 5K was hardly going to break the bank, so I'm not sure where you are even getting that from, 2nd I never once said I would "tell anyone how to spend their money", I said I would suggest it, yet in the end the decision is yours. As for helping people in Africa that is up to the people in Africa (I have sponsored a few kids in Africa tho since you're bringing it up), again, I never claimed it was anyone's job to save the world, but I do feel we should do our own little part in our neck of the woods, if everyone did that we'd see alot less problems.

Finally, I got my used laptop off Craigslist for $250, you were a bit off the mark there.

----------


## Butchie

> No, *because that is your logic*
> 
> You can't see that.
> 
> You made up a story.
> You put yourself in that story.
> You demonstrated your calculation of certain circumstance of that story.
> You claimed you would act based on those calculations.
> 
> ...


OK, look at the things I bolded in your statement, I will once again make you the silver round offer, if you can come back here and show me where I ever _demanded_ anyone do anything  or _judged anyone inferior_ it's all yours, I'll send it in the mail tomorrow. You also failed to understand I freely agree everyone's circumstances are different. Obviously in my scenario I would never suggest that anyone give if they are not able. This whole discussion was about millionaires and billionaires and does more generosity on their part hurt or help society, if you are not a millionaire or billionaire obviously none of this was even directed at you. This is now the 2nd time you've come at me with both guns blazing accussing me of things I didn't say, I'd only suggest you calm down a bit and try to follow the conversation before you go off on me in the future.

----------


## Butchie

> More specifically, the bad part of socialism/communism is trying to impose it on a national level without the consent of the people under it. On a smaller level, there's nothing wrong with the concept, which is why these things called "families" and "friends" don't cause economic collapse.


BINGO!!!!!!!!

How did you manage to say in one paragraph what I've been trying to say in 10 or so lengthy posts?

----------


## Roy L

> Is breaking the "law" unethical?


It depends on the law, but usually yes, because it means you're taking unfair advantage by relying on others to obey the law.

----------


## Black Flag

> you read my scenario then you would know that 5K was hardly going to break the bank


You made up a story, and in your made up story, you have the vision of God, where you can peer into my bank account, my future, my thoughts, and my desires and wants ... to know that 5K wasn't going to break me.

But in reality, you don't know a darn thing.

So, the grave mistake ... create a scenario which requires God-powers, and attempt to use the "lesson" gleaned by your God-powers to suggest an attitude or ethic on society, where such God powers do not exist.




> Finally, I got my used laptop off Craigslist for $250, you were a bit off the mark there.


Still, that is another child in Africa....

PS: I apologize if I insulted you - I am trying to express emphatically a common human attitude that you most definitely are not unique in holding.

----------


## Black Flag

> demanded[/I] anyone do anything  or _judged anyone inferior_ it's all yours, I'll send it in the mail tomorrow.


But you did - yeah, you massaged the message to be not nearly as radical as mine.... but you said this:
_By your logic I should keep as much of the food/water for myself because somehow this is going to help everyone overall for me to have more food/water than I could ever possibly need while the other 5 are rationing every little bit of the scraps I give them????_

Now, you used yourself as the subject point - but the direct implication is plying the attitude of Paul's position - that his investment and use of his excess earnings is WRONG because you do believe he should do better to his neighbors and relieve their rationing.



> Obviously in my scenario I would never suggest that anyone give if they are not able. This whole discussion was about millionaires and billionaires and does more generosity on their part hurt or help society, if you are not a millionaire or billionaire obviously none of this was even directed at you.


Ah, I see.

As long as you are poor, you do not need the moral lessons - you known them naturally.

But if you are rich, you need moral lessons because you do not know them naturally.

If you are poor, how you spend your money is beyond reproach.

But if you are rich, you spending your money is subject to review, criticism, debate, and if you fail to satisfy those who neither earned your money, or own your money, you will be roundly condemned.


I am harsh to you - not because you are a bad guy - but because the soft, indirect judgements and prescriptions as you present is among the most dangerous weapons used against civilized society. You are the knife inside the velvet glove.

And to expose such danger requires that the gloves come off.

----------


## Black Flag

> More specifically, the bad part of socialism/communism is trying to impose it on a national level without the consent of the people under it. On a smaller level, there's nothing wrong with the concept, which is why these things called "families" and "friends" don't cause economic collapse.


The issue is scale.

Communism does not scale - its division of goods is not based on economics (trade value for value) but emotion. 

My daughter would starve is she was required to 'earn' her living in my house. She is provided for, by me, not on trade but because she is my daughter (emotion).

You cannot love everyone - heck, you probably can't even like more than 100 people, let alone love. Without that emotion, you will not give up what you want for you child so to provide for a child you do not know.

Capitalism scales infinitely - from 2 to any size. It does not require an emotion - it is unemotional - it requires value for value.

Communism works very well in close, emotionally based human organizations - family and small groups and Capitalism... not so well.

Capitalism works very well in larger, impersonal based human organizations - society, nations and Communism .. not so well.





> Oh the irony...


I see.
Preaching about not preaching is preachy to you....

I guess those that claim non-violence except in self defense are "ironic" to you too.

----------


## Butchie

> *You made up a story, and in your made up story, you have the vision of God, where you can peer into my bank account, my future, my thoughts, and my desires and wants ... to know that 5K wasn't going to break me.*
> But in reality, you don't know a darn thing.
> 
> So, the grave mistake ... create a scenario which requires God-powers, and attempt to use the "lesson" gleaned by your God-powers to suggest an attitude or ethic on society, where such God powers do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Still, that is another child in Africa....
> 
> PS: I apologize if I insulted you - I am trying to express emphatically a common human attitude that you most definitely are not unique in holding.


Whatever gave you the impression any of this was directed at you personally or your own personal finances and situation? The thing you are failing to understand is there is a big difference between what people may feel should be legal/illegal and what they themself will do in their own personal lives. Example: Ron doesn't feel people should be thrown in jail for using drugs - yet he personally doesn't use drugs and would advise you not to use drugs. Likewise I don't tell anyone what to do with their money nor advocate for govt doing so either, doesn't mean I can't on personal level encourage people to be charitable does it?

You hinted you have a litte one on the way, now I'm knocking on wood as I say this since I would never wish it on you, but say your child is born with some blood disease or other serious medical condition and you couldn't afford the treatment, wouldn't you be glad that there might be people with my "ethics and attitudes" that would lend you a hand, or would you refuse it and say "get that socialist crap out of here"?

Lastly, don't take one little I sentence I said and post it up there. I CLEARLY stated on your Africa/computer question that I never suggested people aren't allowed to have nice things in life and the no one person can save the world, nor should they even try, quoting me out of context does not help your argument.

----------


## Roy L

> So if you make money from something you've invested your money in, you're getting "something for nothing". Interesting outlook.


That depends on what you invested your money in.  Most of the "investments" the rich make are really just privileges of getting something for nothing.  Of course, such privileges are not free, because a lot of people want them.  That's why you need to Google "rent seeking" and start reading.  Most of what the rich do to get money is not production at all but rent seeking.  The CEOS and other high-ranking executives who rip billions out of productive companies to stuff into their own pockets are also rent seekers.



> I suppose freelance carpenters who buy their own tools and advertisements are also getting something for nothing.


Tools are a contribution to production.  That is why almost none of the rich's money comes from providing producers with tools.  They know they can't get something for nothing by providing workers with tools.  They'd much rather own the land the workers need to work on:

"The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive, way for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price." -- Andrew Carnegie

Owning land is the most common way the rich get something for nothing.  They indisputably aren't contributing the land to the productive process.  It was already there, ready to use, with no help from them or anyone else.  They merely use their legal control of the opportunity to use the land to extort money from those who want to use it productively.

----------


## Black Flag

> Whatever gave you the impression any of this was directed at you personally or your own personal finances and situation?


Because I am rich




> The thing you are failing to understand is there is a big difference between what people may feel should be legal/illegal and what they themself will do in their own personal lives.


I do not fail to understand.

What you miss is:
There is a big difference in explaining your choices
and
Inferring that others who are rich who do not agree with your choices are doing something wrong.




> Example: Ron doesn't feel people should be thrown in jail for using drugs - yet he personally doesn't use drugs and would advise you not to use drugs. Likewise I don't tell anyone what to do with their money nor advocate for govt doing so either, doesn't mean I can't on personal level encourage people to be charitable does it?


You do not encourage at all.
You condemn their alternatives.

You encourage by saying "Helping others makes the world a better place"

But you condemn "Why doesn't he help the poor instead of buying that Ferrari"




> wouldn't you be glad that there might be people with my "ethics and attitudes" that would lend you a hand, or would you refuse it and say "get that socialist crap out of here"?


Help when needed is always appreciated.

However, that is not what I read.

You complained that the rich should do more of it.

----------


## Xhin

> children in africa


If I had more money, I'd "donate" to kiva.org. Lending money to people in disadvantaged countries for the sake of them bettering themselves does a hell of a lot more than giving to charities which is likely to give the money to corrupt governments (or spend money on extremely long airtime commercials) rather than individuals. 




> I guess those that claim non-violence except in self defense are "ironic" to you too.


No, those that are pro-life but support the death penalty are ironic.




> Owning land is the most common way the rich get something for nothing. They indisputably aren't contributing the land to the productive process. It was already there, ready to use, with no help from them or anyone else. They merely use their legal control of the opportunity to use the land to extort money from those who want to use it productively.


And those people are free to seek land elsewhere. I can understand the condemnation of rent-seeking behavior, but there's nothing wrong with owning and leasing land since as the owner all responsibility of maintenance falls on you (or people you hire, but then the land has legal liability that you don't directly control).

----------


## Black Flag

> That depends on what you invested your money in.


So now you are the judge and jury of what constitutes a "good" investment?



> Tools are a contribution to production.  That is why almost none of the rich's money comes from providing producers with tools.


Tools are economic goods. They can only be provided if someone makes them and sells them. Which means someone has to buy them.

If you cannot buy the tool you need, does it matter that it exists or not?

You go to a Capitalist who has money to buy your tool - so you can use it, but without his money, you provide nothing.

You trade part of your future production for his money today so you can buy and use that tool to produce something.

You do not understand basic economics, and thus argue for political violence to correct economic problems derived out of your fantasy.

----------


## Black Flag

> No, those that are pro-life but support the death penalty are ironic.


Hmm, not ironic.

Hypocrites.

----------


## Butchie

> Because I am rich
> 
> 
> 
> I do not fail to understand.
> 
> What you miss is:
> There is a big difference in explaining your choices
> and
> ...


My feeling is the rich should do more helping out, whether or not they do is completely up to them, just as I would tell a drug user he/she should stop using drugs, but again, whether or not they do is their choice. Is that me saying it's wrong to be addicted to drugs, not quite, but it would be my opinion you should stop, likewise is it wrong to buy a new hot rod while your neighbors kid needs a new heart, my opinion would be you should help your neighbor, whether nor not that's right or wrong would be for each person to decide for themselves - that is what America's about, you earn a million, I earn a million, we can each do as we wish with it.

----------


## Roy L

> Because I am rich


And devote yourself to rationalizing the unjust privileges of the rich.  What a shocker.

----------


## Roy L

> So now you are the judge and jury of what constitutes a "good" investment?


<yawn>  If being willing to know the fact that "investing" in a slave does not make his owner the one who is doing the work makes me the judge and jury of what constitutes an investment that contributes to production, and you are not willing to know that fact (as it appears you are not), then yes, I am.



> Tools are economic goods. They can only be provided if someone makes them and sells them. Which means someone has to buy them.
> 
> If you cannot buy the tool you need, does it matter that it exists or not?
> 
> You go to a Capitalist who has money to buy your tool - so you can use it, but without his money, you provide nothing.
> 
> You trade part of your future production for his money today so you can buy and use that tool to produce something.


Fine.  But tools account for only a small fraction of what the rich "invest" in, and an even smaller fraction of their incomes.



> You do not understand basic economics,


I understand it far better than you.



> and thus argue for political violence to correct economic problems derived out of your fantasy.


Garbage.  It is the rich who depend on political violence to rob the productive, and _that_ is what creates economic problems.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Garbage.  It is the rich who depend on political violence to rob the productive, and _that_ is what creates economic problems.


You continue to conflate "the rich" with cronyists.  One of the many reasons you continue to fail.

----------


## Roy L

> You continue to conflate "the rich" with cronyists.  One of the many reasons you continue to fail.


It's a statistical rule.  It doesn't mean every rich person is like that.  But most of the rich certainly are, and the richer they are, the more likely they are to be like that.

----------


## Black Flag

> My feeling is the rich should do more helping out


But they already do.

Their wealth is the investment that makes new companies, hires new workers, builds factories and offices.... without their wealth capture, none of this would occur.




> likewise is it wrong to buy a new hot rod while your neighbors kid needs a new heart


And that is my complaint.

*You move from an opinion on what you would do, into a judgement about what others do.*

You have no right to judge.

The guy who bought the rod might be dead tomorrow, and listening to you, would have never made his dream come true - etc.

*You do not know enough to judge.*

----------


## Black Flag

> And devote yourself to rationalizing the unjust privileges of the rich.  What a shocker.


Your sense of justice should cause great fear in the hearts of all men for if you and yours ever take hold, you will doom civilization.

----------


## Roy L

> Your sense of justice should cause great fear in the hearts of all men for if you and yours ever take hold, you will doom civilization.


LOL!  What a load of stupid, dishonest garbage.  It is unjust privilege for the rich -- and the evil, lying filth who have rationalized and justified it -- who have destroyed civilization after civilization for thousands of years.  And they never learn:

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John K Galbraith

----------


## Zippyjuan

I am reading an interesting book on this topic- "Winner Take All Politics" subtitled "How Washington Made the Rich Richer- and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-Al.../dp/1416588698 They show how changes in taxes and laws over the last 30 years have given more money and advantaged to the rich who in turn use that money to buy political influence.  This money has not "trickled down" in the form of more jobs and investments but instead has become concentrated at the very highest levels of income. Tax rates on the top have been decreased and exemptions and deductions increased for those at the top.  

Was it also due to the economy growing and the rich simply getting "their share" of that growth? Not really.  They have a chart where they calculated what percent of the US economy went to what income bracket in 1973 and compared that to what went to the same percentiles (quintiles they used). Then they compared the numbers today to what incomes would be if the growth had been evenly distributed to all brackets. 

If the growth in incomes had maintained the same percentages today that they had in 1973 (if all groups had the same share of national income they had in the 1970's), then the bottom one fifth would not be making the $16,500 they are today (actually 2006 figures) but $5,866 more- $22,366.  The middle fifth?  Instead of $52,100, they would be making $64,395 a year.  
The top One Percent would not be making $1.2 million a year but $506,002 or $694, 298 less!  95th to 99th percentile- would be at $181,992 instead of $211,768 a year. 

I am only about a third of the way through the book. Giving more money to the rich does not necessarily mean that those farther down the scale will get to share in that. 

Another chart they did was to try to look at after tax incomes (adjusted for inflation)- they tried to include all taxes paid- not just Federal taxes and also included benefits such as social security and retirement plans and even things like school lunches.  Since 1979, the poorest one fifth saw their incomes increase by 11 percent by 2006. Not per year- total increase. Second fifth made 18% more after 27 years. Middle- 21% better (that comes out to a gain of just 0.7% a year). Fourth- 32%. 80- 99th percentile went up 55% over 27 years. Then the Top One Percent. Their after tax incomes rose an astonishing 256%. Nearly all of the growth in incomes for the majority of people came not from getting paid more- but from working more hours.

All of that massive money at the top made it look like everybody was doing better because it raised the average higher wihout the average person really doing much better at all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *LOL!  What a load of stupid, dishonest garbage.  It is unjust privilege for the rich -- and the evil, lying filth who have rationalized and justified it -- who have destroyed civilization after civilization for thousands of years.  And they never learn:
> *
> "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John K Galbraith


So, now you've decided that you hate the rich AND the landowners.  Remember, they are not necessarily one in the same. Plenty of rich people choose very simple lifestyles simply because it's their subjective preference.  Make up your mind who it is you hate and maybe you'll be able to organize some logic from there.

----------


## Roy L

> So, now you've decided that you hate the rich AND the landowners.


No, I don't hate them.  I hate evil and the liars that rationalize and justify it.  Landowners need not be rich, but they are unambiguously privileged.  The liars who rationalize and justify landowner privilege are incomparably more evil than the typical landowner, who is often just trying to defend himself against the evil system the liars have put in place the only way he knows how.



> Remember, they are not necessarily one in the same. Plenty of rich people choose very simple lifestyles simply because it's their subjective preference.


I couldn't care less about their lifestyle.  I care HOW THEY GOT THEIR MONEY.  By productive contribution, or legalized theft?  Mostly it's the latter; and the farther up the wealth distribution you go, the less likely it is that the owner obtained any significant fraction of his wealth by commensurate contributions to production.



> Make up your mind who it is you hate and maybe you'll be able to organize some logic from there.


Try to read what I write more attentively, and you might be able to figure it out.

----------


## Black Flag

> I hate evil and the liars that rationalize and justify it.


Define evil




> I care HOW THEY GOT THEIR MONEY.


Earn
or
Steal

There is no third way.

From what I see of your writing, you want to steal what they earn.




> By productive contribution, or legalized theft?


You have no right to demand contribution.
You have a right to resist theft.




> Mostly it's the latter; and the farther up the wealth distribution you go, the less likely it is that the owner obtained any significant fraction of his wealth by commensurate contributions to production.


Because you do not understand economics, your measure of value and production is equally skewed.

----------


## Butchie

> But they already do.
> 
> Their wealth is the investment that makes new companies, hires new workers, builds factories and offices.... without their wealth capture, none of this would occur.
> 
> 
> And that is my complaint.
> 
> *You move from an opinion on what you would do, into a judgement about what others do.*
> 
> ...


Once again, you post my statement out of context. Whatever, you do what you feel is right in life friend and I'll do the same.

----------


## Butchie

> I am reading an interesting book on this topic- "Winner Take All Politics" subtitled "How Washington Made the Rich Richer- and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-Al.../dp/1416588698 They show how changes in taxes and laws over the last 30 years have given more money and advantaged to the rich who in turn use that money to buy political influence.  This money has not "trickled down" in the form of more jobs and investments but instead has become concentrated at the very highest levels of income. Tax rates on the top have been decreased and exemptions and deductions increased for those at the top.  
> 
> Was it also due to the economy growing and the rich simply getting "their share" of that growth? Not really.  They have a chart where they calculated what percent of the US economy went to what income bracket in 1973 and compared that to what went to the same percentiles (quintiles they used). Then they compared the numbers today to what incomes would be if the growth had been evenly distributed to all brackets. 
> 
> If the growth in incomes had maintained the same percentages today that they had in 1973 (if all groups had the same share of national income they had in the 1970's), then the bottom one fifth would not be making the $16,500 they are today (actually 2006 figures) but $5,866 more- $22,366.  The middle fifth?  Instead of $52,100, they would be making $64,395 a year.  
> The top One Percent would not be making $1.2 million a year but $506,002 or $694, 298 less!  95th to 99th percentile- would be at $181,992 instead of $211,768 a year. 
> 
> I am only about a third of the way through the book. Giving more money to the rich does not necessarily mean that those farther down the scale will get to share in that. 
> 
> ...


This is some good info, thanks for posting. I really feel in this whole OWS 99% vs 1% argument alot of defenders of capitalism have let it blind them to what most of the wealthy are all about. Most of them are not these wonderful "Captains of Industry" just out there trying to build us all a better light bulb, most of them are greedy, heartless people who would step over their own mothers for a buck. Then in turn it's almost as if charity has become a dirty word now, yes, there are plenty of people who are just plain lazy and irresponsible and I have no pity for them, but we can't forget there are people who legitimately need help in life.

----------


## osan

> This is something that I think needs to be addressed.  My personal belief is that the way our current system is set up, being unethical gives you a tremendous advantage.  The problem is with the system, not that the things that should make you wealthy like productivity, ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc correlate with unethical behavior.  The problem is that those things will not generally make you wealthy in our society.
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...73109.abstract


This thread strikes me oddly in that it is yet another example of the same old thing; singing the blues over the horrors of "the system".  We most of us have been raised in an ethical system that leads us to decry that which we see before us.  It seems to me that few have considered that perhaps the common perceptions are quite simply dead wrong.

Human beings are what they are.  If we strip away the religious bull$#@! that shaped the ethics that in turn shaped our perceptions of what constitutes proper human relations, most of the problems we perceive with the system miraculously vanish... as if by a miracle.  For example, the "problem" of that what we label as "corruption" vanishes, leaving only the actions and relationships we once labeled as such.  Is it a problem?  Perhaps for those not benefiting from it, but the same argument was used my Marx and those who follow in his footsteps as the base justifications for stripping people of private property: unequal benefit.  If benefit needs not be equal, then much that is labeled as "corrupt" is done so arbitrarily by those who wish to benefit at the expense of others, which is equally corrupt.  The only difference between the two positions lies in the base assumptions that one adopts as their fundamental truth.  In other words, the universe of these sorts of human social contrivances mirror in their very fabric that which they ostensibly seek to eliminate.  Talk about symmetry!

These systems of thwart are based on the common conceptions of what is considered "fair" and "just".  Tweak those concepts even slightly and very different results may arise.  I question these notions of fairness and justice in their specifics but not in their broadest senses.  I agree in fairness and justice, but what exactly defines these?  It is my strong suspicion that humanity has gotten them mostly and most egregiously wrong.  I suspect that systems that tolerate human nature as it is are the superior and sage means of living amongst each other.  This is anarchy in its purest and best form.  I am not speaking in favor of rampaging murder, but what of collusion and much that is now labeled as "corruption".  This is human nature.  Attempting to thwart it has failed utterly and miserably.  Perhaps another approach is in order.

The various social systems at work in the majority of so-called "nations" are contrived such that they set the individual at war with his own basic nature, which is to look after his interests above and beyond those of others.  What those interests may be can be widely variant between individuals, but statistically it tends to revolve around self, family, friends, communities, and nations in more or less that order of precedence.  Removing the normal restraints, people would collude and "cheat", and so forth; to a point.  They would do so to the point that the costs balanced the gains in interest.  Sounds eerily similar to the balances struck between supply and demand in free economic markets.  Who would have thought?

The question I raise is whether our fundamental notions of ethics and the systems of enforcement that they underpin are actually correctly designed.  Should a system of behavior really constrain human nature in these ways or should it accord with it?  I would here advise against impulse-driven answers such as "we can't have people going around murdering each other", for they tend to be simplistic and based on root premises whose truth values are eminently arguable.

What I am suggesting here is to consider that our systems that thwart natural human action may in themselves be unethical, to use a term.  Let us bear in mind that the fact that one may not like the conclusions to which sound logic leads, it does not follow that the logic therefore fails or the conclusions false.  That we generally dislike the conclusions to which human nature itself points does not invalidate that nature.  The nature is fact.  Humans are what they are, so why contrive systems that attempt to make them something they are not?  A sense of nobility?  Whose sense?  Whence the authority, and so forth.

Once one dispenses with the root premises that are the foundations of the current scheme and looks at humanity with an open and clear mind, very different vistas open before the eyes.  I am wondering if we have chosen foolishly.

----------


## furface

> This thread strikes me oddly in that it is yet another example of the same old thing; singing the blues over the horrors of "the system".


The System is violent. It uses violence to enforce its rules, so it is legitimate to question its fairness and effectiveness.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> So you still want to use that "S" word on me eh, alright, fine I'm a *voluntary* socialist if that's what you want to call me.


Well, you keep justifying failed socialist economic theories too!




> What you are failing to realize about economic theory is that all "wealth" is based on goods that people want or need.


Oh, the irony! 

YOU are the one who doesn't understand that the real wealth is production of goods & services, the more there are, the lower the prices & higher the living-standards & therefore, giving people free money is NOT creating wealth, it's waste of capital on people who've NOT earned it through producing goods & services, it could be used elsewhere to produce goods & services & add to the total pool of goods & services
You're like governments who talk about how they created 1000 jobs spending money somewhere but ignore the fact that that money prevented 2000 more productive jobs elsewhere in the economy
The concept of _"opportunity cost"_ & _"what is seen & what is unseen"_ is difficult to grasp for socialist theorists

Again, you keep avoiding my original contention regarding the billionaire & 30000 workers, if they can't make a profit by doing what they were doing then it's a signal from the market to spend that capital & labor somewhere else; it's hard for most people to understand that markets allocate resources through prices & profits, they indicate the urgency with which resources are needed in any part of the economy

Again, at least read the chapter _"How The Price System Works"_ to get some basic understanding of capitalism & price-system - http://hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I'm curious to see what a society composed entirely of socialists who feel entitled would turn out like. Even on a commune you have to work.


Pretty much like USSR & China & all the other countries that ended up, they'll be pretty primitive, you can't have capital destroyed & expect any kind of prosperity in the long-term, prosperity comes from producing more & more goods & services & for that, those who are helping produce them would have to be rewarded at market-rates & incentivized to produce more, there are no two ways about that
Just look at how the West got rich through largely capitalist systems & then turned to socialism & is now destroying itself while countries like China & India who have moved more towards capitalism (compared to where they were before) & you can see the progress they've made & 100s of millions of people entering the middleclass

Further, people are guided by their perceived self-interest therefore any "pure" socialist/communist system is impossible because people will want more than what they have




> More specifically, the bad part of socialism/communism is trying to impose it on a national level without the consent of the people under it. On a smaller level, there's nothing wrong with the concept, which is why these things called "families" and "friends" don't cause economic collapse.


So you've never seen a family in debt or in penury because of some people within it consuming more than they help produce??? That's the familial version of "economic collapse" I guess!

Again, as I've said before, even if we keep the violence & force aside for a momemt, the worst part of socialism/communism is that it supports freeloading, therefore it destroys capital of more productive people to subsidize the less productive people & you simply don't increase production by destroying capital (not at the optimum rate anyway); capitalism on the other hand, incentivizes production at the fullest scale by rewarding people based on the extent of their productive role within the economy through the price-system

Whether capital is destroyed with use of force or whether productive willingly subsidize the less productive, it has exactly the same impact, namely, lower productivity!




> You hinted you have a litte one on the way, now I'm knocking on wood as I say this since I would never wish it on you, but say your child is born with some blood disease or other serious medical condition and you couldn't afford the treatment, wouldn't you be glad that there might be people with my "ethics and attitudes" that would lend you a hand, or would you refuse it and say "get that socialist crap out of here"?


Sorry but the world already has enough people with your "ethics and attitudes", without them we'd probably have more capitalism & less socialism & people, at least productive ones, would be capable enough to take care of themselves than to rely on other people's alms! The world badly needs many more capitalists!

Passive socialists form the force that allows radical socialists to impose themselves, if only people expended some effort in learning capitalism rather than falling for cheesy sentimental socialist garbage then the world as a whole would be much more freer & prosperous!




> No, those that are pro-life but support the death penalty are ironic.


The underlying theme is to prevent INNOCENTS' rights from being violated to the extent possible, so it's completely consistent position.

And there's always a cost-benefit analysis at stake, those who want criminals to live, they should pay for it themselves; a free society must necessarily be harsh on criminals, especially violent & repeat offenders, they can greatly inhibit the productiveness of the society so expending resources on such people while there are many innocent people having a worse life due to such waste of resources is unacceptable.




> My feeling is the rich should do more helping out,


Why waste capital on unproductive endeavors? Just so they could have some fake sense of high moral ground & ego-boost at the cost of higher productivity & living-standards of the whole society?




> But they already do.
> 
> Their wealth is the investment that makes new companies, hires new workers, builds factories and offices.... without their wealth capture, none of this would occur.


As I've said before, socialist believers have no concept of "opportunity cost"





> Ah, I see.
> 
> As long as you are poor, you do not need the moral lessons - you known them naturally.
> 
> But if you are rich, you need moral lessons because you do not know them naturally.
> 
> If you are poor, how you spend your money is beyond reproach.
> 
> But if you are rich, you spending your money is subject to review, criticism, debate, and if you fail to satisfy those who neither earned your money, or own your money, you will be roundly condemned.
> ...


Of  course, poor people are all good & honest & they always make the right choices, etc it's the rich that are evil & greedy, etc etc! 

+1 for the fact that such passive socialists are the biggest detriment to freedom & capitalism.
Because hardcore-capitalists are probably a small minority & hardcore-socialists/communists are a small minority, so it's the the majority in the middle that dictate the system in many ways but this majority in the middle usually leans towards passive-socialism because it's too much work to read & learn about capitalism & understand the ways in which it helps everyone but it's too easy to fall for the intellectually lazy, sentimental arguments of the socialist-side about people dying & suffering, etc & therefore this passive majority ends up siding with socialists, seeing capitalism as "evil, uncaring, greedy & destructive"

So yes, I completely agree that the soft, indirect judgements & prescriptions presented by passive-socialists have been & still are the most destructive weapons against political & economic progress within a civilized society

----------


## Sam I am

> This is something that I think needs to be addressed.  My personal belief is that the way our current system is set up, being unethical gives you a tremendous advantage.  The problem is with the system, not that the things that should make you wealthy like productivity, ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc correlate with unethical behavior.  The problem is that those things will not generally make you wealthy in our society.
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...73109.abstract



The consequences or unethical (or perceived unethical) behavior for wealthy people are less severe than they are for lower class people.  

Wealthier people can pay their fines with ease, they can afford better lawyers, etc.

Also, unethical actions of the wealthy tend to have a large impact on society, and they gather more attention

----------


## Black Flag

> This is some good info, thanks for posting. I really feel in this whole OWS 99% vs 1% argument alot of defenders of capitalism have let it blind them to what most of the wealthy are all about. Most of them are not these wonderful "Captains of Industry" just out there trying to build us all a better light bulb, most of them are greedy, heartless people who would step over their own mothers for a buck. Then in turn it's almost as if charity has become a dirty word now, yes, there are plenty of people who are just plain lazy and irresponsible and I have no pity for them, but we can't forget there are people who legitimately need help in life.


Butchie, that is the brilliance of the capitalist system, and not its failure - that _bad people, in selfish action, provide betterment for all society_.

Because your greedy heartless guys are greedy and heartless, to feed themselves all their luxuries requires them *to produce goods that solves the rest of the people's problem* - because if it doesn't solve those problems, nobody buys their stuff.

So capitalism is blind to the motives of why this man or that man chooses to make such-and-such product. Capitalism only cares "does it do the job".

No other economic system utilizes the immorality of bad men into doing good for society.

----------


## Butchie

> Butchie, that is the brilliance of the capitalist system, and not its failure - that _bad people, in selfish action, provide betterment for all society_.
> 
> Because your greedy heartless guys are greedy and heartless, to feed themselves all their luxuries requires them *to produce goods that solves the rest of the people's problem* - because if it doesn't solve those problems, nobody buys their stuff.
> 
> So capitalism is blind to the motives of why this man or that man chooses to make such-and-such product. Capitalism only cares "does it do the job".
> 
> No other economic system utilizes the immorality of bad men into doing good for society.


Oh really? I noticed some other replies to me above so I'll post this in response to all: Do you feel the Fed is unethical? Do you feel military contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater are unethical? People on these boards rail against the Fed and MIC almost on the minute, yet tell me, who started the fed? Who started the MIC, that's right CAPITALISTS, they were doing just as you suggested, trying to find a way to make more money, and thereby, according to some of you anyhow, making the world better for all of us.

Now I already know what you're going to say, they cheated, they broke the rules, well, wasn't that the question the OP was asking: Are rich people unethical? In most cases, yes they are, if you have capitalists without any ethics who's sole purpose is driven by profit this is what will happen everytime, how can you possibly suggest that a small group of people possessing so much wealth and power won't use it to influence govt to their benefit. 

You guys are also forgetting even Ron himself believes in and encourages CHARITY, it is a critical component of capitalism, not everyone is capable of "producing goods and services" in a manner that is "profitable", and what do you do for those who are ederly or LEGITIMATELY disabled if you are not going to give them "free money" as you put it? Ron used to treat poor patients for free, was he destroying capital? I'm pretty sure he gives money to his church every Sunday as well that goes to help out others. Is he wrong?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Oh really? I noticed some other replies to me above so I'll post this in response to all: Do you feel the Fed is unethical? Do you feel military contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater are unethical? People on these boards rail against the Fed and MIC almost on the minute, yet tell me, *who started the fed? Who started the MIC*, that's right CAPITALISTS, they were doing just as you suggested, trying to find a way to make more money, and thereby, according to some of you anyhow, making the world better for all of us.


The government started the Fed. The government started the military industrial complex. Period. 

The "capitalists" did what greedy immoral people do, they took advantage of the situation by teaming up with the entity that is even more greedy and immoral, and also has the power to enforce their monopolies.

Without a government that has the power to create and enforce these monopolies, then those evil capitalists would be left to compete for their riches like everyone else.

----------


## Black Flag

> Oh really? I noticed some other replies to me above so I'll post this in response to all: Do you feel the Fed [..Haliburton and Blackwater...] is unethical?


Yes, but that has nothing to do with the free market.

They are a cartel - a monopoly - which is NOT a free market situation.

So immoral men outside of the free market are immune to the power of the free market in controlling immoral men.

This is a reason why other systems - socialists, communists, and fascists are so prone to tyrannical psychopaths achieving power.

If you review, every single one of these firms do evil .... as they are all extensions of the State and government - which is NOTHING of free market, nor an example of the free market.

They are examples of fascism - cartels in service of the State for a profit.


Or, as *Gold Standard* said

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Oh really? I noticed some other replies to me above so I'll post this in response to all: Do you feel the Fed is unethical? Do you feel military contractors like Haliburton and Blackwater are unethical? People on these boards rail against the Fed and MIC almost on the minute, yet tell me, who started the fed? Who started the MIC, that's right CAPITALISTS, they were doing just as you suggested, trying to find a way to make more money, and thereby, according to some of you anyhow, making the world better for all of us.


Is this a joke or something? You're kidding, right?

Those people weren't "capitalist", capitalists don't believe in expanding government for their benefit, it's the territory of socialists & corporatists!
How do you define someone as "capitalist"? Anyone with a capital is capitalist? Anyone rich is capitalist? Any businessperson is capitalist? Anyone who seeks profit is capitalist? How?

Here's how! Capitalists (real ones) stand for free markets & rights to life, liberty & property, & justice through due process!

The problem is that, for some reason, socialists find it so hard to differentiate between a capitalist & a corporatist (or crony-capitalist as some say), capitalists are for least government intervention, corporatists (& socialists) use government intervention to benefit themselves at the expense of others; I mean the differences are chalk & cheese & yet socialists are so smart that they somehow manage to confuse the two.....




> Now I already know what you're going to say, they cheated, they broke the rules, well, wasn't that the question the OP was asking: Are rich people unethical? In most cases, yes they are, if you have capitalists without any ethics who's sole purpose is driven by profit this is what will happen everytime, how can you possibly suggest that a small group of people possessing so much wealth and power won't use it to influence govt to their benefit.


Do you think seeking profit "at any cost" is capitalist? Are thieves by nature capitalists too?
Capitalism stands for people making profit by providing goods & services, that doesn't mean "at any cost", stealing, violence, coercion, etc are still unacceptable so like most socialists, you have some distorted view of what capitalism is & hence I've been telling you to learn about it before criticizing it

Besides, what do you think is the purpose of limiting government? 
It's so that people aren't able to use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others, the only way to benefit oneself should be by producing goods & services by competing on the market

Now, capitalism does NOT propose a perfect society but a better & more prosperous one than there otherwise would be, by incentivizing production of goods & services, & people (at least productive ones) having a better living-standard than they otherwise would




> You guys are also forgetting even Ron himself believes in and encourages CHARITY, it is a critical component of capitalism, not everyone is capable of "producing goods and services" in a manner that is "profitable", and what do you do for those who are ederly or LEGITIMATELY disabled if you are not going to give them "free money" as you put it? Ron used to treat poor patients for free, was he destroying capital? I'm pretty sure he gives money to his church every Sunday as well that goes to help out others. Is he wrong?


Next, you'll say Ron is Christian so every capitalist must be Christian too 

You just aren't reading, I've said several times already that this isn't necessarily an argument against charity itself but an argument to show that those who DON'T engage in charity (aka "evil rich hoarders") are also benefitting the society by conserving capital & purchasing-power

People should pull their own economic weight, why should they think that others have some "moral obligation" so that they could consume more than they're helping produce? In fact, the "moral obligation" should be incumbent on unproductive & less productive to NOT consume more than what they're helping produce

Following is a good video about how people are made dependent on others by subsidizing them.
Socialists only think about "good intentions" but ignore the incentives & results, whether it's done by government or by private entities, subsidizing something will get more of that; in the absence of such subsidization, sure, some people suffer but they teach an important lesson to many about self-reliance, which is what capitalism & freedom is about, you must take responsibility for yourself & your actions!

"Paying people to fail"

----------


## awake

Most people will not differentiate the politically wealthy from the market wealthy. Everyone is packed up into the label of the "rich". Rich like Newt Gingrich and rich like Steve Jobs are two very different means. Virtually no one cares to make the distinction in their rush to loot any one who has money by way of democracy.

If we don't soon get rid of the ability for the Gingrich types to get rich helping themselves and others to loot, the Steve Jobs type will simply not ever have the opportunity to produce. And worse, the next Steve Jobs might simply join the Gingrich types.

----------


## Butchie

> Is this a joke or something? You're kidding, right?
> 
> Those people weren't "capitalist", capitalists don't believe in expanding government for their benefit, it's the territory of socialists & corporatists!
> How do you define someone as "capitalist"? Anyone with a capital is capitalist? Anyone rich is capitalist? Any businessperson is capitalist? Anyone who seeks profit is capitalist? How?
> 
> Here's how! Capitalists (real ones) stand for free markets & rights to life, liberty & property, & justice through due process!
> 
> The problem is that, for some reason, socialists find it so hard to differentiate between a capitalist & a corporatist (or crony-capitalist as some say), capitalists are for least government intervention, corporatists (& socialists) use government intervention to benefit themselves at the expense of others; I mean the differences are chalk & cheese & yet socialists are so smart that they somehow manage to confuse the two.....
> 
> ...


Yeah, right, show me the honest guy who believes in "rights to life, liberty & property, & justice through due process!" and is still a billionaire. Your "christian" argument...don't even know where you are going with that. I was merely pointing out that Ron is a strong defender of capitalism but also is very supportive of charity, so if I have it wrong than so does he. I also love your fairytale world where some set of "rules" is going to prevent the rich from gaining power over others, I don't care what system or what rules you put in place, unless people have some ethics and are vigilant it will ALWAYS devolve into what we have here, as we are all obviously witnessing as our Consitution is ignored on a daily basis, even our founders said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it." A marriage between govt and business is inevitable if the people aren't vigilant.

You keep saying that I have a distorted view of things when it is you who keeps distorting my words, and your video examples prove this (I've already watched those numerous times BTW). The people you are depicting are freeloaders which is the very thing I have been clear about TIME AND AGAIN that I agree should not be receiving aid, but you just don't want to listen, you want me to be this big govt socialist and no matter what I say you'll hear what you want to hear.

So, I'll try to make this as simple as possible, answer me this question if you will: My friend in the wheelchair which do you prefer -
1. Under my philosophy he has a job, he pays his own bills, he has a purpose and some pride.
2. Under our current govt if I didn't give him a job he'd be at home, miserable, leeching off various govt programs.
3. Under your system, well, since he can't make anyone a profit or produce more than he consumes, I guess, what...he starves to death?

NOTE: I will concede this, yes, in a completely IDEAL world with your definition of capitalism, things would work as you suggest, however, my point is that this is not an Ideal world, if it was we wouldn't have the problems we see to begin with, I'm trying to say that without some ethics capitalist will break the rules and will eventually take hold of the govt, it's just a fact of life.

----------


## Butchie

> Yes, but that has nothing to do with the free market.
> 
> They are a cartel - a monopoly - which is NOT a free market situation.
> 
> So immoral men outside of the free market are immune to the power of the free market in controlling immoral men.
> 
> This is a reason why other systems - socialists, communists, and fascists are so prone to tyrannical psychopaths achieving power.
> 
> If you review, every single one of these firms do evil .... as they are all extensions of the State and government - which is NOTHING of free market, nor an example of the free market.
> ...


BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! Unless there are some eithics in business as opposed to just making profit this is what will happen every single time, so again, to the OP's question, are rich people unethical? I agree with you capitalism works in theory as long as everyone plays by the rules, but history shows people will not play by the rules.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! Unless there are some eithics in business as opposed to just making profit this is what will happen every single time, so again, to the OP's question, are rich people unethical? I agree with you capitalism works in theory as long as everyone plays by the rules, but history shows people will not play by the rules.


You still don't understand. The government distorts the rules. Without the government's involvement the most unethical rich would be put out of business. With government involvement they get richer.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! Unless there are some eithics in business as opposed to just making profit this is what will happen every single time, so again, to the OP's question, are rich people unethical? I agree with you capitalism works in theory as long as everyone plays by the rules, but history shows people will not play by the rules.


If you are having trouble stopping a horse from eating a certain food from his trough, you remove the food.   Sounds logical to me.  In other words, if you remove the capability of government to handout special favors to corporations and other special interests, then voila, no more problem.  

If that doesn't work, you remove the trough altogether.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> 3. Under your system, well, since he can't make anyone a profit or produce more than he consumes, I guess, what...he starves to death?


What kind of strawman $#@! is this? If he has a job he can obviously provide some kind of value. As long as the government allows people to be compensated for the value they provide (instead of creating a minimum value threshold you have to meet in order to get a job like they do now) then he can work. Or if it is that important to you, then you are welcome to take care of him without stealing from everyone else to do it.

----------


## Butchie

> If you are having trouble stopping a horse from eating a certain food from his trough, you remove the food.   Sounds logical to me.  In other words, if you remove the capability of government to handout special favors to corporations and other special interests, then voila, no more problem.  
> 
> If that doesn't work, you remove the trough altogether.


Very true, but how do you do that? Write a Constit....oh, wait, we have one, everybody just ignores it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Very true, but how do you do that? Write a Constit....oh, wait, we have one, everybody just ignores it.


Yes they do, don't they.  Which is one of the reasons we have been working our asses off to get liberty-minded people elected to office.

----------


## Butchie

> What kind of strawman $#@! is this? If he has a job he can obviously provide some kind of value. As long as the government allows people to be compensated for the value they provide (instead of creating a minimum value threshold you have to meet in order to get a job like they do now) then he can work. Or if it is that important to you, then you are welcome to take care of him without stealing from everyone else to do it.


What are you talking about? Who do I "steal" from to take care of him? I pay him with money I earned, have you even been paying attention to this conversation? What job should he get if not for me? Oh, sure, he could find some secretarial job I'd imaigine IF anyone would hire him in this market, which most won't because of what you mentioned - all of the disability rules, but even if they did, he'd be bringing home a whopping $10/hr which wouldn't even begin to pay his bills. Then how about another neighbor of mine who's kid is retarted, where is she going to work? She can barely dress herself let alone hold a job. I am no liberal by any stretch, but I am starting to see why they view alot of us as heartless.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> What are you talking about? Who do I "steal" from to take care of him? I pay him with money I earned, have you even been paying attention to this conversation? What job should he get if not for me? Oh, sure, he could find some secretarial job I'd imaigine IF anyone would hire him in this market, which most won't because of what you mentioned - all of the disability rules, but even if they did, he'd be bringing home a whopping $10/hr which wouldn't even begin to pay his bills. Then how about another neighbor of mine who's kid is retarted, where is she going to work? She can barely dress herself let alone hold a job. I am no liberal by any stretch, but I am starting to see why they view alot of us as heartless.


You are talking about today's economy like it is anything like a free market. I don't know how much he would bring home or how much his bills would be. I know the bills would be much less than they are now. If we had a free market prices would have been falling for the last 100 years instead of rising. The only heartless people are the ones that are happy with printing enough money to price people out of jobs and being able to afford goods and services.

As far as the neighbor with the handicapped kid, where do you think the kid will work as things are now? If she can't work then she can't work no matter the system. I know in a free market her parents would have a much better chance of taking care of her since any special goods or services she needs would be more abundant and affordable. There are charities to help people with disabilities. You don't need a government to seize money at gunpoint to help people. It is hard for me to fathom how people don't call the "liberals" heartless.

----------


## Butchie

> You are talking about today's economy like it is anything like a free market. I don't know how much he would bring home or how much his bills would be. I know the bills would be much less than they are now. If we had a free market prices would have been falling for the last 100 years instead of rising. The only heartless people are the ones that are happy with printing enough money to price people out of jobs and being able to afford goods and services.
> 
> As far as the neighbor with the handicapped kid, where do you think the kid will work as things are now? If she can't work then she can't work no matter the system. I know in a free market her parents would have a much better chance of taking care of her since any special goods or services she needs would be more abundant and affordable. There are charities to help people with disabilities. You don't need a government to seize money at gunpoint to help people. It is hard for me to fathom how people don't call the "liberals" heartless.


You clearly have come into this conversation half-way through as your replies continue to pin things on me that I never said and certainly do not support, I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said, go back, read the discussion from the beginning then we can talk.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Yeah, right, show me the honest guy who believes in "rights to life, liberty & property, & justice through due process!" and is still a billionaire.


Majority of population socialist thinkers - socialist big government - corporatism - corrupt system - no capitalism




> Your "christian" argument...don't even know where you are going with that. I was merely pointing out that Ron is a strong defender of capitalism but also is very supportive of charity, so if I have it wrong than so does he.


Ron Paul - one man - no messiah - has his personal opinion




> I also love your fairytale world where some set of "rules" is going to prevent the rich from gaining power over others, I don't care what system or what rules you put in place, unless people have some ethics and are vigilant it will ALWAYS devolve into what we have here, as we are all obviously witnessing as our Consitution is ignored on a daily basis, even our founders said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it." A marriage between govt and business is inevitable if the people aren't vigilant.


Majority of population socialist thinkers - socialist big governments - corporatism - corrupt system - no capitalism




> You keep saying that I have a distorted view of things when it is you who keeps distorting my words, and your video examples prove this (I've already watched those numerous times BTW). The people you are depicting are freeloaders which is the very thing I have been clear about TIME AND AGAIN that I agree should not be receiving aid, but you just don't want to listen, you want me to be this big govt socialist and no matter what I say you'll hear what you want to hear.


You think like a socialist - you do - because you don't want to understand capitalism - so you can't convince anyone of capitalism - socialism continues to reign supreme - so does corporatism - corrupt system




> So, I'll try to make this as simple as possible, answer me this question if you will: My friend in the wheelchair which do you prefer -
> 1. Under my philosophy he has a job, he pays his own bills, he has a purpose and some pride.
> 2. Under our current govt if I didn't give him a job he'd be at home, miserable, leeching off various govt programs.
> 3. Under your system, well, since he can't make anyone a profit or produce more than he consumes, I guess, what...he starves to death?


I'd have to say, I'm yet to see more self-centered person on this board, I've been talking all this long about SYSTEMIC consequences of economics & you keep talking about yourself & your friend & what not
Look, I don't care if you give your friend everything you've got, if you've earned it then it's your decision ------ my simple point has been that there's more to life than what your little self-centered lens can see, & that even the "evil rich hoarders" can benefit the society by way of conserving capital & purchasing-power to help produce more jobs & goods & services, so just because someone isn't doling out free money does NOT mean that they aren't helping the society in other ways, have you gotten my point yet?




> NOTE: I will concede this, yes, in a completely IDEAL world with your definition of capitalism, things would work as you suggest, however, my point is that this is not an Ideal world, if it was we wouldn't have the problems we see to begin with, I'm trying to say that without some ethics capitalist will break the rules and will eventually take hold of the govt, it's just a fact of life.


Do you even read? I've already said, capitalism does NOT propose an "ideal world", in fact, it's perfectly understood that there will always be people who will violate rights but that's going to happen in any system because that's just how life is BUT what capitalism proposes is that limiting the government means that more people will have to produce goods & services in order to enrich themselves, whereas in big government socialist/corporatist systems, buying out the government is the usual way to enriching oneself

You keep saying over & over, rich will take over the government, rich will take over ----- yeah, & your point is??? CAPITALISTS ALREADY KNOW THAT, THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, why is that so hard to grasp?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I am no liberal by any stretch, but I am starting to see why they view alot of us as heartless.


Believe me, you're liberal for all practical purposes even though "technically" you're not but you follow all their economic theories & the usual appeal to emotion & all the typical rhetoric

"Heartless"? I'll say capitalists are "objective" or "realists" They understand that we don't live in perfect world & have limited resources & goods & services & the only way maximize production of goods & services is by allowing those who help produce them to keep their share & re-invest & produce more & so on

If a capitalist & a socialist arrive at a scene where people are drowning
Socialist, being the emotional wreck, decides to save everyone even though it's unlikely he can, & everyone dies
Capitalist being a realist, realizes that he can only save X number of people safely, he does that, rest die but he chooses the best possible alternative, which was the only real option he had

We don't live in perfect world, we probably never will, it's like a choice between bad & worse, capitalist being a realist, chooses bad as the best possible alternative while socialist chooses to daydream about what if there was an option named best

Being idealist may give some fake sense of "moral high ground" but a realist understands that he must choose the best possible alternative, even though it's not perfect 

We DON'T live in a world where there's a cornucopia with a limitless supply of goods & services to offer everyone a great life, no, they've to be produced first & those who're helping produce them must be allowed to keep them & re-invest them to produce even more & so on, that's the only way making everyone's life better in the LONG-RUN, & that every time one gives to "charity", one is giving up on the jobs to productive people & goods & services that that money could've produced if invested in a productive endeavor

----------


## Butchie

> Believe me, you're liberal for all practical purposes even though "technically" you're not but you follow all their economic theories & the usual appeal to emotion & all the typical rhetoric
> 
> "Heartless"? I'll say capitalists are "objective" or "realists" They understand that we don't live in perfect world & have limited resources & goods & services & the only way maximize production of goods & services is by allowing those who help produce them to keep their share & re-invest & produce more & so on
> 
> If a capitalist & a socialist arrive at a scene where people are drowning
> Socialist, being the emotional wreck, decides to save everyone even though it's unlikely he can, & everyone dies
> Capitalist being a realist, realizes that he can only save X number of people safely, he does that, rest die but he chooses the best possible alternative, which was the only real option he had
> 
> We don't live in perfect world, we probably never will, it's like a choice between bad & worse, capitalist being a realist, chooses bad as the best possible alternative while socialist chooses to daydream about what if there was an option named best
> ...


No, I don't agree with their philosophies, that's just who and what you want me to be so you keep saying it yet I've never suggested anything even remotely close to what liberals propose. You just keep equating helping out those who truly are in need with welfare, which I have never supported or even come close to supporting. Something you seem to refuse to admit is that there truly are people who simply cannont "produce more than they consume" and it's not because they are lazy or irresponsible, I have posed the question to you time and again as to what you would do about such people and all you do is come back at me with examples of people who are more than capable of working but don't because it's easier to suck off the govt dole. I live near Detroit friend, for you to even suggest I support the welfare system is beyond hilarious.

As for my "selfishness" I am using that example because it is a relevant one that I have personal experience with, if you like I can talk in hypotheticals about disabled/infirmed people in general, but what difference would it make, the principle and question would still be the same, and apparently your answer would be the same, but then again you haven't given an answer other than to say those people aren't productive, OK, they are not productive, never will be, so again, what do you do with them? Can you answer that? Yes, we do live in a world of limited resources, but it is far from being at the point where we need to say "Oh, you can't produce, you die". Your examples aren't even close to being relevant.

----------


## Black Flag

> BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! Unless there are some eithics in business as opposed to just making profit this is what will happen every single time, so again, to the OP's question, are rich people unethical? I agree with you capitalism works in theory as long as everyone plays by the rules, but history shows people will not play by the rules.


No, you missed the point!

*As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers*

The buyers will be Socialists, who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;
and/or
The buyers will be the wealthy, who will trade their money to the State in return for their violence to enforce mercantilism, fascism and economic cartels.

But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder.

----------


## Black Flag

> a choice between bad & worse


Exactly, Paul.

Human suffering is unsolvable - it will *always exist until the end of time to plague mankind*

The very best we humans to mitigate as much as we can is to chose _ the best methodology that relieves the most suffering from most people_

The choice we have:

Either equity in horrific suffering or great inequality of wealth.

There is no third way.

----------


## Roy L

> *As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers*


And the violent are always for sale.



> The buyers will be Socialists,


No, such claims are just stupid.  Socialists typically don't have any money.  The buyers of violence are the rich.  They have the money.  It's not rocket science.



> who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;


Nope.  Never happened.  The poor are far less likely to vote than the rich or middle class.



> The buyers will be the wealthy, who will trade their money to the State in return for their violence to enforce mercantilism, fascism and economic cartels.


Bingo.



> But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder.


Wrong.  The problem is that the capitalist and socialist systems are both INHERENTLY violent, and take the forcible violation of people's rights as not only a given, but as necessary and beneficial.

*The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital; the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.*

----------


## Roy L

> Human suffering is unsolvable - it will *always exist until the end of time to plague mankind*


Suffering is not the problem.  That's just Buddhist claptrap.  Suffering is merely a product of evolution's search for effective motivators.



> The very best we humans to mitigate as much as we can is to chose _ the best methodology that relieves the most suffering from most people_


No, the best we can do is face the facts and their logical implications.  You need to find a willingness to do that.



> The choice we have:
> 
> Either equity in horrific suffering or great inequality of wealth.
> 
> There is no third way.


Bull$#!+.  Great inequality of wealth is strongly associated with horrific suffering, as well as poverty and war.  The third way, which capitalists and socialists reject with equal ferocity, is justice.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It's not purely rhetoric.  The studies are a matter of scientific fact.


More like "science". First of all it was statistics, not "science". Morality is not something that can ever be determined scientifically. You can do statistics to determine if a group of people do what _you_ think is moral or not. But even then you should take care. Statistics can eaisly be warped not just in how you use words in question asking, but in how you gather the data itself. Stats is by far the most untrustworthy form of mathematics there is out there. 

Also, what are these "experimental and naturalistic methods" these used? That the system is not explained means you should take care.

Simple observation argues against this as well. People steal, and lie, and cheat irrespective of class. And poor people do it a lot.

----------


## PierzStyx

As for capitalism, as in free market capitalism, Dr. Paul explains it well here. Start listening at 12:12 

  He explains that socialism of any sort si what is unethical nd that capitalism is the ethical solution. In another place he has explained that the free-market system "is the only humane system" that exists.

----------


## Butchie

> As for capitalism, as in free market capitalism, Dr. Paul explains it well here. Start listening at 12:12 
> 
>   He explains that socialism of any sort si what is unethical nd that capitalism is the ethical solution. In another place he has explained that the free-market system "is the only humane system" that exists.


That's great, except for one thing: The question was not about whether or not Capitalism or Socialism was ethical, the question was whether or not rich people were eithical.

----------


## smokemonsc

This question seems retarded to me.  It's equivalent to saying "Blacks make up the majority of inmates in prison.  A survey has shown that more blacks have been in prison.  Therefore blacks are criminals".

A higher proportion of blacks have been / are in jail != Blacks are more prone to be criminal.

Which is the same as

A higher proportion of rich people are unethical != Rich people are unethical.

It's an absurdity and this so called "study" doesn't pass the logic test.  The OP implies causation when correlation has never been able to prove such.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No, I don't agree with their philosophies, that's just who and what you want me to be so you keep saying it yet I've never suggested anything even remotely close to what liberals propose.


You believe productive should subsidize the less productive & unproductive otherwise they're "evil rich hoarders", that's what liberals say as well

You carry this fallacious notion that there's any fundamental economic difference between 
1) government taking $X from productive & giving it to unproductive
2) productive doling out $X in charity to the unproductive

NO, the fundamental economic effect is the SAME, that capital is gone,those goods/services are gone, poof, it's spent & it gave nothing back to the society in return, & since those goods/services were consumed unproductively, society as a whole is poorer with less capital & goods/services------- again, why shouldn't the unproductive have the "moral obligation" NOT to consume more than they produce?




> You just keep equating helping out those who truly are in need with welfare, which I have never supported or even come close to supporting.


And you keep believing that those who won't do that (aka evil rich hoarders) aren't benefitting the society, when in fact is that they DO, by conserving capital & purchasing-power, by investing, creating jobs & goods & services & prosperity can only be achieved by producing more & more goods & services




> Something you seem to refuse to admit is that there truly are people who simply cannont "produce more than they consume" and it's not because they are lazy or irresponsible, I have posed the question to you time and again as to what you would do about such people


I HAVE answered it indirectly many times, when I say I don't care if you dole out everything you've got so long as you've earned it thru voluntary interaction, same holds true for all the "chariters", if you want to give then it's your business, just don't be ignorant to not realize how the "hoarders" are benefitting the society

You talked about the retarded girl & African poverty, etc When one has capital, one can choose to spend on the girl OR one can invest it in some profitable company in Africa,
which will make those among them who wish to be productive have jobs & the goods/services they produce will be NET ADDITION to the global supply of goods & services & thereby have a systemic effect of lower prices ---------- I know exactly where I'll be putting my money, now, I don't expect everyone to make the same choice BUT what I absolutely DETEST is when people, incapable & unwilling to learn economics & incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE blaming those choosing the second option & reviling them as "evil rich hoarders", when in fact, they're only helping the society in a different way that socialists don't want to understand
(By the way, it doesn't even have to be directly invested in Africa, production of more goods/services anywhere will be add to the global supply & many POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE anywhere will be better off because of it one way or another due to lower prices)

Again, you keep ignoring one of the most fundamental principles of the market about "opportunity cost"
You ignore that since the goods & services are LIMITED, when you choose to subsidize the unproductive (of any kind) but you'll likely be doing so at the expense of others who may wish to be productive but there mayn't be enough capital to hire them because it was spent on unproductive, not to mention, since that is unproductive spending, the whole society is poorer, with less goods/services, higher prices & the POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE are poorer than they otherwise would've been

Again, this isn't necessarily an argument against charity as such but against the narrow socialist belief that "evil rich hoarders" don't benefit the society

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No, you missed the point!
> 
> *As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers*
> 
> The buyers will be Socialists, who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;
> and/or
> The buyers will be the wealthy, who will trade their money to the State in return for their violence to enforce mercantilism, fascism and economic cartels.
> 
> But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder.


+1

Couldn't have summed it up any better!




> Exactly, Paul.
> 
> Human suffering is unsolvable - it will *always exist until the end of time to plague mankind*
> 
> The very best we humans to mitigate as much as we can is to chose _ the best methodology that relieves the most suffering from most people_
> 
> The choice we have:
> 
> Either equity in horrific suffering or great inequality of wealth.
> ...


Yes, capitalism is simply a method to allocate LIMITED resources as well as we can, there's no perfect solution because there's no cornucopia that socialists pretend that there is or should be, so that "everyone can have a good life", it's simply not possible without collapsing the very systems that lead societies to prosperity - self-interest, capital & profit! So we're simply left with imperfect choices & we try to choose the best possible alternative!

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> That's great, except for one thing: The question was not about whether or not Capitalism or Socialism was ethical, the question was whether or not rich people were eithical.


Poor people are the majority in the world, if they supported a more fair system based on freedom, at least democracies, then everyone would be better off but NO, they THINK they can use government power to rob others so that they could have a better life, but instead the corrupt use that same government power to enrich themselves so the poor's misery is largely self-inflicted & they try to drag others into misery as well; so if anything, it's the poor who need to be more "ethical" & NOT covet others' stuff, & support a freer & fairer system, & may be then we'll be able to vote in people like Ron Paul

----------


## Butchie

> You believe productive should subsidize the less productive & unproductive otherwise they're "evil rich hoarders", that's what liberals say as well
> 
> You carry this fallacious notion that there's any fundamental economic difference between 
> 1) government taking $X from productive & giving it to unproductive
> 2) productive doling out $X in charity to the unproductive
> 
> NO, the fundamental economic effect is the SAME, that capital is gone,those goods/services are gone, poof, it's spent & it gave nothing back to the society in return, & since those goods/services were consumed unproductively, society as a whole is poorer with less capital & goods/services------- again, why shouldn't the unproductive have the "moral obligation" NOT to consume more than they produce?
> 
> 
> ...


No, that's not what liberals say, we currently have half our population on some sort of govt assistance and the vast majority of those people are perfectly capable of working yet choose not to because it's easier to sit on their butt and do nothing, liberals are perfectly OK with this and in fact want to increase these numbers and will scream bloody murder if you even suggest we take someone off assistance. For you to say I'm anywhere near their line of thinking is about the same as when NeoCons accusse Ron of not wanting to defend the country just because he doesn't want to go to war needlessly or have bases in every country around the world.

I did like what you wrote here:




> I HAVE answered it indirectly many times, when I say I don't care if you dole out everything you've got so long as you've earned it thru voluntary interaction, same holds true for all the "chariters", if you want to give then it's your business, just don't be ignorant to not realize how the "hoarders" are benefitting the societ


..and this is all that I've been saying since this discussion began, but as I said, some of you just can't resist a chance to go into your attack mode and "shoot down some Socialist". As for the rich hoarders NO, I did not say that they don't provide ANY benefit to society, I just don't hold them in as high regard as you seem to and don't take it to the extremes that you do. If there is a town with 60 people, one of them get's hurt and the other 59 all pitch in to help him out tell me again how exactly is that going to bring that town to ruin? 

The reason you are so harsh on my ideas is because you can't seem to refrain from equating it with the horrible abuse we have with the "social programs" in this country and the monstrosity it has become. When you were a child, you produced nothing and consumed much, when you get elderly you will again consume alot and produce nothing, someone in each case (hopefully) will take care of you - is that wrong?

As for Africa, I never brought Africa up, that was someone else who was asking me a question and I responded to it.

----------


## Black Flag

> The reason you are so harsh on my ideas is because you can't seem to refrain from equating it with the horrible abuse we have with the "social programs" in this country and the monstrosity it has become. When you were a child, you produced nothing and consumed much, when you get elderly you will again consume alot and produce nothing, someone in each case (hopefully) will take care of you - is that wrong?


Your goal, pious.

Your means, evil.

That's the root of the your moral dilemna sir.

You believe you can perform a good -individually or across society- by a means of evil; _believing the end justifies the means._

Your goal is so full of piety, you justify stealing from others to accomplish it. You declare _"My goal provides the Grace of God, thus any means, including using the devil, we must not shy away from!"_

But good sir;

*No good comes from evil means* - and all you get is tyranny and suffering.

*It is our choice of what Means by which we accomplish our goals that determines the piety of our goal AND our piety of action*

Take care of the means, and the goal takes care of itself.

----------


## Black Flag

Paul

_No, you missed the point!

As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers

The buyers will be Socialists, who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;
and/or
The buyers will be the wealthy, who will trade their money to the State in return for their violence to enforce mercantilism, fascism and economic cartels.

But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder._

Thanks for the +1!

But more to that thought -- the Fascist/Mercantilists need the Socialists and the Socialists need the Fascist/Mercantilists.

1. The Socialists legitimize the violence the Fascist/Mercantilists need to enforce their cartels. Fascist/Mercantilists love Socialists when they legitimize State action and the State acts on behalf of the Fascist/Mercantilists a great deal.

2. But Socialists hate the Fascist/Mercantilists cartels, monopolies and corruption and rage against them ... to a point... and that point is:

3. Fascist/Mercantilists provide the money to the State for the welfare enjoyed by the Socialists. Socialist love Fascist/Mercantilists when they provide money to the State for the Socialists to consume.

4. But the Fascist/Mercantilists hate the Socialists for "wasting" their capital and resources funding unproductive "slaves" and rage against them .... to a point, and that point is ... line 1.


This interplay happened during the Age of Empires too, except is between the Crown and the Church.

The Church legitimized the Crown ... we see that ceremony still today, where the crowing of a regent comes at the hand of a Church man. 

The Crown of course funded the Church and its extensions into society; pervasively driving the masses into obedience to God and (of course) the State.

One could not do well without the other, and it is no surprise to see the diminishing of Empires in lock step with the diminishment of the Church to be replaced by:

Mercantilists and Socialists - one funds, the other legitimizes

----------


## Butchie

> Your goal, pious.
> 
> Your means, evil.
> 
> That's the root of the your moral dilemna sir.
> 
> You believe you can perform a good -individually or across society- by a means of evil; _believing the end justifies the means._
> 
> Your goal is so full of piety, you justify stealing from others to accomplish it. You declare _"My goal provides the Grace of God, thus any means, including using the devil, we must not shy away from!"_
> ...


Sigh, here we go again, I guess I have to ressurect my "silver round challenge" - Look friend, if you can find where AT ANY POINT I suggested stealing from anyone you win a genuine 1-oz silver round that I will ship to your home.

----------


## Black Flag

> Sigh, here we go again, I guess I have to ressurect my "silver round challenge" - Look friend, if you can find where AT ANY POINT I suggested stealing from anyone you win a genuine 1-oz silver round that I will ship to your home.


And I am still waiting for mine from the last time.

You advocate redistribution of wealth by taxation and government, just like the last time.
You do not see this as stealing, so you do not pay up your silver.
You do not see this as violent, so you do not pay up your silver.

You advocating the IRS and its army to go and take money to fund your scheme, but this is not theft nor violent to you, so you do not pay up.

----------


## Butchie

> And I am still waiting for mine from the last time.
> 
> *You advocate redistribution of wealth by taxation and government, just like the last time.*You do not see this as stealing, so you do not pay up your silver.
> You do not see this as violent, so you do not pay up your silver.
> 
> *You advocating the IRS and its army to go and take money to fund your scheme, but this is not theft nor violent to you, so you do not pay up*.


When and Where did I ever say ANY OF THIS?!?!?!?! Please, by all means, show me the quote and I will happily send you your round, how about this, if you CAN'T find it, you send me one?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Paul
> 
> The Church legitimized the Crown ... we see that ceremony still today, where the crowing of a regent comes at the hand of a Church man.


One of teh reasons I love Napoleon. Giving the finger to the Pope by crowning himself!

----------


## Lishy

Is Miyamoto unethical?

NEVER compare Shigeru Miyamoto to Mitt Romney!

Rich people aren't unethical. But oftentimes, they're hard-workers. It's people who steal from the taxpayers and exploit the government who are unethical! But someone like Shigeru Miyamoto certainly isn't one of them!

----------


## DamianTV

> Is Miyamoto unethical?
> 
> NEVER compare Shigeru Miyamoto to Mitt Romney!
> 
> Rich people aren't unethical. But oftentimes, they're hard-workers. It's people who steal from the taxpayers and exploit the government who are unethical! But someone like Shigeru Miyamoto certainly isn't one of them!


Shigeru created many a high quality product.  For those not in the know, Nintendo Games.  The Wealthy People I would refer to as Unethical are the ones that got rich and did NOT produce a Product, or provide a Service.  Financing Money should not be a profitable service as it isnt a service, it is a method of money manipulation that transfers the wealth of the poor to those who issue the money.  Romney did have his hands involved in a Factory (not sure that much about it, but there is a product, so Ok, honest so far...), but is probably as guilty as sin of Insider Trading and expoiting tax loopholes provided by Off Shore Tax Havens, so I think he is as guilty as any other money manipulator that will never be charged with a crime.  Money Manipulation involves NO RISK, yet RISK is the Excuse that Mega Banks have for charging Interest.  How is that possibly honest?

Miyamoto = Made Games and Sold Them, Ethical, earned his keep
Romney = Off Shore Tax Shelters, unethical, profited from money manipulation.

----------


## Black Flag

> The Wealthy People I would refer to as Unethical are the ones that got rich and did NOT produce a Product, or provide a Service.


Who are you thinking is rich that does not produce or provide a service???




> Financing Money should not be a profitable service as it isnt a service, it is a method of money manipulation that transfers the wealth of the poor to those who issue the money.


So you believe you should be able to use the money I earn and use it to buy YOUR goods that you want today - thus depriving me of using that money to buy MY goods today ... and not compensate me for this.?????

You take a loan because you do not have money, but you desire something RIGHT NOW.

A loan is a deferment of payment to satisfy a desire today.

If nobody loans, you have to wait until you earn and save to enjoy this thing - .... and that is sometime in the future.

But you have a short-time preference ...eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow you may die! 
So you want your toys today, and not wait.

A person who saves is the opposite. They have a long-time preference.
They would rather defer spending money today to buy goods and spend that money in the future for future goods.

So, you say to me "lend me the money you aren't spending today so I can spend it today. I will get it back to you in the future when you want to spend it, and both of us win"

But I say, good deal if it don't rain! 

What happens if you don't pay me back? I'm stiffed! So, I'm going to charge a fee so that those that stiff me, I can cover by those that repay me....and now, both of us win!

To think lending money is some sort of conspiracy to keep you poor is mindless thinking.

----------


## Roy L

> Who are you thinking is rich that does not produce or provide a service???


That you ask this question shows you are not personally acquainted with very many rich people, if any at all.



> So you believe you should be able to use the money I earn and use it to buy YOUR goods that you want today - thus depriving me of using that money to buy MY goods today ... and not compensate me for this.?????


You do not understand how banks create the money they lend:

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." -- JK Galbraith

----------


## Black Flag

> That you ask this question shows you are not personally acquainted with very many rich people, if any at all.


You continue to demonstrate how little you know.




> You do not understand how banks create the money they lend:


You continue to demonstrate how little you know.




> "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." -- JK Galbraith


They manufacture it out of digits in a computer.

I suppose that is too simple for your mind to comprehend.

----------


## oyarde

I am not wealthy , and I may be unethical today , what say all of you of this ?

----------


## Roy L

> You continue to demonstrate how little you know.


How many rich people do you know personally?  How many have you worked with closely enough to know how they get their money?  I'm guessing none.

I know personally and/or have worked with at least half a dozen people who by any reasonable definition are rich.  Not one of them -- NOT ONE -- got the bulk of their wealth by commensurate contributions to the production of goods or services.  Two of them inherited.  One is an outright scam artist.  One gets sweet deals through corrupt officials in poor countries.  The rest _all_ got the bulk of their wealth through privileges of one kind or another: land titles, mineral rights, spectrum allocations, bank charters, government contracts, loans and grants, patent and copyright monopolies, etc.

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac



> You continue to demonstrate how little you know.


You continue to demonstrate that you have no facts, no logic, and no arguments to offer, just your extremely ill-informed opinions.



> They manufacture it out of digits in a computer.


OK, so you at least agree that you were wrong when you claimed they don't create it at all.

But in fact, they create it out of lenders' legal obligations to repay the loans they get.



> I suppose that is too simple for your mind to comprehend.


You continue to demonstrate how little you know.

----------


## Black Flag

> How many rich people do you know personally?


A number between a lot and a great many.




> How many have you worked with closely enough to know how they get their money?  I'm guessing none.


You are a bad a guesser among other of your great many deficits.




> I know personally and/or have worked with at least half a dozen people who by any reasonable definition are rich.  Not one of them -- NOT ONE -- got the bulk of their wealth by commensurate contributions to the production of goods or services.


You opinion - which has no merit.




> "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac


Takes a thief to know a thief.




> You continue to demonstrate that you have no facts, no logic, and no arguments to offer, just your extremely ill-informed opinions.


You are an ignorant fool and that is the truth.




> OK, so you at least agree that you were wrong when you claimed they don't create it at all.


I said the Federal Reserve creates money and I am still not wrong.




> But in fact, they create it out of lenders' legal obligations to repay the loans they get.


Crackpottery.




> You continue to demonstrate how little you know.


And you know something between empty and zero.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No, that's not what liberals say, we currently have half our population on some sort of govt assistance and the vast majority of those people are perfectly capable of working yet choose not to because it's easier to sit on their butt and do nothing, liberals are perfectly OK with this and in fact want to increase these numbers and will scream bloody murder if you even suggest we take someone off assistance. For you to say I'm anywhere near their line of thinking is about the same as when NeoCons accusse Ron of not wanting to defend the country just because he doesn't want to go to war needlessly or have bases in every country around the world.


You just don't read, right!

FOR EXAMPLE : 
Ok, socialists believe taking 1 trillion from the "evil rich hoarders" by force & giving it to freeloaders is good
You believe "evil rich hoarders" doling out 1 trillion to freeloaders is good

I'm saying, EITHER WAY, that capital is WASTED on people who are consuming more goods/servces than they're helping produce, that's destruction of wealth & living-standards of others for the sake of freeloaders, that capital could've been invested & created jobs & more goods/services & the higher supply of goods/services means better living-standards for everyone from rich to the poor

In essence, you & socialists ignore "opportunity cost", when people consume more than they're helping produce, they're consuming AT THE EXPENSE OF other, & it's NOT just the "evil rich hoarders" we're talking about, it's the poor who mayn't have jobs or must pay higher prices because there are fewer goods/services on the market but you, just like socialists, completely ignore this, due to lack of understanding market-economics & don't want to learn about it




> As for the rich hoarders NO, I did not say that they don't provide ANY benefit to society, I just don't hold them in as high regard as you seem to and don't take it to the extremes that you do.


So whom do you hold in high regard? Those who subsidize freeloaders at the expense of fewer jobs & fewer goods/services & lower living-standards for EVERYONE? 




> If there is a town with 60 people, one of them get's hurt and the other 59 all pitch in to help him out tell me again how exactly is that going to bring that town to ruin?


Again, you ignore that that capital could've been invested somewhere to create jobs & goods/services & better living-standard for the productive! Now, if you take "one guy" it mayn't seem much but we're talking about the SYSTEMIC consequences of such ridiculous belief in freeloading being pervasive within the whole society & that's where numbers really add

Besides, he can always take the money as a loan & produce goods/services to that effect & repay it! Why does he freeload at the expense of others? The "moral obligation" is upon him to produce enough to cover his consumption, otherwise he's costing others their living-standards




> The reason you are so harsh on my ideas is because you can't seem to refrain from equating it with the horrible abuse we have with the "social programs" in this country and the monstrosity it has become. When you were a child, you produced nothing and consumed much, when you get elderly you will again consume alot and produce nothing, someone in each case (hopefully) will take care of you - is that wrong?


THAT'S WHY I said, I don't give a $#@! about it if someone wants to dole out everything they've got, my point has always been that "evil rich hoarders" DO benefit society by investing, creating businesses & jobs, goods/services & thereby raising everyone's living-standards




> As for Africa, I never brought Africa up, that was someone else who was asking me a question and I responded to it.


*facepalm*
It's IRRELEVANT who brought up Africa, the point is that every time someone doles out & subsidizes freeloaders they're doing it AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, who mayn't have a job or is struggling to make ends meet & would be helped by lower prices if that same capital was invested in businesses to produce jobs & goods/services

I hate the IGNORANCE of the socialists when they dole out to the freeloaders & act like they're so great, they are ACTUALLY sentencing other poor people somewhere else to joblessness, poverty & lower living-standards!

----------


## Roy L

> A number between a lot and a great many.


No, you don't.



> You opinion - which has no merit.


Observed fact.



> Takes a thief to know a thief.


That is not only deeply stupid -- anyone can know a thief, duh -- but wrong in the specific case of Balzac, who was a famous writer, not a thief.



> I said the Federal Reserve creates money and I am still not wrong.
> Crackpottery.


I see.  So, the only people who agree with you are a bunch of lying whack jobs like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, while my position is straight out of "Modern Money Mechanics" published by the Federal Reserve, and somehow _I'm_ the crackpot.

Somehow, I kind figured it'd be something like that...

----------

