Rahm and his business

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.

you sound jealous and this is stupid.....lot's of people with stupid money do really good things with their stupid money...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if Mr Buffet feels his wealth is bad, why does he keep it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...his-estate.asp

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...his-estate.asp

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete just wants an obama car to go with his obamacare and obama phone

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

You’ve been going on and on about how bad it is that some are wealthy while others are not. i’m just listening to you...

i’ll ask
for the third or fourth time, how would anyone be better off, if gates and buffet didn’t accumulate their wealth, but worked at minimum wage jobs instead? You have said wealth inequality is a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

You’ve been going on and on about how bad it is that some are wealthy while others are not. i’m just listening to you...

i’ll ask
for the third or fourth time, how would anyone be better off, if gates and buffet didn’t accumulate their wealth, but worked at minimum wage jobs instead? You have said wealth inequality is a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Bill Gates didn't start MS, perhaps I wouldn't be wasting time here arguing with you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are the one who posted articles where gates said his wealth was unfair. Then why does he still cling to it? Same with Buffet.

Last time I check both Gates and Buffet had given away billions of dollars to charity.

[Pete F.]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wa...ons-2018-01-04

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Last time I check both Gates and Buffet had given away billions of dollars to charity.

last time i checked, each was still worth tens of billions of dollars. If they think that degree of wealth is immoral, they could have given it away a long time ago. So it seems pretty phony for them to complain about how horrible their wealth is. They only have it, because they choose to keep it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Bill Gates didn't start MS, perhaps I wouldn't be wasting time here arguing with you.

once again, i ask
an obvious question, you can’t answwr it seriously without making me look correct, so you lob a stupid insult. Notice a pattern here.

For the tenth time, if Buffet thinks his wealth is bad, why is he clinging to iit?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.


Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.


In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffe...th-in-america/

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

last time i checked, each was still worth tens of billions of dollars. If they think that degree of wealth is immoral, they could have given it away a long time ago. So it seems pretty phony for them to complain about how horrible their wealth is. They only have it, because they choose to keep it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I must have missed the part about both of them believing wealth is immoral...they just seem to really enjoy spreading it around.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.


Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.


In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffe...th-in-america/

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I must have missed the part about both of them believing wealth is immoral...they just seem to really enjoy spreading it around.

Then you weren't reading Pete's articles. They both said their wealth is unethical. Not so unethical, I notice, to motivate them to give it away.

You miss everything that doesn't serve your agenda, which is why you can never criticize it or disagree with it.

I agree they are generous. That's one of the upsides of the uber-wealthy. I keep asking what the downside is, and all I get, is insults and crickets chirping.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then you weren't reading Pete's articles. They both said their wealth is unethical. Not so unethical, I notice, to motivate them to give it away.

Show me where in any article I linked, it says the accumulation of Wealth is unethical.
All of them do say that there are societal issues with Wealth distribution and power.
You claim there are none.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

Very good point. I guess I define it as exactly middle class. Used to be, you could leave your high school graduation, go to a local manufacturing plant, and be middle class. I think those opportunities are fewer and further between.

And I have come to believe, as I presume that you do, that scouting is a decent antidote to all that crap.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You just can't ever answer a direct question, can you?

Did Warren Buffet's accumulation of wealth, cause anyone else to be poor?

As a sole cause, likely not
Now tell me where I said poverty was wealthy peoples fault
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And if you don't believe that one person's poverty is caused by another person's wealth, then why should we give a frog's fat azz about income inequality? What's the harm in rich people getting richer?

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

curves paints a different picture from WHAT? i’m not denying income inequality exists. I am denying that it hurts anyone.

as to where youbsaid inenperaons wealth causes another’s poverty....youvare goung on and on about the wealthy and about income inequality. If you don’t think that one persons wealth causes another’s poverty, why do you bring up the wealthy? what point are you trying to make?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There are many factors that have contributed to all of this but the real question is if trickle down doesn't work, why do so many still think it's good policy?

trickle down hasn’t worked, if by ‘worked’, you mean eliminated poverty. Has welfare ( trickle up) eliminated poverty? Have the most liberal places, like CT, eliminated poverty? Been to Hartford or Bridgeport lately?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device