CASH FOR VOTES

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Saw a nicely simplified view of the US "Budget" (We should be using that term very loosely):

Great chart JD, one Big G wouldn't want you to see.

Waay to simple, they don't want you to see something that simple
just want to snow you with complicated BS.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Great chart JD, one Big G wouldn't want you to see.

Waay to simple, they don't want you to see something that simple
just want to snow you with complicated BS.

The whole budget situation becomes mythical to the average person when trillions, millions, billions are thrown around. The typical American doesn't comprehend how much money that actually is.

I'm glad I found that image. I appreciate the way it related our national debt to credit card debt. With it is put simply like that, we should now be asking the people of this nation: "How stable financially is a family that has credit card debt equal to 7 times their income?" When put into simple, relative terms like that, it is easy to comprehend how dire our national debt situation is... and why a surplus budget is required, along with *every* American having to make sacrifices.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The whole budget situation becomes mythical to the average person when trillions, millions, billions are thrown around. The typical American doesn't comprehend how much money that actually is.

I'm glad I found that image. I appreciate the way it related our national debt to credit card debt. With it is put simply like that, we should now be asking the people of this nation: "How stable financially is a family that has credit card debt equal to 7 times their income?" When put into simple, relative terms like that, it is easy to comprehend how dire our national debt situation is... and why a surplus budget is required, along with *every* American having to make sacrifices.

There would also have to be a guarantee that the surplus would go to paying down the debt. It has been a long, long time since the debt has been reduced, even in times of budget "surplus." Congress has this inevitable tic that requires all money to be spent so that whatever does go toward debt payment is never enough to reduce it and it constantly grows. If the annual budgets were honest, they would include the debt as part of the budget just as your chart does. But, then, the pols could not maintain power by "giving" us stuff, and the people could instantly see, by looking at a real, total budget, rather than the so-called "annual" budget, that they were not being given anything. Rather that they were being forced to pay very dearly for the trinkets. And, if we were taught throughout the 12 year captivity in public schools that the Federal Gvt. is not supposed to have the power to spend our money on things not enumerated in the Constitution, and that we, in our various States and localities, have the power to spend or not spend within those unenumerated powers, we would have more control and responsibility toward keeping "budgets" within reason and ability to pay.

Of course, the Constitution is a dead letter that no-one follows anymore. So then, the problem becomes "revenue" and "spending." What's the best way to get budget surplus revenue and how to control congressional spending. Taxing is problematic. At what point does it hamper growth in the "economy"? Is economic growth the best way to garner Federal revenue? As for spending--good luch with that.

[justplugit]

Another qoute on the debt to make things simple for us simple folk,

"We've saved the American Taxpayer about 17 Hours
of spending. That's it."
-Reid Ribble, R. Wisc.

[UserRemoved1]

SOME MORE cash for votes........

Analysis: U.S. fighter sales soar in time for campaign - Yahoo! News

Wonder if they need any fishing lures

[zimmy]

"...supporting more than 50,000 U.S. jobs at a time of high unemployment...

The program involves roughly 600 suppliers in 44 of the 50 U.S. states and give the economy a $3.5 billion annual boost...
'This will support jobs not only in the aerospace sector but also in our manufacturing base and support chain, which are all crucial for sustaining our national defense,' he said."

After reading the article, I don't know what to say Scott other than, if you can't support this, there is absolutely nothing related to the Obama admin. that you would support.

[UserRemoved1]

Didn't say I didn't support it

I do....cept he's going to cash in for his campaign. He's going to use it for all it's worth. I bet they been working on that since before Barry...and that this is another of his "free" grabs I'm the king of hope and change.

And none of this gets going for another 2 years......so it's FLUFF in the jar right now.

hocus pocus

[spence]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Didn't say I didn't support it

I do....cept he's going to cash in for his campaign. He's going to use it for all it's worth. I bet they been working on that since before Barry...and that this is another of his "free" grabs I'm the king of hope and change.

And none of this gets going for another 2 years......so it's FLUFF in the jar right now.

hocus pocus

I doubt it will factor in all that much.

But the fact it's approved will keep a lot of defense industry employees employed. The entire aero defense supply chain is scrambling to rework their cost structures right now. Contract like these have a tremendous trickle down effect.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's not a lottery. It's not luck. Those born into wealth receive it as a result of the work and planning of their ancestors. That doctor who is making 500K/yr, if he has a family, is probably investing in various schemes and trusts that will, hopefully, secure his children. Perhaps the recipients born into this invested wealth should pay the same tax rate as those who receive a payroll check. But they shouldn't have that wealth confiscated or neutralized as some more radical "egalitarians" would like in order to "level the playing field." And it is probably not economically prudent to raise the tax rate on investments. That is, if we believe those investments are part of the working capital to start and fund business. And as for investment for bettering the lives of one's children--that is one of the greatest motivations for working beyond the subsistance level. Removing that desire to satisfy the conflicting desire to level outcomes would, in my opinion, create a stagnant, collapsing economy of a class of "workers" and entitlement owners who live for the moment and save and care for nothing more.

I don't think anyone has ever really called for policy that will remove the desire to work beyond the sustenance level. As long as there's an upside people will try and achieve it, just like the Market...they'll simply go for the best available deal.

I'd also take issue with the idea that success isn't based somewhat on luck. That's not to say that talent, effort and risk taking doesn't increase the chances to get lucky...but ultimately luck is always involved to some degree, especially in new small businesses that don't have the luxury of a proven conservative business model.

Entrepreneurs are certainly a critical component of our economy, but they would be impotent without the sacrifices made throughout society to defend our freedoms, labor in unsafe mines to provide our electricity, work endless hours at low wages to keep services and factories running etc...

Ultimately any fortune, large or small, is built on the backs of others.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Ultimately any fortune, large or small, is built on the backs of others.

-spence

Spence very negative way of looking at it,
typical Liberal "poor me thinking."

I would say any fortune, large or small, is built on the opportunities
provided by others.
Very few grateful for what others have provided for them.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think anyone has ever really called for policy that will remove the desire to work beyond the sustenance level. As long as there's an upside people will try and achieve it, just like the Market...they'll simply go for the best available deal.

Didn't say anyone ever called for such policy. The "context" (to put it in Spencerian terms) that I mention subsistance level, is securing a better life for one's children as ONE of the greatest motivations to work beyond that level. I neither stated nor implied that there are no other motivating factors. My response, after all, was about those (children) being born into wealth not being winners of a lottery.

And, BTW, there have ever been policies that thwarted the desire to work beyond subsistence by crushing that desire. Slavery abounded in the past and still exists now, slavery much more crushing than the American form. And not too long before China's current attempt to introduce capitalism into its society, they had a strict subsistence level instituted for all but communist party higher ups. I had a Chinese-American friend who visited the mainland about 30 years ago and saw a system in which everyone was paid $80/mo regardles of occupation, and they could not move from the locality they were born in unless their profession was in short supply elsewhere such as a doctor.

I'd also take issue with the idea that success isn't based somewhat on luck. That's not to say that talent, effort and risk taking doesn't increase the chances to get lucky...but ultimately luck is always involved to some degree, especially in new small businesses that don't have the luxury of a proven conservative business model.

Who are you taking issue with here? I was, again, speaking about the INHERITORS of wealth, not the parents who created that wealth, however they got it. And I would state your double negative in its absolute positive--talent, effort, and risk taking DO increase the chances to get lucky, and without those qualities, in most cases, luck will pass you by. And if luck is always involved to some degree, then it is an unavoidable constant that we all have to deal with. And dealing with it by applying effort and risk taking is the surest way to succeed. By far, the greatest factor in success is the effort to apply talent, will, perseverance, against all risks. And, let's not forget, failure is more abundant than success, so the willingness to make the effort and take the risk deserves far more credit than the fickle luck we are all prone to.

Entrepreneurs are certainly a critical component of our economy, but they would be impotent without the sacrifices made throughout society to defend our freedoms, labor in unsafe mines to provide our electricity, work endless hours at low wages to keep services and factories running etc...

What's your point here? Are entrepeneurs separate from those who sacrifice throughout society to defend our freedoms, who labor, who work endless hours (and yes, many work on a small dime in the beginning)? And are they any more "impotent" than those who depend on them to provide the labor and create opportunities for economic freedom from the poverty seen in societies bereft of entrepeneurs? They are not merely a "critical component" of our "economy," they are its creator.

Ultimately any fortune, large or small, is built on the backs of others.

-spence

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I would say any fortune, large or small, is built on the opportunities
provided by others.
Very few grateful for what others have provided for them.

Speaking from professional experience, most employers look to get just what they need from an employee without paying them a dime more than they have to. It's the rare example that actually seeks -- talking corporate culture here -- to get the most out of the people they have.

This isn't liberalism, if anything it's Econ 101.

Some corporate leaders are actually good stewards of their own ships. I wish more were...but we have a corporate culture today that doesn't often punish failure at the top. I guess it's a lot like Congress.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence very negative way of looking at it,
typical Liberal "poor me thinking."

I would say any fortune, large or small, is built on the opportunities
provided by others.
Very few grateful for what others have provided for them.

Exactly. I was busy answering Spences response to me while you were posting this, so I didn't see your good words here until I posted mine. You said it better.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Speaking from professional experience, most employers look to get just what they need from an employee without paying them a dime more than they have to. It's the rare example that actually seeks -- talking corporate culture here -- to get the most out of the people they have. This isn't liberalism, if anything it's Econ 101.

And ever it shall be. Tis unfortunate that corporations are run by human beings. Hey . . . that could be a new $500 billion Federal Gvt. stimulus funding project--the design and manufacture of corporate CEO robots. They can be programmed to gvt. specs to be compassionate, employee centered, lavish in wage distribution, developers of the mere beings they employ. They can reform corporate culture to a relaxing haven and make it the envy of the boring, stressful, labor intensive, occupations the rest of society must drudge through. Until then . . . thank God most of us don't work for corporations. Gee . . . I wonder why anyone does?

Some corporate leaders are actually good stewards of their own ships. I wish more were...but we have a corporate culture today that doesn't often punish failure at the top. I guess it's a lot like Congress. -spence

Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, are worse. They exist on the backs of all of us, and are rewarded for constant failure, bickering, Constitution trashing, innovative ways to rack up economy crushing debt.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Didn't say I didn't support it

I bet they been working on that since before Barry...and that this is another of his "free" grabs I'm the king of hope and change.

No credit for what happens while he is in office and most of the blame for stuff that started before he was elected
I am happy to hear that you are ok with the sales, though, or I was gonna be very concerned.

[UserRemoved]

He's taken enough credit for things others have done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't say anyone ever called for such policy. The "context" (to put it in Spencerian terms) that I mention subsistance level, is securing a better life for one's children as ONE of the greatest motivations to work beyond that level. I neither stated nor implied that there are no other motivating factors. My response, after all, was about those (children) being born into wealth not being winners of a lottery.

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

And, BTW, there have ever been policies that thwarted the desire to work beyond subsistence by crushing that desire. Slavery abounded in the past and still exists now, slavery much more crushing than the American form. And not too long before China's current attempt to introduce capitalism into its society, they had a strict subsistence level instituted for all but communist party higher ups. I had a Chinese-American friend who visited the mainland about 30 years ago and saw a system in which everyone was paid $80/mo regardles of occupation, and they could not move from the locality they were born in unless their profession was in short supply elsewhere such as a doctor.

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

Who are you taking issue with here? I was, again, speaking about the INHERITORS of wealth, not the parents who created that wealth, however they got it. And I would state your double negative in its absolute positive--talent, effort, and risk taking DO increase the chances to get lucky, and without those qualities, in most cases, luck will pass you by. And if luck is always involved to some degree, then it is an unavoidable constant that we all have to deal with. And dealing with it by applying effort and risk taking is the surest way to succeed. By far, the greatest factor in success is the effort to apply talent, will, perseverance, against all risks. And, let's not forget, failure is more abundant than success, so the willingness to make the effort and take the risk deserves far more credit than the fickle luck we are all prone to.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

What's your point here? Are entrepeneurs separate from those who sacrifice throughout society to defend our freedoms, who labor, who work endless hours (and yes, many work on a small dime in the beginning)? And are they any more "impotent" than those who depend on them to provide the labor and create opportunities for economic freedom from the poverty seen in societies bereft of entrepeneurs? They are not merely a "critical component" of our "economy," they are its creator.

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete.

As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

Your top down/bottom up is confusing here. Do you mean top being parents and bottom being children? If so, OF COURSE top down is more valid--the kids are usually not going to strive harder to secure the parents future, it's obviously usually the other way around. If you mean top being wealthy and bottom being poor--I said to secure the children's future is ONE . . .ONE . . .ONE of the greatest motivations to rise above subsistance level. In the case of poor vs wealthy, is that also not one of those motivations for both once they achieve subsistance level? And if it is "more valid" for the wealthy, a lot of things are more valid for the wealthy. Why bother to become more wealthy if it does no more for you than being poor? And if poor kids have less opportunity than wealthy kids, isn't that, exactly, one of the reasons to become wealthy? What is it that you wish here? Abolish wealth so that everyone has the same opportunity to gain it? Does that make sense?

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

It was a valid response of actual policy to your claiming that no-one ever called for a policy to remove the desire to rise above subsistence level. Your use of "on the backs of" is a trope used to invoke favor in an argument against the wealthy, or the "owners" and such. When it likens economic relationships in the free market between employees and employers to a slave like condition, that is not valid.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

"That's not to say . . . doesn't" I believe, is a double negative, maybe I'm wrong, no big deal. One of the reasons to gain wealth is to secure the future of your children. You insist that such children are "lucky" to be born to such parents. Never mind that those parents, in most cases, had intended to have children, and in most cases worked intentionally to gain wealth, and in most cases they secured their childrens "better chance" at success with that wealth. Isn't that the point? Isn't that one of the reasons to acquire wealth? Are luck and intention equal? Perhaps the children born to poorer parents are benefitting from the "luck" that was fostered by the lesser talent, effort, inelligence, of their parents? What are we supposed to do, inject all babies with some equalizing chemical so that they all tap into luck equally by striving with the same intelligence and effort and thus all leaving all their children with equal opportunities?

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Well, economics is about more than the relationship between capital and labor. It is about the total relaltionship between all elements in a society which include beliefs, attitudes, talents, intelligence, MOTIVATION, and everything you can think of. A harmonious relationship between all elements is a utopian desire that would end the necessisty to further evolve. Since that harmony is likely impossible, we do evolve. But those that wish to artificially create this utopia rather than letting it naturally evolve, wish to do so by equalizing conditions. In which case convections trickling up and/or down will be eliminated. If you wish to have your convectionist economy, then accept that there will be an up and a down, and the up will have more opportunity, this being the reason to strive to get up.

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete. As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto -spence

There is work and there is work. Most business owners work more at their business than there employees. But we, somehow, don't look at their work as work.

Good looking risotto. You have a lucky wife and children.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Speaking from professional experience, most employers look to get just what they need from an employee without paying them a dime more than they have to. It's the rare example that actually seeks -- talking corporate culture here -- to get the most out of the people they have.




-spence

Of course,companies are out to make $$, grow, make more money, hire more
people and grow some more. That's success and means more opportunties for
more employees and more hiring.No secret here.

I agree corporate culture has changed drasticaly in the tretment of their
employees over the last 15 years as the "60's" "Me Generation has taken
over management in a large number of companies.

Neither changes my "poor me" Lib comment.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Of course,companies are out to make $$, grow, make more money, hire more people and grow some more. That's success and means more opportunties for more employees and more hiring.No secret here.

Put my response in context of yours that I was responding to, you've got it backwards.

Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
I would say any fortune, large or small, is built on the opportunities
provided by others. Very few grateful for what others have provided for them.

Fortunes are often made by the innovators, risk takers and the fortunate (i.e. also known as the lucky :hihi). It's usually not that they have an opportunity handed to them, they create it, but to fully realize it requires both capital and labor.

I agree corporate culture has changed drasticaly in the tretment of their employees over the last 15 years as the "60's" "Me Generation has taken over management in a large number of companies.

I don't think it has as much to do with the generational shift as it does the ever increasing trend towards "short-term'ism."

We have a market where billions are traded in seconds and everybody lives on a knifes edge. People watch the stock ticker like it's a ball game. Banks are running complex computer models to determine who's small business loan or mortgage is most at risk and should be yanked at the first opportunity.

I think a lot of this has to do with the shifting of our economy towards a more services based market where productivity is much harder to measure. Factories are easy, you've got assets and resources that when managed well produce X amount of product. With a services based economy there's a hierarchy of value that's being speculated on at many levels...it's so freaking complicated few are smart enough to understand it, and those who do typically are scared #^&#^&#^&#^&less.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your top down/bottom up is confusing here. Do you mean top being parents and bottom being children? If so, OF COURSE top down is more valid--the kids are usually not going to strive harder to secure the parents future, it's obviously usually the other way around. If you mean top being wealthy and bottom being poor--I said to secure the children's future is ONE . . .ONE . . .ONE of the greatest motivations to rise above subsistance level. In the case of poor vs wealthy, is that also not one of those motivations for both once they achieve subsistance level? And if it is "more valid" for the wealthy, a lot of things are more valid for the wealthy. Why bother to become more wealthy if it does no more for you than being poor? And if poor kids have less opportunity than wealthy kids, isn't that, exactly, one of the reasons to become wealthy? What is it that you wish here? Abolish wealth so that everyone has the same opportunity to gain it? Does that make sense?

Nobody, even Obama, is calling for the abolition of wealth. But doesn't that rich kid, even if he has a silver spoon in his mouth still have a far greater chance at success than the poor kid raised with a work ethic?

I think this question is relevant when thinking about what constitutes one's tribe. The implication here should be obvious.

It was a valid response of actual policy to your claiming that no-one ever called for a policy to remove the desire to rise above subsistence level. Your use of "on the backs of" is a trope used to invoke favor in an argument against the wealthy, or the "owners" and such. When it likens economic relationships in the free market between employees and employers to a slave like condition, that is not valid.

Trope, nice, I haven't heard that word used in a while

I often visualize pyramids when describing an organizational structure. You'd got to stand on the back of something or else the whole thing falls down...

One of the reasons to gain wealth is to secure the future of your children. You insist that such children are "lucky" to be born to such parents. Never mind that those parents, in most cases, had intended to have children, and in most cases worked intentionally to gain wealth, and in most cases they secured their childrens "better chance" at success with that wealth. Isn't that the point? Isn't that one of the reasons to acquire wealth? Are luck and intention equal? Perhaps the children born to poorer parents are benefitting from the "luck" that was fostered by the lesser talent, effort, inelligence, of their parents? What are we supposed to do, inject all babies with some equalizing chemical so that they all tap into luck equally by striving with the same intelligence and effort and thus all leaving all their children with equal opportunities?

How often are successful parents trying to capture wealth for their offspring also the result of wealthy parents to begin with?

Even my father commented about this over Christmas, how luck my son was to have access to computers and good education to give him a developmental edge. That on top of being smarter and better looking to begin with

Certainly one element that makes America different from most countries is that there are fewer cultural barriers to moving up...and this is a super positive for sure. But it's also undeniable that the top few % hold most of the wealth...and couldn't keep it if it were not for the efforts of everyone else.

Well, economics is about more than the relationship between capital and labor. It is about the total relaltionship between all elements in a society which include beliefs, attitudes, talents, intelligence, MOTIVATION, and everything you can think of. A harmonious relationship between all elements is a utopian desire that would end the necessisty to further evolve. Since that harmony is likely impossible, we do evolve. But those that wish to artificially create this utopia rather than letting it naturally evolve, wish to do so by equalizing conditions. In which case convections trickling up and/or down will be eliminated. If you wish to have your convectionist economy, then accept that there will be an up and a down, and the up will have more opportunity, this being the reason to strive to get up.

Just trying to keep things simple. My point is that without balance (oh god, here I go again) we could quickly reach an asymmetrical state that would be disasterous. Personally I think if you were to move too far towards a real free market system (regardless of federal or state regulatory allocation) the wealthy would eat up everything very rapidly. Certainly the inverse is also true...

There is work and there is work. Most business owners work more at their business than there employees. But we, somehow, don't look at their work as work.

The often cited statistic on executive pay as a % of worker pay is relevant here. Have CEO's become more important than those who actually product goods and services?

Good looking risotto. You have a lucky wife and children.

Thanks, I think it's important to take pleasure in the basics of living...like eating

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody, even Obama, is calling for the abolition of wealth. But doesn't that rich kid, even if he has a silver spoon in his mouth still have a far greater chance at success than the poor kid raised with a work ethic?

We're starting to talk in circles here, which may be a sign that we don't disagree on what is, but possibly, on what should be. It's a tautology to say that having an advantage gives you an advantage. I know you keep reiterating that, and I agree, but so what? I say that it is a condition that is to a great degree pre-determined by the intentional efforts of forbears, and a condition that they desired. It is the type of outcome that motivates those who believe in and practice, "take advantage," of a free market. I believe it is a correct and motivating process in that market. The ownership and protection of property is one of the most important reasons for the creation of this country and its Constitution. You keep hinting at something being wrong with this. But you won't name it, nor say what should be done to correct it.

I think this question is relevant when thinking about what constitutes one's tribe. The implication here should be obvious.

We may well agree, but you'll have to be more explicit as my mind is stuck in my own thoughts and not able to see what the obvious implication is. And I hope there is more than an implication here.


I often visualize pyramids when describing an organizational structure. You'd got to stand on the back of something or else the whole thing falls down...

I apologize for misconstruing your intent. I have heard this "stand on the back of" phrase used so often by various leftist groups to imply harsh and usurious ways of treating "labor" as if it were, in some slave-like way, being taken advantage of. That you were merely referring to a pyramid escaped me. But aren't pyramid structures composed intentionally by a director for a purpose? The bottom layers don't, generally create or direct the pyramid. Without the creator of the pyramid, there is no use for it, and the number of layers is at the behest of the director. The final structure is totally interdependent, without the top or middle layers, there is no need of the bottom. In effect all layers are standing on each other, for if one part or layer collapses the whole structure is defunct.

How often are successful parents trying to capture wealth for their offspring also the result of wealthy parents to begin with?

I don't know how often as compared to how often its a first generation thing, but it's all part of a lineage. I'm sure that grandparents, and great grandparents, etc., who started it are content to see there progeny continue to succeed, and are glad to have played no small part in that success.

Even my father commented about this over Christmas, how luck my son was to have access to computers and good education to give him a developmental edge. That on top of being smarter and better looking to begin with

You're father, like you, you smart good looking guy you, is being too modest. I would give more credit to what he gave you and what you gave your son in terms of what society has to offer as a result of the progress made by those who strove. I give more credit to all those before us who had the ambitions, motivations, and creativity, combined with the freedom to apply those things and the efforts of you and your parents to take advantage of it all, than I do to luck.

Certainly one element that makes America different from most countries is that there are fewer cultural barriers to moving up...and this is a super positive for sure. But it's also undeniable that the top few % hold most of the wealth...and couldn't keep it if it were not for the efforts of everyone else.

And . . .?

Just trying to keep things simple. My point is that without balance (oh god, here I go again) we could quickly reach an asymmetrical state that would be disasterous. Personally I think if you were to move too far towards a real free market system (regardless of federal or state regulatory allocation) the wealthy would eat up everything very rapidly. Certainly the inverse is also true...

That is the only real objection that Marx had to capitalism. If it is the "vector" (there I go again for you) that is inevitable, then capitalism, free markets, are a problem. Actually, I think that as that type of concentrated wealth is approached, the wealth loses its value. At that point, labor, motivation, markets, would all come to a stop. The corrections would take place before that could happen. Plus, its an imaginary scenario that doesn't take into account the desires, motivations, and humanity of the wealthy. It makes monsters of them. Unless they are scrooge-like megalomaniacal money worshippers, they could not live in such a world either.

The often cited statistic on executive pay as a % of worker pay is relevant here. Have CEO's become more important than those who actually product goods and services?

I am not a fan of the massive amounts that some are paid (or which they confiscate). But I think that is not true free market in which there is an exchange of value in which all sides are satisfied. I believe that is a manifest corruption, not capitalism nor free market.

Thanks, I think it's important to take pleasure in the basics of living...like eating

-spence

Life is good. Let us freely strive to live it well.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Fortunes are often made by the innovators, risk takers and the fortunate (i.e. also known as the lucky :hihi). It's usually not that they have an opportunity handed to them, they create it, but to fully realize it requires both capital and labor.



I don't think it has as much to do with the generational shift as it does the ever increasing trend towards "short-term'ism."



-spence

What $ amount do you consider a fortune, or what amount does one need to be wealty in your opinion?

The oportunities I speak of are not monetary but what your ancestors sacraficed so that you could become successful. Genetics aside, how many left everything to come to this country to be free and start over? How many struggled to just eek out a living for their family? These were the things that were done to create opportuniiesnfor thier children.

If you haven't already done so, you will become interested in your "roots" when you
enter your 60's. Delving into your families history, you will find out what I am talking about. There are no self made men without someone who sacraficedfor them or who have been fortunate enough to have great mentors.
Having gratitude for them is a great blessing.

Anyway corporate "shortermism" , they have become that greedy that
there are no longer ten year corporate plans?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What $ amount do you consider a fortune, or what amount does one need to be wealty in your opinion?

The context for my remark pertained more to those amassing enough wealth to be considered investors taking more significant risks that create economic growth. Certainly there's a sliding scale here.

Obviously one can be fortunate and very happy without financial wealth.

The oportunities I speak of are not monetary but what your ancestors sacraficed so that you could become successful. Genetics aside, how many left everything to come to this country to be free and start over? How many struggled to just eek out a living for their family? These were the things that were done to create opportuniiesnfor thier children.

And they were certainly risk takers depending on how you look at it.

To the point above though. In the US today, we have children with a lineage of wealth, a lineage of migrants taking risks, a lineage of slaves etc...in some cases the sacrifice was deliberate and in some cases the sacrifice was forced.

If you haven't already done so, you will become interested in your "roots" when you enter your 60's. Delving into your families history, you will find out what I am talking about. There are no self made men without someone who sacraficedfor them or who have been fortunate enough to have great mentors.
Having gratitude for them is a great blessing.

I completely agree, but I think the point is that in many ways that sacrifice is shared among not just a family, but a community or even a country or a league of countries that share similar values. Here you can draw a line...

My father has documented our family genealogy to a pretty good detail. Funny enough one time his travels to dig up family records actually put him and his cousin Terry at the hotel across mine while I was on a business trip. I might have posted Terry's obit a few years ago...if I can find it I'll send it to you, you'd love it.

Anyway corporate "shortermism" , they have become that greedy that there are no longer ten year corporate plans?

There certainly are more conservative companies that have 10 year plans. These (and longer) are more common in Asia. Many though are so reactive to quarterly performance it requires really good leadership to navigate. I work in a sales organization so my exposure is exacerbated by buying cycles. Also, a poor balance sheet will certainly impact your ability to execute a longer term plan.

That being said, so many companies aren't looking very far beyond the horizon...

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

And they were certainly risk takers depending on how you look at it.


I might have posted Terry's obit a few years ago...if I can find it I'll send it to you, you'd love it.




-spence

Agree,they were risk takers for sure, not sitting around waiting for a
Govt. hand out.

Thanks for the Obit,Spence.
Holy Moses, when did the guy sleep.
He musta known the secret of the "power nap". LOL