Just Be Rich

Post by o_p » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:12 AM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #93

o_p wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economy is closer to a zero-sum game, after all theres limited resources in a period of time. We cannot be all rich because we cannot all own the capital, if we did, who does the work? To invest you need workers, to produce you need consumers, to rent you need renter, etc. Then the rich class exist because theres a poor class, a zero-sum game.

You can be rich, invest, and still work. You don’t magically putter around all day once you make money. Or at least all the self-made wealthy I know are still actively productive.

Post by saddlerustle » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:14 AM UTC

donnythecroc wrote: post #64

Barrin92 wrote: post #49

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

Post by tda » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

ashneo76 wrote: post #4

A very well thought out and articulated essay. Essential to get the billionaires of the pedestal that they have perched on. Put your money where your mouth is and fund the wealth tax. Personally, I vehemently disagree with the 10x programmer narrative in IT. It fuels " management provides more value than replaceable workers". If there were no workers, then management is just sitting there coming up with random ideas.…

Post by sturza » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

    the survival of the fittest is a means by which creatures may evolve from one species to a superior species. The challenge before us now is not how we could evolve further but:

        to live together in a society and achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest proportion of the worlds population

            this could never be achieved by imitating the survival of the fittest

    it happens in nature, it's just the way of the world

        your child failed the SAT, so natural selection has taken place and we're feeding her to a pack of hyenas

    we are human beings, with consciousness and a unique ability to see things from another person's point of view

        the survival of the fittest created species

        but what makes a decent society is the responsibility of the fittest

Post by ludocode » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

solveit wrote: post #94

d_silin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US at least, it is definitely decreasing. Income inequality is growing, as the original essay noted.

Increasing income inequality does not necessarily imply that. In fact, the US poverty rate has been more or less stable for the past 50 years[1]. And the worldwide poverty rate is dropping like a stone. [1] To be clear, I very much view this as a failure given how much richer the US has become in the same period. Nevertheless, it is not true (or at least not clear) that the portion of people who are able to actualize…