My thoughts on wealth, and respect for wealth

[PickelledEggs]

Wow. Well that escalated quickly...

[stromboli]

OK, last broad statement and I'm done. This nation was founded by entrepreneurs. The Americas were the land of opportunity in a very big way back in the 15th and 16th century. People like T. Jefferson and G. Washington and B. Franklin were believers in new ideas because the had the latitude and freedom to do so. At least one reason for the Revolutionary War was the fact that the Brits were crimping their style.

Everything about our history has been about entreprenurial efforts by men to build their dreams. "Men To Match My Mountains" by Irving Stone tells of the "winning" of the American West, and it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Easterners came to California looking for Gold, William Randolph Hearst's daddy George built a mining empire, Brigham Young carved out his own empire in Utah and the Great Basin.

A good example of what I am talking about is the Hearsts. George was a ruthless man (See "Deadwood" when it comes back on) who built an empire on mining, and also owned the San Francisco Examiner newspaper. WR took over the Examiner and built the largest publishing empire of its day and was one of the most powerful men in America, and the richest.

It was wealth, and wealth wrested from not only ceaseless effort but also cuththroat dealings and manipulations. Btw, WR is one reason you're not smoking pot right now. He was one of the people that campaigned against Marijuana and Hemp because hemp would have made cheaper paper, and WR Hearst owned major timber concerns that supplied the paper that was being used by the newspapers. Control was what he sought, to divert money to his coffers and denying that right to others.

Entrepreneurship built a nation. Now we have a society that is controlled not by the entrepreneurs but their grandchildren and great grandchildren, 3rd and 4th generation offspring who grew up in wealth and believe they alone understand it and control it. The Koch brothers have no problem denying fair wages to their employees and denying their rights to arbitrate a fair wage because they think their employees are drones to be used as they see fit.

And it means nothing to them that their wealth is inherited and what they have built is based solely on that. If anything, entrepreneurship has been stifled by people like them. Wealth should be the result of your efforts, not a weapon to control and deny the same opportunities to others. More power to Moral and any other man who wants to build his dreams and be wealthy. That is about as American as it gets, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
 

[Solitary]

I started my first company with less than $10,000.00 to my name. I don't bother with a company car. My newest gym took over a million to open owing to buying the building and equipment up front.

Look I don't know what the fuck your problem is but frankly I don't give a shit. You are nothing more than a bitter old loser who resents those that have pulled themselves up from nothing. My family was frequently on food stamps when I was growing up, there were several times that we were evicted from our own home. I started fighting because there was a tough man tourney at the bar I was bar backing at and I hadn't eaten in 3 days. It was fight and win or don't eat.

Im not one of those rich assholes that forgot what its like to have to work for a living. I don't take advantage of my financial situation(in fact I give most of it to charity). Do I have nicer things than most people? Yes. Does this automatically make me some sort of villain? No. Do I expect some sort of praise for this? Again no.

So again apa I invite you to go fuck yourself.

So the questions I'm asking you now is: If you had no assets what-so-ever, would you be able to live on $10,000,000 dollars or not? If not, why would that not be enough? Also, giving to charity, that you seem so proud of to mention it, is a tax right off. Solitary

[Moralnihilist]

With zero responsibilities and assets. I could live easily on 10million. But my personality would make me want to start a business. But to stick to the question asked, yes 10 million is more than enough to live on.

[Solitary]

Thank you!  Solitary

[zarus tathra (OP)]

OK, last broad statement and I'm done. This nation was founded by entrepreneurs. The Americas were the land of opportunity in a very big way back in the 15th and 16th century. People like T. Jefferson and G. Washington and B. Franklin were believers in new ideas because the had the latitude and freedom to do so. At least one reason for the Revolutionary War was the fact that the Brits were crimping their style.

Everything about our history has been about entreprenurial efforts by men to build their dreams. "Men To Match My Mountains" by Irving Stone tells of the "winning" of the American West, and it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Easterners came to California looking for Gold, William Randolph Hearst's daddy George built a mining empire, Brigham Young carved out his own empire in Utah and the Great Basin.

A good example of what I am talking about is the Hearsts. George was a ruthless man (See "Deadwood" when it comes back on) who built an empire on mining, and also owned the San Francisco Examiner newspaper. WR took over the Examiner and built the largest publishing empire of its day and was one of the most powerful men in America, and the richest.

It was wealth, and wealth wrested from not only ceaseless effort but also cuththroat dealings and manipulations. Btw, WR is one reason you're not smoking pot right now. He was one of the people that campaigned against Marijuana and Hemp because hemp would have made cheaper paper, and WR Hearst owned major timber concerns that supplied the paper that was being used by the newspapers. Control was what he sought, to divert money to his coffers and denying that right to others.

So basically overregulation motivated by corporate lobbying is the problem, which is something I agree with.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Not just overregulation. Underregulation is bad, too.

[zarus tathra (OP)]

I think a more distributed, Internet-based system of inspection would be good for society. It would be both less arbitrary than government-based inspection and much more rigorous simply by virtue of there being more eyes on the system.  Kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated.

[Icarus]

I think a more distributed, Internet-based system of inspection would be good for society. It would be both less arbitrary than government-based inspection and much more rigorous simply by virtue of there being more eyes on the system.  Kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated.

I think hackers would agree with you.

[Moralnihilist]

I think that it isn't the money a person has that deserves respect(i.e. just because someone is wealthy they deserve respect), but its what they did to earn said money and what they do with the money that is deserving of respect or contempt. If a person built their wealth from the ground up through hard work, careful planning, and a bit of luck. That is respectable. If a person inherited their wealth and does nothing more with it than try to buy their way into favorable positions, that is contemptible. If a person inherited their wealth and does nothing more with it than party and act like an ass, to me at least, that is beyond despicable. If you inherit your money and use it to bully your employees, that is the most disgusting offense one could commit with money.

[SGOS]

Wow. Well that escalated quickly...

Well, look who started the thread. Now what do you suppose was the desired outcome?

[Mister Agenda]

People respond to incentives. That is what economics is based on. If people aren't responding to it, by definition, it is not an incentive. We can incentivise wonderful things or awful things, and much of the time we are not even aware of what we are really incentivizing.

I'm pro-capitalism (setting aside some resources to invest in increasing resources later), but despite starting with the letter 'c', corporatism and consumerism are not synonyms for capitalism. Capitalism can be a great force for prosperity, but what it produces is heavily influenced by government policy. If the results we're getting aren't to our liking, it's very probable that our policies are the root cause. And when an economic policy isn't having the result we think it should have, we should seriously consider the possibility that it doesn't work, at least under certain circumstances.

[zarus tathra (OP)]

I think hackers would agree with you.

I've never gotten a virus over a p2p system. You're much more likely to get one from church websites. And I don't see why a sophisticated version of Yelp would be a breeding ground for viruses.

[Moralnihilist]

I think a more distributed, Internet-based system of inspection would be good for society. It would be both less arbitrary than government-based inspection and much more rigorous simply by virtue of there being more eyes on the system.  Kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated.

I have several issues with this.
1. If you are intending to only have the wealthy on this "yelp like thing" then Fuck You my own money is none of your fucking business.

2. If you want everyone to have their finances plastered all over this supposedly secure website, then double fuck you if you don't think that would not become hacker central.

3. If you are suggesting that only businesses put their financial information on this website, then fuck you with a rusty chainsaw if you don't think that hackers don't want that information.
And finally...

4. If you(or frankly anyone else) think that you have a right to anyone else's PERSONAL financial information, then double fuck you in the ass with a rusty chainsaw while whistling dixie. There is a reason its called PERSONAL financial information.

[zarus tathra (OP)]

What? No, I meant a system for factory and restaurant inspections and shit. For finance Bitcoin or some kind of reputation based service would suffice.