OT – Bottom 50% of America holds 1% of wealth

[Hobie]

100% tax? Really? Would you go to work of all your efforts allowed you ‘0’ take home? Doubt it.

Time for a real world check.

[an]

[quote=davelj]I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).

Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.[/quote]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. They see (what most people don’t) the problem that many people have and they set out to find the solution to the problem. Sometimes, their first solution fail, but they’re the type that try and try again. I would put guys like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. in the same categories as well. The see the problem at the time and they set out to solve the problem. That made them Millions (adjusted for inflation, it’s probably Billions). This is why I say even if there’s no interest, some of the internet billionaires will still be at least millionaires. They might not invent Facebook or Google, because the internet doesn’t exist. However, they’ll see the problem we would have (whatever it may be, and there are many problems) and find solutions to the problem. Some of those solutions will make them a lot of money.

Then there are the many many entrepreneurs. Although they are not as successful, they’re not that much different. They see problems people have and they want to come up with solutions that will help fix the problem and make them a lot of money. Many times, they don’t succeed the first or the second time. However, they try and try again until the succeed. The point is, even without the internet, there are still many problems people have and these entrepreneurs will try to find solutions to them. Maybe, one of them will try and start a company that will come up with the internet.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.[/quote]

I think the point here is there is that eventual breaking point when the populace would take the poison pill. Question is when is that breaking point.

Now if you have a policy of subsidized grain that makes $1 burgers possible for all, I suppose that that breaking point may never come.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]At issue is can we jump out of this capitalism vs socialism trap and find a better way to prevent extreme wealth distribution.[/quote]
I’m not sure if extreme wealth distribution is what hurt people. I think the poverty of the people at the bottom was what brought on Vietnam, Cambodia, and other revolutions/wars. I’m pretty sure Communism wouldn’t have taken hold in Vietnam if the North Vietnamese had food, clothing, and jobs. The war didn’t happen because the rich were extreme wealthy. The war happened because the poor in the north were so poor (no food, no job, etc) that they gravitate to what Ho Chi Minh said. I’m almost certain that if they had jobs,food, and clothing, they wouldn’t have bothered with Ho Chi Minh and his bullshit.[/quote]

I think the point here is there is that eventual breaking point when the populace would take the poison pill. Question is when is that breaking point.

Now if you have a policy of subsidized grain that makes $1 burgers possible for all, I suppose that that breaking point may never come.[/quote]
That’s my point exactly. The breaking point is not relative (income gap between the rich and the poor). The breaking point is nominal (how poor you really are, regardless of how rich other people are). If you’re fed, have clothes on the back (and extra ones in your closets), a home (rent or own), and an education (a path to escape poverty), why would you want to risk all of that and be part of a rebellion? Keep in mind, all the stuff I just listed above are available to most of the poor in America (except for homeless of course). So, I don’t see the populace taking the poison pill, as long as they have all of those things.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]Actually, I think foreign intervention in China, Vietnam, Cambodia is what brought on revolution. Without the destabilizing factors of foreign intervention, there would have been more continuity.

Russia was a different. The aristocracy could have reformed; but they even opposed reform attempts by the Emperor.[/quote]

At least for China, most dynasties had the same life cycle. At first the emperor have the popular support, then gradually as corruption sets in, a small group of the population become more and more powerful and rich. The emporer gradually direct policies from welfare of the populace to welfare of the selected few, while the general population gradually falters. Then all it takes is a famine and general revolt sets in.

I can see th same process with America. As corporations get bigger, they also gain more voice and power within the government. Gradually, the government changes it’s focus from the populace to the corporations. As the corporations do better, the wealth of the country become more concentrated into the hands of a few.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=AN][quote=davelj]I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).

Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.[/quote]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. They see (what most people don’t) the problem that many people have and they set out to find the solution to the problem. Sometimes, their first solution fail, but they’re the type that try and try again. I would put guys like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. in the same categories as well. The see the problem at the time and they set out to solve the problem. That made them Millions (adjusted for inflation, it’s probably Billions). This is why I say even if there’s no interest, some of the internet billionaires will still be at least millionaires. They might not invent Facebook or Google, because the internet doesn’t exist. However, they’ll see the problem we would have (whatever it may be, and there are many problems) and find solutions to the problem. Some of those solutions will make them a lot of money.

Then there are the many many entrepreneurs. Although they are not as successful, they’re not that much different. They see problems people have and they want to come up with solutions that will help fix the problem and make them a lot of money. Many times, they don’t succeed the first or the second time. However, they try and try again until the succeed. The point is, even without the internet, there are still many problems people have and these entrepreneurs will try to find solutions to them. Maybe, one of them will try and start a company that will come up with the internet.[/quote]

While I don’t agree 100% I’m far down this road. There are people who are just wired differently than most of us. I walk up to a pretty girl in a NYC club at age 21 get blown off and never forget it. I have friends that would move on and hit on 50 more girls that same night feel nothing leave with 49 phone numbers and sleep with the hot bartender everyone was drooling over all night. Not fair…just life.

Nassim Taleb is probably the guy who age 50 never even tried once to ask that hot girl out. As smart as he is he will spend his whole life wondering why he never went out with her never being smart enough to realize he never even asked her out.

[Anonymous]

The cure for the problem is education and by that I mean CAPITALIST education. Children need to be taught from grade one what capitalism is, HOW it works, and how they can use it to create their own wealth or income.
As it is, most kids don’t even learn how to balance a checkbook.

Children should learn (at an early age) about the stock market, real estate investment, small business ownership, intellectual property, compound interest, and all the other ways that capitalism allows each of us to control our financial future. The language of money should be taught as an adjunct to English grammar and spelling. Math class should be used to promote capitalism, as well as to practice calculating the monetary gains possible in a capitalist system.
Kids should be encouraged to invest in, save for, plan and execute, legal and profitable money-making ideas.
We need a nation of entrepreneurs, not a nation of whining food-stamp dependents with six kids.
We need financial literacy.

As it is, kids are taught Socialism and Communism from day one: We’re all in this together and we need to look out for one another, and it’s your JOB to help the poor, and your JOB to help the down-trodden and your JOB to rape the evil rich people who are the cause of all of your problems.

The greatest philanthropists are (and were) the rich. Poor people can barely take care of themselves.
But you can’t help #2 if you can’t take care of #1.

And stop having all those damned kids! The world doesn’t need another hungry mouth to feed.

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=briansd1]Actually, I think foreign intervention in China, Vietnam, Cambodia is what brought on revolution. Without the destabilizing factors of foreign intervention, there would have been more continuity.

Russia was a different. The aristocracy could have reformed; but they even opposed reform attempts by the Emperor.[/quote]

At least for China, most dynasties had the same life cycle. At first the emperor have the popular support, then gradually as corruption sets in, a small group of the population become more and more powerful and rich. The emporer gradually direct policies from welfare of the populace to welfare of the selected few, while the general population gradually falters. Then all it takes is a famine and general revolt sets in.

I can see th same process with America. As corporations get bigger, they also gain more voice and power within the government. Gradually, the government changes it’s focus from the populace to the corporations. As the corporations do better, the wealth of the country become more concentrated into the hands of a few.[/quote]

Spot on, ocr — here, and in all your other posts in this thread.

Also agree with davelj WRT the solution being a progressive tax where all income is treated the same.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=davelj]I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).

Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.[/quote]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. They see (what most people don’t) the problem that many people have and they set out to find the solution to the problem. Sometimes, their first solution fail, but they’re the type that try and try again. I would put guys like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. in the same categories as well. The see the problem at the time and they set out to solve the problem. That made them Millions (adjusted for inflation, it’s probably Billions). This is why I say even if there’s no interest, some of the internet billionaires will still be at least millionaires. They might not invent Facebook or Google, because the internet doesn’t exist. However, they’ll see the problem we would have (whatever it may be, and there are many problems) and find solutions to the problem. Some of those solutions will make them a lot of money.

Then there are the many many entrepreneurs. Although they are not as successful, they’re not that much different. They see problems people have and they want to come up with solutions that will help fix the problem and make them a lot of money. Many times, they don’t succeed the first or the second time. However, they try and try again until the succeed. The point is, even without the internet, there are still many problems people have and these entrepreneurs will try to find solutions to them. Maybe, one of them will try and start a company that will come up with the internet.[/quote]

Exactly what “problem” did Mark Zuckerberg solve? He’s a spoiled, snot-nosed hacker who illegally and unethically hacked into Harvard’s databases and student e-mail accounts in order to bully and harass other students. That was the genesis of Facebook. He didn’t create social media, nor did he really improve it (IMHO). If anything, he created huge privacy issues; and when one considers Zuckerberg’s past behavior WRT hacking private accounts, giving Facebook your personal information is probably not the best idea.

Also, computer technology and the beginning stages of the internet already existed when Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were young children, most of that technology was publicly funded, too. Gates and Jobs simply arrived at the perfect time, when technology was developed enough to begin moving information onto smaller, personal devices. Sure, they were smart and creative, but much of their work was built upon what others had already developed.

As you know, Apple benefitted from PARC’s technology, and PARC benefitted from scientists who were trained and employed by the govt:

“In 1969, Chief Scientist at Xerox Jack Goldman approached Dr. George Pake, a physicist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance and provost of Washington University, about starting a second research center for the company.

Pake selected Palo Alto, California, as the site of what was to become known as PARC. While the 3,000 mile buffer between it and Xerox headquarters in Rochester, New York afforded scientists at the new lab great freedom to undertake their work, the distance also served as an impediment in persuading management of the promise of some of their greatest achievements.

PARC’s West Coast location proved to be advantageous in the mid-1970s, when the lab was able to hire many employees of the nearby SRI Augmentation Research Center as that facility’s funding from DARPA, NASA, and the U.S. Air Force began to diminish. Being situated on Stanford Research Park land leased from Stanford University [4] allowed Stanford graduate students to be involved in PARC research projects, and PARC scientists to collaborate with academic seminars and projects.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#The_GUI

………………

Need we go into the public money that was spent educating so many of these scientists and engineers? Public grants and facilities, defense spending, etc. that enabled so much of this technology to come about?

If being “smart and innovative” is all that’s necessary for success, and if one is solely responsible for that success, why do we see so few (if any) great innovations coming from countries without stable governments and significant public spending?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]

Also agree with davelj WRT the solution being a progressive tax where all income is treated the same.[/quote]

tsk tsk tsk, you’re wrong. The solution isn’t a progressive income tax. The solution is property (asset) taxes.

Wealth is assets, not income.

And if we want progressive income tax, can someone give people a clue that $250K of income is not wealth.

AS for the government developing the internet. Wow, that’s the biggest fallacy around. They funded some of the research but the internet you know today has little to do with the Government. In fact, ours and most others are desperately trying to bottle that djinni.

While there may be some luck, I personally find it appalling the rationalization slope Obama and supporters are going down in putting Government at the head of the great big Opportunity creator page. Assuming luck is the separator makes it easier to rationalize taking.

Luck is a factor but only because even in those hard working top 25% groups, their reaction to opportunities is very different. Their risk taking is very different.

In the end, many are book smart. Or more appropriately, many are school smart, meaning they know how to succeed in our warped academic world which doesn’t actually translate to the rest of the world.

Do you know what the real difference is between being the big winners are and just mere success?

Comfort. Satisfaction. Happiness.

You get comfortable.

You get married or a girl or boy friend. You’re happy with your life. You want to enjoy your hard work. When you see great job/opportunity across the control, you think about your friends and family instead of the job. You think about your mortgage and how you’ll pay it if it doesn’t work out.

That’s difference.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]While I don’t agree 100% I’m far down this road. There are people who are just wired differently than most of us. I walk up to a pretty girl in a NYC club at age 21 get blown off and never forget it. I have friends that would move on and hit on 50 more girls that same night feel nothing leave with 49 phone numbers and sleep with the hot bartender everyone was drooling over all night. Not fair…just life.

Nassim Taleb is probably the guy who age 50 never even tried once to ask that hot girl out. As smart as he is he will spend his whole life wondering why he never went out with her never being smart enough to realize he never even asked her out.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point.

[sdrealtor]

Irony is I just googled Taleb and found out he appears to be a never married 51 year old. Sounds like a brilliant guy too. Just one who probably spends a lot of time wondering if I am so smart how come I don’t have everything I deserve.

The rock stars in this world benefit from some level of luck but they are truly different and able to do things with that luck that others can’t. They don’t just wake up and find a pot of gold sitting in front of them. They make it happen on the playing field.

[an]

CAR, I’m not going to quote your long post, but you’re trying to pick a fight where a fight doesn’t exist. davelj ask where would these internet billionaires would be if there’s no internet. My answer was they probably will be exactly where they are. Look at sdr’s post. That’s my point exactly. These guys are wired differently.

You might not like Zuckerberg, but what problem did he solve? How about the problem of people being able to connect with each other and see what others are doing in an easy to use interface. There’s a reason why there are hundreds of millions of people using it. It might not be your problem but people would be using his service if it doesn’t enhance their lives in some way.

However, that’s really beside the point. Look at the forest instead of the tree. These are brilliant guys (I said brilliant and not just smart). If the internet doesn’t exist, they’ll find some other problem that need solving. Again, my point is, Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc are the same type of guys like Ford, Edison, etc. Ford and Edison didn’t come up with the light bulb and the car because of government spending. You’re assuming guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates and Jobs will just sit and twittle their thumbs if government doesn’t exist. There might not be the internet or Windows/OSX/iOS/Android as we know it today, but they won’t be any different than who they are. Which is problem solvers and entrepreneurs.

Yes, Apple and Microsoft both benefited from Xerox PARC. They were the inventor of the mouse and GUI. But Xerox was going to just shelf that technology. W/out Gates and Jobs, we would probably never gotten Windows/OSX/iOS/etc. Xerox at the time had to plan to commercializing it. So, because they were going to just canned the project, both Apple and Microsoft took it for free and Xerox doesn’t mind. I know about public spending in PARC, DARPA, NASA, etc. and I never said they’re not helpful. But you fail to grasp my original point, which is, these type of guys will be just like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. and go solve some problem at their time, with or without government spending.

WRT to public grant, facilities, etc., where do you think the government get their money to provide these grant and facilities? Without private corporations to pay the taxes, without private corporation to hire and pay their employees who end up paying more taxes, where would the government get their money from? It’s a symbiotic relationship. I never suggest government have no role in what we have today. Just go back and read my original point and try to see the forest from the trees.

[davelj]

[quote=Hobie]100% tax? Really? Would you go to work of all your efforts allowed you ‘0’ take home? Doubt it.

Time for a real world check.[/quote]

Umm… I’m agreeing with you… that’s why I said the tax ISN’T 100%. Thus your post is a non-sequitor.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=davelj]I disagree completely. (And Nassim Taleb is with me here, for what it’s worth.) What I see is a thin layer of very smart, hard working folks – none not particularly different from the others. The only real difference between them is “luck” and the degree of said luck. For example, take the top 25% of the graduating class of Wharton, Harvard Business School, or Pick a Class (the name and major is not important). All of these folks are very smart, motivated and hard working… the dramatic difference in outcomes is largely the result of luck. Some went into the right field, others didn’t; some met the right people, others didn’t, etc. But the great disparity in outcomes between them is not something inherent or the result of “harder work” or “more intelligence,” it’s … luck (or as Taleb would put it, “randomness”).

Even the “winners” will attest to this – they all have stories of many folks who were smarter and harder working then themselves who didn’t end up in the same place.[/quote]
What you fail to understand is guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc. are all the same. They’re just born in different generation. When Gates and Jobs started Apple and Microsoft, there were no internet. Yet, they still made their millions. The reason why I say they all are the same is because they all are problem solvers. They see (what most people don’t) the problem that many people have and they set out to find the solution to the problem. Sometimes, their first solution fail, but they’re the type that try and try again. I would put guys like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. in the same categories as well. The see the problem at the time and they set out to solve the problem. That made them Millions (adjusted for inflation, it’s probably Billions). This is why I say even if there’s no interest, some of the internet billionaires will still be at least millionaires. They might not invent Facebook or Google, because the internet doesn’t exist. However, they’ll see the problem we would have (whatever it may be, and there are many problems) and find solutions to the problem. Some of those solutions will make them a lot of money.

Then there are the many many entrepreneurs. Although they are not as successful, they’re not that much different. They see problems people have and they want to come up with solutions that will help fix the problem and make them a lot of money. Many times, they don’t succeed the first or the second time. However, they try and try again until the succeed. The point is, even without the internet, there are still many problems people have and these entrepreneurs will try to find solutions to them. Maybe, one of them will try and start a company that will come up with the internet.[/quote]

Exactly what “problem” did Mark Zuckerberg solve? He’s a spoiled, snot-nosed hacker who illegally and unethically hacked into Harvard’s databases and student e-mail accounts in order to bully and harass other students. That was the genesis of Facebook. He didn’t create social media, nor did he really improve it (IMHO). If anything, he created huge privacy issues; and when one considers Zuckerberg’s past behavior WRT hacking private accounts, giving Facebook your personal information is probably not the best idea.

Also, computer technology and the beginning stages of the internet already existed when Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were young children, most of that technology was publicly funded, too. Gates and Jobs simply arrived at the perfect time, when technology was developed enough to begin moving information onto smaller, personal devices. Sure, they were smart and creative, but much of their work was built upon what others had already developed.

As you know, Apple benefitted from PARC’s technology, and PARC benefitted from scientists who were trained and employed by the govt:

“In 1969, Chief Scientist at Xerox Jack Goldman approached Dr. George Pake, a physicist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance and provost of Washington University, about starting a second research center for the company.

Pake selected Palo Alto, California, as the site of what was to become known as PARC. While the 3,000 mile buffer between it and Xerox headquarters in Rochester, New York afforded scientists at the new lab great freedom to undertake their work, the distance also served as an impediment in persuading management of the promise of some of their greatest achievements.

PARC’s West Coast location proved to be advantageous in the mid-1970s, when the lab was able to hire many employees of the nearby SRI Augmentation Research Center as that facility’s funding from DARPA, NASA, and the U.S. Air Force began to diminish. Being situated on Stanford Research Park land leased from Stanford University [4] allowed Stanford graduate students to be involved in PARC research projects, and PARC scientists to collaborate with academic seminars and projects.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#The_GUI

………………

Need we go into the public money that was spent educating so many of these scientists and engineers? Public grants and facilities, defense spending, etc. that enabled so much of this technology to come about?

If being “smart and innovative” is all that’s necessary for success, and if one is solely responsible for that success, why do we see so few (if any) great innovations coming from countries without stable governments and significant public spending?[/quote]

And Henry Ford didn’t invent the car. So what.
Every generation has its innovators, and as long as we make it possible (and profitable) for them to create new businesses, they will continue to do so. Otherwise, we’ll turn into the USSR: a complete and utter failure.

The infrastructure that was in place when these innovations took place was PAID for and by the PEOPLE of the US. There is no such thing as “government money.”
It is the taxpayers that make roads possible. Part of the problem is that the government WASTES so much of the dollars they are charged with allocating, plus, they insist on giving too much of that taxpayer money to people and countries (in foreign aid) that do NOTHING for us.

As long as 49% of the people pay no taxes there can be no “fairness.”
Fair is when all people pay the same % of their income.
You can’t legislate equality.

And isn’t it interesting that about 100% of the 49% want to raise taxes?

Greed is wanting (or taking) what you don’t deserve.

[Author]

Posts