|
Termyn8or -> RE: Amerika: of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich (2/16/2009 11:37:29 AM)
|
fr
HK, playing argument nice today eh ? Cool. I am not going to dwell on your spelling of Amerika, I think I know what you meant and might have something to do with a certain movie years ago. However again I must point out the US is not the whole of America, only a part of North America. But then actually you could be talking about the whole world, because there are rich people in just about every country.
I read years ago that when income disparities between the rich and poor reached these levels the time was historically ripe for revolution. However a few things are now at play that were not in the times to which the author referred, who in fact said revolution was unevitable. Sort of made up his own rule of history there, but as we know rules are made to be broken.
I believe the other factors, which exist today are the sheeplisation of the people, the extreme power of the government and the availability of credit and certain social welfare programs are what have forestalled this.
I believe that certain people do deserve to be rich. Regardless of public opinion, that might include Bill Gates, but think of Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver, Alexander Graham bell. Actually IIRC the latter three did not really get rich.
To get rich you focus on money. If you want an omelet though, you might have to break a few eggs. The rich of today, most of them anyway, really did not earn it. And that's not even mentioning the uber riche, the ones who's names are not so widely known, the ones who could buy and sell Bill Gates with pocket change. There is no innovation, no invention or whatever that warrants that kind of weal, you are born into it.
For example George Soros. Almost all his money was made by speculation, currency speculation actually. In that, it takes money to make money, and alot of it. To be able to make a hundred grand in a day because of a few pence flutuation in a currency's value takes alot of money indeed. So from where came the original stakes ?
Old money. It's ironic to me that one of the planks of communism is the elimination (or strict limitation) of inheritance, and that these uber rich are the ones who promote communism, or at least communistic ways across the globe. They seem to want it for us but not for themselves.
I'm proud to have owned a successful business, and glad that I knew when to get out of it. Demographics changed and I was offered a good job. No more books (all three sets) no more paying out of pocket in the slow season, no more responsibility. Well some, but nothing like being the boss. I don't want it, at least in that type of work.
So I work for a wage, and I don't deserve nor expect to get rich.
From what I've read, the rich are concerned with image though. I read an article pretty damnning of Andrew Cargenie, that the foundation was like dropping a nickel on the ground to him, and that his philathropy was driven by his own personal social engineering agenda. Also opinion, but I found it notable.
I read sometime in the 1970s or 1980s that there were a million millionaires in this country, I would imagine that now there are alot more, but being a millionaire today is not what it once was. One good lawsuit can wipe you out, and even if you win legal fees are going to hurt. Give until it hurts I guess.
Maybe it's the scale that differs. Even though the extreme disparity of income levels exists, in a way the poor are not so poor, and the rich are not so rich, as the numbers indicate. With a graduated tax structure (another plank of communism) in place, and a few other factors, the disparity is not so easily seen.
Just one Man's opinion.
T
|
|
|
|
