The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen

Discussion in 'Economics' started by silver914, Nov 12, 2011.

  1. If the people at the top of the corporate hierarchies actually don't merit those positions, it doesn't say much for the people at the bottom of those hierarchies that they can't displace those at the top.

    As far as those people being "psychopaths", I don't care, as long as the product or service they provide me gives me a level of satisfaction that I've spent my money well. Maybe they act like psychopaths because in this world that sort of behavior is what's necessary to achieve excellence. "Laid-back" people are nice to hang out with at times, but I wouldn't want to depend on them as my provider of choice for a given product or service.
    #11     Nov 12, 2011
  2. Seriously.

    I'm still trying to identify the moment in time when "the money" was "theirs". The money the rich have never belonged to the poor. If the rich didn't have it, it wouldn't exist. Look at any socialist country's experience to prove it. The socialists come to power and begin to redistribute wealth, but no, or very little, depending on the degree of socialism, new wealth gets created. Over time, the society collapses as the wealth built up prior to the institution of socialism gets used up. In other words, "the poor", for whatever reason, are unable to create wealth even when the alleged cause of their lack of wealth, i.e. "the rich", are out of the picture. Why? Because "the poor" are really no different from every other non-human species, i.e. they cannot break free of the status quo to create something new, which is the only way to create real wealth. A poor person (who is of the sort that stays poor, not someone who will eventually become wealthy, or at least wealthier) can no more create wealth than a dog or a fish can.

    Pretty pathetic that the poor, as a group, lack the historical self-awareness and intelligence to realize this. But, if they were historically-aware and intelligent, they wouldn't be poor.
    #12     Nov 12, 2011
  3. This conversation has gone off the rails. We have to make a distinction between those who use leveraging and the Fed "pump" to goose asset prices versus those who run businesses whose sole purpose isn't to profit off of asset reflation. It's also at the very heart of this entire conversation about "taxing the rich". The difference between making several hundred thousand a year and paying the assorted taxes versus making several hundred thousand a year in capital gains is night and day.

    I suspect we'd have a helluva lot less in-fighting if all these issues were cleared up to begin with.
    #13     Nov 12, 2011
  4. You'll get no argument from me. I 100% agree with the concept of risk vs reward and that a person who takes risk deserves the reward. HOWEVER, this philosophy is not applied universally. As has been repeated ad nauseum, the current mentality is that a small segment of the protected racket can "privatize the profits and socialize the losses". How on God's earth, the spirit of these debates gets so far off track is a testament to the powers of propoganda spewed by the idealogues.

    Somehow all of the attention is diverted from the kleptocratic nature of the F.I.R.E. economy and directed at the hard working, successful business owner who makes his $250k per year and is somehow deemed "the rich who need to pay their fair share". All of these debates get lost in translation as NOBODY distinguishes between the working rich versus those who simply profit off of Fed largesse and one asset reflation scheme after the next.
    #14     Nov 12, 2011

    Get back to us with your complaints about the "kleptocratic nature" of the FIRE industry when the average wage earners wages shrink by as much as the equity values of the banking industry have shrunk.

    Seems to me that the people who would have benefited from the "kleptocratic nature" of the FIRE industries have already been burnt trying to do so.

    I get that there are people out there who are suffering financially and, in the absence of wage income growth, need to find a source of income growth to pay for their desire to grow their consumption and figure that the rich should be that source. Just don't gussy it up by talking about "fair shares" and admit, like a man, what you are actually trying to do, which is "stealing". I'd rather burn my money than give it to the government for redistribution.
    #15     Nov 12, 2011
    #16     Nov 12, 2011
  7. So you go around calling people "kleptocrats" and then don't advocate that the gains they stole be redistributed? Boy, you're like a saint of some sort.
    #17     Nov 12, 2011
  8. Christ, you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. A true fucking dipshit if ever I've met one.

    yes, it's called a kleptocracy, when a protected racket can basically buy off politicians on both sides of the aisle, get Bullet Ben to hold rates at zero percent for years at a time, suspend MTM accounting and essentially play loose and fast with each and every accounting rule just to have the appearance of solvency.

    Get back to me when you pull your head out of your ass.
    #18     Nov 12, 2011
  9. Scataphagos:

    Well said.

    IMHO, those bitching and pointing the finger at the 1% and saying all of the1% are the same, will stay poor the rest of their miserable lives.

    Those who are part of the 99% and who are in massive debt due to taking on huge mortgages, care notes, can't blame anyone but you!

    IMHO, this is class warfare and I'm on the opposite side of the 99%. I'm not the 1% but I am a capitalist who does very well and I loath the majority of the scum hijacking the 99% cause.

    Focus your attention on YOU first, then onto the GOV who robs you blind like Robin Hood.

    Otherwise, perish in the next decade of Economic Storms, High Inflation, High Unemployment and very little Gov Tit to suck on.
    #19     Nov 12, 2011
  10. Gee, if it's all so easy as you claim, why aren't you making bank by just following the kleptocrats? Ask the stockholders in the banks if they think they're part of a "protected racket" when their shares are down 50-60% from the peaks. And those are the banks that survived, never mind the ones that went under.

    Oh, and for the record, I think you are just as much of a dipshit as you think I am. Only one of us can be right. I'm betting that it's me and I don't give a shit if you disagree. You come across as a complaining loser and I'm always happy when a complaining loser disagrees with me.
    #20     Nov 12, 2011