Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we shouldnt be allowing the government to raise debt.
It's really getting interesting, how many people are swallowing the idea that it is the government, and not the private sector marketeers, that is trying to raise the debts of Americans. It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic.
The private sector wants you to go into debt to buy what they sell, so they can amass trillions in personal profits and leave you to pay back your loan. What is the government's incentive, and how much do the government's CEOs get in bonuses for raising your debt?
Them that gots the gold makes the rules. The rules are no accident, they are written by people who have money and would like to keep it that way.
Of course.... I don't dispute that. I just choose to work toward being one of the people who have the gold and make the rules. I don't think making money is an evil pursuit. Wealthy Americans are also some of the leading philanthropists in the world.
I'm not against closing tax loopholes, but then others will open up. And their accountants will find them. That's the way things work when people with money make the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclone8570
So you don't think luck has a role in creating the "super rich"?
I think hard work definitely plays a role. But I also think luck plays a major role. It seems as you go up the wealth scale, luck plays even more of an important role.
I would say with hard work you can easily attain upper middle class in this country. However, to have net worths of 10+ million dollars, you definitely need a good bit of luck in your life. Since 99% of people don't have a net worth this high-- do you think it is because 99% of people don't work hard enough, or that 1% of people are luckier?
That's an interesting thought. I've never really thought about whether the importance of luck increases for the super rich. I have been meaning to read the book you suggested.
It's really getting interesting, how many people are swallowing the idea that it is the government, and not the private sector marketeers, that is trying to raise the debts of Americans. It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic.
The private sector wants you to go into debt to buy what they sell, so they can amass trillions in personal profits and leave you to pay back your loan. What is the government's incentive, and how much do the government's CEOs get in bonuses for raising your debt?
So it is the private sector marketers who force American people into debt by forcing them to buy their products? What about individual responsibility and personal choice? Should people not be personally responsible for how they spend their own money? Is it the marketers fault that people will not live within their budget means and will not delay materialistic gratification until they can afford it?
Most rich and successful people work very hard for their money. But even I see that luck plays a role in the equation. The richer you become, the more luck plays a role.
Warren Buffet was a very lucky guy. Here is where luck comes in for Buffet:
"Buffett's interest in the stock market and investing also dated to his childhood, to the days he spent in the customers' lounge of a regional stock brokerage near the office of his father's own brokerage company." Warren Buffett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
His father owned a brokerage company, and Buffet grew up around finances and investing. He was lucky to be surrounded by this early in life. That's luck for you.
"Outliers" is a good book to read on the "luck issue"
I think very little of Buffett's success is due to luck. There must be thousands of brokerage offices in the US. The sons and daughters of the people who own/run/work there - what have they done with their "luck?" Any other Buffetts come from being close to investing as a child?
Was Michael Jackson lucky? Or was he also unlucky? Was Michael Dell just lucky? Or was he the only one in the world who saw an opportunity to build low cost IBM compatible PCs?
Buffett's exposure to the stock market simply stimulated his interest in investing. If you read that article - you'll see he attended Wharton, then finished his degree at Nebraska when he was 19. Buffett also became a disciple of Benjamin Graham's ideas, which continues to guide him today. No one gave Buffett a bag of money to play with.
I think most people at different times in their life encounter opportunities, but fail to act on them.
So it is the private sector marketers who force American people into debt by forcing them to buy their products? What about individual responsibility and personal choice? Should people not be personally responsible for how they spend their own money? Is it the marketers fault that people will not live within their budget means and will not delay materialistic gratification until they can afford it?
Of course not. Nobody forces anyone to buy anything...at least not until Obamacare.
Of course people are and should be held responsible for managing their money and paying their debts.
But it's not exactly a level playing field out there.
Big business and Big Credit, backed by millions of dollars for studying and tracking consumer behavior, know WAY more about us than we know about ourselves.
Specifically, they know how to press the right buttons to entice us to spend and to borrow.
Each seeks to maximize its profits, which necessarily entails some non-zero level of 'lost' sales (for business) and credit defaults (for lenders). For example, there is some specific price at which a business maximizes its profit. A widget business might maximize its profit at $28, but if they raise the price to $30 they will 'lose' sales and will have lower profits.
Each sector has a 'curve' analagous to the Laffer curve - for example, there is a price point at which business maximizes profits, and moving up or down the curve from this point reduces profits. Similarly, lenders have a curve where profits are maximized at some non-zero level of defaults. (If a lender has zero defaults, profits could be increased by charging higher interest rates...the trick is to find just the right interest rate to maximize profits.)
So when a credit sector is reported to have x level of borrower deficiency or default, it's important to remember that the lender planned for and expected to have some non-zero level of loss.
Ummm....we already tried that once. The only thing it did was lock up capital so that it wasn't invested. A really stupid idea couched by people who don't know the first thing about economics.
I just choose to work toward being one of the people who have the gold and make the rules. I don't think making money is an evil pursuit.
Well said. I try to work hard, keep progressing and make more every year than I did the year before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
So it is the private sector marketers who force American people into debt by forcing them to buy their products? What about individual responsibility and personal choice? Should people not be personally responsible for how they spend their own money? Is it the marketers fault that people will not live within their budget means and will not delay materialistic gratification until they can afford it?
Exactly. No one is "forced" to buy anyone's products. True, there are those few basic necessities but, in general, if people buy things they can't afford, its their own fault. And one part of the economic mess this country is in is because too many people lived outside of their means for too long and it came back to bite us in the butt.
The more prepared, educated, networked you are.... the better your opportunities (not your luck). You become richer because you are becoming a smarter, better networked, more efficient worker/investor not a luckier person.
I think the least successful people tend to associate success more with luck (like winning the lottery). I found this attitude particulary prevalent when I tutored inner city kids. And the more successful people tend to equate success more with hard work and determination.
I believe you make your own luck. I know many of you on this thread probably disagree with me. So be it.
As most of us know, the concepts of networks and networking have become very popular in the last few years, and there is a lot of emerging research coming from these areas.
Dirty little secret: In general, poor people have networks which are, well, inferior, when it comes to opportunities for getting ahead.
The flip side of this is that wealthy and/or affluent people, in general, have networks which are full of opportunity.
Poor people tend to have a greater reliance on 'strong ties' or 'strong links' than the rich. If you're poor and most of your close links are poor, that's not en environment conducive to opportunity.
Rich people tend to have a wide range of 'weak links' and these weak links have a wide range of contacts. Rich people are thus more able to connect others to a wide range of opportunities, and tend to be generous in sharing these contacts within their networks. For rich and wealthy people, their networks provide a virtuous circle of opportunity and advancement
Exactly. No one is "forced" to buy anyone's products.
You just wait until the Obamacare (TM) mandates kick in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.