U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-23-2009, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Chino, CA
1,458 posts, read 3,062,672 times
Reputation: 555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. It never has been. It was taught throughout the middle ages by the Catholic Church that wealth creeation was A) bad and B) Userous or Exploitative. It is neither. We ALL get wealthier when any one of us gets wealthier. Some countries have a big problem with the wealth gap between rich and poor. Until these countries get rid of political corruption, and impute a sense of trust into their business relationships, these problems will continue. But the rule of as one gets wealthier, all get wealthier even applies there.

So, if you make yourself insanely rich, you will absolutely create economic opportunities for many, many others. Doing so is not evil. Doing so is good.
I'd have to agree with you on this dcashley,
Wealth creation isn't necessarily evil.... and in a general sense, the pursuit of wealth or success isn't necessarily bad. Without gusto, drive, or pursuit of self betterment/wealth for yourself and/or others, there probably wouldn't be a need for civilizations.

If I run a successful business that makes things more efficient, improves standards of living, and hire workers at livable and comparable wages... then we all get more wealthy. The problem comes if I exploit the workers, bribe government officials to incur favoritism, or take out more than I put into the system - and this is where a lot of ethics takes place.

Good wealth creation is when one is able to put in more than they take out of the system/nation and we all get rich. Bad is when you drain someone/something else at their expense, to better yourself.

-chuck22b
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2009, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 5,009,195 times
Reputation: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
I'd have to agree with you on this dcashley,
Wealth creation isn't necessarily evil.... and in a general sense, the pursuit of wealth or success isn't necessarily bad. Without gusto, drive, or pursuit of self betterment/wealth for yourself and/or others, there probably wouldn't be a need for civilizations.

If I run a successful business that makes things more efficient, improves standards of living, and hire workers at livable and comparable wages... then we all get more wealthy. The problem comes if I exploit the workers, bribe government officials to incur favoritism, or take out more than I put into the system - and this is where a lot of ethics takes place.

Good wealth creation is when one is able to put in more than they take out of the system/nation and we all get rich. Bad is when you drain someone/something else at their expense, to better yourself.

-chuck22b
Agreed. Wealth creation at the expense of human misery is evil. Hitler did that. So did Pol Pot and lots of others...actually if you do a true economic analysis you will find out that people who do that kind of wealth creation do not actually create wealth--they destroy it. Yes, they accumulate it for themselves, but the overall wealth of society is much reduced. That is why we need some regulatory control on capitalism. Unbrideled capitalism is not a good thing. Unbridled capitalism and socialism both create somewhat similar results.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Chino, CA
1,458 posts, read 3,062,672 times
Reputation: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Agreed. Wealth creation at the expense of human misery is evil. Hitler did that. So did Pol Pot and lots of others...actually if you do a true economic analysis you will find out that people who do that kind of wealth creation do not actually create wealth--they destroy it. Yes, they accumulate it for themselves, but the overall wealth of society is much reduced. That is why we need some regulatory control on capitalism. Unbrideled capitalism is not a good thing. Unbridled capitalism and socialism both create somewhat similar results.
Yup, the unbridled free capitalism of corporate raiders have destroyed trillions in American household and global wealth... As a result, productive resources such as factories, production capacity have moved from the developed world and have even closed down overseas.

Furthermore, the over reliance on fossil fuels in spite of obvious short comings were allowed to continue at the expense of innovations that were on the back burner for quite awhile.

Anyhow, like I said, things are adjusting... and it's the economy and the management of scare resources that will supersede the artificial bubbles, competitive advantages etc. gained through misconduct and poor dealings.

Things change, not necessarily out of free will, but out of necessity.

-chuck22b
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 5,009,195 times
Reputation: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
Yup, the unbridled free capitalism of corporate raiders have destroyed trillions in American household and global wealth... As a result, productive resources such as factories, production capacity have moved from the developed world and have even closed down overseas.

Furthermore, the over reliance on fossil fuels in spite of obvious short comings were allowed to continue at the expense of innovations that were on the back burner for quite awhile.

Anyhow, like I said, things are adjusting... and it's the economy and the management of scare resources that will supersede the artificial bubbles, competitive advantages etc. gained through misconduct and poor dealings.

Things change, not necessarily out of free will, but out of necessity.

-chuck22b
Yep.....and those who will take personal responsibility for themselves during these "turbulent" times will prosper. Those who fail to do so will be bounced around and bashed into like the rubber tires on the side of a tug boat. Perhaps that is not "nice," but that's the way this world works. That is why I keep preaching "personal responsibility."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:07 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,365 posts, read 4,094,076 times
Reputation: 2752
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Agreed. Wealth creation at the expense of human misery is evil. Hitler did that. So did Pol Pot and lots of others...actually if you do a true economic analysis you will find out that people who do that kind of wealth creation do not actually create wealth--they destroy it. Yes, they accumulate it for themselves, but the overall wealth of society is much reduced. That is why we need some regulatory control on capitalism. Unbrideled capitalism is not a good thing. Unbridled capitalism and socialism both create somewhat similar results.
I have a different view on the last part. Unbridled capitalims and socialism create somewhat similar results.

I will first interpret your comment and please let me know if I am correct on that. Abuse of the people does exists, both can produce poverty, there are people that are deprived by those above, correct?

Where I differ is this part. If I am correct, capitalism in the U.S. is the least regulated system in the world.
The Soviet Union and other countries have tried the most extreme type of socialism/communism.

In both case the end result is not the same, not even close. Sure, in the U.S. we do not have a perfect system where there is no poverty and there are people that have not achieved a high standard of living.

However, the Soviet Union and other countries like them broke down under socialism.

We have not. Sure, under capitalism we did have a depression but survived it, since then have had about 13 recessions and we have survived them.

Capitalism as we have it since the birth of our nation has survived, made us an economic power, we still have a tremendous wealth in this country despite our lows.

Also, despite our problems we are probably the nations most people from around the world do try to come to for a better life.

We can make it better, please don't take me wrong but as I said, capitalims/socialism as tried in other countries to the degree they have and to the degree we have had capitalims we are miles ahead of them.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 5,009,195 times
Reputation: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I have a different view on the last part. Unbridled capitalims and socialism create somewhat similar results.
Oops...I guess I should have disageed with KB....but the sentence above didn't quite register. However, now that I think about it--I think KB might be right in THIS sense: unbridled capitalism and socialism both drive overall societal welfare downward. However, both the driver mechanism and the "bottom" may differ.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,365 posts, read 4,094,076 times
Reputation: 2752
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Yep.....and those who will take personal responsibility for themselves during these "turbulent" times will prosper. Those who fail to do so will be bounced around and bashed into like the rubber tires on the side of a tug boat. Perhaps that is not "nice," but that's the way this world works. That is why I keep preaching "personal responsibility."
I am with you on that. Personal responsibility is a big one with me.
One reason I take a closer look at many people that get so much sympathy because they are officially classified as poor is because I what I saw a few years ago.

My Mom and my stepfather put a little convenience store in a low income neigborhood. When I used to visit her, I would see all these young and abled bodies sitting across the street from the store. They were there all day drinking beer, playing ball, and living with these women and getting them pregnant. They go their food stamps and so did the women.

My Mom was old and sick, she had a hernia that made it difficult for her to move around. She got her medical insurance and could get medical attention. Until, there was a time it was difficult for her to move around.
She worked all her life and never asked the government for any help. She raised us on her own after our dad dies when I was 14 being the oldest of three.
Well, now this time she simply asked for government assistance. Guess what she asked for. She told them she did not want any money of free services. She simply asked if a nurse could go and check her because it was difficult for the to leave the store alone to go and get a check.
The answer? No. They could not provide any services because she had a store. The case worker told her she needed to close the store to get assistance. She argued the store provided enough profits for them to survive. The property was not their, just rented the place to open a busines.

I started to look around since then. I kept finding more and more people classified as poor that did not deserve any assistance and other people working hard but because they had a job or some little store to survive could not get a penny.

There are poor people and we can help them but we need to take a closer look at the system to weed out criteria that only carries dead weight at our taxes expense.

We need to make more people accountable for their actions.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 5,009,195 times
Reputation: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I I kept finding more and more people classified as poor that did not deserve any assistance and other people working hard but because they had a job or some little store to survive could not get a penny.

There are poor people and we can help them but we need to take a closer look at the system to weed out criteria that only carries dead weight at our taxes expense.

We need to make more people accountable for their actions.
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry about your Mom. I hope things are better for her (and you) now.

As to Dude, I think he must have had either some sort of work incurrred injury. Or some sort of disease that struck him at a rather young age...I mean at age 20 or 30 rather than at 80 or 90. One of the screwed up parts of our social network program is workers compensation. Another one is allowing people who are competent and smart to fall through the cracks. I really don't know how to fix it. The "system" makes victims out of those who are injured or ill--I mean it victimizes them all over again. It is horrible. I used to be the CEO of a counseling group for injured workers--this was a non-profit volunteer thing....It was sad. Really sad the way these good people were treated. The "system" seemed determined to make them "learned helpless". Just awful.

I really wish I knew how to fix it...I am fearful that some problems are beyond solution and a person can only do so much. The only way for most of the injured workers we counseled to get out of the trap was to take personal responsiblity and FIGHT LIKE HELL. It was tough for them.

After about 4 years, I disbanded the group--the stress of dealing with the injured and hurting people was too much for me.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 9,430,623 times
Reputation: 2547
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. It never has been. It was taught throughout the middle ages by the Catholic Church that wealth creeation was A) bad and B) Userous or Exploitative. It is neither. We ALL get wealthier when any one of us gets wealthier. Some countries have a big problem with the wealth gap between rich and poor. Until these countries get rid of political corruption, and impute a sense of trust into their business relationships, these problems will continue. But the rule of as one gets wealthier, all get wealthier even applies there.

So, if you make yourself insanely rich, you will absolutely create economic opportunities for many, many others. Doing so is not evil. Doing so is good.
Wealth is a zero sum game. Wealth is determined by the ownership of raw means. The only thing that is worth ANYTHING is water, land to grow and raise food, and the minerals in the land. Period. That is finite. Water is not currently "created" (unless you are counting recycled water, which allows a capital owner the same resource again and again) and land is being "created" I suppose, but only by transfering land from other and at the expense of water. The paper money that is based on nothing is worthless. That is not wealth. The crap that is made from raw materials, is worthless without the raw materials and land.

Yes, given the capitalistic system, a capitalist usually creates better opportunities for the average Joe then they can create themselves. However, those opportunities are created at the expense of the customer.

Simple example. Capitalist owns land. Joe cant use his labor for any profitable means, because he lacks land to use. So, capitalist hires Joe to farm his potatoes. Joe is now able to use his labor, albeit, at the expense of capitalist taking a cut of his back, but still has a better opportunity then before.

When capitalist takes the potatoes to market, a large number of people will buy his potatoes, largely because they lack the means to produce their own. At that point, they will lose wealth, in exchange for your product.

So, what ripple has the capitalist made? Well, because he owns the farm, Joe, Bill, Ted, Mark, and Sally cant own that land, and cannot use its capacity. So, capitalist has automatically indentured Joe, Bill, Ted, Mark and Sally to working for him at some rate below their labor value. Turns out, the capitalist only needs Joe to work, because Joe is able to produce many times what he would need if he was only producing for his own means. So, now Joe is doing better then he would of if capitalist did not hire him, but worse then if capitalist did not own the farm at all, and Joe could use its capacity. Bill, Ted, Mark, and Sally, must trade something other then their labor in exchange for the potatoes. In all cases, the value they must pay for the potatoes, is greater then the cost to produce.

So, the capitalist is stealing wealth (as measured in labor value), from Joe, Bill, Ted, Mark and Sally.

If you measured this in land

Joe is paid land at some what lower rate then the exchangeable rate of land for potatoes. If Joe had use of the land himself, he would have been able to produce at a higher rate.

Joe, Bill, Ted, Mark and Sally all must buy potatoes for more land then it cost capitalist to produce potatoes.

End result? Capitalist is plus the land Bill, Ted, Mark, Sally, and Joe paid for the potatoes, and less the land they paid Joe, which is a lower rate then the potatoes Bill, Ted, Mark, Sally and Joe bought.

Capitalist gains, Joe gains slighty (but less then he would have if he could produce his own potatoes), and Bill, Ted, Mark and Sally lose.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2009, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 9,430,623 times
Reputation: 2547
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post

Where I differ is this part. If I am correct, capitalism in the U.S. is the least regulated system in the world.
The Soviet Union and other countries have tried the most extreme type of socialism/communism.
How exactly are you defining "socialism/communism", because last time I checked, the Soviet Union was nothing more then a state run capitalism constructed to filter wealth to the ruling class at a far more efficient rate then free market capitalism ever could imagine doing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top