Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Saint, Feb 2, 2017.
do you know what a bell curve is? also your just wrong
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Wealth is not the same as money. If I give you money you can use this to spend and consume, or you ca use it to create wealth. Wealth is connected to placing money in investments so the money works for you.
In the USA, the blacks are making more money, but many are not using that money to create wealth. Too much of the money goes into conspicuous consumption, which is not how you create wealth. Wealth often requires sacrifice, even when you have money to spend. Wealth is not something you hand out or redistribute, but rather it is something you teach and learn.
Not necessarily. Wealth is simply anything of value, be it financial, knowledge, etc and that can sustain you for the coming days, the more days the wealthier.
At its most basic, wealth is seen as the financial value of your assets less liabilities, of which money would be an asset: the more money you have, the wealthier you are (all other things being equal).
But some find wealth in the ability to make a fire from scratch, or knowing how to fish with just a stick and some string, or being able to cook properly.
Not necessarily. You can teach and learn sound financial skills, but wealth is simply the value one places on something. It's no more complicated than that.
What your are doing Wellwisher is equating "wealth" with savings. Wealth isn't necessarily monetary savings as you have asserted and as others Sarkus has pointed out. Unfortunately, in right the right wing circles which you inhabit have misused the word for decades. Here is something for your to consider, when you spend your money for food, housing, etc. that money goes somewhere. Where does it go? Does it just disappear?
No. It doesn't disappear. It's paid to a vendor who uses the money to pay his expenses and if he is profitable, he gets to keep part of it, and that part is called a profit. The vendor can spend his profits on consumption and the cycle begins anew or he can save it and invest it. If you demand more of his product or service, he is likely to invest it in order to deliver more product. If people don't buy his products, he has no earnings to save. He has no money to invest. In your vernacular, he has no wealth.
So when you spent your money on consumption, you did create wealth. You did create savings and investment. You just didn't have any ownership stake in the "wealth" created through consumption. All companies are dependent upon consumption. All economies are dependent upon consumption. If there is no demand, there is no supply. It's that old supply and demand thingy. The economy begins and ends with consumption, i.e. demand.
You know little about black folks Wellwisher. Blacks are like anyone else, and it's odd to see a Trump supporter complain about conspicuous consumption and in the next breath endorse The Donald who is nothing if not a conspicuous consumer.
Conspicuous consumption is generally not how you create "personal wealth, i.e. savings", but wealth is being created nonetheless. It just might not be the conspicuous spender's wealth. Conspicuous consumption has worked out well for The Donald. That's The Donald's brand. That''s what he licenses; that's how he makes his money.
The title of the topic is distributing wealth, equally. I was explaining the difference between wealth and money. I agree that spending can still create wealth, somewhere down the food chain. But the wealth that is created by spending is no longer distributed equally. It will eventually end up in the same hands as before the redistribution. The wealth will end up in the hands of those who create value added, such as buying wholesale and selling retail.
The approach I was taking was the importance of teaching people to think in terms of the long term; investing. Instead of spending that money, you invest it. In this scenario, it does not go down the food chain, in quite the same way. More of the wealth, stays at the originator.
For most people buying a house is a good way to accumulate some modest wealth. But this will tie up a lot of money each month and is a ing term commitment, so there is less money left over for conspicuous consumption. The trade-off is long term wealth versus short term benefit. If I invest in my house; wealth, I may need to eat tuna and macaroni most of the time. If I live in the now and spend, I can have steak. If you choose immediate gratification, personal wealth is more elusive.
The blacks of today, have more money, but they are not keeping up in terms of proportional wealth. This was based on a news program done by a black economists. Hew as trying to show how to create wealth, so they are better set for the future; retirement. It is not uncommon for a well paid entertainer or athlete to spend a lot of his money, on an entourage or posse'. You get to live larger than life, for a few years, but can end up broke when the job ends. The author's advice was to invest more for the future. It is nice to have a new suit every time you go out. You can get immediate positive feedback and less gossip. But this cuts into your future wealth, where the oohs and aaahs are delayed to the future. Most blacks look sharper in terms of dress, compared to the average whites. It has to do with spending versus investing priorities.
Were you? ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What's the difference Wellwisher? Since you have made a number assertions with the level of wealth, how do you measure non-monetary wealth? How do you know blacks have less wealth if it cannot be measured? You aren't making sense Wellwisher.
Didn't you just say a sentence ago that there is a difference between wealth and money and you were explaining the difference? Now you are once again equating wealth with money. So which is it Wellwisher. You need to make a decision and stick with it. At the moment you have two contradictory beliefs/opinions about wealth.
That's reasonable. But not everyone has enough money left over to save. They live a paycheck to paycheck existence. That's the way most people live. If you don't have enough to save. you don't have enough to save. That's a reality for many if not most people.
Furthermore, not every one is cut out to be a good investor. They aren't suited by education or by temperament. Not everyone is suited to be a Warren Buffet.
Buying a house may or may not be a good way to accumulate some modest wealth. Houses are expensive, and they don't always appreciate. Sometimes they depreciate, and they require maintenance. Roofs, siding, hot water heaters, etc., all need to be maintained and periodically replaced. Most people borrow money to buy homes and when they borrow money, they incur interest charges. They could easily pay double the price of their home in interest charges alone.
Now you are back to your nebulous definition of wealth. How do you know blacks aren't keeping up in "terms of proportional wealth" if wealth isn't money? As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, you are equating wealth with savings. So you should use the word savings, because that's what you are talking about.
Most people aren't well paid entertainers. Most black people aren't well paid entertainers. If you want to argue well paid entertainers should be fiscally responsible; then yeah; they should. I think most probably are. But so what? Who cares? It's their life. They make a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money. It's their choice.
But most people don't have enough money to save. Most people aren't conspicuous consumers.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would use communism to reinstill the American Dream.
That would involve revolution and many deaths, and after the revolution there is always a rein of terror with often more deaths, then we have a counter revolution, more deaths, and maybe at some stage stability.
Revolution in USA would be horrific given the private ownership of guns.
However even the communist system will see differences in wealth and priveledge it may be better but most probably the wealth issue will be unchanged.
I would love to see equality but I have no idea how one could achieve such a society.
Hmm..using a failed ideology doesn't isn't very sound. What makes you think it will work better than it did for Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, East Germany, Romania, et al. ?
They don't have democracy
The main problem with communism and socialism is human nature does not change, if you do away with capitalism. If you assume capitalists are corrupt and greedy, and capitalism was suddenly prohibited, the same people will also do well in socialist or communist states, since many skills and talents will transfer. Even if you kill off all these leaders, the next generation will have people with similar talents appearing, but now as company men.
The analogy is say you like to swim. You move to a new place where there is no pool. If you are athletic and like to compete, you will find a new sport, that is easily to come by in the new place. Or say you are a musician who plays the tuba in the band. You like music and move to a small town with no tuba and no marching band. You will find another way to make use of your music talent.
Fidel Castro talks of the benefits of socialism, but he has accumulated $billions, like a capitalist who has access to monopoly control. Greed is a part of communism, too, since it is part of human nature. If you placed Fidel Castro in a free market situation, it is not as easy for him to adapt and achieve the same money and power outcome. In the free market, there are more checks and balances such as by a separated government and open competition.
Another way to look at this is based on history. The ancient civilizations were based on royalty and peasants. The peasants got to live in a commune, led by the royal family and their cronies. This was not always optimized, since the wise and benevolent king or queen, was very rare. Most of the time, the weaknesses of human nature was in effect, at the top, leading to a less than optimized leadership for their subjects.
The Magna Carter improved on this by giving more rights to middle level people, who paid most of the taxes to the King. These taxes were connected to small and large businesses. With the Magna Carter, more autonomy given to business, but it was nevertheless still under royal control via taxes.
Then the US Constitution appears and give more rights to the people, allowing free enterprise and no income tax. Capitalism is the most advanced of the three, and could not appear until quite late in human history. Communists and Socialist want to go more retro, to a place back in time, which history shows could never optimize most people, except in the rare cases where the wise and benevolent king or queen appears. It forgets history and how there will be far more defective humans in charge, who will not allow an optimized system, id this poses a threat to them. In North Korea, the leader needs the masses in a bind, so there is less threat coming from below, which can change the status quo. That type of leader is a thrown back to before the Magna Carter.
Well fortunately for us no one of merit is advocating doing away with capitalism. Even the Communist Party of China has embraced capitalism. But capitalism also has its flaws, that's why virtually every advanced economy today is a mixed economy. They blend aspects of socialism and capitalism.
Ironically, communists and capitalists both suffer the same delusions with respect to human behavior. They all hinge on the notion that if you just do x, y, and z suddenly and magically people will stop acting like people. And that just ain't gonna happen. As long as people are people, we are gonna act like people. It really is that simple.
You are mixing a lot different stuff there Wellwisher in order to derive a conclusion which isn't merited by the evidence. Corruption has nothing to do with the merits of various economic systems. You can and do find corruption regardless of the economic system. Minimizing corruption is more a function of democracy and transparency than economic system. Some of the most socialistic countries in the world, e.g. the Nordic countries, are the least corrupt countries on the planet. You are mixing political and economic systems in order to derive an illogical conclusion. Political and economic systems are not the same.
Distributing wealth equally seems unfair.
It essentially confiscates from the best & the brightest & rewards incompetent whiners. Why shouldn't the best & the brightest profit from their activities.
BTW: The so called robber barons built an economy which benefited most people.
Check out reprints of Montgomery Ward & Sears catalogs dated from circa 1890 to 1910. They indicate that a typical factory worker or farmer could afford pianos, imported china, & all sorts of items which were available only the the wealthy in 1800. This was due to entrepreneurs harnessing technology.
Consider one effect of Rockefeller's activities: The price of kerosene, which was a critical commodity prior the the wide spread use of electricity. He brought the price down from circa 20-30 cents per gallon (or maye per quart) to under 10 cents. It was used for both heat & light by most households & small businesses in his era.
Note a basic principle of Marx: From each according to his abilities; To each according to his needs. It sounds noble, but is really a promise to not reward the best & brightest for their efforts & to favor those who are good at whining about their needs.
I have no problem with that statement: sure they should. It's the ones that don't earn their money, you know, the ones born into it. The Trumps of the world. I have BIG problems with them.
They built it with the help of others. They didn't build it by themselves.
I don't think anyone is attacking the capitalist model here. The issue is how do you keep the economy competitive. Competitiveness helps to keep the economy competitive. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is just as damaging as equal distribution of wealth. We need a balance. A little medicine is good, too much is deadly. That's what we are looking at here. It's not all or nothing.
Wealth inequality as gotten to the point where it has become counterproductive. That is the problem. That doesn't mean we want to or should go to the extreme opposite where all wealth is distributed equally. If we did nothing, that's where we could end up. We need balance.
Too equal a distribution impoverishes and stagnates. Too unequal a distribution impoverishes and stagnates. We are currently in the "too unequal" state.
Distributing wealth equally seems like a form of communism or socialism, whose basic principle sounds ethical.
Analysis of the above seems like the following
In any kind of economic system wealth is distributed. That's kind of the whole economic gig. It's just a matter of how. Wealth is rarely distributed equally, not even in communist or socialist systems. The real issue is fairness. When wealth isn't distributed fairly, wealth inequality is the logical result.
The problem under our current system is that wealth is sometimes distributed unfairly, hence the great wealth inequality problem. This boils down to an argument about the price of ownership.
Government provides and protects ownership rights. If you are a capitalist, that's a very important and valuable right. How much is that ownership protection worth? It's incredibly valuable. If the government didn't defend your ownership rights to your home, car or bank account, how wealthy would you be? How wealthy would the Kochs be? How wealthy would you be? And the unfortunate fact for folks like the Kochs is we all have an equal share in government. That's why they keep buying additional shares by misleading people.
Holy cow! . . . . We were so poor when I was growing-up that if we found a penny laying in the street gutter . . . it only had ONE side!!(<--- Injecting a bit of humor here!)
Separate names with a comma.