Excessive Wealth Disorder

[Bob Armstrong]

Peter - do you feel that personal attacks have increased here over the years........I do.......and I have been distressed by it.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.

Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered.

Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind.

Your post has the odour of a personal attack of the worst kind. Care to explain yourself?

[Neil Frarey]

That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.

The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.

Nope, they are not the basis of political thought. They are the basis of ... diminishing self worth.

Perfect world ... when you can stand tall, unencumbered.

Losers ... those impeded by you and your kind.

[Pargat Perrer]

Well said, Pargat. Agree 100%.

That's nice to know we can agree on something, Peter.

The questions I asked there are the entire basis of political thought, imo. They always need answering, and the answers can change, but no matter what answers we come up with, there are winners and there are losers. There can be no perfect world.

[Peter McKillop]

The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".

Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).

Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.

Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.

Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.

Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.

WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?

AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?

Well said, Pargat. Agree 100%.

[Pargat Perrer]

Capitalism and a myriad of stupid government laws stifle competition. Libertarianism with its easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs and absent government interference enables more to compete and share in the wealth, rather than wealth getting tremendously concentrated in the hands of a few...

Based on all the hoopla this weekend over the failure of Silicon Valley Bank which funds startup companies and tech companies around the world ... it looks like the era of easy money is officially coming to a VERY inglorious end.

Prepare for very bad results this week around the world ... including possibly other bank failures in a domino effect.

The reason I post this in response to the above post by Dilip is that the blame game has already begun....

TRUMP BLAMES BIDEN....

"Out-of-control Democrats and the Biden administration have pathetically continued to try to blame President Trump for their failures with desperate lies, such as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) spy balloons, the train derailment in East Palestine, and now the collapse of SVB," Trump spokesman Steven Chueng told the outlet.

but the REAL reason appears to be what Dilip is in favor of, deregulation....

Since the collapse on Friday, many have claimed that the collapse was a longer-term result of a bill Trump signed into law in 2018 that cut regulations for mid-level and regional banks, like SVB. The bill allowed banks with assets of over $250 billion to avoid mandatory oversight from the Federal Reserve that kept a check on their stability, up from the previous limit of $50 billion in assets, which was set in the wake of the Great Recession. The changes were lobbied for by many in the financial sector, including SVB CEO Greg Becker.

Looks like bad news for your beliefs, Dilip. As I have long been predicting.

The big question now is .... how bad will this get? When you pair it with inflation and rising interest rates, it really looks bad.

EDIT: whenever someone disses socialism, they mention governments what were corrupt like USSR and Cuba and Venezuela ....

well, whenever deregulation has been tried, there are CORRUPT CORPORATE ENTITIES that brought it all down ... Enron .... BP .... Lehman Bros. .... Exxon .... etc etc etc. Looks like SVB is the next loss leader LOL

[Pargat Perrer]

Sell a small group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit somewhat.

Sell a large group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit greatly.

Sell an enormous group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit tremendously.

Why shouldn't the people who provide the greatest services to the largest number of people become the richest people?

Millions of people shop at Walmart. Millions use Microsoft products. Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased. Amazon has delivered to millions.

The only objectionable part is where government steps in, tells the mom and pop shop (for example) they must close for Covid while Walmart stays open
.

The problem in all this is the definition -- and who gets to make the definition -- of "benefits the buyers".

Selling heroin benefits the buyers (until they die of heroin overdose).

Millions of people shop at Walmart -- and the oceans are full of the plastic junk that results.

Millions use Microsoft products -- and millions are victims of ransomware because of security holes in Microsoft products.

Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased --- that's a lot of toxic chemicals released into the environment.

Amazon has delivered to millions -- millions of small businesses shuttered as a result.

WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BENEFICIAL?

AND SHOULD BENEFICIAL TO BUYERS OVERRIDE BENEFICIAL TO THE WORLD AT LARGE?

[Pargat Perrer]

[QUOTE=Neil Frarey;n225181]

LOOL!!!!!!!!

There's no such thing as ... excessive wealth, ha!
...../QUOTE]


Says someone who is:
- far from starving to death
- not dying from a disease for which he cannot get medical care because he doesn't have insurance
- not homeless-due-solely-to-not-being-able-to-afford-an-indoor-living-space (acknowledging that some homeless people prefer to be homeless)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Capitalism and a myriad of stupid government laws stifle competition. Libertarianism with its easy access to capital for all entrepreneurs and absent government interference enables more to compete and share in the wealth, rather than wealth getting tremendously concentrated in the hands of a few...

[Tom O'Donnell]

Sell a small group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit somewhat.

Sell a large group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit greatly.

Sell an enormous group of people some good or service that benefits the buyers: profit tremendously.

Why shouldn't the people who provide the greatest services to the largest number of people become the richest people?

Millions of people shop at Walmart. Millions use Microsoft products. Roughly 2M Teslas have been purchased. Amazon has delivered to millions.

The only objectionable part is where government steps in, tells the mom and pop shop (for example) they must close for Covid while Walmart stays open
.

[Neil Frarey]

Lauding some entrepreneur's competence and drive is a good thing. It is encouragement to others to try hard.

It is a totally different thing for society to reward them abysmally disproportionately, and treat them as some non-human god.

Bob A (T-S/P)

Yes! Very much so, they should be rewarded disproportionately!

Absolutely!

Just think of the amount of wealth Jeff Bezos has generated ... for others!!! Go right down the line to something as simple as vehicle maintenance. And I just love the amount of wealth he generated for that yacht building company in the Netherlands!! It's insane the amount of wealth he has generated. Steve Jobs, no less so! And the same for Elon Musk!

Most certainly, reward them disproportionately!

[Bob Armstrong]

Lauding some entrepreneur's competence and drive is a good thing. It is encouragement to others to try hard.

It is a totally different thing for society to reward them abysmally disproportionately, and treat them as some non-human god.

Bob A (T-S/P)

[Neil Frarey]

So even though those individuals who grew their own wealth from modest humble beginnings means that others can't do the same?

Jeff Bezos wasn't born into money nor was Steve Jobs. What did both of them (and many others) have in common ... enterprise, smartness and hard work.

Shouldn't we try to honor these good people? Fine examples of ... yes you too can do the same?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't tax Jeff Bezos a single dollar.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip, how you?

The term 'Concentration' is just as meaningless to me as the term 'Excessive', when it is being forced upon an Individual's growth and potential.

You are right, Neil. Nobody should subdue anybody's growth potential. However, what is fair is that one should be able to earn based on one's enterprise, smartness and hard work, and not based upon how much capital one has already accumulated... and capital should not translate into power over others, as Bob A. has pointed out...

[Bob Armstrong]

Concentration of Wealth translates into concentration of power in today's capitalist society.........that is just one of the problems with "Excessive/Concentrated" Wealth.

Bob A