Oh,...those poor babies

....he might have to learn to settle for domestic caviar.

Maybe we can start a collection.

... but most really don't. Unless you find the guy who started a computer dating service as valuable as a doctor. Many of the rich are just making money from pop culture products that actually contribute little to society. Take away the personal assistants and the secretaries and the other support staff, not to mention the people who do the face to face (or hand to shovel) daily operations... and we shall see if they are truly the ones who make everything possible.

I do feel bad for these folks though. They have found themselves as slaves to their high expectations. They plant themselves in the middle of a group of mega-millionaires and feel that they haven't made it. I wonder if there can be comparisons made from these folks to people with gambling addictions? A million dollars isn't enough? If that is really true then the rest of us are in a whole world of trouble.

To a person who requires the services of a computer dating site but is very healthy, the guy who started the computer dating service may be more important. To the employees of the guy who started the computer dating service, he may be more important. To the people who that guy spends his money buying things from, he might be more important. But, really, it's a stupid distinction. Who cares who is "more" important; he's still important to some.

That is how the world works. Rich people are the ones providing the jobs and who spend the money. THEY are the ones who make the lives of the the personal assistants and the secretaries and the other support staff, not to mention the people who do the face to face (or hand to shovel) daily operations possible. The rich don't need them, they need the rich. The rich are what keeps the civilization going. Poor people have provided damn few jobs throughout the course of human history.

And for all you condescending folks who put down rich people, consider this: to the vast majority of the inhabitants of this planet, YOU would be considered a spoiled rich person too. It's all relative.

Where did you study Economics again?

"Rich people are the ones providing the jobs and who spend the money."

???

Demand is providing the jobs. The money and demand is provided by the consumers. Someone clever enough to recognize the demand and organize production and supply is entitled to get rich. It is hopefully a self sustaining cycle but does suffer from entropy occasionally. Take the "rich" out of the equation and it would still continue. If this was not true then all the monopoly busting tactics, combined with the famously named "death tax", of the US government over the past hundred years would have destroyed our economy. Instead it is the most consistently thriving economy of the last 100 years.

If you want to make this a chicken and the egg discussion then I am game. If it is gonna be more poorly veiled insults then go play with your self.

Rich people do. Demand may provide the motivation for someone to create something, but the jobs are created by people. And those people often become rich. In many cases there was NO demand for a thing until it had been invented by someone. You have it backward.

You can't "take the rich out of the equation". People won't do outstanding work and strive for the future if there isn't one. Take the rich out of the equation and the society will quickly grind to a halt.

All you have shown is that all the efforts of government have not been enough to destroy people's will to get ahead.

It's not a chicken and egg discussion, if you understand it.

I don't know if you intend throw insults or not. Based on past performance I would say you will, but I don't really care.

shows just WHO it is who is willing to start with the insults, as always.

There are entrepreneurs and there are investors, there are skilled craftsmen and skilled businessmen. The only requirement the requires the rich is the investor aspect of the free market. Something that the public offering actually makes less important because it spreads the risks and the gains out over a greater population.

In that sense, if the premise was that "money" makes the society we live in possible, I could whole heartedly agree. The idea that the "rich" (as personified by a small group of wealthy people) makes our society possible is arguably false.

require turnover of the money to create the perception of its being dynamic rather than stagnant. "Rich" have more to turn over than "poor". It takes a certain amount to survive and the rest is discretionary. Some purchases require more care and feeding than others such as homes, cars, etc. Rich folks can buy the money hungry goods that poor folks can't. The very rich obviously have more than they can spend on needed goods. This becomes money just to make more money. If stuffed in a mattress, the economy as a whole will suffer. If invested, the money turns over.
I think we've become so efficient that they are are far fewer jobs needed to produce consumables and even hard assets. We have more people now that just move money around to where it's needed or provide auxiliary services to other business. These jobs are largely government created. Law costs more than we think. Our tax and judicial system is enormous and it's just a place where money changes hands but produces nothing one can eat, drive, live in or play with.

it requires people. People with money are called.....rich? Sorry, but they are the ones who make things happen.

The only requirement the requires the rich is the investor aspect of the free market. That's the important aspect, without which nothing gets done.

He didn't say the rich make society possible. He said that without adequate rewards for work done, society would stagnate and, thus, remove hope for the future. We've already seen that happen in history. It's well documented.

He also never said that the rich create demand. He said they create jobs. It is a fact that jobs create demand since a desire or need without the ability to pay is not demand in an economic sense.

He also didn't say 'People won't do outstanding work without the rich'. You did. You seem to not understand what is being written.

Our early Industrial Barons did make a huge difference in our society, such as railroads. They did take full advantage of the cheap labor available to them. Even later ones like Henry Ford, who also made a difference with the affordable car, treated his workers like serfs.

Over time this serfdom attitude was controlled.

Men like Bill Gates changed, not only this country, but the world. From what we hear, his employees are treated very well. The same for Google.

More recently the greed of multi-millioaires, like those at Enron destroyed lives. It cost money to prosecute them. Hopefully some good will come from those experiences. Before that corporate mergers stripped workers of their pensions.

Mercifully, those incidents are few considering the number of corporations. Also, not all out source or go off shore.

But I think the rich we "dump on" are the "idle rich". Some here might recall the earlier super-rich like Barbara Hutton. Now we see Paris Hilton. Children who live off the fruits of the labor of their family, engaging in self-destructive behavior, and contributing nothing except for the taxes they pay. (I admired Gloria Vanderbilt for working.)

There are as many opinions among economists as sand on the beaches, it seems. But I do find it a tad troubling that 1% of our population is empowered to so strongly influence the running of the country. Maybe just maybe, those that worked hard could claim the right. But those that did not could live in such an exclusive world from the 99% that they cannot relate to them but only to each other.

Years ago my husband became friends with the son of a corporate giant who was a customer of his. We were invited to his home for dinner. He and his then-wife were very friendly and pleasant. However, they did ask questions about how we lived, and told us that their only friends were the children of their parent's friends.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

... many of these discussions... most commonly championed by Ed, but reflected by some others as well... that I, and others have "dumped" on the rich because they are wealthy. Ed in fact called me a bigot for my lampooning of a lawyer with not enough sense to take care of his own health, let alone be concerned about infecting others with a possibly fatal strain of TB. In that instance, Ed even argued that the guy's wealth and geographic mobility had nothing to do with the possible threat he presented. The simple fact is that much of the public attention and ridicule these people receive is not because of their wealth, but because of their own actions! To borrow a phrase, stupid is as stupid does.

Now, there have been 3 themes running through this thread.

One: that the rich are undeservedly criticized (which is untrue in most cases). I will admit they often get more attention than others because of their wealth, but then again most actively pay someone to keep them in the public eye anyway. You can't turn the attention away, just because something bad happens.

Two: that the rich often feel they have not achieved enough and feel poor while being monetarily wealthy. I conceded this as being sadly true and asked if there was a connection to certain addictive behaviors. Any which way you look at it, you have to have empathy and sympathy for those who are unhappy. To borrow another phrase, money doesn't bring you happiness.

Three: as Ed likes to put it, the rich make our society possible or as he has added on, that there would be no jobs without the rich. There are so many things wrong with this generalization that one could write a book on the statement. Needless to say, it is an ideological statement designed to support a political viewpoint. It is based on the idea that the wealthy will do what they can to benefit the market place, which will have a trickle down effect of benefiting the less wealthy and the poor. The fact is that as demand goes down, people lose jobs, which should immediately scotch this idea. The added fact that things like lay offs and reduction or removal of worker benefits occurs, even when demand has not decreased, is more proof that the "rich" don't make society possible. Some people complain about unfair taxes and burdensome social and medical welfare programs, yet have no qualms about the financial maneuvering that took securely employed workers and placed them in a position of needing outside assistance.

This last issue is reminiscent of the industrial serfdom of the 19th century industrial revolution you mentioned Angeline. It also reflects a growing trend of reliance on church and government to provide assistance to those who don't have jobs that pay all the bills. Simply put, we are seeing an employment trend where we are being told we should be happy with what we have, rather than complaining about what we used to have. To top it off though, we are being told that in order to reduce the burden of taxes to the industrial base, we should take our government mandated benefits and invest them back into the stock market (as with the proposed social security changes of several years ago). To cut to the chase, if the "rich" actually make our society possible, then what they are doing now is asking us to accept cuts in pay, benefits, and jobs, forgo government assistance to reduce their tax burden, and then take what few "guaranteed" retirement benefits we have left, and give the money back to them to "create more jobs".

Now, I am willing to admit there are some holes in what I have said, but I don't have time to deal with it here and now. The long and the short of it is that demand for something has always been the driving force behind a free market (even more so in a black or illegal market such as the drug trade). The rich don't create demand, they simply are better at recognizing it and taking advantage to organize a supply. If the rich have positioned themselves so that they are the only ones capable of providing a supply, then I could see where Ed might think that they are the ones who make jobs. Of course that is along the same line as saying that I live because that guy with a gun who mugged me on the street didn't shoot me. On the surface, that argument seems true, but when you dig into it the premiss falls apart.

I did not call you a bigot. I said you made a bigoted remark. That is true. You did. I've corrected you before on this untruth, I believe.

Not responding to the rest of your post other than to say, as usual, it contains many distortions and misrepresentations.

I make bigoted remarks but I'm not a bigot.

I state untruths but I'm not a lier.

And the obnoxious jerk comment? I guess that wasn't name calling but just a critical observation of the debate position I took.

Ahh... your comments have all become so reasonable now. The truth in your words have been illuminated...

"They think I'm crazy, but I know better. It is not I who am crazy, it is I who am MAD! Can't you hear them? Can't you see the crowds? Oh, my beloved ice cream bar. How I love to lick your creamy center! And your oh-so-nutty chocolate covering! You're not like the others, you like the same things I do! Wax paper, boiled football leather- DOG BREATH! We're not hitch-hiking anymore! We're riding!... Oh no! I know what you want! You coveteth my ice cream bar! No you don't! You can't take it from me now! I've had it ever since I was a child. Everywhere I go, people always try to take it from me! Why won't they leave.. me.. ALOOONNNNNE!!!"

Telling me what I would argue and the "glaring flaws" in my logic, blah blah blah.

Pish and posh. Balder and dash. I stand by what I said. You don't want to agree or understand, fine. I care not a smidge.

... you use ridicule and contemptuous language to comment about what I have said.

Your ridiculous Ed. You expect others to respect your position but you refuse to be civil during a discussion.

Who is the obnoxious jerk here?

You're a sad, sad man.

YOU!

Your [sic] ridiculous Ed. You expect others to respect your position but you refuse to be civil during a discussion. Wrong on both counts. I do not care if anyone "respects my position" and I have been very civil, while you have not.

You're a sad, sad man. Hahahahahahaha...

at cutting through the spittle and foam. Just a few small examples...

The reality is that these millionaires may be creating jobs on the order of having a gardener, some house staff, etc. etc.
That's a very shallow view of the world. But lets take a look at that gardener. If he is employed full time, that's another whole person being supported by a rich person. Ditto the staff. Or if he is employed by a landscaping company you can bet that the majority of their clients are rich or near rich or companies. I can't afford to hire landscapers. That is the reality. Take away the rich and there go those kinds of businesses. I know someone who does light construction, renovation, painting, etc. His clients are rich people That accounts for him and his helper making a living. Take away the rich and there go a whole lot of jobs that you might not even notice.

But The other jobs they support through consumption of products would still exist because the rich have the same needs as everyone else. is nonsense as well. The rich DO NOT consume the same as other people. They are the ones buying the Lincoln Navigators and Jaguars (and making the jobs possible for the workers who produce them). They are the ones who take luxury vacations and buy second and third homes and own boats and such. May not mean much to you, but these are the items with high profit margins that make it possible for companies to also produce the low-end stuff that you and I consume. And these are the things that keep people employed and moving ahead. Entire industries would not exist if you took away rich people. And that doesn't even count the ones that are created (or bankrolled) by the rich. There are countless examples.

The rich send their kids to universities and support those universities through donations. Higher Education relies to an extent on the rich. Same with a lot of media. You can scoff at popular culture if yo want but it is important and the rich have a huge hand in its existence.

But aside from that, people with money don't just bury their cash in a coffee can in the back yard; they invest it. They have to. And that is the true lifeblood of the economy. Small investors are great, but they don't make the wheels turn like the big investors, and the big investors are the rich and institutions and corporations. And if you look at institutions and corporations hard enough, you will see...rich people! Even the small investor is being carried by the rich.

I won't even mention the tax base, as Ed O'D already did.

Now there are some countries that have tried to "take the rich out of the equation". Notably the Soviet Union and China. But not only did they fail to do away with the rich (they just shifted it around) but they made miserable, failed, criminal societies in the bargain.

I could go on and on, but that's all you're getting from me. Some things are just too obvious.

Don't read any of my posts ever again. Don't reply to them either. Save yourself (and everyone else) the aggravatiomn.

I said NOTHING about charity, whatsoever. That's another distortion. I DID NOT say only the rich send their kids to University. That is another distortion.

Too bad you can't try to understand things instead of distorting what others say and making things up. How sad.

how is it a slam in any way? You DID say you studied Economics, right?

You know, people "demanded" food for centuries before farming was developed. There are plenty of other examples, and not just spray on tans either. You can diminish people's achievements all you want but it is undeniable that the society was created by and is maintained by people and the people who do that well become rich.

Distort what I say all you want (People won't do outstanding work without the rich?NOT what I said) but it will still be true. Maybe you don't think a person who creates cosmetics is important to society, but that is your opinion, NOT supported by the people who are than man's customers OR by the people who that man (or woman) patronizes with his custom.

So again I ask, "Where did you study Economics again?"


Over and out.

I took you literally at your word.

I have been very polite to you through this whole conversation. You have failed to address the very points you have expressed as significant. As always, you continue to press others to prove you wrong rather than making your own effort to prove yourself right.

Proof of this is the misdirection of asking me to supply a curriculum vitae. What I have studies and where has no bearing in this conversation if the premiss that you propose is wrong. Where did you study Economics Ed? Was it one class or five or ten? Did you ever study the hierarchy of needs? Do you understand the principals of a public offering? Doesn't matter how many economic degrees you or I have... your hypothesis is phrased overly broad and is not defensible.

I don't have time to waste on you today Ed. Just came back to see if you had modified your position enough to be defensible and I see you haven't. The premiss that the rich made our society possible is ignoring so many other, more significant issues, that it is laughable. You continue to insist on it but don't expect me to do your homework for you.

C ya

Yeah, real polite.


Bye bye.

simply check to see WHO is paying most of the money into Federal and State coffers (we won't even get into employing others, just tax monies paid) and it is IMPOSSIBLE to even attempt to claim with a straight face that the rich aren't providing the monies that the government officials spend for their programs as well as government functions actually authorized by the Constitution as legitimate government functions.

The tax monies collected from lower and middle class barely amount to what is handed out gratis as an "Earned Income Credit" to workers who pay no taxes but collect others money instead.

Even the new math of leftists can't hide reality.

You can try to change the course of what I said to meet your own agenda all you want.

Ed categorically said...

"People like to dump on the rich, but for the most part they are the ones who make our society possible and who pay the freight."

I disagreed that the rich are the people who make our society possible. The "rich" do not create the free market... they simply are better than most at taking advantage of the possible profits produced by it. The rich did not create our society nor any human society. To deny that the rich have a part in society is foolishness. There is a synergy involved... nothing more and nothing less. The rich do not make our society "possible". One might as well claim the queen of England makes English society possible, and by association, American society as well since the British royalty were the ultimate in "rich".