• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The super rich do not hurt you

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
15,932
Reaction score
3,177
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?
Of course Ted is an extreme example, but I was just establishing the principal that others accumulating vast wealth doesn’t really hurt or effect us negatively until they areconsumed. And the vast amount of the ultra wealthy fortunes are not consumed.

We can have increasing accumulation of wealth at the top without negatively effecting the bottom. It’s just digits on a statement.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

The very wealthy do NOT bury their loot. They use it to bribe the greedy pols, to pamper themselves, while causing suffering for all others. They use it to monopolize THEIR rentseeking while hobbling all others.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

You are correct about Ted, but most of the super rich are not like Ted. Most of them put that trillion back into the economy. That's a good thing because it increases the economy from top to bottom.

Unfortunately, there are also super rich who want to get richer and will do whatever it takes to get there. These are the ones who buy politicians to pass legislation favorable to the super rich...legislation that ends up being unfavorable to everyone who is not super rich.

These super rich DO hurt you.
 
The very wealthy do NOT bury their loot. They use it to bribe the greedy pols, to pamper themselves, while causing suffering for all others. They use it to monopolize THEIR rentseeking while hobbling all others.

That is hateful demonizing, based on prejudices. Is this true of some sure, just like some poor like to rob steal and kill. It’s pretty immoral to generalize and demonize like that.

And the super rich saving their wealth in assets is not much different than burying it in the yard for the average person. It doesn’t hurt us at all.
 
An OP using an extreme example not representative of the facts to support a false claim that can't be proved with any evidence provided that is the burden of the OP, thus making the claim unfounded and in no need to be disproved or debated any further. See you on another thread.
 
You are correct about Ted, but most of the super rich are not like Ted. Most of them put that trillion back into the economy. That's a good thing because it increases the economy from top to bottom.

Unfortunately, there are also super rich who want to get richer and will do whatever it takes to get there. These are the ones who buy politicians to pass legislation favorable to the super rich...legislation that ends up being unfavorable to everyone who is not super rich.

These super rich DO hurt you.


It goes both ways, some bribe for their benefit sure, but the unwashed masses have power to, and they yield it with their vote oppressing the rich with high taxes, tyranny of the majority. Neither side has a monopoly on the power. If they did, either the rich would have all their wealth confiscated, or everyone would live in a mud hut serving the rich.
 
Of course Ted is an extreme example, but I was just establishing the principal that others accumulating vast wealth doesn’t really hurt or effect us negatively until they areconsumed. And the vast amount of the ultra wealthy fortunes are not consumed.

We can have increasing accumulation of wealth at the top without negatively effecting the bottom. It’s just digits on a statement.

It seems that Ted removing $X from circulation is (economically) worse than $X having been consumed (spent on goods/services) by Ted since that $X is no longer available to be used (circulated) by anyone else.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

Wealth can be used as political power, and can harm the less powerful. And if a person has enough money, they can usually get their way, and prevent others from getting their way. For example, a rich person can afford good lawyers and is more likely to win legal conflicts.

Your example of Ted is contrived.

But I agree we should not demonize wealth and success. Some will always do better than others, and Marxist utopianism fails every time.

We should, however, do something to stop the grand larceny being committed by the ultra rich big banks.
 
An OP using an extreme example not representative of the facts to support a false claim that can't be proved with any evidence provided that is the burden of the OP, thus making the claim unfounded and in no need to be disproved or debated any further. See you on another thread.

It can be reasonably established with sound reasoning I provided, you might not be able to understand it though.
 
I think this is true.

Rich people add to the economy, they don't take things away.


The only way rich people can hurt the economy is if they put all their money into gold bars and stash them under their bed.

Even if it's lazy, inherited wealth, as long as they invest it, it still helps the economy, provides jobs, etc.
 
The very wealthy do NOT bury their loot. They use it to bribe the greedy pols, to pamper themselves, while causing suffering for all others. They use it to monopolize THEIR rentseeking while hobbling all others.

They also invest in successful businesses that create most of the jobs.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

Most people are just plain assed jealous. And most people do not make enough money or have enough business experience to understand the tax code, changes of which are made by congress. Thus, the federal tax code is called “The Book of Favors”.

“Bezos pays less income tax than I do!”
“Yes, Pumpkin. Bezos used his profits to expand his business. Congress likes that.”
 
That is hateful demonizing, based on prejudices. Is this true of some sure, just like some poor like to rob steal and kill. It’s pretty immoral to generalize and demonize like that.

And the super rich saving their wealth in assets is not much different than burying it in the yard for the average person. It doesn’t hurt us at all.

The richest president in American history has gotten financial support from nearly one in 10 U.S. billionaires.
Here Are The Billionaires Backing Donald Trump’s Campaign

Report: Wealthy 'Elite Donors' Fueling U.S. Politics
Report: Wealthy 'Elite Donors' Fueling U.S. Politics : NPR

Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving
Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving - The New York Times

It’s Not the 1 Percent Controlling Politics. It’s the 0.01 ...
It’s Not the 1 Percent Controlling Politics. It’s the 0.01 Percent. – Mother Jones

How Government Works To Help The Rich And Not You
How Government Works To Help The Rich And Not You | HuffPost
 
Wealth can be used as political power, and can harm the less powerful. And if a person has enough money, they can usually get their way, and prevent others from getting their way. For example, a rich person can afford good lawyers and is more likely to win legal conflicts.

Your example of Ted is contrived.

But I agree we should not demonize wealth and success. Some will always do better than others, and Marxist utopianism fails every time.

We should, however, do something to stop the grand larceny being committed by the ultra rich big banks.
Well sure wealthy can abuse power, I was establishing principal that saved wealth accumulation doesn't negatively effect the rest of us, in and of itself.

BTY the unwashed masses can have collective political power that can sometimes surpass that of the wealthy, and they have used it to oppress the wealthy in some cases (tyranny of the majority).
 
The richest president in American history has gotten financial support from nearly one in 10 U.S. billionaires.
Here Are The Billionaires Backing Donald Trump’s Campaign

Report: Wealthy 'Elite Donors' Fueling U.S. Politics
Report: Wealthy 'Elite Donors' Fueling U.S. Politics : NPR

Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving
Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving - The New York Times

It’s Not the 1 Percent Controlling Politics. It’s the 0.01 ...
It’s Not the 1 Percent Controlling Politics. It’s the 0.01 Percent. – Mother Jones

How Government Works To Help The Rich And Not You
How Government Works To Help The Rich And Not You | HuffPost

Don't think the Democrats aren't also backed by the ultra rich and the Wall Street crooks.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

Raise the minimum wage.
 
Once we give the five old rich guys all of the money, they will rain down prosperity on all of the rest of us. It will be a yellow rain that smells funny accompanied with thunder that sounds like laughter.
 
It goes both ways, some bribe for their benefit sure, but the unwashed masses have power to, and they yield it with their vote oppressing the rich with high taxes, tyranny of the majority. Neither side has a monopoly on the power. If they did, either the rich would have all their wealth confiscated, or everyone would live in a mud hut serving the rich.

LOL!!

The "unwashed masses" have zero power. They are votes to be manipulated by the politicians who have their hand in the pockets of the rich. (The rich don't mind because the politicians are giving them what they want.)

Have you forgotten how Obama told all Americans that they will have to be satisfied with the US being a "service economy"? Guess who is being served? Yep...the super rich who have bought the politicians.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

Those widgets manufactured themselves? Ted had no employees?
 
Most people are just plain assed jealous. And most people do not make enough money or have enough business experience to understand the tax code, changes of which are made by congress. Thus, the federal tax code is called “The Book of Favors”.

“Bezos pays less income tax than I do!”
“Yes, Pumpkin. Bezos used his profits to expand his business. Congress likes that.”

What congress critters like more is campaign cash (legal bribes?) giving them the power to direct public funding (and/or taxation immunity) to their friends and relatives for personal gain. You won't find many poor (or even middle class) folks in positions of government power.
 
It can be reasonably established with sound reasoning I provided, you might not be able to understand it though.

List some examples of "Ted's".

Here in the real world, we deal in reality. If you can't find examples, then its not reality, is it?
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

I certainly reject that premise. The super rich have myriad effects on everyone else and competing for consumption is the least of it. Among the more obvious ones, disproportionate government influence might be the greatest effect, because their campaign contributions buy them access to legislators that the average person will never have. That's one of the reasons tax breaks are given to the people who need them the least, and the bulk of the cost of governance is shouldered by those least able to afford it.
 
A least not as much as people think. Why? Because they do not compete for consumption at he proportionally higher rate of their wealth. And that is the core of what effects everyone else.

Consider the analogy of Ted. Ted invented a widget that saved vast amounts of time producing x. It was the best invention ever. Ted goes on to make a trillion dollars. Richest man in the world by far. As Ted earned his money, he buried it in the yard, all trillion of it. He lived in a one bedroom shack, he was an eccentric to say the least.

Has Ted hurt society? Is this wealth inequality damaging to others? To the contrary, Ted’s life was incredibly beneficial to society. His invention lowered the cost of goods and improved the wealth of everyone. His holding his wealth instead of consuming likewise benefited society by not competing for consumption and increasing prices.

Yet, based on confusion about wealth, Ted would be demonized by many as selfish for the way he lived.

This Confusion in part stems from our ideas of wealth. Wealth at its core is consumption. What we call wealth (financial wealth) are simply claims on that consumption.

Who was really wealthier, Ted, or an average person who enjoyed their financial wealth driving nice vehicles and eating nice food etc? Who led the wealthier life?

But if everyone did like Ted and took their trillion profit out of circulation the economy would be dead.

The problem is any system that's open-ended has problems with human judgment, which leans towards self-interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom